Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* In Colorado, one of the nation's most important 2012 swing states, Public Policy Polling shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney by seven, 49% to 42%.
* In a bit of a surprise, the DCCC narrowly outraised their Republican counterparts in May, collecting $6.68 million to the NRCC's $6 million
* Cristina Saralegui, a Latina talk show host often called the "Hispanic Oprah," has thrown her support to Obama, and is featured in a new video from the campaign. (Saralegui is also featured in a new Spanish-language video on the Affordable Care Act.)
* I'm not sure if I fully believe this, but ABC News is reporting that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) "is not being vetted by Mitt Romney's vice presidential search team." That may soon change.
* Speaking of Florida, Rep. Connie Mack IV (R) is running in a multi-candidate GOP Senate primary, but he's decided to pretend he's already won his party's nomination, and won't debate or acknowledge his Republican competitors.
* In West Virginia, the state's top three Democrats -- Sen. Joe Manchin, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, and Rep. Nick Rahall -- have all decided to literally keep their distance from Obama by skipping this year's Democratic National Convention.
* And in the state of Washington, a new statewide poll shows a very competitive gubernatorial race, with state Attorney General Rob McKenna (R) narrowly leading Rep. Jay Inslee (D), 42% to 40%.
Leave a Comment:
Rubio is not an option for several reasons:
1) The "Double-Mormon Ticket" issue.
2) Rubio differs with Romney on Dream Act.
3) Rubio wants to run in four years himself.
I think Rubio screwed the pooch by allowing Obama to implement DREAM lite before he proposed his version. That probably pissed off the Romney team. It also diminished his importance to the campaign. Then there are also the ethical issues.
Meaningless in a citizens united world. Dems need a strategy to overturn it.
Is that because the Republicans may raise more $$ overall for the first time in the last few elections? Were you concerned when Obama spent $750 Million when he ran for President in 2008 (shattering all records up til then) or was that OK since he was a Democrat? BOTH sides spend way too much to get elected and BOTH sides have the same chance to raise money - including those Super PACs. Unless there are campaign finance rules on how much you can spend, one side will most likely spend more than the other. It just seems some people don't like when it may be the other side.
skip
The Obama campaign raised a record amount of $$ because they got their message to individuals and convinced them to make small donations - many for the first time ever. There were also, as always, some big donors.
I absolutely have no problem with this. If there is going to be $$ involved in elections, this is the way to do it. Having a few gazillionaires pump unlimited millions into the election is just wrong - I don't care which side they are on. It's even worse when you don't even know where the money is coming from ("non-profits" that don't have to disclose).
Ideally, an election should be a competition between opinions and vision and not depend on who can raise the most money. I don't know if that has ever been true, but it sure looks like we are a long way from that ideal now.
Agreed maphi,
The real problem with all this campaign spending is the fact that the average voter is not engaged enough in the elections to make an informed choice without all the lawn signs and negative ads. I would bet that the average American knows more about the American Idol "candidates" than the people running for office. Personally I don't care if a candidate spends a Trillion dollars - I will not vote for them if I don't agree with their platform/policies. Unfortunately a lot of folks will vote for someone because they saw a few hundred lawn signs with their name on it. :)
Yup skip
There are the magic words "informed choice" upon which our democracy depends.
I don't have a problem with negative ads, since raising the contrast between candidates is not necessarily bad. The problem with ads - whether positive or negative - is when facts and little details like REALITY are distorted. They don't contribute in any way to "informed choice".
Ah the old both sides nonsense rears it head. There is a significant difference between the way Obama raised money in 08 and this year versus what is happening with the superpacs. Inform yourself.
Oh I am informed AdamantiumBeta, and it is not as clear a difference as you say. Yes Obama does/did get a lot of money in small amounts, but he also has high-priced fund raisers with $5,000 to $ 15,000 a plate price tags. And as I have stated here before, there are always ways around the limits a person can donate as well as foreign money. On election night 2008 my fiance's sister went down to Grant Park here in Chicago for the Obama rally and struck up a conversation with a Belgian couple that flew in for the rally. They were proud that they "helped get him elected" by donating online (and with cash while in America earlier in the year) to his campaign. Granted it was not a large amount of money and it is an exception and not the rule, but if you think that before this election there has not been questionable donations on EITHER side ...well, maybe you need to look into it yourself.
Obama's campaign staff has set a goal of raising $1 BILLION (before SuperPACs) - so I really don't think that in the end there will be a very large difference between the two parties money wise and that includes in Congressional races. Both parties are really, really good at getting $$.
It is after all, West Virginia..
I wonder why Rubio would be ok as VP if he was not born in the United States and could not, therefore, according to the birthers and many GOPers, is not eligible to become President?
Marco Rubio was born in the US - Miami FL. His parents were Cuban immigrants.
maphi
Does Rubio have his long form birth certificate to prove it? <snark>
Memo to The Three Singing Hillbillies: don't let the door hit your posteriors on your way out of the party, boys. Time to get back to dating your sisters, like good little West Virginia white trash.
Democrats in West Virginia are merely republicans who don't want to hang out with lunatics. Since they want to keep their distance from Obama, I suggest Obama keep his distance from them, particularly with $$$$$ after the re election.
I suggest Obama keep his distance from them, particularly with $$$$$ after the re election.
That pretty much says it all about politics and government nowadays. It doesn't matter as much about need as it does with allegiance. Classic.