The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Permit Me to Remind You: Obama Still Has More Campaign Cash Than Mitt

Posted on | July 10, 2012 | 20 Comments

A fact I pointed out yesterday:

[T]he Obama campaign entered June with a cash-on-hand advantage of more than $90 million ($109 million to Romney’s $17 million). And during May, Team Obama out-spent Team Mitt by nearly $30 million ($44.6 million to Romney’s $15.6 million).

Keep that in mind when you read this:

Senior White House adviser David Plouffe on Tuesday accused wealthy Mitt Romney supporters of trying to “purchase the White House,” one day after the presumptive GOP nominee announced a $106 million June fundraising haul that stunned the Obama campaign.
“You’ve got a few very wealthy people lining up trying to purchase the White House for Mr. Romney,” said Plouffe on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “We’re going to have to have everybody out there who wants the president to continue to a second term to step up and help the campaign.”

video platform video management video solutions video player

Romney and the RNC had a good month in June, but I guarantee you this: When the June FEC reports are released later this month, Obama will still have more cash on hand than Romney, and the FEC reports will show Obama’s campaign out-spent Romney’s campaign in June, just as they’ve outspent Romney every month since February.

Seriously: Even while Romney was fighting tooth-and-nail in a three-way GOP primary battle against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, his campaign still spent less than $12.4 million in February, compared to nearly $12.6 million Obama’s campaign spent in February.

Yet David Plouffe, sitting atop a vast mountain of campaign cash, expects us to believe that there are no “wealthy people lining up” for Obama!



  • Physics Geek

    Well, you’ve equine Americans like Sarah Jessica Parker donating to Obama, so I guess that’s okay.

  • Adjoran

    Obama’s real problem isn’t the flagging enthusiasm of Jewish and Wall Street donors for underwriting their own vilification, or even the lack of excitement among younger donors and untraceable cash donors (who he has again deliberately enabled to evade security so they can donate illegally).

    It’s his burn rate.  That money Obama spent in February in outspending the primary-challenged Romney wasn’t on television ads.  It was overhead.  The built-in spending for salaries and rents is ridiculous.

    He runs his campaign like he runs his Administration:  as if money were no object.   Only it doesn’t help fund a campaign when Harry Reid refuses to pass a budget, keeping a thick veil of secrecy over the actual spending going on.  You still have to raise the money and you still have to pay all the bills.

    The burn rate is doing to Obama’s campaign what his Administration is doing to America.  They can’t stop because they don’t know any other way.  In 2008, Obama and useless losers like Axelrod and Plouffe rode the wave of “hope ‘n’ change” and Obama’s ethereal image as an unknown reformer to easy victory.  They won in spite of themselves, not because of a genius campaign. 

    They don’t know any other way. 

  • Anamika

    …expects us to believe that there are no ”wealthy people lining up” for Obama!

    What Plouffe suggested, was that a substantially higher percentage of Romney money comes from “a few very wealthy people,” relative to Obama. That was the point.  And you seem to deliberately minimize it.

  • Red

    Yay Anamika! I’m so glad you’re here to explain what we all just read. A hitch: the average ‘Joe’ isn’t lining up for $40,000/plate Obama dinners now is he? Both contenders have wealthy donors. Big deal so what.

    Lemme ‘splain the story to you: Obama spends money like it comes from a board game. Romney spends smarter with less. And if Plouffe wants to accuse anyone of ‘buying the white house’ then all he has to do is remember how his crew got there in the first place.

    You’re welcome.

  • scarymatt

    For fun, let’s assume you’re correct, that there are a few very wealthy people funding Romney. Given the low limits on campaign donations, Plouffe is either abusing the term “a few” or “very wealthy.”

    As already mentioned, we know that there are at least “a few very wealthy” Obama donors.

    Why do liberals think that everyone who listens to them is stupid?

  • Pingback: You Don’t Say « sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue()

  • Adobe_Walls

    Most of that $40,000 goes to the DNC, an individual can only give $2500 each to the candidate primary and election campaigns. $30,800 to the DNC with the rest divided (usually state committees) among other organizations. There was some heartburn here in Georgia because Obamsky held a fundraiser in Atlanta wherein no of the proceeds went to the Georgia state committee. One might suspect that Georgia has already been written off.

  • JeffS

     Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!

    While I enjoy our little chats over tea and crumpets, I do relish the occasions when I have nothing to add after rational people apply their considerable wits to your stuttering and stammering. 

    To which I can only  say, “Good show, people!  Jolly well done, indeed!”

    Tut tut, Anamika.  I can only offer this to you.  Tut tut!

  • BigSkyBob

    This in an interesting use of Barack Obama’s campaign funds!

    When I clicked on the link there was a google ad about

  • McGehee

    And yet if I, a Georgia resident, reiterate my determination not to vote for Romney in November I will still be accused of effectively voting for Obama.

  • Bob Belvedere

    And let’s hope it stays that way.

  • Bob Belvedere

    Because that’s the segment they’re aiming for: the Stoopids who vote.

  • Pingback: Don’t Be Fooled…Obummer is Raking in The Cash | ZION'S TRUMPET()

  • Anamika


    In 2008, Obama and useless losers like Axelrod and Plouffe rode the
    wave of “hope ‘n’ change” and Obama’s ethereal image as an unknown
    reformer to easy victory.  They won in spite of themselves, not because
    of a genius campaign. 

    They don’t know any other way.

    So, inspite of all these advantages your side has this time around: if Obama wins again, would you concede that his campaign is genius?

    Nope. I didn’t think so. You will find new excuses. You are blinded by your partisanship.

  • scarymatt

    If the original win wasn’t evidence of genius, why would another win be evidence?

    Please stop being so obviously stupid. Clever trolls are a lot more fun than dumb ones.

    Actually, I would argue that the 2008 campaign was pretty smart in that they stayed away from one of Obama’s great weaknesses: details. So far, his 2012 campaign has been recycled class warfare. I suppose you could argue (to paraphrase Picasso) that genius campaigns recycle.

  • Anamika

     You are the one trolling in this instance, with your obviously stupid remark.

  • scarymatt


    “I know you are but what am I?”

  • Scary Liberal

    Why do conservatives automatically fall into a condescending tone when confronted? 

  • scarymatt

    Are you saying there’s another way to reply to Anamika?

  • Pingback: ‘They’re Demoralized as Hell!’ : The Other McCain()