• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney/RNC out raised Obama/DNC in May

Z

ZIRP4EVA

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
94
Reaction score
34
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No official link yet. Just twitter reports. Romney/RNC raised $76.8 million in May.
 
So where is the $billion war chest?
 
Romney has a long way to go to catch up. As of a few months ago Obama had more than double Romney's cash.
 
AdamT said:
Romney has a long way to go to catch up. As of a few months ago Obama had more than double Romney's cash.
Click to expand...

Our first gay president has been so busy attending fund raisers he forgot the anniversary of D-Day yesterday....again. Priorities.
 
jerry7 said:
Our first gay president has been so busy attending fund raisers he forgot the anniversary of D-Day yesterday....again. Priorities.
Click to expand...

Why do you say President Obama is gay?
 
Democrats were happy to get slush funds for decades from Big Labor, Unions, and far left tycoons like George Soros. Money was never an issue when the Dems had it all. But now that the GOP can get big donors the Left wants to cry and snivel. Its just more liberal hypocrisy on parade.
 
jerry7 said:
Our first gay president has been so busy attending fund raisers he forgot the anniversary of D-Day yesterday....again. Priorities.
Click to expand...
Oh, he sent a "140 characters or less" tweet. Or maybe one of his staffers did. Either way, he was hanging with the Hollyweird Glitterati yesterday, and for him to stop and send a text mentioning D-Day while hobnobbing with the Very Important People was a huge sacrifice, I'm sure.

Not as big as the sacrifice 9,000 heroes (yes, heroes, Chris Haynes you pathetic twerp) made on D-Day, but still. A whole tweet.

His blasé attitude towards all things American disgusts me, as it should all freedom-loving non-zombie Americans. He could raise a trillion dollars from his anti-American buddies between now and November, and it still wouldn't help him. One and done. Thank God.
 
Last edited:
ZIRP4EVA said:
No official link yet. Just twitter reports. Romney/RNC raised $76.8 million in May.
Click to expand...



Good to know Romney is getting contributions to his campaign. He'll need it all before the election to compete againist President Obama.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Romney has a long way to go to catch up. As of a few months ago Obama had more than double Romney's cash.
Click to expand...

Romney campaign saying they currently have $107 million in cash on hand.
 
Catawba said:
Now there is a big surprise! How could he not when the big Wall Street money has been going to him. After finding out that Obama was not going to play ball, they switched to a more pliable candidate.

Mitt Romney Beating President Obama Raising Wall Street Cash
Click to expand...
That's funny, FoxNews says that Obama has raised more Wall Street bribes (oops, I mean campaign contributions) than Romney has. It's funny how often the partisan "news" outlets get things wrong, isn't it? Who to trust?

Either way, the smart money is on Romney. You can't blame donors for giving money to the guy who's going to win in November, that's just common business sense.
 
GJ Flash said:
That's funny, FoxNews says that Obama has raised more Wall Street bribes (oops, I mean campaign contributions) than Romney has. It's funny how often the partisan "news" outlets get things wrong, isn't it? Who to trust?

Either way, the smart money is on Romney. You can't blame donors for giving money to the guy who's going to win in November, that's just common business sense.
Click to expand...

All the major news outlets (except Fox, imagine that) are showing Romney way ahead in money from Wall Street. Not too surprising since Romney has pledged to undue the banking regulations made under Obama.

""No other candidate came close to the $12 million Romney's campaign raised directly in 2011 from individuals who work at financial firms and banks, which also includes cash from insurance and real estate companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
By comparison, Obama's campaign raised $5 million from people who worked on Wall Street last year, the Center for Responsive Politics reported."

Wall Street bets big on Romney - Feb. 1, 2012

chart-candidates-income-2.top.gif


"Wall Street dollars now favor Republican candidates over the president by more than a 5 to 1 margin, with the majority going to Mitt Romney, whose ties to the financial sector date back to his time at private equity powerhouse Bain Capital."

" the numbers show that Wall Street is mostly showing love to Romney, who has promised to dismember the Dodd-Frank financial regulation reform."

Mitt Romney Beating President Obama Raising Wall Street Cash
 
>>>>>

q.f.t.:

proud2bcatholic said:
democrats were happy to get slush funds for decades from big labor, unions, and far left tycoons like george soros. Money was never an issue when the dems had it all. But now that the gop can get big donors the left wants to cry and snivel. Its just more liberal hypocrisy on parade.
Click to expand...
 
Fiddytree said:
They both "play ball" and they ought to take their money. It's a lot of cash-take it. Don't be shamed. Stop fooling yourself with partisan foolishness.
Click to expand...

Evidently, as noted above, one is more willing to play ball than the other:

" the numbers show that Wall Street is mostly showing love to Romney, who has promised to dismember the Dodd-Frank financial regulation reform."
 
It's shameful that we will choose our leaders by which one can be bought for more money than the other one. Talk about bought and paid for politics. Whomever wins is already in somebody's pocket. The only difference may be who gets paid off and who doesn't. I see many corporations donate heavily to both sides as an insurance policy.
 
Catawba said:
Evidently, as noted above, one is more willing to play ball than the other:

" the numbers show that Wall Street is mostly showing love to Romney, who has promised to dismember the Dodd-Frank financial regulation reform."
Click to expand...

That's why I also asked, "so"? To an extent one member will be more favorable over another when it comes to these domestic issues, but there is a reason why the "revolving door" holds true to both parties. It was only 6 months ago that Obama was clearly in the lead with Wall Street and that did not prevent your support then. The difference now is that you have a Republican who is fitting the stereotype of being in bed with the folks at Wall Street, so you don the attire of moral indignation.
 
Last edited:
specklebang said:
It's shameful that we will choose our leaders by which one can be bought for more money than the other one. Talk about bought and paid for politics. Whomever wins is already in somebody's pocket. The only difference may be who gets paid off and who doesn't. I see many corporations donate heavily to both sides as an insurance policy.
Click to expand...

The historical issue of politics: money. It has always been there. The Roman Republic was much the same way, and we are in far greater shape than they were.
 
specklebang said:
It's shameful that we will choose our leaders by which one can be bought for more money than the other one. Talk about bought and paid for politics. Whomever wins is already in somebody's pocket. The only difference may be who gets paid off and who doesn't. I see many corporations donate heavily to both sides as an insurance policy.
Click to expand...

True, but having a choice between one that is receiving funds from Wall Street 5 to 1 over the other, I will go for the one Wall Street likes less.

But that's just me.
 
Fiddytree said:
That's why I also asked, "so"? To an extent one member will be more favorable over another when it comes to these domestic issues, but there is a reason why the "revolving door" holds true to both parties. It was only 6 months ago that Obama was clearly in the lead with Wall Street and that did not prevent your support then. The difference now is that you have a Republican who is fitting the stereotype of being in bed with the folks at Wall Street, so you don the attire of moral indignation.
Click to expand...

We have only two choices, I will go with who Wall street likes less. Its my way of saying **** you to the 1%.
 
Considering the huge advantage the incumbent has in exposure and use of funds, the challenger needs to generate far more funds.

The president can fly to California aboard AF 1, attend 4 fund raisers, shake the hand of a 12 year old constituent, and much of the trip can be charged off to the taxpayer. Announce a TV press conference, and the pres gets 30 minutes or more free air time.

This is the main reason I advocate a single term for president. Barry has been seriously campaigning for the past 3 years. So too have most politicians.
 
Every candidate raises money. Some raise more than others. It happens all the time. So guessing the big deal is this time it's Romeny and the Libbys are ticked off. What a hoot.
 
Romney raising more money than Obama in May is a good sign for Romney, but he has a LONG way to go to catch up with Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom