The Obama Campaign today admitted that the Mitt Romney outraised President Obama by some $17 million last month.
In an email to supporters with the subject line “We got beat,” Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina acknowledged the obvious and asked for more money. And of course, he showed all the usual graciousness of the Obama crowd.
We don’t have the special-interest and high-dollar donor advantage that Romney has. Barack Obama has you, and we are bound and determined to fight back on behalf of a country where everyone gets a fair shot and a fair shake.
AWWW, you’re breaking my heart.
What Messina leaves out is that the Obama campaign got beat at the very same game it won in 2008. Messina wants people to think that Romney’s fundraising is somehow related to the unlimited donations given to PACs, but it’s just the same equal playing field of limited candidate and Party donations on which Obama destroyed McCain four years ago.
The problem for the Obama campaign is not, in this case, that there’s more fat cats in the game than in 2008. It’s that there’s more enthusiasm on the Republican side.
We know that only 15 percent of Romney’s May totals came from people giving less than $250, compared to 98 percent in that category for us.
This is actually very dishonest, even for politics.
The sentence above clearly suggests that 98 percent of the money received by Obama came from people giving less than $250, which is untrue. Actually, 98 percent of the donations made were for $250 or less, which is what you get when you are constantly auctioning off a meal with the president for $3. Plenty of Obama’s money still came from evil rich people.
By comparison, 93 percent of Romney’s donations were for $250 or less.
It’s true that about 15 percent of Romney’s total take was from people making more than $250. But the correct comparison is between 98 percent and 93 percent, not 98 percent and 15 percent. I haven’t seen any info from the Obama campaign on what percentage of its total haul was from those making more than $250
From the beginning we’ve built this campaign together, from the bottom up. More people giving a little bit is the only way to compete with a few people giving a lot.
That’s also untrue, as Messina well knows. Ninety three percent of Romney donors giving less than $250 is not anywhere close to just “a few people giving a lot.”
By touting what it claims is its army of poor people, the Obama campaign is trying to make sweet Riesling out of its sour grapes. In reality, it desperately wants more money from the wealthy, but it’s not getting what it had hoped.
Perhaps if Obama had succeeded in improving the economy, those who work their asses off and make a lot of money would give him more of what they’ve earned. Maybe even if he’d just stop vilifying the rich and dissing the conduct of capitalism he get more from the well heeled, even in the Obama economy.