UK & World News
Obama: Give More Campaign Cash Or Risk Defeat
President Barack Obama has issued a stark warning to his supporters ahead of this year's US presidential election: "Give more money or risk defeat."
"I will be the first President in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign if things continue as they have so far," Mr Obama said in an email to potential voters.
It is a change in tactics and an attempt to scare supporters into donating more.
Until now the campaign's tone had been more inspirational than alarmist.
The email even plucks one hypothetical scenario out of the ether to predict Mr Obama's inevitable defeat.
"We can be outspent and still win - but we can't be outspent 10 to 1 and still win."
The US economy's stuttering performance has given Mr Obama's republican challenger, Mitt Romney, more than a fighting chance in what is looking like a close and narrowing contest.
Most opinion polls give the president only the slimmest of leads. Some put Romney ahead.
And a Supreme Court decision two years ago has let loose almost unlimited amounts of money into the race.
Campaign groups, known as Super PACs, are now allowed to raise as much money as they like from individuals or groups to overtly support candidates.
There is in theory a ban on direct contact between candidate and Super PAC but in practice that constraint is effectively being flouted without sanction.
Multi-billionaires and corporate interests have been funnelling vast sums into Super PACs supporting Mitt Romney causing increasing alarm in the Obama camp.
In the email Barack Obama said he is worried about both the official Romney campaign and the Super PACs supporting him.
"Through the primaries, we raised almost three-quarters of our money from donors giving less than $1,000, while Mitt Romney's campaign raised more than three-quarters of its money from individuals giving $1,000 or more.
"And, again, that's not including the massive outside spending by Super PACs and front groups funneling up to an additional billion dollars into ads trashing me, you, and everything we believe in."
In 2008 the Obama campaign set new records in raising money from individual supporters. It began the year cheerfully talking about raising a billion dollars in support this time round.
But with the astronomically large sums of money now being directed at its opponents, even that may not be enough.
The impact is likely to be a tsunami of negative attack ads the like of which even Americans inured as they are to such things, may find overwhelming.
That may or may not lead to a backlash against the new leniency of campaign finance rules, but it will without doubt have a profound impact on the election.
Love them or hate them negative attack ads have been proven to work and neither side can afford not to use them.
This election is shaping up to be one of the closest, most expensive and aggressively negative contests in US history.
what do you think?
Mitt Romney's Magic Mormon Underwear protects him from the evils of the world including socialism, illegal immigrants, homosexuals and taxes on his inherited wealth. Can these sacred garments also make it rain down enough cash for a victory in this race since well over 90% of public offices are bought in our country by Big Money? Drop by to discuss these mysterious tighty whities and the role of money in politics at <a href="http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear.html" rel='nofollow'>http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear.html</a>
Sad when elections can be bought, but then what else should we expect if the electorate as so dumb as to believe 99% of the complete bolderdash coming out of career hungrey politican's mouths. They are, afterall just expensive salesmen selling themselves. I am convinced there should be a minimum qualification, both for politicians claiming they have the aptitude to run a whole country when they havn't yet proved the could run anything more complicated than a bath AND voters to prove they are able to seperate possible truths from probable lies. And if you think any of this is non-democratic, remember the weak link in democracy is an individual voter's decision will affect all our of lives. You only need enough gulible voters to vote-in idiot politicians. And politicians know this, otherwise, why has education been dumbed-down except to provided dumb adults(voters). Afterall, faced with deciding on a complicated medical operation, would you ask the opinions of a dozen joe-public on a bus or a trained, experianced and qualified surgeon ?
LOL did he not get enough money robbing other countrys oil and gas ?
Citizens of the USA, you will soon be asked to cast your votes for a right wing warmonger or a right wing warmonger. Whoever wins will fight for the rights of the richest 1%, business as usual.
It's telling that politicians in America, and most other places, rely on 'big' money, usually the wealthy, to run for elections when it should be who has the best policies for the greater good. It's also telling that Barack Obama seems to have squandered the promise he had when he was first elected after the disastrous Bush years. He could have forced through a lot of positive changes - a free at the point of use health service for one that would benefit millions of Americans. But he stuck to capitalist policies and foreign wars and now he might pay the price. But surely Americans won't vote for Mitt Romney. Surely, they would never elect a rightwing, religious, rich nutcase...again?