How to win all the caucus states and show an illusion of winning the nomination

[MagsDem]

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama spent $20.3 million on staff salaries last year, the biggest payroll for any presidential candidate, as he built an organization in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early primary states, according to a new analysis of campaign finance filings.

*Now you all know how you win caucus states, right? You pay people to "organize" for you. He's buying his votes; she's earning hers. Anyone waking up yet? Probably not. The cult of Obama is impervious to facts.

[joshcryer]

1. This is undoubted.

He's paying for those caucus votes.

[NJSecularist]

2. You gotta be kidding me

All candidates "pay" for votes.

Don't blame Obama for building the best organization in caucus states.

It's an area that Hillary has ignored and may very well come back to hurt her.

[MagsDem]

5. Pay as in hand the money directly to the caucus voters?

That's exactly what he has been doing.

[NJSecularist]

6. Umm.. no. That isn't what he is doing

What he is doing is sending staff to each and every district to try and get their votes.

He hasn't paid the voters anything.

He has paid his staff members, however, to go out and try to recruit caucus voters.

[MagsDem]

9. Wanna bet?

Where's that transparency he is so fond of? Ask his campaign to disclose how many "organizers" are on his payroll in the caucus states. I will bet you 50 bucks they won't disclose it. You know what "organizers" do, right? They show up to caucus for the candidate whose payroll they are on.

[NJSecularist]

11. That is complete and utter bullshit

Prove it. Or it's just sour grapes and nothing more.

[MagsDem]

13. Do you think he needed 250 staffers in IA alone?

Yeah, right.

[NJSecularist]

17. He won Iowa by a large margin

By 8 percent, likely more than 10,000 votes.

Get real.

Give credit to his organization there. It was better than Hillary's and Edwards.

Or are you going to tell me that he bribed 10,000 caucus goers? :eyes: :eyes:

[MagsDem]

32. I see, so when Obama win a tiny state like IA by 8% that's large

But when Hillary wins by 13%, 10%, or whatever, that's nothing. LOL!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

50. You are falling off point, yet again.

Or is the whole purpose to get in a neener-neener type of one-upmanship? Never mind, I don't need to hear your response.

[MagsDem]

52. Well you can't have it both ways

You claim 8% is a large margin for Obama, but not a large margin when Clinton wins by 17%, 13%, 10% in states with 10x as many voters. Don't make bullshit arguments then claim I am falling off point by pointing out they are bullshit.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

56. Really? Where did I say anything about percentages?

Put down whatever it is that is befuddling you this evening. It's getting embarrassing.

[MagsDem]

59. you butted in on a response to an Obama supporter that did

I wasn't responding to you when you "claimed" I was off point, I was responding to an Obama supporter that made the claim that 8% was "large". I know understand that you don't read for comprehension.

[gmudem]

18. LMAO.

I feel like there's a chance we might have heard about that if it happened. Just a small chance though.

God will you please quit grasping at ridiculous straws. This attack doesn't even make the least bit of sense. Just because Obama spent some time and money in some smaller states doesn't mean he's literally buying their votes.

Maybe if Clinton at least pretended to care about some smallers states she wouldn't have gone trounced in so many of them.

[MagsDem]

24. I didn't say he was buying votes....

But he is damn sure buying caucus goers. There is no question about that.

[AX10]

3. He's buying off supporters alright.

Just maybe he'll piss all his money away.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Did Hillary not have paid staff?

What a fucking ridiculous premise. :sigh:

[MagsDem]

7. Study up on the caucus system and how expensive it is....

per vote. It's a disgusting tactic, but it works like this.... you pay people to "organize" and what you mean by organize is show up and the caucus and overwhelm the competition that didn't put every tom, dick and harry on the payroll.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. Did Obama start this process?

[MagsDem]

12. No, but he is sure as hell using it to give the illusion

You think he actually needed 250 staffers in IA alone?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

21. Pretty much sounds like sour grapes to me.

What you should be advocating, instead of whining about Obama, is to reform election funding.

[MagsDem]

28. Now if only Obama supported his OWN election reform policies

From the Obama web site:


Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

*But in the meantime he will be setting records spending monies on caucus "organizers" whose main job is to caucus for him.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

45. Damn, he's running a smart campaign. Shame that that isn't the case for all the Dems.

[MagsDem]

53. She's winning -- can argue with success

:)

[NJSecularist]

10. So he didn't pay the voters, as you originally said

And this is a tactic that Hillary could have used, but braindead Mark Penn chose not to.

[MagsDem]

15. His tactic is a slimey one

... that's for sure. No wonder young people support him. They need a paycheck. 250 staffers in IA alone? Let's get real.

[NJSecularist]

20. 250 staffers sounds reasonable

Are you aware how large a state actually is? Iowa is actually a very small state compared to others, but a state is still huge.

[MagsDem]

23. LOL -- uh huh

So, does that mean it must have had five hundred or a thousand in CA? Uh, no. Oh, and you know what else? He found it necessary to hire more staffers than any candidate ever in IA. But he ain't buying those caucus voters now is he? I think you need to take off those rose colored shades. Mr. Transformational is an empty suit.

[NJSecularist]

36. He could dedicate all of his resources in Iowa

in CA, not so much, as there were 21 other primaries/caucuses taking place.

What a shoddy theory. I just poked holes right through it.

[MagsDem]

39. Same story in all the caucus states

He's counting on the media to spin it his way -- that they mean as much as the primary states that actually allow everyone to vote.

[NJSecularist]

42. How is his caucus strategy any different from her big state strategy?

He played to his strengths and his advantages. He faced an uphill battle in states like California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts from the start. Those states are Hillary's proxy.

[MagsDem]

49. It's a rethug tactic

And it doesn't appeal to me in the least. The caucus systems sucks for letting people have a voice, so his maximizing that translates into him taking advantage of a pretty undemocratic process in those states. It's slimey in my opinion.

[JDPriestly]

14. When I volunteered for Edwards, I met other Obama volunteers.

I never met a Hillary volunteer in my area although I saw Hillary volunteers when I went to greet my candidate prior to a debate of the candidates. Hillary seemed to be mostly relying on her existing name recognition (which suggests to me a lot of her voters were not particularly interested in politics) and media. I'm in Los Angeles, California.

[MagsDem]

16. CA is not a caucus state

We are talking about how Obama has won the most caucus states. He pays the caucus goers. I thought only rethugs did that.

[EdwardWilbur]

19. I respectfully disagree. I think it's quite a jump to go from paying your staff to "buying" votes

[MagsDem]

25. So how come he only needs those huge staffs in caucus states?

Just wondering. :)

[gmudem]

22. And you have zero evidence of this.

I'm not really sure why I'm even posting in this thread. It's just an utterly baseless smear with the poster just trying to stir shit up.

That or the poster has little understanding of how caucuses work. Either way it's stupid.

[MagsDem]

26. What do you mean no evidence?

It's a fact he has spent more money on salaries than any presidential candidate ever.

It's a fact he has hired the largest staffs in caucus states, again, ever.

The tactic is a well known rethug trick in caucus states.

And yes, I know exactly how caucuses work. What part do you dispute, specifically?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

27. Tactic

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MagsDem]

30. But Obama is for campaign finance reform, didn't he tell ya

Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

*And an excellent way to demonstrate that is to spend record amounts of money paying people to caucus for him. LOL!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

34. These are the venues that are open to him. Too bad Penn is a moron.

BTW, here are subversive tactics: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4452555&mesg_id=4452555

[MagsDem]

37. If Penn is a moron, why does Hillary have more delegates

having spent less money?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

41. Don't drift away from the topic. You whine about available election procedures,

then when your argument is soundly defeated... you drift off to some other irrelevant point. I suggest you re-read your OP.

[MagsDem]

51. Check again.... you inserted Mark Penn into the discussion....

not me. I'm simply calling you on a bullshit statement.

[Capn Sunshine]

43. She doesn't-Obama 838-Clinton 834

MSNBC has it all right there for you.

[MagsDem]

55. I suggest you check it more closely - those don't include super delegates

She is and has been leading by about 100 delegates when those already pledged are included. In addition, she is quite likely to also win the super delegates associated with the congressional districts she won last night, which will magnify her lead because of states like NY, and CA. Add TX, PA, and OH, and I don't see a scenario where Obama wins.

[FrenchieCat]

70. She's winning by Super delegates, hey? How much do they cost?

[gmudem]

29. You think he's bribing people to vote for him.

Yet all of your evidence is based on him having large staffs. All that proves is that a lot of people want to work for him.

Like I said, if he was actually doing this we would have heard about it. I'm done responding to this utter BS.

[MagsDem]

33. large staffs out of proportion to all previous races, but only in caucus states

uh huh.

[Orangepeel]

31. God forbid we have a nominee who knows how to win an election

Obama and Clinton are both excellent campaigners who are using strategies that make sense given their individual strengths. Whining about it isn't useful.

[MagsDem]

35. He's not winning

Small fact that needed correction. :)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

38. Then why are you whining about a democratic candidate

adhering to the allowable venues they are able to pursue. JFC!

[MagsDem]

40. I'm not whining about it....

I'm just saying he is spending money paying off caucus goers, which would explain his extraordinary youth support in caucus states. Non-caucus states, not so much.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

47. "paying off caucus goers"

Wow. Nice repuke talking point.

[Capn Sunshine]

46. But he IS winning, according to MSNBC

small fact that is available for anyone who wants to check. :)

[MagsDem]

48. Only if you pretend super delegates don't exist

Unfortunately for Obama, they do.

[Hawkowl]

44. Dude, did you leave your brain in a box somewhere?

Welcome to my ignore club! You are only the fourth person to make it there! Goodbye!

[MagsDem]

57. Why would I care if you ignore me?

Obama supporters are just nuts on that, as if anyone should give a damn that you put them on ignore. Do you have an ego the size of Montana like your candidate?

[Thrill]

54. Yet Hillary is the one running out money? Did she spend it all buying the Nevada Caucus?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

58. Shh. We can't talk about that.

[MagsDem]

61. she actually has about twice as much cash on hand

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

[MagsDem]

60. I hardly think she is running out of money

And Obama spent much more in NV than she did, by far.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

62. Clinton lends her campaign $5 million

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080206/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money_4

[MagsDem]

64. How does that translate into not having any money?

Again, she has more cash on hand than he does.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

66. She has more cash on hand to lend to her campaign... huh?

Why would the campaign need a loan then?

[MagsDem]

68. Because she wants to keep more cash on hand then Obama has

[Thrill]

63. Guess Hillary offered more for the votes in NV

[HCE SuiGeneris]

67. HRC supporters She NEEDS your $$$$$$$$$

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4444649&mesg_id=4444649

Her advisors/aides are working without pay for Feb

HRC loaned herself $5 millon

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/06/clinton_loaned_her_campaign_5m.html

The loan should help. More money coming in online will also keep the Clinton campaign afloat -- campaign officials said they were seeing one of their best days of online fundraising today, though they would not release a number.

Still, that she felt a need to make the loan "means she's at a tremendous disadvantage moving forward," said Trippi. "The worst thing to be is an 800-pound gorilla who's out of money."

[MagsDem]

69. Yeah, I think she'll manage

Thanks for your concern though.

[Tatiana]

65. By your logic, everyone in the modern era who has run for president bought their votes.

1. When you refer to the "Cult of Obama" you immediately cheapen the level of discourse and negate any useful points of discussion you may have.
   
   
2. Have you ever been a member of a union? I've been a member of AFSCME, the AFL-CIO and NEA. Our regional "organizers" are... (*GASP*) paid for their organization. Why? Because it's WORK.
   
   
3. I'd rather see a large amount of money be spent towards real people on the ground spreading not just Barack Obama's message, but the Democratic Party's message of values, opportunity for all, and inclusion. WHOEVER is the nominee will benefit from the relationships and contacts made with everyday people in states across the country, both red and blue. This is a good thing and I'd feel the same way if it were Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, or Al Gore spending the same amount of money.