Obama bracing to be outspent by Romney

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama was the first presidential candidate to raise more than $100 million in a month and in 2008 was the first to forgo public money for his campaign. Now, he faces the very real threat of being the first president to be outspent by a challenger.
Obama, who four years ago broke just about every fundraising record for a presidential hopeful, has now been forced to look his supporters in the eye and confess he might not keep pace with Republican Mitt Romney. It's a sobering realization for his campaign, which had imagined an unlimited budget for ads, offices and mail.
"I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign," Obama wrote to supporters recently.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Conservatives just two years ago feared Obama would raise and spend a billion dollars in the 2012 campaign. Now, there is a real possibility that Romney and his official partners at the Republican National Committee could overtake Obama in total spending.
How did Obama go from fundraising juggernaut to money chaser in just four years?
In the early days of the 2007 primaries, he used fundraising success to puncture Hillary Rodham Clinton's aura of inevitability. Obama surpassed Clinton's primary fundraising in the first two quarters of that year - $25 million to Clinton's $20 million from January to April, and $31 million to Clinton's $21 million in the three months that followed.
The numbers shocked observers and inspired supporters to give even more to the fresh-faced, first-term senator from Illinois. But now that magic seems elusive.
"They bought into hope and change and they're not getting it. There's some buyers' remorse," said Greg Mueller, a Republican strategist who is a veteran of Pat Buchanan's presidential campaigns.
Then, the potential was so great that Obama became the first modern candidate to bypass the public financing available to presidential candidates, and the spending limits that come with it, since the system was created in 1976 in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
At the same time, Obama shunned independent groups that sought to help his campaign and told supporters not to give to them. In his mind, he simply didn't need them and urged allies to shut down independent efforts to attack rival John McCain. He preferred to level criticism of his choosing, on his own terms.
But two years later, midterm elections yielded defeats for Democrats who lost their majority in the House. Early fundraising reports in 2011 showed the Republican independent groups were awash in cash, and Obama relented. With an economy that hasn't recovered quickly enough for voters, he opted to accept whatever help he can find, giving the go-ahead for outside groups to raise and spend cash on his behalf. His top advisers now are helping the groups he once abhorred, but he sounds unhappy about it.
"In the next four months ... there's going to be more money spent than we've ever seen before. Folks writing $10 million checks to try to beat me, running ads with scary voices," Obama lamented at a fundraiser Tuesday in Texas.
Part of the about-face was fueled by the Republican primaries. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson donated $20 million to an independent group that, for a time, kept former House Speaker Newt Gingrich afloat. Adelson now is backing a pro-Romney group with at least another $10 million.
Like Obama's official campaign and its partners at the Democratic National Committee, outside groups on the Democratic side are at an admitted disadvantage.
"There's no doubt that Romney's campaign and the super PACs supporting him will outspend the president's campaign and the super PACs on our side," said Bill Burton, a former Obama aide who is now running an independent pro-Obama group. "There's more money on the Republican side."
Obama demonized Wall Street bankers and they responded by closing their wallets. He also has called on wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes - hardly an inspiration to donate, his advisers concede. For some of his most liberal supporters, he has not done enough to promote stronger unions or tougher environmental laws.
And, unlike four years ago, Obama is not campaigning as an optimistic vessel of hope and change.
Obama and his allied DNC committees raised $71 million in June, short of Romney's and Republicans' $106 million. Romney's June haul was just the second time in history that an American campaign and its partner committees passed the $100 million mark, and signals the 2012 GOP presidential fundraising could break Obama's 2008 record of $745 million. The reports also mark a second consecutive month Obama trailed his rival.
"We had our best fundraising month yet, and we still fell about $35 million short," campaign chief operating officer Ann Marie Habershaw told supporters in an email that asked for as little as $3 to help.
That's not to say Obama is broke or even certain to be outspent. And if he is, it's unlikely to become a determining factor in the election. While campaigns need money to pay staff, finance travel and buy television ads, money alone does not win elections when both candidates are financially competitive.
From the days when Obama and Romney formally announced their campaigns, Obama and his affiliated party groups have raised $552.5 million, compared with Romney's $394.9 million. The nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation broke down the numbers and noted that Romney would need to bring in $39.5 million more than Obama each month to exceed his total.
That leaves a steep climb for Romney, but not an impossible one. Conservatives who were skeptical of Romney now are rallying behind the GOP nominee after a topsy-turvy primary season that saw their favored candidates come up short. Polling shows Republicans eager to vote Obama out of office.
Romney's vice presidential selection in the coming weeks will create additional buzz and likely unleash a fundraising wave for the final months of the campaign.
Never before has an incumbent president failed to outraise a challenger, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog. In Obama's record-setting 2008 campaign, he made history in September by raising $150 million.
Now, it's Romney's turn to try to shatter that record - and for Obama to defend his.
Obama, who four years ago broke just about every fundraising record for a presidential hopeful, has now been forced to look his supporters in the eye and confess he might not keep pace with Republican Mitt Romney. It's a sobering realization for his campaign, which had imagined an unlimited budget for ads, offices and mail.
"I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign," Obama wrote to supporters recently.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Conservatives just two years ago feared Obama would raise and spend a billion dollars in the 2012 campaign. Now, there is a real possibility that Romney and his official partners at the Republican National Committee could overtake Obama in total spending.
How did Obama go from fundraising juggernaut to money chaser in just four years?
In the early days of the 2007 primaries, he used fundraising success to puncture Hillary Rodham Clinton's aura of inevitability. Obama surpassed Clinton's primary fundraising in the first two quarters of that year - $25 million to Clinton's $20 million from January to April, and $31 million to Clinton's $21 million in the three months that followed.
The numbers shocked observers and inspired supporters to give even more to the fresh-faced, first-term senator from Illinois. But now that magic seems elusive.
"They bought into hope and change and they're not getting it. There's some buyers' remorse," said Greg Mueller, a Republican strategist who is a veteran of Pat Buchanan's presidential campaigns.
Then, the potential was so great that Obama became the first modern candidate to bypass the public financing available to presidential candidates, and the spending limits that come with it, since the system was created in 1976 in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
At the same time, Obama shunned independent groups that sought to help his campaign and told supporters not to give to them. In his mind, he simply didn't need them and urged allies to shut down independent efforts to attack rival John McCain. He preferred to level criticism of his choosing, on his own terms.
But two years later, midterm elections yielded defeats for Democrats who lost their majority in the House. Early fundraising reports in 2011 showed the Republican independent groups were awash in cash, and Obama relented. With an economy that hasn't recovered quickly enough for voters, he opted to accept whatever help he can find, giving the go-ahead for outside groups to raise and spend cash on his behalf. His top advisers now are helping the groups he once abhorred, but he sounds unhappy about it.
"In the next four months ... there's going to be more money spent than we've ever seen before. Folks writing $10 million checks to try to beat me, running ads with scary voices," Obama lamented at a fundraiser Tuesday in Texas.
Part of the about-face was fueled by the Republican primaries. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson donated $20 million to an independent group that, for a time, kept former House Speaker Newt Gingrich afloat. Adelson now is backing a pro-Romney group with at least another $10 million.
Like Obama's official campaign and its partners at the Democratic National Committee, outside groups on the Democratic side are at an admitted disadvantage.
"There's no doubt that Romney's campaign and the super PACs supporting him will outspend the president's campaign and the super PACs on our side," said Bill Burton, a former Obama aide who is now running an independent pro-Obama group. "There's more money on the Republican side."
Obama demonized Wall Street bankers and they responded by closing their wallets. He also has called on wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes - hardly an inspiration to donate, his advisers concede. For some of his most liberal supporters, he has not done enough to promote stronger unions or tougher environmental laws.
And, unlike four years ago, Obama is not campaigning as an optimistic vessel of hope and change.
Obama and his allied DNC committees raised $71 million in June, short of Romney's and Republicans' $106 million. Romney's June haul was just the second time in history that an American campaign and its partner committees passed the $100 million mark, and signals the 2012 GOP presidential fundraising could break Obama's 2008 record of $745 million. The reports also mark a second consecutive month Obama trailed his rival.
"We had our best fundraising month yet, and we still fell about $35 million short," campaign chief operating officer Ann Marie Habershaw told supporters in an email that asked for as little as $3 to help.
That's not to say Obama is broke or even certain to be outspent. And if he is, it's unlikely to become a determining factor in the election. While campaigns need money to pay staff, finance travel and buy television ads, money alone does not win elections when both candidates are financially competitive.
From the days when Obama and Romney formally announced their campaigns, Obama and his affiliated party groups have raised $552.5 million, compared with Romney's $394.9 million. The nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation broke down the numbers and noted that Romney would need to bring in $39.5 million more than Obama each month to exceed his total.
That leaves a steep climb for Romney, but not an impossible one. Conservatives who were skeptical of Romney now are rallying behind the GOP nominee after a topsy-turvy primary season that saw their favored candidates come up short. Polling shows Republicans eager to vote Obama out of office.
Romney's vice presidential selection in the coming weeks will create additional buzz and likely unleash a fundraising wave for the final months of the campaign.
Never before has an incumbent president failed to outraise a challenger, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog. In Obama's record-setting 2008 campaign, he made history in September by raising $150 million.
Now, it's Romney's turn to try to shatter that record - and for Obama to defend his.
What a historical chance Obama squandered fro reasons known only to him.
Â
He had a chance having both a white and black parent, to go down in history if for nothing else, being a President that united our Country.  He has a great writing team, he reads well from teleprompters, and is a like-able guy.
Â
But instead he chose to become a divider, a huge spender, and personally - he didn't have his own economic plan for America. Â He just thought the Congress or someone else needed to do that while he rock-n-rolled and hob-knob'd with the Hollywood and Financial Millionaires & Billionaires.
I've been waiting four years to watch two people spend hundreds of millions of dollars to "campaign" for their respective platforms.
Â
What are the chances of either side taking to time to platform any valid points or address any of the serious issues of this sinking ship?
Â
Vince McMahon should head the electoral committee for all of the value this election will bring our nation.
I guess the "Donate your Wedding Gift to Obama" campaign wasn't such a great idea after all
Romney is a bore, but I can't imagine what Obama can possibly run on. It certainly isn't his work performance at the White House.Â
Obama is intentionally dividing Americans on the basis of race, economic class, gender and sexual orientation. You donât have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the damage this is doing to the U.S. He will NOT get my vote.
 @ObsidianOne Agreed. Race relations have been set back 50 years since the Obama took office. The country rallied behind this person who know one really knew and then the reality of his true motivations and policies became clear.Â
By 35% to 23%, more Americans believe U.S. race relations have gotten better rather than worse with Barack Obama's election as president. However, this positive tilt is not as strong as what Gallup found in October 2009, when 41% said relations had improved and 22% said they had gotten worse. Currently, the plurality of Americans, 41%, say race relations have not changed as a result of Obama's presidency. -Gallup
Factchekr does not lean Left, Factchekr does not lean Right. Factchekr does not use biased data. All information Factchekr posts comes from at least three impartial sources. Factchekr does not make statements. Factchekr merely posts facts.
@factchekrÂ
I believe your information is incorrect or stale. Where is the rest of your post defending gender, sexual orientation and economic class? Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama HAS divided America on the basis of race. Do you remember the confrontation between Harvard Prof. Henry Louis "Skip" Gates and the Cambridge police? During a press conference, the president said that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly," and he went on to link the arrest with the "long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." In addition, Obama recently said if he had a son, he would look like Treyvon Martin. He had convicted George Martinez before a public jury has. I don't know what you call that if it's not choosing a side on the basis of race.
Â
An interesting observation, to be taken as you will:
Â
I'm a truck driver, and as such I travel all over the country. I've been to every corner and region; Â north, south, east, west, and everywhere in between. I've seen more pro-Obama bumper stickers than I can count, and in some rather surprising places. You know how many pro-Romney stickers I've seen? Three. Yes, just three lonely little Romney stickers awash in the sea of Obama stickers on our nation's highways. Â
I wouldn't put a sticker on my expensive auto either. People who put stickers on their autos aren't that bright either.Â
I need advice on who to vote for. I have a hard time believing anyone anymore. I wish times were simplar like before. You could trust in most people back then. Ofcourse we had swindlers but we used to run them out of town with sticks back in the day.Â
Uh oh! This just in! ANOTHER Obama supporter swindles the taxpayers out of millions.
Â
http://www.lvrj.com/business/amonix-closes-north-las-vegas-solar-plant-after-14-months-heavy-federal-subsidies-162901626.html
Â
What is Obama hiding? Why do all these F.O.O.'s get money (LOTS of money) and then they go bankrupt? Why does Obama love the rich so much that he is willing to steal from you and hand over to them?
Â
The REAL reason that Obama will not win is the George Jefferson Effect.
Â
George and Eloise voted for Obama in '08 because he reminded them of their son, Lionel.
After four years and speechyfing against hardworking entrepreneurs such as himself, they will tell everyone that they are voting for him again.
Â
They will not.
Â
Â
@Sid Vishess
Oh my that was a funny show. Where is Lionel now? I think he is trying to find work in another country where all the jobs were sent.
 @Granny_MAC  @Sid He went to college where he smoked dope, snorted coke, attended a few classes and Eddie Haskelled his way into a top Law School with no record of accomplishment. He then hooked up with  shadowy interests and eventually...
Â
No, that's too unbelievable a plot line.
Â
Never mind.
I think he is getting less is because this time people know where he is coming from. Last time everybody wanted change. Now they know what he means by change and it isn't good.
I think a better headline would be "Romney donors are making a really bad investment."
Â
Obama is going to easily win re-election and all this money is going to waste.
 @Proud Liberal Romney made a big error today when he responded to a question from a woman who called Obama a "monster" with "Well, I wouldn't use THAT word!"...He should a distinct lack of class by not taking her word on directly, like the time when John McCain did the honorable thing by saying "No, ma'am, he isn't" when a woman claimed that Obama was a Muslim.
Â
Romney simply does not have the courage to tell a supporter that they are mistaken in their extreme view of Obama. Just like the other day when one of his staffers told Obama to "be an American"...they are getting caught up in their own stories and can't tell the difference between lies and truth.
Â
And he only way that Romney is going to prove he isn't hiding anything in his taxes is to put them out in the public view. If he can't do that, he's hiding something.
 @Proud Liberal No he is not He has no record that he can run on. Out side of Seal team six killing Bin ladin what great thing has Obama done to turn this nations economy around?
1. Within his first week, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. Â Â http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5
2. Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. Â Â http://n.pr/hcgBn1
3. On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx
4. He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov
5. He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems. To that end, he also signed the Democratic-sponsored Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, which attempted to put a stop to waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1    http://bit.ly/fz8GAd
6. Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Â http://bit.ly/hwKhKa
Â
He Improved the Economy, Preventing a Bush Depression
7. Pushed through and signed the Democratic-sponsored American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as âthe stimulus package.â The bill passed, even though only three Republicans voted for it. In a major departure from the previous administration, he launched recovery.gov, a website that allows taxpayers to track spending from the Act.   http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs  http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk
8. The Bush-led Great Recession was costing the economy nearly 800,000 jobs per month by the time President Obama took office. But by the end of his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economyby  3.5%.  http://reut.rs/i46CEE
9. Not only did he completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, he also leaned on the banks and others, and recovered virtually all of the bail-out money. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS  http://bit.ly/eCNrD6
10. He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. http://1.usa.gov/goy6zl
Factchekr does not lean Left, Factchekr does not lean Right. Factchekr does not use biased data or manipulated data. All information Factchekr posts comes from at least three impartial sources. Factchekr does not make statements. Factchekr merely posts facts.
 @factchekr Here is one you forgot.
11. Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Govât Data http://cnsnews.com/node/72404
 @factchekrÂ
 @wynooheeman Healthcare, stabilizing the economy. Â
Â
Why is it so many people think that Obama can magically change the economy in a single term? Â We spent decades breaking it and people think it can be fixed in 4 years.
I would agree with you except its a good investment and the other guy won't win. I do agree with you otherwise.
On the flip side maybe those who had voted and donated to Obama realized how much Hope and Change really costs and have now decided it is more cost effective to vote Hope and Change out!!??
I'm reminded of the con 'Change, from your hand to mine'. Â
I guess the fact that Obama spent 3x as much as McCain isn't relevant to this story. Maybe Obama should stop criticizing others for playing his own game.
Obama - $278,242,054.51
McCAin - $117,289,718.09
Ratio -Â 2.37:1
Not quite three to one, but a big difference.
 @factchekr But...would YOU donate to McCain/Palin if there was a rerun?
 @factchekr If there are 3 sources, why don't you list them with links?
Â
Otherwise "Factchekr" is saying squat.
Factchekr does not lean Left, Factchekr does not lean Right. Factchekr does not use biased data. All information Factchekr posts comes from at least three impartial sources. Factchekr does not make statements. Factchekr does not make a stand. Factchekr merely posts facts.
Why has this story not been put on the Komo Top 5 this morning, instead it is buried below? I am pretty sure that it is portraying Obama as negative in the Seattle area and Komo does not want to hear the democrats crying.
Â
If Obama did more for the whole US where the majority of his contributors came from in 2008 these people would still be on board in 2012. Instead he wasted his political clout on a health care plan that does not solve any of the largest problems this country has now and had back in 2008.
Â
He has vilified big business and wealthy Americans but he has not been able to prove with positive results for the country why he vilified them. If the economy turned around even slightly American people would see that he was right in doing so. But the economy is moving to another recession but I don't think we ever got out of the current recession. It is one thing to measure growth over economic quarters but there should be a considerable amount of growth not just the arrow changing up or down. We have never got the considerable growth and we have not seen a considerable decline in unemployment. It is time for a change even if it means putting Romney in the White House, it will be better than the disappointment we have had for the last 4 years.
 @Beam_Me_Up I doubt it matters how they portray him in Seattle.  He is going to win the state of Washington anyway.  Most voters minds are made up and he has a very large base in Washington.
@Beam_Me_Up , not to mention that he has thoroughly insulted small business owners and entrepeneurs all over the country.
Everything you need to know about Mitt Romney here:
http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/07/18/coming-soon-to-swing-state-near-you/
Â
yeah he is getting a lot of money from super rich people who want to keep screwing over middle america.  And middle class republicans will vote for Mitt because... well.. they enjoy voting against their own interest.
 @>T H I S< Your not poor becuase mitt is rich your poor because you suck at making good choices!
Who said I was poor. i'm doing rather well thank you very much.
Â
But it is humour that you will post that, and then blame Obama for you're not having a job.
Â
Hypocrite much? Why yes you do.
Â
god I love f'cking with you conservatives. You make it too easy. You have all your cute little talking points that you can never seem to live by.
10 points for creativity.
@>T H I S<
 How many middle class people are better off now than they were 4 years ago?
Thanks but no thanks. I don't buy that "we're better off with the devil we know" crap.
Everyone I know is.
I make more money. I own a house. I have health care that isn't going to cap out at lifetime limits, and I can pack guns in the national parks again.
Â
@>T H I S< No,I'm voting romney because its time to get rid of a useless Obama.
 @>T H I S< I am so glad that Obama has refused any financial help from corporate feeders at the government trough. And that he has no rich backers. And that his administration is not riddled with lobbyists and former employees  of  investment banks. I get the concept that Romney is rich, blah, blah.  Before one casts the first stone however, might want to take a look at this by our good friend, Michelle Malkin.Â
Â
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2012/07/18/your_guide_to_sleazy_democratic_partybacked_banks
This comment has been deleted
We're hiring these incompetent morons (regardless of party affiliation) to spend our tax dollars. Why are people so obsessed with picking the one who spends the most money assuring us they'll spend ours responsibly?Â
Probably because enough people think that the letter which is posted beside a candidate's name ('R' or 'D') is more important than the candidate.
Exactly! And that would explain how probably 98 percent of the grossly unqualified candidates of any party get elected.
Â
Why can't people choose the most qualified person regardless of party affiliation, and why does everyone from both sides jump all over an official whose views on a particular bill or issue don't fall in lockstep with his or her party affiliation as if it's a sign of weakness rather than one of intelligence and strength of character?
Give me a break. Â The president came up with millions to buy votes in the form of political kickbacks for Obamacare. Â I think he will be able to come up with millions for re-election. Â
They should put a cap on all election campaigns. A low amount that provides them with traveling expenses only, people shouldn't base their vote on an advertisement anyway. No political ads and more people would actually read about the candidates and watch the debates.
I'm not sure he's being outspent. He's handed out enough of the "people's money" to his followers through entitlements contributing to the extraordinary federal deficit.
Â
Why work when you get free stuff?
Â
Don't say that money doesn't count towards campaigning.