AFL-CIO dropping donations to Obama - Hey 240 - "Did Wisconsin matter"

[MCWAY]

pay attention:

YOU pay attention:

The reason they PLAN to spend less money is because THEY HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND, not exactly a hard equation to solve.

You can't do MORE door-to-door canvassing with LESS people, which is what the unions have as their members are bailing.

Of course, they're making the plans to do it; they don't have much of a choice.

Fewer members, fewer people to do the canvassing

Fewer members, fewer members' dues, LESS CASH overall, less cash for Obama (and less motivation to give to Obama, since he chickened out of going to Wisconsin, when Barrett and crew needed him).

[Straw Man]

YOU pay attention:

The reason they PLAN to spend less money is because THEY HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND, not exactly a hard equation to solve.

You can't do MORE door-to-door canvassing with LESS people, which is what the unions have as their members are bailing.

Of course, they're making the plans to do it; they don't have much of a choice.

Fewer members, fewer people to do the canvassing

Fewer members, fewer members' dues, LESS CASH overall, less cash for Obama (and less motivation to give to Obama, since he chickened out of going to Wisconsin, when Barrett and crew needed him).

is this a joke or something

your first post on this thread was  suggesting that this move by the Unions (planned months in advance) was in response to the Obama's lack of support

Not a slight on the President.......RRRRRRRR IIIIIIIIGHTT!!!!

Maybe, they're just too busy with other stuff.

then when presented with the fact that this move was planned months in advance and had to do wtih not being able to compete on a $ for $ level with the PAC money that is now allowed due to Citizens United and also having their ranks decimated due to having their right to colletively bargain stripped from them you pretend like that was your point all along?

Your whole confusion about "more" and "less" is just bizzare

Do you not understand that, given any fixed amount of money, if you spend LESS in one area then you have MORE to spend in aother area ?

No one ever said they had more money in absolute terms

Is this just you playing dumb or is it genuine dumbness on your part?

[MCWAY]

is this a joke or something

your first post on this thread was  suggesting that this move by the Unions (planned months in advance) was in response to the Obama's lack of support

then when presented with the fact that this move was planned months in advance and had to do wtih not being able to compete on a $ for $ level with the PAC money that is now allowed due to Citizens United and also having their ranks decimated due to having their right to colletively bargain stripped from them you pretend like that was your point all along?

Your whole confusion about "more" and "less" is just bizzare

Do you not understand that, given any fixed amount of money, if you spend LESS in one area then you have MORE to spend in aother area ?

No one ever said they had more money in absolute terms

Is this just you playing dumb or is it genuine dumbness on your part?

The one playing dumb here is YOU, well, and the other libs who keep screaming (falsely) about their woes being due to the conservatives' outspending them, courtesy of Citizens United. That's the the excuse-of-the-month for the left, after that beating they took last week.

Their numbers are down, WAY DOWN. That is among the major reasons they don't have the cash.

Therefore, what little they have left has to spend wisely. Ergo, you don't blow it on a guy who left you high and dry, during arguably the biggest political fight of your life.

Thus, they also have to shift to canvassing. But they have FEWER BODIES to do that, as union membership is dropping like a boulder.

And, as 333386 stated, for this to conveniently appear a week after the union bubbas got humiliated in Wisconsin, suggest that simple dollars and cents aren't the lone motivation for this move.

But, per the US News article that he partially posted:

"Some candidates will get more, some less, some the same -- but overall we'll be focused more on spending resources to build our own structure [that] works for working people instead of others' own structures."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/13/afl-cio-redeploying-funds-from-obama-campaign-to-advocacy-and-infrastructure

Gee, I wonder who's going to be less from the unions. 

[Straw Man]

The one playing dumb here is YOU, well, and the other libs who keep screaming (falsely) about their woes being due to the conservatives' outspending them, courtesy of Citizens United. That's the the excuse-of-the-month for the left, after that beating they took last week.

Their numbers are down, WAY DOWN. That is among the major reasons they don't have the cash.

Therefore, what little they have left has to spend wisely. Ergo, you don't blow it on a guy who left you high and dry, during arguably the biggest political fight of your life.Thus, they also have to shift to canvassing. But they have FEWER BODIES to do that, as union membership is dropping like a boulder.

And, as 333386 stated, for this to conveniently appear a week after the union bubbas got humiliated in Wisconsin, suggest that simple dollars and cents aren't the lone motivation for this move.

But, per the US News article that he partially posted:

"Some candidates will get more, some less, some the same -- but overall we'll be focused more on spending resources to build our own structure [that] works for working people instead of others' own structures."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/13/afl-cio-redeploying-funds-from-obama-campaign-to-advocacy-and-infrastructure

Gee, I wonder who's going to be less from the unions. 

doubling  down on dumb huh

back to the same premise that you first asserted and then denied?

The Unions have alreayd said they can't compete on $ and that spending money on direct donations is not as effective as door to door, and person to person compaigning


Do you think they are going to  be out there campaigning for Romney?

Even you are not that stupid

They will be campaigning for the person you believe "let them down" and "left them high and dry"

“We’re not going to ever raise anything like the kind of money that our opponents have,” said AFL-CIO political director Mike Podhorzer. “But the power of people talking to each other, friends talking to friends, friends talking to neighbors is always going to trump these cheap negative ads.

[MCWAY]

doubling  down on dumb huh

back to the same premise that you first asserted and then denied?

The Unions have alreayd said they can't compete on $ and that spending money on direct donations is not as effective as door to door, and person to person compaigning


Do you think they are going to  be out there campaigning for Romney?

Even you are not that stupid

They will be campaigning for the person you believe "let them down" and "left them high and dry"

You apparently don't read very well.

Earlier, I posted that Obama hasn't stuck up for them in months or years. Gee, look what I found:



AFL-CIO Threatens Obama's Re-Election Over Jobs

The AFL-CIO, worried that President Obama's long-awaited September jobs announcement will be inadequate, is threatening to boycott the Democratic National Convention and maybe the 2012 elections unless bold action is taken to ease unemployment.

"If they don't have a jobs program I think we'd be better to use our money doing other things," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.


The leader of the nation's largest union, who regularly visits the White House to talk with Obama, sounded a warning today that he is worried that the president will simply propose "nibbly" things to spark some job creation instead of laying out a bold plan and promising to challenge Republicans in Congress to pass it.

"People are frustrated and the more jobs aren't created, the more they're gonna get frustrated with everybody," he said in a Christian Science Monitor newsmaker roundtable breakfast.

"This is going to be a moment when history and our members are going to judge him and they are going to be making an opinion. And if he puts all of his emphasis and focus on jobs creation, it's going give them one picture," said Trumka. "And if he continues to do little nibbly things around the end that aren't going to make a difference and aren't going to solve a problem, that will give another picture."

Besides suggesting that his national union won't attend the convention unless a big new jobs program is proposed, he also indicated that his union won't do much for Obama or Democrats in the 2012 elections.

Asked if union participation in the election will drop, he said, "I think yes. I think the overall population participation will drop. Because people, if they think there's not going to be any solution they get upset."

Oddly, he said that the union hasn't decided if it will participate in the convention though he said some affiliates already aren't going. That would be a slap at Obama.



http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/25/afl-cio-threatens-obamas-re-election-over-jobs-

And, since I never claimed they'd be campaigning for Romney, you can scrap that canard. They may go rogue or stay home. Either way, FEWER OF THEM will be campaigning for Obama, which hurts him (and, in turn, would help Romney).

They have FEWER DOLLARS to use and FEWER PEOPLE to do the door-to-door stuff. What part of that don't you understand? Part of the reason they have less money is because they BLEW A CHUNK of it in Wisconsin and LOST.

[Straw Man]

You apparently don't read very well.

Earlier, I posted that Obama hasn't stuck up for them in months or years. Gee, look what I found:



AFL-CIO Threatens Obama's Re-Election Over Jobs

The AFL-CIO, worried that President Obama's long-awaited September jobs announcement will be inadequate, is threatening to boycott the Democratic National Convention and maybe the 2012 elections unless bold action is taken to ease unemployment.

"If they don't have a jobs program I think we'd be better to use our money doing other things," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.


The leader of the nation's largest union, who regularly visits the White House to talk with Obama, sounded a warning today that he is worried that the president will simply propose "nibbly" things to spark some job creation instead of laying out a bold plan and promising to challenge Republicans in Congress to pass it.

"People are frustrated and the more jobs aren't created, the more they're gonna get frustrated with everybody," he said in a Christian Science Monitor newsmaker roundtable breakfast.

"This is going to be a moment when history and our members are going to judge him and they are going to be making an opinion. And if he puts all of his emphasis and focus on jobs creation, it's going give them one picture," said Trumka. "And if he continues to do little nibbly things around the end that aren't going to make a difference and aren't going to solve a problem, that will give another picture."

Besides suggesting that his national union won't attend the convention unless a big new jobs program is proposed, he also indicated that his union won't do much for Obama or Democrats in the 2012 elections.

Asked if union participation in the election will drop, he said, "I think yes. I think the overall population participation will drop. Because people, if they think there's not going to be any solution they get upset."

Oddly, he said that the union hasn't decided if it will participate in the convention though he said some affiliates already aren't going. That would be a slap at Obama.



http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/25/afl-cio-threatens-obamas-re-election-over-jobs-

And, since I never claimed they'd be campaigning for Romney, you can scrap that canard. They may go rogue or stay home. Either way, FEWER OF THEM will be campaigning for Obama, which hurts him (and, in turn, would help Romney).

They have FEWER DOLLARS to use and FEWER PEOPLE to do the door-to-door stuff. What part of that don't you understand? Part of the reason they have less money is because they BLEW A CHUNK of it in Wisconsin and LOST.

So in August of 2011 AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka threatened that the AFL-CIO might boycott the Democratic National Convention

I guess he got over it because in March of 2012 he said this:

While acknowledging the "ups and downs we've had over the past three years," the national head of the U.S. labor movement called on Pennsylvania union members Tuesday to mobilize to keep President Obama in office.

"President Obama stands on our side," AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka told hundreds of AFL-CIO union delegates gathered at the Sheraton Philadelphia Downtown in Philadelphia at the start of the Pennsylvania Federation of the AFL-CIO's three-day convention.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-27/news/31245391_1_afl-cio-richard-trumka-union

[Skip8282]

Ha...door to door visits from the AFL-CIO sound more like intimidation tactics to me.

[MCWAY]

So in August of 2011 AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka threatened that the AFL-CIO might boycott the Democratic National Convention

I guess he got over it because in March of 2012 he said this:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-27/news/31245391_1_afl-cio-richard-trumka-union

Let's mobilize with fewer people and less money.

"Obama stands by our side".....in March.Three months and one woodshed whipping in Wisconsin later (merely coincidence, of course).....UMMM, We ain't giving Obama or the Dems any more money.

He doesn't just stand by their side. Obama's behind them......WAAAAAAAY BEHIND THEM!!!

[Soul Crusher]

Oh my: AFL-CIO Pulling Campaign Funds from Obama Re-Elect?
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2012 | Guy Benson
Posted on June 13, 2012 10:54:17 PM EDT by Kaslin

Remember what we wrote about Obama's fracturing coalition this morning?  More trouble in paradise:
 

The AFL-CIO has told Washington Whispers it will redeploy funds away from political candidates smack dab in the middle of election season, the latest sign that the largest federation of unions in the country could be becoming increasingly disillusioned with President Obama. The federation says the shift has been in the works for months, and had nothing to do with the president's failure to show in Wisconsin last week, where labor unions led a failed recall election of Governor Scott Walker.  "We wanted to start investing our funds in our own infrastructure and advocacy," AFL-CIO spokesman Josh Goldstein told Whispers. "There will be less contributions to candidates," including President Obama. While there were "a lot of different opinions" about whether Obama should have gone to Wisconsin, according to Goldstein, "this is not a slight at the president."


They're denying that this decision represents any form of retribution for Obama's controversial decision to literally fly over Wisconsin in the midst of a contested, high-stakes election for organized labor.  Maybe this shift truly was in the works for months, maybe not.  Motivation aside, this move could have a significant adverse impact on Democrats' ground game in the fall:
 

The shift in funding is significant due to the federation's role in past presidential campaigns, where the AFL-CIO built up a massive political structure in the months leading up the election, including extensive "Get Out The Vote" efforts, as well as financial contributions.


This news comes on the heels of a new poll showing Mitt Romney running five points ahead of John McCain among union households, and in the aftermath of Walker's decisive victory -- in which he attracted nearly four in ten union-affiliated votes.  Parting thought: Should Wisconsin Lefties really be bitter over The One's conspicuous absence on the ground?  After all, his mystical "lightworker" presence did wonders for Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley, dozens of 2010 Democrats and Chicago's 2016 Olympics bid.


UPDATE - It appears many liberals have moved on from MoveOn.org:
 

Fundraising messages from MoveOn.org’s political-action fund are taking an increasingly pessimistic and frantic tone. A recent message declared, “If we can’t increase our budget, we’re going to have to pull the plug now on some absolutely crucial campaigns.” According to documents filed with the FEC, MoveOn.org Political Action raised $9.1 million in contributions from January 2011 to March 31, 2012. In that same period, the group spent $10.5 million, and it has $2.75 million left in cash on hand. With just under five months until Election Day, and additional fundraising efforts ongoing, those totals are certain to increase. Still, it is a dramatic drop from last cycle and all the preceding cycles except one. By March 31 in the 2010 cycle, MoveOn.org Political Action had raised $18.5 million; by that date in the 2008 cycle, $14 million; in the 2006 cycle, $11.8 million; and in the 2004 cycle, $2.79 million — but that was in the first 15 months of the PAC’s existence. The group would need to have a surge in new donations to keep pace with past cycles, never mind past presidential cycles.


Single tear.

[whork]

is this a joke or something

your first post on this thread was  suggesting that this move by the Unions (planned months in advance) was in response to the Obama's lack of support

then when presented with the fact that this move was planned months in advance and had to do wtih not being able to compete on a $ for $ level with the PAC money that is now allowed due to Citizens United and also having their ranks decimated due to having their right to colletively bargain stripped from them you pretend like that was your point all along?

Your whole confusion about "more" and "less" is just bizzare

Do you not understand that, given any fixed amount of money, if you spend LESS in one area then you have MORE to spend in aother area ?

No one ever said they had more money in absolute terms

Is this just you playing dumb or is it genuine dumbness on your part?

This MCWAY guy is just hilarious. He makes a stupid statement and when somebody calls him out on it he flip-flops and give you a whole new set of reasons, anything to make the outside world fit in his head. He is a lot like Romney actually. Well a lot less intelligent but you get the picture

[whork]

The one playing dumb here is YOU, well, and the other libs who keep screaming (falsely) about their woes being due to the conservatives' outspending them, courtesy of Citizens United. That's the the excuse-of-the-month for the left, after that beating they took last week.

Their numbers are down, WAY DOWN. That is among the major reasons they don't have the cash.

Therefore, what little they have left has to spend wisely. Ergo, you don't blow it on a guy who left you high and dry, during arguably the biggest political fight of your life.

Thus, they also have to shift to canvassing. But they have FEWER BODIES to do that, as union membership is dropping like a boulder.

And, as 333386 stated, for this to conveniently appear a week after the union bubbas got humiliated in Wisconsin, suggest that simple dollars and cents aren't the lone motivation for this move.

But, per the US News article that he partially posted:

"Some candidates will get more, some less, some the same -- but overall we'll be focused more on spending resources to build our own structure [that] works for working people instead of others' own structures."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/13/afl-cio-redeploying-funds-from-obama-campaign-to-advocacy-and-infrastructure

Gee, I wonder who's going to be less from the unions. 

[Straw Man]

Let's mobilize with fewer people and less money.

"Obama stands by our side".....in March.Three months and one woodshed whipping in Wisconsin later (merely coincidence, of course).....UMMM, We ain't giving Obama or the Dems any more money.

He doesn't just stand by their side. Obama's behind them......WAAAAAAAY BEHIND THEM!!!

? - haven't we been over this before

Wisconsin recall was in June and AFL-CIO had already announced change in strategy/deployment of funds 3 months prior

btw - do you think AFL-CIO is going to support the Repub?

If not then, maybe you think they are just going to sit home and do nothing.
Have they ever done that?

[MCWAY]

? - haven't we been over this before

Wisconsin recall was in June and AFL-CIO had already announced change in strategy/deployment of funds 3 months prior

btw - do you think AFL-CIO is going to support the Repub?

If not then, maybe you think they are just going to sit home and do nothing.
Have they ever done that?

Plenty of Dems (black voters, in particular) tend to stay home, when their party's guy is a dud yet the GOP candidate doesn't float their boat.

It's called voter apathy. And, to pretend that such isn't setting into the Democrat base, especially after the losses they've taken as of late, is beyond naive.

This MCWAY guy is just hilarious. He makes a stupid statement and when somebody calls him out on it he flip-flops and give you a whole new set of reasons, anything to make the outside world fit in his head. He is a lot like Romney actually. Well a lot less intelligent but you get the picture

Speaking of people who don't read very well, here comes Whork.

The outside world says the unions are frustrated with Obama for a number of reasons, the latest of which is his no-showing in Wisconsin.

Lo and behold, not one but (at least) TWO articles, stating the AFL-CIO will be pulling funds from Obama. And, wouldn't you know it, those articles appear come about a week after Obama hides from Wisconsin, leaving the unions to get pummeled on their own.