Romney/RNC raises $101.3 Million in July; Obama only raises $75 Milion

I have long had a theory that the candidate with the most money wins. It may not be fair, and some very good (some great) candidates get tossed aside because they just can't keep up with their opponents who have more of the green stuff to spread around.

If you're routing for an Obama defeat and a Romney win, this theory could work out well for you!

Obama's campaign sent out a tweet over the weekend announcing they had 761,000 people donate $75 million during the month of July.

Reporting back on last month’s fundraising numbers: In July, 761,000 people donated to raise over $75 million for this campaign. Thank you. — Barack Obama (@BarackObama)

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and the RNC raised around $101.3 million.

Over $101.3 Million Raised In July

94.13% Of All Donations Received In July Were $250 Or Less

$25.7 Million Raised By Donations Under $250 In July

600,627 Donations Received Under $250 In July

Approximately $185.9 Million Cash On Hand

Contributions Received From All 50 States And Washington, D.C.

 


Romney and the RNC are definitely raking in the money for this election. Does that mean we will see a Republican in the White House? Will they take over the Senate and keep the House?

If I were to bet on it, I would say yes. What are your thoughts? Do think the candidate with the most money usually wins? 

And if so, is that the way it should be?

Tags: Barack, Democrats, Mitt, Obama, President, Republicans, Romney

Views: 674

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Janet Bosley on August 6, 2012 at 3:26pm

 I think in the Presidential race it is more often than not the case, sould it be depends on the timing. How was the fund raising in 08? I think Obama could have had half the  money as McCain and still won but generally I think it holds true, the man (person) with the most money wins and I think it is usualy correct, there is a reason they get the most money and it is always because of power and influence. i certainly pray that hold true this itme.

Permalink Reply by Jim Gregus on August 6, 2012 at 3:26pm

I hope your right but what about the voter fraud factor? It made a difference in Racine, Wi. and the government accountability did nothing about it.

Permalink Reply by robert schwartz on August 6, 2012 at 3:30pm

No, that is not the way the world's most achieving democracy should function.  The more that money is (or: will be) limited to candidates in the ideal future, the more will the candidates and their adherents develop platforms and present THEM as the consideration for the voter.  The program, plans, and vision of the candidate MUST BE the focus of the voter, and this can be outlined online, on TV and in the newspapers.  People will then have a crystal-clear choice as to what they believe is best for the COUNTRY, not for themselves, not for their occupation, but what do they envision as the best route to continue the progress of the world's greatest country.

Permalink Reply by Janet Bosley on August 6, 2012 at 3:36pm

Robert I totaly agree with you but that is not the program we have in place right now. I think that everyone should have the same amount of money to spend and it would depend on what ofice they wwere running for what that amount would be. how any peopel they have to reach. then what you are saying would be necessary for the candidates in order to get their point across and as you say it would have to be what works best for the country not for themselves. If the money were equal it just seems that would eliminate a lot of things that are just wrong.

 

Permalink Reply by robert schwartz on August 6, 2012 at 3:52pm

Yes, Janet, I imply  that a limited amount of money for each candidate, limiting the amounts at the national level for presidential and congressional elections, be available.  Costs vary by state and by tv station; therefore, this becomes a difficult part of the equation.  Overall, to think that money determines our democratic leadership is repugnant.  It differs little from buying and selling of positions, and some would say the two are the same.   Money is used to respond to a negative comment by one side or the other.  Let the candidates tell us what they believe in, how they would redirect the economy, foreign policy, moral issues that are termed "social issues" by the media, and so on.  An example of the defects in today's campaigns: I have seen no concrete policy details by either party on the issue of illegals.  It's all shooting from the hip.  I have submitted a program! 

Permalink Reply by OneCitizenOfTheRepublic on August 6, 2012 at 3:35pm

Having enough money to distribute the message is critical...True enough. But it is the message itself that is important. People do not dedicate their lives, and fortunes to stupid ideas. The real question is...What is the message? How believable and how on-point is it to the millions of Americans who seek "something" better than they have now.

Permalink Reply by Jack Ranck on August 6, 2012 at 3:38pm

Keep in mind that George Soros and all of his spiderweb organizations haven't opened their coffers yet.  It is strategic planning to do the massive contributions and media buys in the late-Sept to Election Day period.  Unions are also holding back until then.  it'll be a greenback flood for Obama then.

Permalink Reply by Janet Bosley on August 6, 2012 at 4:04pm

I think you are right, and I believe that romneys people know that also. I have a feeling that Romney has some of that in reserve also. Problem is I think we pretty much all agree this is not the way it "should" be. this is about way more than money and that should be seperated from the real issues and candidates.

Permalink Reply by Wilafret on August 6, 2012 at 3:59pm

In normal times and elections, chances are this would be correct, but I must remind you we are dealing with a Radical self-obsorb idiot whose is about to come completely unhinged. He is a loser who can't stand to lose and based on his recent defiance of rule of law, he is apt to do anything, to include martial law or war. We are going to have to pry his fingers of the keys to the white-house. It is really scaring me that he is in control of the nuclear button. He and his party are coming un-glued they are not even acting like any grow educated adults. Polosi is senile, and reid is just a complete idiot,

Permalink Reply by William Norris on August 6, 2012 at 4:37pm

I am sorry to say that that seems to be the caase.  I think that each canidate should only be able to collect and spend a ceertain amount of money on their campagins.  The presidentance should be elected and not brought.  Also do away with the electronal vote and elect strictly on popular vote.  Thsi is the only far way for a president to win, and be the true Peoples' choice.

Permalink Reply by William Norris on August 6, 2012 at 4:44pm

LETS'S START A RALLY THAT ONLY THE CANDIDATE THAT WINS THE POPULAR VOTE WILL WIN THE PRESIDENTANCE.  DO AWAY WITH THE ELECTROAIL VOTES. THIS IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON WHO GETS TO RUN THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS.

 

AS IT IS NOW A  CANDIDATE COULD GET MORE VOTES AND LOSE THE ELECTION BECAUSE HE DID NOT CARRY THE RIGHT STATES THIS IS NOT FAIR IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

 

ELECT BY POPULAR VOTE ONLY AND LET AMERICANS HAVE A TRUE SAY ON WHO THEY WANT.

Permalink Reply by Gerald V. Todd on August 6, 2012 at 5:09pm

Your poor grammar and spelling might indicate the Founders were right in setting up an electoral college for this Republic. Democracies always fail when the people suck out all the freebies that other people earned.

Attachments:

RSS

Tea Party Nation is a social network

 



© 2013   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!