Take this seriously

[ProfessionalLeftist]

(received by me via email from barackobama.com)

For the first time in modern American history, the incumbent (that's us) will get outspent in a re-election campaign -- by some estimates as much as 3-to-1.

Over the last 10 days of this month alone, GOP outside groups will spend $20 million attacking President Obama on TV.

Think about that, then think about what they'll spend over the last 10 days in October.

We have to take this seriously. Four months to go in this election, and we have a huge fundraising deadline coming up in less than a week -- any day we're not chipping away at that disadvantage, we're falling behind.

Please donate $3 or more today.

We don't have billionaires writing $10 million checks, and right now, we can't change the laws that allow the hijacking of our democracy by private money.

What we do have is more than 2 million donors grassroots giving an average donation of $51. Every day between now and November we can combat the huge spending advantage that our opponent and his allies have over regular people.

You can do that here:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Fight-Back

Thanks,

Stephanie

Stephanie Cutter
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

[gateley]

1. Damn right we need to take this seriously. Money buys advertising and advertise sells.

[spanone]

2. money could make all the difference in this election...hence citizens united

the entire reasoning behind citizens united. it makes no sense otherwise.

[freshwest]

8. It is to buy the meme, repetition of lies becoming truth. It cannot be ignored.

[Politicalboi]

3. Jerry Brown was outspent too

I know he wasn't the incumbent then, but money didn't win that time. I think Obama team is better to go after internet ads, apps, and commercials on TV later in the fall. Everyone hates political commercials, why not give the people what they want, less. They need to have more registration parties for the young, and an app countdown till the election with facts about each candidate and where they stand. Or in Rmoney's case, where they think they stand.

[lunasun]

4. true

[pinboy3niner]

5. iirc, Meg Whitman spent something like $57 for each vote she got

Other factors can overcome money in the top races, sometimes, but the real worry is the Senate, House, and other downballot races where money can be far more critical in determining the outcome.

[freshwest]

6. Got the link, thanks.

[jtuck004]

7. Maybe the health insurance companies and banks can help.

'Cause a lot of the rest of us didn't get the money and support they wound up with...

[Avalux]

13. So you'd rather see a President Romney? n/t

[jtuck004]

15. I'd rather see banks and insurance companies pay. It's a Willie Horton thing. n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

9. See, if this was Storage Wars we would be glad to see them over spend.

As long as we win, they're only hurting themselves.

Yuuuuup!

[inchhigh]

10. That's a losing game

We will never beat them with money because THEY HAVE WAY MORE OF IT THAN US.

Don't spend your money trying to beat them. Spend your time instead. We are fools to get pulled in to their game. They are just repeating the playbook they believe bankrupted the Soviet Union and is now Bankrupting our own government.

They draw us into an "arms" race that we can't possible win and impoverish us in the process.

We've gotten lazing thinking we can pay someone else to do our legwork and get the word out for us.

This is our job to do.

[clang1]

14. It's an arms race of money

and the people got no money. It's real simple. It is warfare in the peoples elections, and the people are not armed. This is literally the situation.

[Karen Ellis]

11. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

[Alcibiades]

12. This may be the election in which the right bankrupts themselves

Of course, it's easier for them to invest in elections than in the supposedly risky "job creating" investment activity that they have not actually engaged in in some time. They get much more bang from their buck by investing in Romney.

[SunSeeker]

16. K&R