Why I'm No Longer Donating to Obama (And Why It's A Good Thing)
Much digital ink has been spilled over the reasons for Obama's steadily declining monthly donation totals. I've seen a number of solid explanations on TPM (candidate fatigue, economy, etc.) , but nothing I have read has touched on the reason why I'm no longer giving to Obama: Confidence in Obama as a candidate (especially against McCain) and the very serious need for funds in other (presumably closer) Senate and House races.
I try to give once per month, between $25-50. I've been doing this for many months consecutively now, each time happily donating to Obama. However, two weeks ago I stopped to chat with a DNC volunteer while walking around DC. By the time I left the conversation, I decided that my money is probably more valuable in a close race. (Call me crazy, but I don't think that the Presidential race is going to be all that close.) I had always associated donating to Obama with donating to the Democratic Party, but that's really not the case (except -- and of course I understand this is very important -- to the extent that Obama brings people to the polls with blue blinders).
Electing Obama is by far the most important thing our country can do in November, but when it comes down to it, I feel my $25 is better donated to ActBlue or in targeted races. I think we need to get as many progressive Democrats into the three branches of government (and the Vice Presidency!) as possible and to me, it's just not clear that donating to Obama best serves that particular goal.
At this rate, Obama probably isn't getting any more of my money, but I don't think that's such a bad thing. I've moved on to Phase II.
I try to give once per month, between $25-50. I've been doing this for many months consecutively now, each time happily donating to Obama. However, two weeks ago I stopped to chat with a DNC volunteer while walking around DC. By the time I left the conversation, I decided that my money is probably more valuable in a close race. (Call me crazy, but I don't think that the Presidential race is going to be all that close.) I had always associated donating to Obama with donating to the Democratic Party, but that's really not the case (except -- and of course I understand this is very important -- to the extent that Obama brings people to the polls with blue blinders).
Electing Obama is by far the most important thing our country can do in November, but when it comes down to it, I feel my $25 is better donated to ActBlue or in targeted races. I think we need to get as many progressive Democrats into the three branches of government (and the Vice Presidency!) as possible and to me, it's just not clear that donating to Obama best serves that particular goal.
At this rate, Obama probably isn't getting any more of my money, but I don't think that's such a bad thing. I've moved on to Phase II.
Advertisement
Have you consered that the stronger Obama runs, the better downticket Democrats fare?
July 11, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but we still need a voice in who those down ticket candidates are. Obama has already thrown his support behind Barrow, who is not a good Democrat by any means, and he supported Lieberman against Lamont (in the primary) and we know how that turned out so it's a bad idea to put everything behind Obama and to just hope that the congressional races fall into place. We can't even count on Obama to support the right candidates!
July 12, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give both to Obama and to Congressional candidates. Having said that:
Whether Obama (the currently most prominent Democrat to have opposed the Iraq War from the start) supported an incumbent Democratic Senator in a primary two years ago who later turned into a raging asshole is, most kindly put, not a valid reason to short him on funds in 2008 as our Presidential nominee and most important candidate on any ballot you will see this year.
He steered money to Lamont after he won the primary and actively supported Lamont in 2006, knowing Lieberman would win and that it would piss him off.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/27/ap/politics/mainD8L0MB280.shtml
This is apparently not good enough.
All these precious downticket Democrats are the folks who for five years have not done FISA oversight, and whose collective importance in the scheme of government is demonstrably less than the Executive.
Yet somehow Obama gets pilloried for his FISA vote by the purer-than-thou on the left who give downticket Democrats a pass for not doing that oversight, and then those spineless folks in Congress deserve the money more than him. This is remarkably illogical, inconsistent, and shortsighted, and reflects an unjustified confidence that the presidency is in the bag, when the only thing in the bag is a big Senate majority, aided in part by Obama driving record black turnout.
The retort that our money can be better directed to really building a true progressive majority in Congress is not only very unrealistic, it's really, really bad prioritizing. Does Congress decide whether we go to war? Not since the Polk Administration. But let's keep beating that drum as a first priority.
Will Rogers is right, we're not an organized political party, we're Democrats. Can't even win one election before we divide up in favor of obscure Congressional candidates as an excuse to be purer than insufficiently [something] Obama.
July 12, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you consered that the stronger Obama runs, the better downticket Democrats fare?
July 11, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mandy -- yup! I even mentioned that at the end of the second paragraph :)
July 11, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you completely evade it! Maximum kudos for putting your money where your principals are, but to think Obama will coast to victory is head up the ass.
July 12, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is going to be a close race. When was the last time that a Democrat won the White House in a landslide. It was LBJ. After that the South switched to the Republicans, and from then on, only Republicans have won big. If Obama wins it is going to be by a very narrow margin. If he is out gunned financially by McCain and the swiftboaters, then Obama will probably lose.
To assume an easy victory is to court disaster.
July 11, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton buried Dole in '96 - electoral 379-159, popular 49-41%. It was called for Clinton very early in the evening. Not a landslide, and yet Obama would be happy to do as well. If the average American voter had a grip on reality, McCain would do even worse.
July 11, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on which kind of "landslide" you mean. In the popular vote, I don't think he'll win by five or more because its going to be really lopsided in the reddest states, but in electoral votes, it could be a real shellacking.
July 11, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam -- I didn't mean to suggest that Obama will win in a "landslide." My point was simply that I think there are other races in the House and Senate that will more effectively be able to spend my monthly donation. The focus on the battle at the top sometimes distracts from crucial battles in the middle. Imagine, for example, if Ned Lamont were the senator from Connecticut. These races matter in the long run!
July 11, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post frightens me, Chinabox. This race is SO close. Look at today's polls - both the Newsweek, which shows a huge loss of support for Obama - and Rasmussen's daily tracking having him even with McCain. And this is before the 527's have got started.
Obama's going to need every last cent he can rake in. Especially since he's intervened to stop Democratic PAC's running attack ads.
Also bear this in mind will you? (From the dreaded Rove in today's WSJ)
"Democrats don't have the same large volunteer pool the GOP does with its Federated GOP Women, College and Young Republicans, and local party committees. In the primaries, Mr. Obama instead moved hordes of volunteers from state to state. It was a brilliant tactic, but Nov. 4 is different. The volunteers adequate for primaries held over five months will simply not be enough to compete in 51 separate elections (all 50 states plus the District of Columbia) all on one day."
July 11, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fran, please sign up at eddiestinkypants@att.net
July 11, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trying to scare you, Fran!
The goal of my post was not to trumpet "OBAMA WILL WIN NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS!" I hope it's not being interpreted that way.
I simply want to point out that a donation in this season is a complicated choice with many factors. Donating to Obama is not the *per se* best thing to do right now. There are lots of great candidates in close races who need funds!
July 11, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps instead of not doanting to Obama, you could split your donations. There are races which could use your support as well as Senator Obama.
But you specified another reason for not donating to Obama that I find "interesting." You said:
At first I thought you were angry at Obama for something. If I read you correctly, you feel confident -- perhaps even "over-confident" -- that Obama will win and he doesn't need your financial support.
I think that is a terrible mistake. I think that is in large part why John Kerry lost in 2004. There were Democrats who felt confident that Kerry had done the job against Bush, and heck, even the tried and true signposts -- like the Redskins winning the last home game before the election -- all pointed Kerry's way. President Kerry thanks us all for our support.
I hope you'll change your mind. With Obama opting out public financing, we need to continue to show financial muscle, head to head, against McCain. Obama's fall election finances are not guaranteed, except by that which we give to him.
July 11, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately - perception and not reality is everything. For repubs and many uninformed voters, the money race equates support and viability of candidates strength.
I agree with Jade about splitting donations - that's what I'll be doing too as our state is attempting to dump both long term republicans - Senator and Representative - and put in new, better Democrats!
But, I'm also attempting to recruit more contributors for Obama as well.
July 12, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is why I think the funding totals are down. Small donors tend to give when they thik the need is great. Clinton scared us so we gave. McCain seems like such a doofu we cannot fathom the posibility that he might win. But if you think he cannot win then you should look at the evil doofus who won the last two elections.
July 12, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think some of all these reasons make sense. Since Obama secured the nomination I have also been directing more of my $10 and $25 donations to local candidates and/or particular races that I care about winning beyond the Presidential race. In response to stories about the DNC's trouble raising funds, I also directed some of my "Obama dollars" to the DNC rather than to the candidate directly.
Part of my own slackening of financial support for Obama probably does come from a bit of "donor/election fatigue," part has to do with the kind of confidence chinabox describes, and part is the fact that I'm not responding to the (perception of?) immediate need of a series of close fought primaries. Perhaps too many stories of Obama's fundraising success have convinced me that I could take a "break" and focus my dollars elsewhere. This week - even before the "underwhelming numbers" story - pushed me to donate again because I knew that a lot of my fellow Dems were in a "withholding" mood.
I guess one way to manage the desire to spread the love to other candidates while still supporting Obama is to make a personal ActBlue page. Even if it means splitting my $25 contrib amongst 7 candidates, it's probably better than picking and choosing so that I have to neglect supporting local candidates for Obama or vice versa.
July 12, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
My reason for no longer donating to Obama is rooted in my disappointment in his lack of a strong stand against FISA. [Note, please Obama campaign advisors, that he's lost a great deal of support (see recent poll numbers) for his "flip-flop" on this and other issues.]
However, I'm not "taking my marbles and going home in a snit." I'll still vote for Obama, and may, perhaps, send some $$$ his direction.
His "bad behavior" has just made it crystal clear to me that we need good, strong Democrats in the House and Senate to keep him in line. We can't trust either his instincts or his political choices to come out on the right side of issues -- particularly constitutional ones.
So yes, I'll support him, and I agree McCain would be a total disaster for the country. But my interest now is getting reliable folks into the House & Senate.
July 12, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fundraising advantage is overhyped. There are more important deciding factors in the race, including world events-
July 12, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure there will be upticket benefits to contributing to legislative races as well. However, the biggest factor may well be getting people to the polls, so we should try to figure out who's going to be most effective with that effort, and how much money they need to get it done.
July 12, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
We all see support for Obama as justified for obvious reasons. Why would any rational, significant group of voters not support him?
Then my partner at work reminded me that we are forgetting one block of voters that is necessary for winning the White House. Its a block that doesn't support him but won't tell the pollster or reporter.
White men...
(He also reminded me that Bill and Hill are depending on an Obama landslide defeat so in 2010 she can say, "I told you so, now put me on the damn ticket!!!")
July 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's only up 1 in Rasmussen this morning. We already have the Congress and will have more Dems in the Senate. We don't have the executive.
The area where it's closest for the fall is the President. We're guaranteed to step up in the House and Senate. We have more strength in the Congress, and a greater assurance of improving our standing there than of winning the Presidency, which is always harder for our party.
I don't get this post.
July 12, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find your confidence in an Obama victory completely misplaced. They're tied, essentially, in RAsmussen, and there was a big drop in the latest Newsweek poll.
John McCain just went through one of the worst gaffe stricken weeks, but it's not really being addressed by the media, and that fool, Halperin, has McCain "winning the week". You may feel confident, but McMedia is inherently biased towards the Republicans, and McCAin, and the challenge facing Obama is huge.
I applaud you for donating to other candidates, but ask you to reconsider your decision about Obama.
July 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given how you can't always believe what someone is telling you (note the polls whereby Obama's numbers tend to "come out" lower than projected), I will continue to contribute as much as I can to the Obama campaign. If he wins by a landslide, sobeit, but first things first. (It was the Clintons who were overconfident, right?)
I also contribute smaller amounts to other democratic websites and events and to Moveon.org, but I'm focused on Obama winning the presidency.
I am driven to combat so many negative ads and attempt to rewrite people's words -- not to mention the lies and/or mischaracterizations constantly put forward by FoxNews. Others may not understand Obama's support for FISA, but read how they appended it and you will. I can't go through another 4 years with a f**l as a president...
July 12, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink