Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 13, 2012, 10:48:45 AM
-
AFL-CIO Pulling Funds From Obama Campaign
U.S. News & World Report ^ | Wednesday, June 13, 2012 | Elizabeth Flock
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
________________________ ______________________
Wow , just wow.
-
AFL-CIO Pulling Funds From Obama Campaign
U.S. News & World Report ^ | Wednesday, June 13, 2012 | Elizabeth Flock
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
________________________ ______________________
Wow , just wow.
Not a slight on the President.......RRRRRRRR IIIIIIIIGHTT!!!!
Maybe, they're just too busy with other stuff.
-
AFL-CIO Pulling Funds From Obama Campaign
U.S. News & World Report ^ | Wednesday, June 13, 2012 | Elizabeth Flock
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
________________________ ______________________
Wow , just wow.
do you even read the stuff you post before making your titles
-
do you even read the stuff you post before making your titles
What else are they going to say?
-
What else are they going to say?
they could say it's because they think Obama didn't support them
Why not say that if it were in fact the case ?
Did it ever occur to your that their ranks are decimated since being stripped of their right to collectlvely bargain and maybe they have a lot less money to spend and want to spend it in a way that gives them the most return
-
they could say it's because they think Obama didn't support them
Why not say that if it were in fact the case ?
Did it ever occur to your that their ranks are decimated since being stripped of their right to collectlvely bargain and maybe they have a lot less money to spend and want to spend it in a way that gives them the most return
Or maybe that Obama's failed economy has resulted in less work for its members?
-
they could say it's because they think Obama didn't support them
Why not say that if it were in fact the case ?
For the same reason, Obama was too busy with stuff.
Did it ever occur to your that their ranks are decimated since being stripped of their right to collectlvely bargain and maybe they have a lot less money to spend and want to spend it in a way that gives them the most return
Their ranks are decimated because (at least in Wisconsin), people are no longer FORCED to join or have their dues yanked from them.
-
Or maybe that Obama's failed economy has resulted in less work for its members?
that could be part of it too
doesn't change the fact that they have less $'s to spend and have said this reduction in funds was planned for months and had nothing to do with Obama not coming to Wisconsin
why lie about it?
If they were pissed at Obama why would they not say so
Your belief makes no sense?
-
that could be part of it too
doesn't change the fact that they have less $'s to spend and have said this reduction in funds was planned for months and had nothing to do with Obama not coming to Wisconsin
why lie about it?
If they were pissed at Obama why would they not say so
Your belief makes no sense?
Because they still have to rely on demos in the senate and house - vice versa
-
For the same reason, Obama was too busy with stuff.
this makes no sense
why would Obama being "too busy" prevent them from telling the "truth" as believed by 333.
Their ranks are decimated because (at least in Wisconsin), people are no longer FORCED to join or have their dues yanked from them.
why pay dues when your Union can't actually bargain on your behalf
-
Because they still have to rely on demos in the senate and house - vice versa
so what
again, they have less $'s to spend and choosing the most effective what to spend it
their stated reason makes perfect sense given the drop in funds:
"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.
no need to create a CT
unless of course you're the dumbest lawyer on the planet and your world revolves about make believe outrage and ridiculous CT's
-
so what
again, they have less $'s to spend and choosing the most effective what to spend it
their stated reason makes perfect sense given the drop in funds:
no need to create a CT
unless of course you're the dumbest lawyer on the planet and your world revolves about make believe outrage and ridiculous CT's
Yeah, timing is of no consequence here whatsoever. ::)
-
this makes no sense
why would Obama being "too busy" prevent them from telling the "truth" as believed by 333.
It's called a facade. Obama has to pretend that he was too busy to stop in Wisconsin (even though he had half a dozen fundraisers in neighboring states). Now, the unions have to pretend that they can't back Obama, SOLELY or PRIMARILY because their funds are low. I don't doubt that they are and that this indeed has been in the works for months.
But, Obama hasn't stuck up for them in months (or years). So, why should they waste what little money they have left on a guy, so scared to be associated with them in defeat that he sends a half-hearted tweet, while they faced the biggest showdown of their lives and went down in flames.
why pay dues when your Union can't actually bargain on your behalf
Union dues, at least in the public-sector ones, are taken automatically. The members have no choice. That is, until Walker did his thing.
The membership in Wisconsin's public-sector unions have dropped by nearly 60% since Walker implemented this law of his.
-
Now union members are deserting Obama
Washington Examiner ^ | 6-12-12 | Paul Bedard
Two new and disturbing polls just out suggest that the road to reelection is getting tougher for President Obama.
In the most significant, Gallup found that union member support for the president is weaker than it was on Election Day. While Obama took 67 of the union vote, according to 2008 election night polling by Peter Hart for the AFL-CIO, Gallup discovered that just 58 percent of union members back the president now. Some 35 percent support Mitt Romney, 5 percent more than Sen. John McCain won in 2008.
Gallup said the union vote is a significant block for Obama, though, “their impact on the presidential race will be limited by their size -- just about 12% of employed voters are union members.”
Rasmussen Reports, found that a majority of likely American voters -- 60 percent -- believe that it is at least somewhat likely that the next president will be a Republican, including 34% who see this scenario as very likely. Among Democrats, 35 percent of likely voters also said Obama would be followed by a Republican.
Rasmussen said that when Obama first took office, just 44 percent thought a Republican would replace him
-
Yeah, timing is of no consequence here whatsoever. ::)
so says the source in the article
much ado about nothing
just like virtually all of your posts
-
so says the source in the article
much ado about nothing
just like virtually all of your posts
Obama losing significant chunks of the CORE of his base? Much ado about nothing?
-
It's called a facade. Obama has to pretend that he was too busy to stop in Wisconsin (even though he had half a dozen fundraisers in neighboring states). Now, the unions have to pretend that they can't back Obama, SOLELY or PRIMARILY because their funds are low. I don't doubt that they are and that this indeed has been in the works for months.
But, Obama hasn't stuck up for them in months (or years). So, why should they waste what little money they have left on a guy, so scared to be associated with them in defeat that he sends a half-hearted tweet, while they faced the biggest showdown of their lives and went down in flames.
Union dues, at least in the public-sector ones, are taken automatically. The members have no choice. That is, until Walker did his thing.
The membership in Wisconsin's public-sector unions have dropped by nearly 60% since Walker implemented this law of his.
I guess they knew back on March 14th that Obama wasn't going to come to Wisconsi in June for a recall election that didn't even exist yet?
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Labor unions, saying they can’t hope to compete with the new breed of conservative fundraising groups, plan to spend less money this year on specific candidates and political party organizations and more on door-to-door canvassing, phone banks and registration drives to help President Barack Obama and other Democrats.
The shift, outlined at the AFL-CIO’s annual executive council meeting near Disney World, marks a change from two years ago, when roughly two-thirds of organized labor’s campaign spending went to political parties and candidates.
“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.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/afl-cio-boosts-ground-support-for-obama-democrats-2/#ixzz1xhcuM8dD
-
yeah, he's plummeted to 50% on gallup, and lead/tied with romney in every national poll. scared shitless, i'm betting.
-
yeah, he's plummeted to 50% on gallup, and lead/tied with romney in every national poll. scared shitless, i'm betting.
Your poll might be a bit dated. Gallup currently has him at 46, Rasmussen at 44.
-
I guess they knew back on March 14th that Obama wasn't going to come to Wisconsi in June for a recall election that didn't even exist yet?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/afl-cio-boosts-ground-support-for-obama-democrats-2/#ixzz1xhcuM8dD
As I said, Obama hasn't backed them for months. And, they're low on money because their members are fleeing. Therefore, they're not going to spend their money frivolously. Blowing cash on a guy, who's MIA when the unions need him most, would qualify as frivolous spending.
-
As I said, Obama hasn't backed them for months. And, they're low on money because their members are fleeing. Therefore, they're not going to spend their money frivolously. Blowing cash on a guy, who's MIA when the unions need him most, would qualify as frivolous spending.
pathetic attempt at backpedaling
How about just reading the article from March of 2012
here's a salient excerpt that shows how mad they are at Obama for not coming to stump for their candidate in June (even though they wrote it in March)
plan to spend less money this year on specific candidates and political party organizations and more on door-to-door canvassing, phone banks and registration drives to help President Barack Obama and other Democrats.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/afl-cio-boosts-ground-support-for-obama-democrats-2/#ixzz1xhi3UQEx
-
Your poll might be a bit dated. Gallup currently has him at 46, Rasmussen at 44.
he was at 50 yesterday. i dont check it daily. obama only lets us play online 3x a week. The rest of the time, we're knitting protest signs or occupying an abortion clinic.
-
he was at 50 yesterday. i dont check it daily. obama only lets us play online 3x a week. The rest of the time, we're knitting protest signs or occupying an abortion clinic.
50 percent is an absolute pipedream for Obama at this point. You can't seriously believe that number....
-
pathetic attempt at backpedaling
How about just reading the article from March of 2012
here's a salient excerpt that shows how mad they are at Obama for not coming to stump for their candidate in June (even though they wrote it in March)
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/afl-cio-boosts-ground-support-for-obama-democrats-2/#ixzz1xhi3UQEx
What backpedalling? Did you not read what I said earlier?
I don't doubt that they are and that this indeed has been in the works for months.
How exactly are they going to do more door-to-door canvassing, phone banks, and registrations WITH FEWER MEMBERS AND LESS CASH?
Those things take people and money and the unions are low on both. And, with Obama going MIA in Wisconsin, their motivation to give him money just DROPPED further.
As for their claim that they fear they can't compete with conservatives in raising money, I don't buy that one bit. Since when have unions been afraid of being outspent?
-
What backpedalling? Did you not read what I said earlier?
I don't doubt that they are and that this indeed has been in the works for months.
How exactly are they going to do more door-to-door canvassing, phone banks, and registrations WITH FEWER MEMBERS AND LESS CASH?
Those things take people and money and the unions are low on both. And, with Obama going MIA in Wisconsin, their motivation to give him money just DROPPED further.
pay attention:
plan to spend less money this year on specific candidates and political party organizations and more on door-to-door canvassing, phone banks and registration drives to help President Barack Obama and other Democrats
-
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).
-
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?
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Ha...door to door visits from the AFL-CIO sound more like intimidation tactics to me.
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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
-
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. ::)
-
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?
-
? - 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.