Hard-hitting ad from GOP candidate Richard Tisei in MA06, where he lost in 2012 to John Tierney by just 4,000 votes.
Despite an international arms embargo on Syria, both sides are getting weapons. The rebels get weapons smuggled in via Turkey and Jordan while the Assad government gets all that and heavier stuff (armored vehicles, smart bombs. Aircraft spare parts and UAVs) via ship or flights from Russia. Most of the weapons for the rebels are paid for by the Arab Gulf oil states while the stuff for the Assads is paid for by Iran. Technically Russia is selling the military equipment to Syria but the major source of financial aid for Syria is from Iran. This breaks all sorts of rules because Iran is under more stringent arms embargoes than Syria. Russia and China use their permanent seats on the UN Security Council to block any efforts to enforce the prohibitions against sending weapons to Syria.
Iran is also flying in a lot of weapons and personnel. Sending anything by ship is too risky as the Americans have apparently gotten too good at detecting seaborne weapons smuggling efforts into or out of Iran. Air freight is another matter, at least as long as Iraq continues to ignore the illegal flights. The Iranian transports have been seen landing at several different Syrian airports and even some rural airfields.
All those weapons going in via Iranian and Russian backdoors — and yet Assad’s chemical weapons aren’t coming out as promised.
I think it’s safe to conclude that the American position in Syria, and in the rest of the Arab Middle East, has broken down completely.
Market Watch’s Therese Poletti on Facebook’s monster purchase of WhatsApp:
“What’s going to happen? Who really knows? WhatsApp came out of nowhere,” Pisarski said. He singled out two smaller mobile messaging firms, Kakao and Kik, as worth watching. Kakao Corp., founded in 2010 in South Korea, has 133 million users, and Kik, founded in 2009 with 100 million users, is in Canada. Earlier this month, Kakao was close to hiring investment bankers for an IPO that would value the company at more than $2 billion, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Still, the price for WhatsApp and lofty valuations for other young companies without much revenue could spark even more zealousness and arrogance among tech entrepreneurs. It could also fuel a dangerous return to a mentality prevalent in the last dot-com bubble, when companies without a solid, stand-alone business model were acquired for huge sums by tech giants.
Deals like that one could fuel a bubble? Our entire “recovery” has been based on re-inflating the housing and equities bubbles. The underlying values simply aren’t there.
Now this Facebook/WhatsApp deal isn’t directly attributable to ZIRP or QE, but it is made possible, or at least easier by the kind of easy money floating around in the bubble. Social networking companies should never, ever earn such massive valuations, because they’re so easily disrupted. WhatsApp didn’t even exist five years ago, and already has hundreds of millions of users — who could disappear tomorrow for the Next Cool Thing. Worrywarts used to worry that Facebook was going to become the internet, for all intents and purposes. Now the worry is that Facebook has to spend $19 billion on a dubious acquisition just to protect its flanks.
In a colossal “oh by the way” revelation, last Friday afternoon the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a federal agency under the United States Department of Health and Human Services (that would be the executive branch run by President Obama), quietly released a report exposing the fact that under Obamacare, two-thirds of Americans who work at small businesses will see their insurance premiums increase. So this report – which is more than two years late – says over 11 million American workers will have higher health insurance premiums because of Obamacare. Despite the administration’s attempts to, as House Speaker John Boehner put it, “delay and deemphasize” the report, we now have it straight from the Obama administration that Obamacare will raise health-insurance premiums for American workers.
That Means It’s Working™.
And I’m not exactly kidding with that.
Yo know the Administration’s stated goal is to get seven million signed up on the exchanges by the end of March. But that’s not really enough “customers” to make the program solvent-ish, Especially considering those seven million are split up amongst the 50 states. They’ve got to get more, more, more people into the exchanges. And that’s going to mean getting them off of employer-provided coverage.
Employer coverage of course is an historical anomaly created by WWII’s wage controls. There has got to be a better way. The “better way” in this case was to boneheadedly preserve the 50 little state insurance fiefdoms, and add an extra layer of federal bureaucracy on top of those, along with a byzantine subsidy system and an even more byzantine regulatory system designed to save money through the healing power and making it harder to get care.
And that’s why, RINOs or whatever, I won’t be voting for any Democrats until this monstrosity is repealed.
Testifying against marijuana legalization before the Maryland legislature today, Annapolis Police Chief Michael Pristoop warned of the potentially lethal consequences. “The first day of legalization, that’s when Colorado experienced 37 deaths that day from overdose on marijuana,” Pristoop told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. “I remember the first day it was decriminalized there were 37 deaths.”
As Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery) quickly pointed out, what Pristoop actually remembered was a joke story at The Daily Currant headlined “Marijuana Overdoses Kill 37 in Colorado on First Day of Legalization.” The article included a quote from “Peter Swindon, president and CEO of local brewer MolsonCoors,” who supposedly said: “We told everyone this would happen.”
I think most everyone at one time or another had been taken in by a news parody story, and The Daily Currant’s stuff tends to be better than most. But not checking out that particular, and in this case outrageous story before testifying?
This guy doesn’t have sense enough to wear a badge.
Great news, if true:
Federal health authorities on Tuesday reported a 43 percent drop in the obesity rate among 2- to 5-year-old children over the past decade, the first broad decline in an epidemic that often leads to lifelong struggles with weight and higher risks for cancer, heart disease and stroke.
The drop emerged from a major federal health survey that experts say is the gold standard for evidence on what Americans weigh. The trend came as a welcome surprise to researchers. New evidence has shown that obesity takes hold young: Children who are overweight or obese at 3 to 5 years old are five times as likely to be overweight or obese as adults.
I say “if true” because when it comes to government numbers, you have to look at them skeptically. We know that BMI is a pretty bad measure — have they improved it? Are we seeing fewer obese children, or simply better measurements? Are state and local governments fudging the numbers to get more aid? Are kids eating healthier and getting more exercise?
I hope it’s the last one, but the story never makes it clear.
Don’t have too much fun without me.
After Christian Call suffered an injury on the job and lost the tip of his right index finger, he was determined to find a prosthetic. “Initially I was trying to acquire a life-like prosthetic, but none of them actually worked and the price was out of reach,” he told Crave. A few years ago, Call might have simply been out of luck, but advances in consumer 3D printers put him on the path to finding a solution.
Call’s journey to create a fingertip started on YouTube. He was browsing and came across a video of a massive 3D printer cranking out plastic wrenches. That got him started on a search for a 3D printer of his own. “I had to have a 3D printer,” he said. “I felt that with a 3D printer I could explore a whole new level of creativeness.”
Desktop publishing was revolutionary in its day, but we look back now and laugh at the cheesy graphics and endless fonts people were producing with Brøderbund’s Print Shop on Apple IIs outputting to dot-martix printers. Macs armed with laser printers brought truly professional results a short while later, to the few who could afford all that bleeding-edge equipment. Inkjets allowed almost anyone to produce impressive looking results from much improved hardware and software. Early inkjet models were pricey, but prices soon dropped to virtually nothing — just in time for virtual publishing to begin a new revolution.
3D printing isn’t much past the dot-matrix phase. We’re just getting started.
— Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) February 21, 2014
That’s my friend Jazz Shaw on Twitter yesterday, and it made me whip out my handy-dandy VodkaPundit TruDigit Calculator™. Total private sector employment in the US this month is estimated to be 115,686,000. That’s 89.5 hours per worker. We’re losing 2.5 weeks out of each and every working year. Figure two weeks of vacation, and that’s 5% of our productivity whacked right off the top.
Just to fill out the goddamn forms.
I tweeted those numbers back to Jazz who said back to me, “Talking to AT&T guys. They employ a literal ARMY of people just to try to comply with shifting regs.” Think about that, next time you see how much your phone service costs.
Let. It. Burn.
More money will be spent than millions of Americans pay in a lifetime of income taxes, to produce a video showing that fish can swim.
The parasites and looters have won.
So another good way to defend the indefensible is to sic the lawyers on a mom battling leukemia:
LANSING – Today Rep. Gary Peters set his Washington DC legal attack dogs out to intimidate and silence Julie Boonstra, a Michigan mother battling leukemia who had the courage to speak up after the insurance plan she liked was cancelled due to the Affordable Care Act.
Instead of listening to Julie’s concerns, Peters took steps to strong-arm Michigan television stations to simply pull “Julie’s Story” from the airwaves. These are desperate political tactics from someone who is increasingly incapable of defending his support for ♡bamaCare!!!.
Disgusting. Share this one with your friends, especially your left-leaning friends.
“Plastic Soul” should be an impossible thing, because of the very essence of what makes Soul music so good. Since he already explained that better than I ever could, I’ll turn the stage over for a moment to The Commitments‘ Jimmy Rabbitte:
Soul is the music people understand. Sure it’s basic and it’s simple. But it’s something else ’cause, ’cause, ’cause it’s honest, that’s it. Its honest. There’s no fuckin’ bullshit. It sticks its neck out and says it straight from the heart. Sure there’s a lot of different music you can get off on but soul is more than that. It takes you somewhere else. It grabs you by the balls and lifts you above the shite.
So “Plastic Soul” was an insult black musicians first used in the ’60s to describe white artists like The Rolling Stones trying to play Chicago blues-styled rock. And they weren’t just white, but pasty, English white. To which I say, so what? All music is derived from one common source — the first guy to bash two things together to make a sound he liked. Everything since then has been innovation, borrowing, or theft. And I’ve listed those three items in what is probably the increasing order of occurrence.
Leave it to David Bowie then to just come right out and tell the world he’s recording Plastic Soul music. Here’s a guy who made his fame recording a science fiction ode to the Apollo moonshot and 2001: A Space Odyssey, who then went on to create futuristic alter egos like Ziggy Stardust and Aladdin Sane. Bowie had always reached forward, but there he was breezily announcing that he was going to reach backward, into the roots of American Soul.
But you know what? He somehow still manages to grab you and lift you, even though by his own admission it was all pretense.
Tonight’s selection is “Fascination” from 1975′s aptly-titled Young Americans, and it has that (ahem) genuine Philadelphia sound from start to finish.
Let’s start today with Sean Trende — still the best name in forecasting — and his new Monte Carlo simulation. He has a sidebar explaining how those work, but let’s skip that for now and get to the meat of the matter:
I first looked at races The Cook Political Report currently rates as something other than “safe”; over the past 20 years, only two races that Cook Political has rated as “safe” at this point in the game have wound up switching hands, so we can be awfully confident that those seats are “staying put.” That leaves me with a universe of 17 competitive Senate races, 15 of which are held by Democrats, two of which are held by Republicans.
The next step is to total up our simulations, showing how frequently Republicans would win the Senate at each job approval interval for Obama.
Gallup has Professor Wiggleroom’s current approval rating at 46%, which Trende rates as good for between 8 and 12 GOP pickups. Even the lower number is good enough to make Harry Reid the new minority leader, which would suit me like a Savile Row tailor.
The are caveats however. Notice that even at 46%, Wiggleroom’s numbers have been on the upswing. I attribute that to him staying out of the news lately, and to the feeling of national wellbeing we usually enjoy during the Olympics. Also note that Trende’s simulation puts the mostly likely Democrat loss at seven seats, which I read to indicate that each seat will be harder to win for the GOP than the previous seat. Or perhaps not, because a nine-seat gain is Trende’s second-most likely outcome.
The third caveat comes in three parts: Candidates, candidates, candidates. Mark Udall should be as good as gone here in Colorado, but our craptaculent state GOP can’t produce any top-tier statewide candidates.
Michael Adler on the talks with Iran after the talks with Iran:
What went before, an interim framework agreement that caused a great deal of controversy, is no longer the bogeyman. That was a false bogeyman since it was merely a way of freezing Iran’s nuclear work in place so talks could be held, and yes, it left Iran with almost all of its nuclear capacity.
The genuine bogeyman now includes big questions with big consequences—how many centrifuges will Iran have to enrich uranium, ostensibly for civilian reactor use but also possibly to make bombs; if Iran will be able to use advanced centrifuges which can enrich more quickly; if Iran is free to develop ballistic missiles which could carry atom bombs; if Iran will have a plutonium-producing reactor; if Iran can continue to do nuclear work at the site of Fordow, buried under a mountain and so relatively invulnerable to air attack.
The talks on a so-called comprehensive agreement are set to last six months and will determine the future shape of Iran’s nuclear program, and whether the United States and Iran can agree on what is expected to be a more limited Iranian nuclear capability.
But Iran announced in the most publicly defiant way earlier this week that they would be scrapping nothing.
Was that some sort of negotiating ploy, designed to try and improve their position in front of the talks? Or was it a rebuke because they know the Wiggleroom Administration doesn’t have the clout to get a better deal? I’m leaning toward the latter.
As said on this page many times before, any reasonably technologically competent country which wants nukes, will get nukes. The most we can do short of war is to make the effort more economically painful and/or take longer. What we could do, however, is be resolute with our Middle East allies, welcome them under our nuclear umbrella, and announce to Iran quite publicly that any “rogue” nuclear attack on us or our allies will be treated as an attack directly from Tehran — and that we would respond accordingly. There’s precedent for that last point from the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Kennedy announced that any attack launched from Cuba would be treated as an attack launched directly from the Soviet Union.
We might also add that, oh yeah, that sanctions will continue so long as the centrifuges spin and Tehran’s terror games continue. Period.
Instead we’re flopping around the region like a fish in a net — a net of our own making.
The question is probably premature, albeit not by very much, but here’s Peter Vine on Ukraine and America’s pivot to Asia:
America and the E.U. should be working together to help resolve the Ukraine crisis. Instead, the two powers talk past each other.
This disconnect has been a long time in the making. It began during the debate over how to handle the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Tensions increased when NATO intervened in Kosovo in 1998. The U.S. and U.K. favored air strikes; Germany opposed them.
America’s relationship with Europe suffered further during the Iraq war in 2003—which many European governments opposed—and also with whistleblower Edward Snowden’s leak of classified U.S. surveillance schemes last year.
But America’s strategic “pivot” to the Pacific has been the most damaging to its position in Europe.
I’m not one given to being overly generous (cough) to the Wiggleroom Administration, but this analysis is unfair.
Of course America was going to pivot to Asia — it began under the Bush Administration. Don’t forget, Asia is where both Iraq and Afghanistan are located. And we’ve been moving military assets out of NATO countries, even as NATO expanded, in the decade before 9/11. We sent VII Corps from Germany to Saudi Arabia for the First Gulf War, when that great armored formations undertook one of history’s most rapid and amazing offenses. And then it was simply disbanded after returning to the United States more than 20 years ago. If we had really believed Europe was our strategic focus, VII Corps would be there still today.
What’s going on in Ukraine is a tragedy, and one likely to end in Europe’s (and America’s) diminishment, and in Moscow’s aggrandizement. If Russia really wants to pick off the historically Russian parts of Ukraine, it’s not really in our power to stop them.
Madison Avenue isn’t happy with Apple’s approach to selling iAds on its mobile iDevices:
Apple has a lot of knowledge regarding its users, which it uses to improve its services and offerings, including names, addresses, locations and purchase histories. But what it doesn’t do with that data is share it with advertisers very freely. That makes Madison Avenue very mad, according to a new AdAge article detailing why Apple, and Amazon (which operates in a similar manner) aren’t having an easy time of building their respective advertising businesses.
Apple might come out ahead of its competitors on data, if it would share.
That’s a telling quote from the piece, which refers to the quality of Apple’s information, which is “one of the best” according to a former Apple software manager and one of the key architects of iAd’s data-measurement platform. But what it reveals to its advertising partner is next to nil; rather than offering a cookie-based ad-tracking and targeting mechanism, it essentially requires partners to tell it what kind of audience it needs to reach, and then trust that Apple will handle the rest, AdAge says. And it’s well worth noting that Apple prioritizes customer privacy here over a big potential upside in ad revenue.
This is typical Apple, and one of the reasons I’m such a happy customer.
Another celebrity interview for you today, this one with SNL boss Lorne Michaels:
How much more concerned about being politically correct are you? The Internet is always ready to pounce when you step out of line. Do you read any of that?
No. I also don’t tweet. I don’t tweet for a very simple reason, which is that I drink.
Come to the Dark Side, Lorne. We have Twitter & cocktails.
(Hat tip, Jim D.)
The New York Times scored the first in-depth interview with new Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella I’ve seen since he got the job, and it’s sort of a mixed bag. I’ll try to avoid too-lengthy excerpts to show you what I mean. The first two questions involved his predecessors and company founders, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Excerpts:
The most important one I learned from Steve happened two or three annual reviews ago. I sat down with him, and I remember asking him: “What do you think? How am I doing?” Then he said: “Look, you will know it, I will know it, and it will be in the air. So you don’t have to ask me, ‘How am I doing?’ At your level, it’s going to be fairly implicit.”
The outside world looks at it and says, “Whoa, this is some new thing.” But [Bill Gates and I have] worked closely for about nine years now. So I’m very comfortable with this, and I asked for a real allocation of his time. He is in fact making some pretty hard trade-offs to say, “O.K., I’ll put more energy into this.” And one of the fantastic things that only Bill can do inside this campus is to get everybody energized to bring their “A” game. It’s just a gift.
I’m not sure it was fair for the interviewer, Adam Bryant, to start off asking Nadella about the two elephants who won’t leave the living room, but that did give the impression that Nadella isn’t quite in charge yet. Especially given Nadella’s answers, which boil down to “Steve is demanding and Bill inspires people.”
That’s all well and good (?), but where does Nadella stand? He stands a bit like Apple’s Tim Cook, actually:
The thing I’m most focused on today is, how am I maximizing the effectiveness of the leadership team, and what am I doing to nurture it? A lot of people on the team were my peers, and I worked for some of them in the past. The framing for me is all about getting people to commit and engage in an authentic way, and for us to feel that energy as a team.
I’m not evaluating them on what they say individually. None of them would be on this team if they didn’t have some fantastic attributes. I’m only evaluating us collectively as a team. Are we able to authentically communicate, and are we able to build on each person’s capabilities to the benefit of our organization?
There’s an observation I’ve mentioned before, which I still can’t find the link to, about Steve Jobs and Cook. Jobs style towards product design was essentially dictatorial, even ruthless. Cook’s approach is collaborative. You might say the same thing about Ballmer and Nadella, based on that last answer. Ballmer was the screaming, top-down boss, while Nadella is the team-builder.
The difference is that Jobs left Cook one very well-oiled machine to run — and Cook himself is the one who applied much of the oil. Nadella has inherited a company who’s previous boss missed almost every boat over the last 14 years, despite standing on a billion-dollar pier.
So I’ll give Nadella the last words:
Longevity in this business is about being able to reinvent yourself or invent the future. In our case, given 39 years of success, it’s more about reinvention. We’ve had great successes, but our future is not about our past success. It’s going to be about whether we will invent things that are really going to drive our future.
One of the things that I’m fascinated about generally is the rise and fall of everything, from civilizations to families to companies. We all know the mortality of companies is less than human beings. There are very few examples of even 100-year old companies. For us to be a 100-year old company where people find deep meaning at work, that’s the quest.
This one sure looks like a win, but no:
Thousands of people have purchased health coverage through the District of Columbia’s new small-business insurance marketplace, but only a tiny fraction of them actually own or work for a small business.
The rest are members of or work for a single large organization — Congress.
The rules are for little people, and Congressional staffers are not little people.
Just ask one.
The response was so good to Monday’s post about New York Democrats turning against Common Core, that I decided to get Scott Ott’s and Bill Whittle’s takes on Trifecta.
Is Vladimir Putin planning on seizing parts of Ukraine — most likely the Crimea, a “gift” of Russian territory from Khrushchev to the old Ukraine SSR — under pretext of restoring the peace? That’s one theory:
The methods the Kremlin “has used and will use in the future” are trade wars, the development of ‘a fifth column’ within the countries it wants to subordinate, and “as they say in Tbilisi, “the borderization of seized places des armes,” Samar says. With regard to Ukraine, Moscow has already done the first, is doing the second, and is setting the stage for the third.
A week ago in the same paper, she notes, Andreas Umland described what Russian “humanitarian intervention” in Ukraine and called on the European Union to prevent Moscow from launching a Georgian scenario in Ukraine in general (gazeta.zn.ua/internal/es-dolzhen-predotvratit-gruzinskiy-scenariy-v-ukraine-_.html).
The dangers he pointed to are already very much in evidence in Crimea, a place where Russian intervention is easier and cheaper than anywhere else because of the presence of the Russian naval base from which provocations can be launched and of the complicated history of the region, a history that Moscow will use to present itself as the only force available to end the inter-ethnic conflict it is provoking and to defend the world from “Islamic terrorists.”
Putin certainly set the template in Georgia, where the “contested” border areas are now firmly in his grip. But the Crimea is a bigger chunk to tear off than little Abkhazia or South Ossetia — however its of much bigger importance as well.
More at the link. Check it out.
Mark Argosh details ♡bamaCare!!!’s winners and losers in today’s New York Daily News — hardly a rightwing paper. The winners are old people and Americans on Medicaid. The losers are pretty much everyone else:
The poor : The poor face two major issues: the lack of Medicaid expansion in many states and the lack of government assistance. Without expanding Medicaid, many families below the poverty level are in an orphan status: neither eligible for premium subsidies nor for Medicaid. Due to a design flaw in the employer mandate, many families of the working poor will also be ineligible for government assistance because employers are not required to contribute to family members’ plans.
Small and mid-sized businesses : As a result of the current employer mandate, many small businesses have curtailed job expansion to stay below 50 employees or are cutting benefits for existing employees to cover added costs.
Millennials : As they are entering the workforce or aging beyond their parent’s insurance, millennials will be forced to pay higher costs for individual health coverage to facilitate the lower costs for older populations.
The Healthy : The Affordable Care Act presents a unique and untapped opportunity to bend the medical cost curve in America. While Obamacare allows health plans to charge higher premiums for tobacco usage, plans should also provide a real pricing incentive for people to engage in healthy behaviors.
Social Security and Medicare “worked” (I used scare quotes because of the programs’ long-term insolvency, especially Medicare) because while everybody paid, everybody benefitted to at least some degree. Under ♡bamaCare!!!, the rich pay quite a bit, but also have the least harm done to their existing plans. The middle class and the young pay through the nose, and for worsening care. That’s Plus there are ♡bamaCare!!!’s lovely external harms, like reduced growth (due to higher taxes on investment) and reduced fulltime employment.
That’s an awful lot of harm just to bring modest benefits under a Byzantine, almost Brazil-like, new bureaucracy to navigate for the recipients of all this largess.
And that will be the law’s undoing.
Dan Henninger has a nice piece on what ♡bamaCare!!! has done for the Democrat brand image:
Even liberal Democrats have begun to distance themselves from this legacy. Last May in Los Angeles of all places, Democrat Eric Garcetti defeated Wendy Greuel for mayor by turning her union endorsements into a liability.
But for decades most Democrats have been floating through this low-performance public milieu, where standards of any sort can be diluted, if not wholly ignored. The idea that the $824 billion stimulus was for “shovel-ready” projects has become a butt of the government joke circuit. This sloppy mindset outputted ObamaCare, by acclamation the party’s biggest product since Medicare. It looks like a Rube Goldberg machine.
The Rube Goldberg Democrats means that whether from laziness or arrogance, the party is now producing political contraptions that are monuments to inefficiency, incomprehension and unworkability. Before ObamaCare, it often went unnoticed. But the health-care law sits out in plain view, letting every voter connect the dots between political promise and nonperformance.
I’m not sure there’s been another kind of Democrat, at least not at the national level, since the New Deal. Bill Clinton might be remembered best for small initiatives and spending restraint, but that was after his own Rube Goldberg contraption, HillaryCare, fell apart on Capitol Hill. And spending restraint didn’t really become a thing until Speaker Gingrich and the GOP Congress.
The GOP’s brand image though, at least to those of us on the right, is to start with workable ideas and then abandon them.
Dana Milbank notes that the Democrats have a problem, eerily familiar to Republicans who remember 2006. They need Professor Ditherton Wiggleroom’s fundraising prowess, but his presence is toxic:
After weeks of complaining to the White House, Democrats said last week that Obama had committed to doing at least 18 fundraisers this year: six each for House Democrats, Senate Democrats and other party committees.
That came as a relief to Democrats, but it’s still a modest commitment. In 2006, when George W. Bush was even less popular than Obama and Republicans feared a loss of the House, Bush did 74 fundraising events, according to CBS News’s Mark Knoller, a meticulous presidential statistician. The Republican National Committee put the tally at 80 .
Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told me that the 18 events are those Obama has promised “thus far.” Democrats had better hope there are many more. Although individual Democratic committees have done reasonably well raising money, the Democratic National Committee is deeply in debt. At the end of the year it had $4.7 million in cash but $15.6 million in debt. The RNC had no debt and $9.2 million in cash.
What’s the read on this? I doubt the Professor has lost any of his ability to empty donors’ wallets — it comes with the office. And these things can be done on the QT, sort of. But 18, even “thus far” does seem like an awfully small number of fundraisers before November.
It’s enough to make you wonder if the President’s attitude is now “I got mine.”