Home / Politics / Romney vs. Obama: Was It Lack of Money?
Print Friendly and PDF

Romney vs. Obama: Was It Lack of Money?

Written by Gary North on November 13, 2012

The Wall Street Journal now tells us that Romney lost because he did not have enough money.

It says he had to woo conservatives, so he could not woo moderates.

In other words, he could not come clean to voters in swing states that he was really not a conservative.

The WSJ also says that he could not get his real message across.  Argument #1:  he got a conservative message across, so he lost the race. Argument #2: he could not get his real message across, which was moderate, so he lost the race.

In short, he lied to he voters. He should have told the truth. But he couldn’t, because he needed to fool the naive, dumb, conservative fat cats who gave him money. This analysis is from the Wall Street Journal.

My view: the voters had a choice between two Harvard Law School graduates.

They also had a choice between the man who rammed through RomneyCare in Massachusetts and the man who got Nancy Pelosi to ram through ObamaCare in the House of Representatives. These are basically the same programs.

But, no, it was lack of money. He could not buy the election. So says the Wall Street Journal.

Then why did he lose in Ohio? Not lack of money.

Because he could not get his message across? He had three debates. Millions of people watched those debates. When a lawyer cannot persuade the jury in three tries, he has a weak case.

The numbers are not all in. Here is what we know. Romney’s campaign spent over $550 million by September 30. Obama’s spent less. Here are the figures.

Together, the campaign committees for President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney raised a combined $915 million and spent a combined $756 million by the end of last month, the latest FEC reports filed on Saturday’s monthly deadline show.

Through September, the Obama 2012 campaign had raised a total of $558 million and had spent a total of $462 million, while the Romney 2012 campaign had raised $357 million and had spent $294 million, the reports said.

Obama For America continues to outpace Romney For President in fundraising, spending, and cash on hand. However, pro-Romney and anti-Obama spending by super PACs and other independent groups erase that disadvantage.

Outside spending on the presidential race has favored Romney over Obama by more than two to one, according to the Sunlight Foundation, which found pro-Romney advocacy since he clinched the Republican nomination has totaled $202 million, while pro-Obama spending was $79 million during the same period, a $113 million difference.

In the fall, Wall Street firms started giving more money to Obama. David Weidner wrote this in mid-September.

Until now, Romney has been bankrolled by Wall Street. His top five contributors are people and organizations aligned with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (US:GS), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (US:JPM), Morgan Stanley (US:MS), Bank of America Corp. (US:BAC) and Credit Suisse Group AG. (US:CS) , according to Opensecrets.org. See a list of Romney’s and Obama’s top contributors by institution.

But Obama has the momentum. The president raised $114 million in August, more than 40% more than he raised in July. Romney raised $111 million, about the same as he’s raised each month this summer.

Wall Street gives money to the candidate it thinks will win. So, Wall Street helped Obama buy the election.

In short, Council on Foreign Relations Team A raised more money from Wall Street than Council on Foreign Relations Team B.

In either case, here are the big winners: Goldman Sachs Group Inc. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp., and Credit Suisse Group AG.

That was the meaning of “the most important Presidential election in a hundred years.”

The voters decided, in the words of Rudyard Kipling, to stick with the devil they knew.

Continue Reading on online.wsj.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

10 thoughts on “Romney vs. Obama: Was It Lack of Money?

  1. Texas Chris says:

    Romney lost for two reasons. The easy one first: fraud. The hard one: he never showed a sense of urgency, or passion, or sincerity. Just that pasty fake smile and too-perfect hair above an empty, yet successful, business suit.

    You want to be president? Be passionate. Be sincere. And for God's sake, know the constitution and really believe in it! Be Ron Paul. Be Judge Napolitano. Be Justin Amash or Jeff Flake (in a few years!!!).

  2. This is all B.S. Romney lost just like McCain because Obama had enough people on the dole to throw the race. Since he's from Chicago, we know that they raise crooked politicians from birth. of course, Obama was born in Kenya, but he's a quick learner and had the backing of the Chicago mob. If the news media would be honest and instead of calling a spade a spade just call it a "damned ole hoe", we'd be better off. As this country goes down, the media will go with it. The US is not too big to fail!

  3. fraud

  4. This election was 1985 all over again and once more the public chose Pepsi over New Coke.

  5. No, THAT wasn't the problem.

    Romney lost because he was too namby-pamby towards Obama. He should have played hardball with the dog-eatin' Kenyan by, when Obama demanded his tax returns, demanding from Obama a genuine birth certificate while also calling for an independent investigation and DEPORTATION hearing for Obama [since a non-U.S. citizen is NOT entitled to impeachment proceedings].

    And while Romney was scheduling the deportation hearing, by twisting RINO Boehner's arm to arrange it [as the House could have done (for the Senate has exclusivity only when it comes to impeachment proceedings)], Romney should have fired one salvo after another about the many egregious acts by Obama THAT ROMNEY DIDN'T EVEN BRING UP:

    Like how Obama unconstitutionally gave out over a million work permits to illegal aliens, despite over 23 million of our own citizens out-of-work, and also has been unconstitutionally giving them amnesty for a mere $465 processing fee.

    And Romney should have countered Obama's criticizing of Romney on abortion by exposing the fact that Obama is so extremist that he even defended killing NEWBORN babies who survived abortions!

    Also Romney should have called for answers on Benghazi, "Fast & Furious," Solyndra, etc., etc. Romney has a veritable smorgasbord of "entrees" he could have assailed Obama upon, but all he did was nibble like a fat woman on a diet.

  6. talking about voting for evil of lessers, gary you got it right, they both are devils, the question is did they want a muslim devil or a mormon one? as weird as both cults are, I might would choose the muslim (though I chose neither cultist)

  7. Romney didn't have enough money??? One of the richest people to ever run for president? All those million$ from Sheldon Adelson? No, Mitt the Twit, it's because you were rammed down the voters throats as the nominee and we said "No"!

    But that's what money-junkie sociopaths always do, blame someone else. "It's not MY fault I lost! It's all you stupid voters didn't shell out enough cash!"

    Of course, when you have US candidates spending over $1 billion to get elected to offices that pay $40k, $100k, that's when the system has become totally corrupted and should just go away.

  8. Obama's illegal contributions helped but mostly it was the massive vote fraud.

  9. Romney didn't really have a message. That was the whole purpose of the selection "process" by the GOP. They carefully chose the most bland candidate, the one who really didn't have a message. This has been the GOP's problem. The Dems, lunatics though they are, know who they are and what they stand for. The GOP is stuck playing defense. Anybody knows that playing defense all the time wears you down much more than playing offense. If the GOP had nominated someone who stood for something, they would've had a better chance. But that's not their game plan. That's not their MO. I think the average country-club RINO really doesn't know what he stands for, except getting in the DC club and enjoying the perks. Well, they got what they deserved. With any luck, the GOP will be replaced by a real opposition party. It's happened before. This would be a good time for it to happen again.

    Here's the real problem, as I see it: The GOP is terrified of alienating voters in the middle. They need to get over it. If someone in today's climate really can't figure out where he stands he needs to do some serious research and thinking. And if he's not capable of that, I wouldn't pander to him.