What does Obama owe moveon.org?

[audtatious]

With the campaign won, moveon.org has announced the following:

– Contributed more than $58 million directly to Obama's campaign.– Raised and spent more than $30 million in independent election efforts.– Delivered up to 600,000 battleground state volunteers. 400,000 more volunteers participated from non-battleground states.– Added 1 million young members from June to September 2008, and mobilized them online and offline ( ACORN? )– Registered more than 500,000 new young Obama supporters in battleground states.

Does anyone fear that Obama is not his own man or do you think he will do what he thinks best without feeling he has favors to give out?

[HashiriyaS14]

– Added 1 million young members from June to September 2008, and mobilized them online and offline ( ACORN? )

What in blazes does MoveOn have to do with ACORN?

Or is any mobilization of young supporters for a politician automatically suspect?

I don't think he owes them much of anything. MoveOn doesn't really have an agenda per se other than getting Democrats elected, as they lack any corporate backing. The average donation to MoveOn is like $50, so it's not like it's some cabal of firms each donating huge amounts and pushing a specific agenda. Their donation base is far too wide and diverse, if anything, it's just younger people and normal garden-variety liberals (i.e. the same people who form his base anyway)

[audtatious]

I questioned whether it could be associated with the efforts of ACORN in a "get out the vote" effort. Obviously you dismiss that which is fine with me.

I'm sure those who went to extremes expect something in return and only time will tell how Obama reacts to it. He promised to allow ACORN and other community activists to help him shape his Presidency (I've posted the video before) so we shall see.

[HashiriyaS14]

I questioned whether it could be associated with the efforts of ACORN in a "get out the vote" effort. Obviously you dismiss that which is fine with me.

I don't think the two groups have anything to do with each other, and I'm still not certain whether you're inferring that they do or not.

You're just asking whether or not he's going to feel like he owes anything to ANY group that helped get out the votes for him?

I'd say that he probably will, as would really any President. After all, the religious right got out the vote for Bush 43 and he rewarded them with Justices Roberts and Alito.

That's how politics works, nothing new there. Honestly, I'd argue that it isn't even necessarily wrong. Politicians are, in a democracy, meant to enact policy that reflects the will of those that voted them into office.

I just don't think that MoveOn in particular holds a very specific agenda, to answer your question. I think their donator base is far too diverse for them to be pushing for anything other than the things that any Democrat President would be looking to do naturally. MoveOn and ACORN are very different animals, with MoveOn just being a PAC with wide and varied membership and ACORN being almost more of a professional organization, very focused in it's membership (community organizers)

If anything, they will just push for it to be easier to vote, as maximizing turnout has typically favored Democrats. This will mean more early voting n more places more than anything else. Again though, I don't think this is anything other than what any Democratic President would push for on their own, it's par for the course.

[audtatious]

I don't think the two groups have anything to do with each other, and I'm still not certain whether you're inferring that they do or not.

I'm not inferring, I was asking, thus the question mark. I don't know if there is or is not a relation.

You're just asking whether or not he's going to feel like he owes anything to ANY group that helped get out the votes for him?

I'd say that he probably will, as would really any President. After all, the religious right got out the vote for Bush 43 and he rewarded them with Justices Roberts and Alito.

That's how politics works, nothing new there. Honestly, I'd argue that it isn't even necessarily wrong. Politicians are, in a democracy, meant to enact policy that reflects the will of those that voted them into office.

I just don't think that MoveOn in particular holds a very specific agenda, to answer your question. I think their donator base is far too diverse for them to be pushing for anything other than the things that any Democrat President would be looking to do naturally. MoveOn and ACORN are very different animals, with MoveOn just being a PAC with wide and varied membership and ACORN being almost more of a professional organization, very focused in it's membership (community organizers)

If anything, they will just push for it to be easier to vote, as maximizing turnout has typically favored Democrats. This will mean more early voting n more places more than anything else. Again though, I don't think this is anything other than what any Democratic President would push for on their own, it's par for the course.

Wasn't sure about moveon due to the amount of money invested. Maybe Soros has some ideas as to what Obama should do but there is nothing out there to say that is the case. Moveon is simply the spark to ignite discussion on what Obama may owe some of these groups (or what they may think he owes them).

I also don't think Bush pushed forth Justices Roberts and Alito simply to make the religious supporters happy. I think he did it because he thought it was right.

You are reading WAY too much into my initial post.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm not inferring, I was asking, thus the question mark. I don't know if there is or is not a relation.

Ok, then I'll answer it. NO, there is not a relation. There are dozens of groups on the Democratic side dedicated to maximizing youth voter turnout, but most operate independently of one another. What's more, ACORN has a much more focused agenda than just voter turnout.

Moveon is simply the spark to ignite discussion on what Obama may owe some of these groups (or what they may think he owes them).

Ok, that's fair enough. It's certainly a legitimate question. And I think the answer is that yes, any President will owe something to the groups that get them elected.

I also don't think Bush pushed forth Justices Roberts and Alito simply to make the religious supporters happy. I think he did it because he thought it was right.

I'm not so optimistic. I think that most any President would nominate Benito Mussolini as a Justice if they think it satisfies some sort of political obligation. Politicians are in the business of getting re-elected, and there are few better ways to get yourself re-elected as a President than by nominating Justices that will make your base happy.

I wasn't trying to infer that Bush was somehow uniquely nefarious in having done this, all Presidents do it........As for me "reading too much into things", I'm going to pounce on anything I deem to be a conspiracy theory like Hugh Grant on a cheap hooker. (re: the ACORN association)

There shall be no wild imaginations in here, it's inherently inflammatory. Obama will screw up enough REAL things to keep everyone satisfied without them having to dream up fictional collusions betwixt shadowy organizations. Conspiracies don't exist in this section, period. No postulating allowed unless there's some sort of proof.

If I'm going to be steering this ship for the next four years, I can't hear "ZOMG ACORN AYERS WRIGHT" every time Obama does something that people don't like. Besides, his detractors here are smarter than that anyway and can frankly do better. This is not Animal farm, we don't have to blame everything on some absent nefarious swine, metaphorical or otherwise.

[audtatious]

Ok, then I'll answer it. NO, there is not a relation. There are dozens of groups on the Democratic side dedicated to maximizing youth voter turnout, but most operate independently of one another. What's more, ACORN has a much more focused agenda than just voter turnout.

That's good because it would make things harder to "pin down" when he does things that some of us would deem "stupid".

Ok, that's fair enough. It's certainly a legitimate question. And I think the answer is that yes, any President will owe something to the groups that get them elected.

Have you ever seen a political campaign that has as much support of advocacy groups as this one? FWIW, I would not call religion or anti-religion as an advocacy group within that question.

I'm not so optimistic. I think that most any President would nominate Benito Mussolini as a Justice if they think it satisfies some sort of political obligation. Politicians are in the business of getting re-elected, and there are few better ways to get yourself re-elected as a President than by nominating Justices that will make your base happy.

Maybe, maybe not. Bush has his own religious viewpoints without having to "dig to his base" and give payback. Not saying that isn't what happened of course.

As for me "reading too much into things", I'm going to pounce on anything I deem to be a conspiracy theory like Hugh Grant on a cheap hooker. (re: the ACORN association)

ACORN association is not a conspiracy theory as he has helped them out in the past and claimed he was going to let them and other similar advocacy groups steer his Presidency. The question is more "how much" will he work with them now that he has the Presidency in the bag. It would only be a conspiracy theory if he "supposedly" stated he would let them steer him when that is not the case.

If I'm going to be steering this ship for the next four years, I can't hear "ZOMG ACORN AYERS WRIGHT" every time Obama does something that people don't like. Besides, his detractors here are smarter than that anyway and can frankly do better. This is not Animal farm, we don't have to blame everything on some absent nefarious swine, metaphorical or otherwise.

I think there will be a lot of digging into his points once he actually takes over the White House. Wright/Ayers and other associations were good points to dig into concerning "who he is" before he was elected. Now it's relatively moot as he's going to be President. Time to dig further into what he is doing or going to do instead and hopefully have a lot of "I told you so's" by the resident Republicans.

Then again, if he turns out to be a great President I will absolutely admit that I was wrong........That's yet to be seen.

[Jesda]

I hope he gives MoveOn and George Sorors the middle finger.

[audtatious]

Not likely