"Uh, yes, Mr. S? My funding's running out, and I was, uh, wondering if we could count on you for some help?"
"Yes, yes, Barack! I'll call you back! [hangs up] Idiot! Totally useless! Somebody get me my new monkey! Hello, Jeb? How are you?",
Posted on 03/19/2012 2:11:33 PM PDT by dennisw
Democrats disappointed with President Barack Obama are withholding campaign donations, leaving him well below his campaign’s fundraising goals, political analyst Karl Rove writes in an opinion column in The Wall Street Journal.
Reports issued by the Obama campaign show that donations have trickled in at a rate of about half of the $50 million a month needed to reach the campaign’s goal of a $1 billion war chest for the 2012 race.
Through January, the president had raised an average of $24 million a month for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Compared with an average of $29 million in each of the previous three months, reported in July, Obama is on track to fall hundreds of millions of dollars short of his original goal, Rove wrote in Wednesday’s issue of the Journal.
“It’s not for lack of trying,” Rove said. “Mr. Obama has already attended 103 fundraisers, roughly one every three days since he kicked off his campaign last April [twice his predecessor’s pace].”
Reports show that fewer than 7 percent of Obama’s 2008 donors renewed their support in the first quarter of his re-election campaign. The typical renewal rate of contributions is about one-fourth to one-third, Rove said. Former President George W. Bush had a renewal rate of about 20 percent in his 2004 re-election campaign.
Rove pointed to other troubling signs for Obama. His e-mail appeals generally ask for donations of $3, compared to the $10 to $50 donations as they did in 2008.
“Nor are the appeals mostly about issues; many are lotteries. Give three bucks and your name will be put in a drawing for a private dinner with the president and first lady,” Rove writes in the Journal.
“This is clever marketing, but it suggests the campaign has found that only a low price point with a big benefit can overcome donor resistance among people who contributed via mail or the Internet in 2008,” Rove writes. “It also point to higher-than expected solicitation costs and lower-than-expected fundraising returns.”
Statistics also reveal another problem for the president: He is burning through cash at a rapid rate. For instance, his campaign spent 25 percent of what it raised in the second quarter of 2011, compared to Bush’s re-election expenditures of only 9 percent in the first quarter of 2003.
In the third quarter, spending was 46 percent of money raised for Obama compared with 26 percent for Bush; for the fourth quarter, Obama's spending was 57 percent vs. Bush’s 40 percent.
This year, Obama’s numbers worsen, Rove writes in the Journal. In January, his campaign spent 158 percent of its donations, compared with Bush’s 60 percent in January 2004.
Team Obama and the DNC had $91.7 million in cash at the end of January. Bush’s campaign and the Republican National Committee had $122 million in cash at the same point in 2004.
“The Obama campaign’s high burn rate doesn’t come from large television buys, phone banks or mail programs that could be immediately stopped,” Rove writes in the Journal. “It appears to result instead from huge fixed costs for a big staff and higher-than-expected fundraising outlays. These are much tougher to unwind or delay. Left unaltered, they generally lead to even more frantic efforts to both raise money and stop other spending.”
Rove pondered whether these problems perhaps explain why Team Obama told congressional Democrats last week not to expect “a single dime for their campaign efforts from the Democratic National Committee this year. All the DNC funds will be needed for the president’s re-election.”
I’ve turned off my “give a durn” spigot where Rove is concerned.
I think we may be hearing alot more from Rove, in the near future.
His Super-Pac has $20 million...with a goal of raising $300 million.
Sooner or later, the GOP contenders will have to kiss his ring.
Thank God I'm not running...Turd Blossum can KMA! LOL!
Upon first glance at the title, I thought Rove was disapointed Zero’s donations are down.
That money is already ear marked for Romney.
That money is already ear marked for Romney.
The Obama admin’s economic policies remind me of the spending patterns of star athletes who come from modest to no means and who suddenly find themselves with a boatload of money to spend. They don’t know when to stop spending. Obama’s campaign appears to be no different than his administration. Unfortunately, the country is triple-times broker than when Obama took over. I realize that Congress controls the purse strings, but Congress has done nothing that Obama didn’t want.
Huh. Who'da thunk it, right?
Okay, other than everyone who actually produces and creates for a living, who'da thunk it?
I'm betting that this has come as an absolute, stunning surprise to the White House.
Obama has already attended 103 fundraisers and finds out the well is dry and it’s getting real dark,no sign of $oros.
In other words, his campaign's approach to financial management is a microcosm of the bloated government he presides over (and expands at every opportunity).
Obama has concrete results of his now three plus years in office?
About as “concrete” as the overshoes that used to be poured around the feet of the rats the mob then threw into the East River.
When the magic is gone, it is gone....
Unfortunately, the money that is NOT going to Obama’s re-election, will be poured into the effort to hold the Senate and retake the House of Representatives.
And that trade may be one which we can ill afford.
I wonder how they intend to funnel the millions being raised overseas to the Obama campaign coffers, as stated in an FR article earlier today?
$20M with a goal of $300M? Sounds like Mr. Rove may be behind schedule himself.
The totally FREE promoting and protection given Obama by the sycophantic press and TV more than compensates for any small drop in his collections from other Marxist sympathizers.
It is not that they are disappointed in his action. I think it is more acceptance that the money would be spent on a losing proposition, obummer's re-election.
I know that you won't since you are running Mitt's campaign.
Are all the people and organizations they funneled the trillion dollars in tax payer “stimulus” to, getting greedy and holding onto it?
That wasn’t the plan...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.