Obama’s Mouth and Romney’s Money
A recent report claimed that U.S. President Barack Obama has been calling his wealthy supporters in the hope that they would contribute more capital toward his campaign, because he “cannot complete the work for re-election alone.”* Or to put it more bluntly: hurry up and donate, or else my re-election dream bubble will burst.
The backdrop to Obama’s words is that Romney’s campaign funds exceeded that of the Obama camp for the first time during May of this year; simultaneously, the curtain has just been lifted for the presidential election. Many are aware that Romney is a billionaire with many other billionaires backing him. After beating out the other Republican nominees, Romney’s fundraising machine has clearly accelerated. His momentum has placed immense pressure on Obama and the Obama campaign’s camp. Before calling his rich supporters, Obama once said that unless his supporters increase their contributions, he might become the first president in recent U.S. history to have a running opponent with greater campaign funds.
Generally speaking, the speech savvy Obama should have an easier time winning over crowds than the often incoherent Romney. The reason that Obama was able to stand out among the Democrats and win the election back in 2008 was precisely because of his eloquence. Obama’s oratory skills not only won over a great number of supporters, but also secured substantial donations. In fact, in the 2008 election, Obama’s campaign funds exceeded that of any single presidential candidate in American history, including that of the Republican candidate. It can be said that high popularity combined with a high monetary basis together delivered Obama to the White House. Perhaps his past experience has taught Obama that copious amounts of campaign finance is essential for a campaign’s success.
The current situation can be attributed to the variability of public opinion, especially that of neutral voters and swing voters. These voters are unlike hardcore Republican or Democratic supporters who have relatively fixed and defined political expectations; their positions may shift as a result of external influences, and their votes are more likely to change depending on the tides of political sentiment. At the same time, such groups often hold decisive significance on the outcome of presidential elections.
Undoubtedly, these voters comprise the major space for contention between Obama and Romney, and are the primary target audience for various campaign ads. In order to attract this portion of the electorate, one needs to influence their desires and emotions, and elicit contempt for the opponent to make them cast a vote for oneself. Yet to have an impact on voters, one needs to be constantly churning out campaign ads and continually launching them at prime time on mainstream TV and mainstream news publications to gain the upper hand in the battle of the campaign ads. All of these tactics require a considerable sum of money. Just as Obama has said, whether or not he can gain more votes from swing states supporters depends directly on the quantity and quality of his campaign ads, as well as the generosity of his wealthy supporters. His success is thus contingent upon whether or not he has sufficient campaign funds.
In other words, no matter how eloquent Obama can come off, if the number of Obama campaign ads is less than Romney’s and if his propaganda megaphone is more hushed than Romney’s, he just might lose to the ostentatiously wealthy Romney, who has ads covering from land to sea. More simply put, in this U.S. presidential election, Obama’s mouth might not work as well as Romney’s money.
*Editor’s Note: The quotation, though accurately translated, could not be verified.
The backdrop to Obama’s words is that Romney’s campaign funds exceeded that of the Obama camp for the first time during May of this year; simultaneously, the curtain has just been lifted for the presidential election. Many are aware that Romney is a billionaire with many other billionaires backing him. After beating out the other Republican nominees, Romney’s fundraising machine has clearly accelerated. His momentum has placed immense pressure on Obama and the Obama campaign’s camp. Before calling his rich supporters, Obama once said that unless his supporters increase their contributions, he might become the first president in recent U.S. history to have a running opponent with greater campaign funds.
Generally speaking, the speech savvy Obama should have an easier time winning over crowds than the often incoherent Romney. The reason that Obama was able to stand out among the Democrats and win the election back in 2008 was precisely because of his eloquence. Obama’s oratory skills not only won over a great number of supporters, but also secured substantial donations. In fact, in the 2008 election, Obama’s campaign funds exceeded that of any single presidential candidate in American history, including that of the Republican candidate. It can be said that high popularity combined with a high monetary basis together delivered Obama to the White House. Perhaps his past experience has taught Obama that copious amounts of campaign finance is essential for a campaign’s success.
The current situation can be attributed to the variability of public opinion, especially that of neutral voters and swing voters. These voters are unlike hardcore Republican or Democratic supporters who have relatively fixed and defined political expectations; their positions may shift as a result of external influences, and their votes are more likely to change depending on the tides of political sentiment. At the same time, such groups often hold decisive significance on the outcome of presidential elections.
Undoubtedly, these voters comprise the major space for contention between Obama and Romney, and are the primary target audience for various campaign ads. In order to attract this portion of the electorate, one needs to influence their desires and emotions, and elicit contempt for the opponent to make them cast a vote for oneself. Yet to have an impact on voters, one needs to be constantly churning out campaign ads and continually launching them at prime time on mainstream TV and mainstream news publications to gain the upper hand in the battle of the campaign ads. All of these tactics require a considerable sum of money. Just as Obama has said, whether or not he can gain more votes from swing states supporters depends directly on the quantity and quality of his campaign ads, as well as the generosity of his wealthy supporters. His success is thus contingent upon whether or not he has sufficient campaign funds.
In other words, no matter how eloquent Obama can come off, if the number of Obama campaign ads is less than Romney’s and if his propaganda megaphone is more hushed than Romney’s, he just might lose to the ostentatiously wealthy Romney, who has ads covering from land to sea. More simply put, in this U.S. presidential election, Obama’s mouth might not work as well as Romney’s money.
*Editor’s Note: The quotation, though accurately translated, could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "Ann Romney Slams Obama")
