By Tom Johnson

Dec 4, 2008 10:38am

Karl Rove Has Figured Out Why Obama Won

This morning in the Wall Street Journal Karl Rove writes about the election…and money.  Today, Barack Obama and John McCain report on just how much money they ended up spending on their race for the White House.  Rove says that the numbers may show Obama outspent McCain by the biggest margin in history, perhaps, he says, by a quarter of a billion dollars. 

Rove writing in the WSJ:  "If money talks, we’ll likely soon hear the real reason why Barack Obama beat John McCain. Both men and the national parties will report to the Federal Election Commission today how much money they raised in October and November. And what the numbers will probably show is that Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain by the biggest margin in history, perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars."

Rove also raises the question of where Obama’s money came from.  How much really came from small donors?  ABC’s Senior White House Correspondent reported on this subject back in November.  Here’s Rove in the Journal: "To diminish criticism, Mr. Obama’s campaign spun the storyline that he was being bankrolled by small donors. Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, calls that a "myth." CFI found that Mr. Obama raised money the old fashioned way — 74% of his funds came from large donors (those who donated more than $200) and nearly half from people who gave $1,000 or more."

User Comments

Apparently it’s okay to outspend your opponent when you’re winning, but if you get beat suddenly the other guy ‘bought’ the election.

Posted by: jester1976 | December 4, 2008, 10:49 am 10:49 am

Obviously he had an unfair advantage. Let us also state that Obama also ran this campaign like a business. Blame the election rules for the financial advantage

Posted by: AEW | December 4, 2008, 10:57 am 10:57 am

Ross Perot and Mitt Romney would disagree about being able to buy elections.
The sad thing is it took so much money to counter Rovian-style myths and lies. And Rove is disingenuous because he ignores the money advantage the RNC had over the DNC. He also ignores that the 527s weren’t as interested this year as previously. He ignores that McCain chose his own poison. And finally, he discounts that McCain’s message and his selection of Palin could have played a role in this.
There’s a reason the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008, which has nothing to do with Obama’s spending. If Rove doesn’t see it, and if the rest of the GOP follow his lead, then the Republicans are in for more losses.

Posted by: MIguy | December 4, 2008, 10:58 am 10:58 am

Great to hear ROve finally has a handle on why Mccain lost. When you out spend your opponent spreading a positive message and discussing the issues as opposed to screaming at the top of your lungs negative and nasty things about your opponent that have NOTHING to do with the issues you are going to win. That plus the spactacular addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket and Jesus Christ himself could not have won the Presidency. Although something tells me Jesus would be satying as far away from politics as he could get.

Posted by: Jenny Rome Ga | December 4, 2008, 11:01 am 11:01 am

So it wasn’t that so many people were truely disgusted with the GOP?? OHHHHHH! Now I finally understand why I voted for Obama. I’m a media led sheep and it was the difference in campaign advertising.

Posted by: amer_icon | December 4, 2008, 11:04 am 11:04 am

Why isn’t Rove in prison?!

Posted by: hang | December 4, 2008, 11:09 am 11:09 am

The big issue with today’s announcements is not do you or don’t you believe that the massive spending advantage made a big differnce or not.
What really needs to be examined in greater detail is do we really want to have presidential elections costing well over a billion dollars ?
Thats what we are looking at in 4 years…a billion dollars for an election.
Now with that kind of money involved, does anyone truly believe that a president (NO MATTER WHAT PARTY HE/SHE IS FROM) is not going to be indebted to those who put up that kind of money?

Posted by: Mike_C | December 4, 2008, 11:11 am 11:11 am

Obama bought the election. It’s nothing new, he just paid a lot more for his win than others have in the past.

Posted by: Oh Please! | December 4, 2008, 11:13 am 11:13 am

Oh i get it. McCain was being out spent so the only thing he could do was to pick a complete idiot for VP and then turn then campaign into basically gutter politics of the worst kind— the worst people had ever seen: anything to avoid talking about issues.

Posted by: jrc903 | December 4, 2008, 11:13 am 11:13 am

Rove simply cannot accept that a candidate won based upon his personal attributes of intelligence, coherence, discipline, and a connection with an electorate who was sick and tired of the old, worn-out Rovian strategy of playing campaign culture wars. Obama won because McCain was a flawed candidate, who was running a flawed campaign who also didn’t pay attention to the demographic changes in this country. Obama needed that money to overcome Rovian dirty tactics. And, I’m one of those voters who gave about $500 to his campaign, and I’m not a rich person by any stretch of the imagination. Every time Palin called Obama a socialist, I donated another $100. It’s just that simple.

Posted by: Laura Brown | December 4, 2008, 11:14 am 11:14 am

Further eveidence that campaign finance reform DOESNT WORK!!! Couldn’t have happened to a nicer… TYRANT!!! SUCK ON IT… JOHN INSAINE!!!

Posted by: please! | December 4, 2008, 11:16 am 11:16 am

Am I the only one who wishes that Karl Rove would just crawl back under whatever rock he was pulled from??? I am so sick of him and his continued lies in trying to “save” George Bush’s legacy. BTW, good luck with that…you’ll need it!

Posted by: Dee | December 4, 2008, 11:21 am 11:21 am

I didn’t classify as rich by Obama’s standard and under the #s posted in story, I might be a large donor. LOL

Posted by: Mr. Coffee | December 4, 2008, 11:24 am 11:24 am

Am I the only one who wishes that Karl Rove would just crawl back under whatever rock he was pulled from??? I am so sick of him and his continued lies all in the name of trying to “save” George Bush’s legacy. I am a Republican but we lost, get over it already!

Posted by: Dee | December 4, 2008, 11:29 am 11:29 am

This story is premised on characterizing anyone who gave $200 or more over the course of the campaign as non-small donors. Nonsense. What does $200 mean in today’s economy? I gave $50 whenever I could. I’m a small donor.

Posted by: Malby | December 4, 2008, 11:55 am 11:55 am

Obama pulled a fast one when he told McCain that he was using money from the government, but at the last minute he
‘changed’ his mind.
So much for Obama’s ‘word’.
It pays to advertise.
McCain, however, did make mistakes.
He was relying on the old school thinking: that character matters.
People did not want to hear that.
Their definition of ‘character’ was also different than McCain’s.
McCain’s school of thought was: “Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.”
Obama’s school of thought was: “The end justifies the means.”
That’s where the two trains collide.
Democrats and Republicans are different that way. We can argue until the ‘cows come home’(another old saying), but the two parties are different.
I’m not saying one is bad and one is good. That’s the beauty of our political system. We fight with words and ideas, not bullets (well, for the most part).
It’s just the democrats’ turn now.
I do wish Obama well. It would be foolish not to do so.
p.s. Remember the name: Bobby Jindal, Gov. of Louisiana. You’ll be hearing a lot about Jindal in the future.

Posted by: old school with new attitude | December 4, 2008, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm

Laura Brown,
Obama is a socialist!
Obama is a socialist!
Obama is a socialist!
Obama is a socialist!
Obama is a socialist!
Obama is a socialist!
Obama is a socialist!
Obama is a socialist!
Obama is a socialist!
Obama is a socialist!
There give him another $1000 !
I’m certain he can find a better use for it than you can.

Posted by: Mike_C | December 4, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm

‘Hang” asks;
“Why isn’t Rove in prison?!”
Because he did nothing illegal. Shady perhaps, but not illegal. Unless you
want to start putting people in jail for having different politics.

Posted by: Bob | December 4, 2008, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm

This story is premised on characterizing anyone who gave $200 or more over the course of the campaign as non-small donors. Nonsense. What does $200 mean in today’s economy? I gave $50 whenever I could. I’m a small donor.
———————————
Malby ,
First get at least apartial understanding of what your talking about. The “small donor” terminology comes from the FEC.
The $200 dollar number is the threshold above which your name must by LAW be reported!
I do not know how many times this has to be pointed out to all you poor souls who even now want to be portrayed as “victims” because you dont like the descriptions that are being used.
Next, we will all be hearing it was Bush who “labeled” you!!!!

Posted by: Mike_C | December 4, 2008, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm

you have to include FOX NEWS and all right wing Radio and born again advertising against Obama. He had to raise big money to even approach the deck stacked against him. Great job OBAMA !

Posted by: philosopherkingtomas | December 4, 2008, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm

I think President-Elect Obama won because “the people” who wanted change voted for him! We were so sick and tired of the same antics of the GOP!! No more, Change Has Come!

Posted by: Kizzy | December 4, 2008, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm

my biggest problem with the election was the fact the american people contributed millions just to campaign…God forbid they used that money to ACTUALLY help a person in need!!!

Posted by: Candice | December 4, 2008, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm

Rove you forgot that you have to include FOX NEWS and all right wing Radio and born again advertising against Obama in the comparison. O had to raise big money to even approach the deck stacked against him. Great job OBAMA !

Posted by: philosopherkingtomas | December 4, 2008, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm

Karl, get over yourself. Perhaps our country has suffered enough at your hands. You were an advisor to Bush and much of our misery is on you. Barak Obama won because the majority of America believed him to be the best qualified. The election is OVER, Obama won and, for some reason, the Republican Party is having a problem accepting it. Well, many of us did NOT vote for GWB and we had to live with it for eight years so, please, go back to Texas and be silent for a while!! Let us enjoy our decision.

Posted by: B. Reinking | December 4, 2008, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm

Is this a serious story? Why does anyone still care what Karl Rove has to say about anything. Why was he on the Today’s Show the other day? It is just ridiculous.

Posted by: KJ06 | December 4, 2008, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm

I just have to say, stop whining!!! I just love it. When the Republicans outspend the Democrats they don’t complain but when they are outspent by the Democrats then they scream bloody murder. Oh the election was bought. Gee ya think that it might just go both ways???!!! The Obama campaign and the Democratic party finally realized that to win takes money and lots of it. This will be the way US elections are run until we change something to stop this incredible expenditure of huge amounts of money.

Posted by: Bill S. | December 4, 2008, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm

President Elect Obama won the election
because, no matter what Rove says and tries to put a negative spin on, the people of this country want CHANGE!!
Positve changes with positive attitudes.
Rove just does not get it.

Posted by: linda | December 4, 2008, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm

Republicans have Fox news.
Democrats have CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN,
MSNBC, etc., etc.
(movie stars, etc.)
You’re going to begrude the Republicans FOX News? The ‘born again’ Christians are Republicans(for the most part). Democrats have their own followers.
The race came down to this:
What is the definition of ‘character’, and does it matter in the long run?
Does the end justify the means?
Well, we saw which way the vote went.
Lesson learned. It doesn’t mean we have to change our definition of character, but we will play it different ‘the next time’.

Posted by: old dog, new tricks | December 4, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm

This is a story that Americans need to hear. The story line is what we need to be hearing from all media on all candidates. Thank you

Posted by: Daniel | December 4, 2008, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm

The more popular candidate was able to raise and spend more money than the less popular candidate? What a shock.

Posted by: Yukon Sam | December 4, 2008, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm

Karl Rove needs to be arrested for contempt of congress for ignoring his congessional subpoena, muzzled, and dragged into congress in shackles to answer the questions this country has a right to know about his illegal activites all these years. He has done more to disrupt the democratic process in this country than I thought possible ad now he has the nerve to complain about his failure to disrupt it yet again in this election. Why this criminal continues to have a voice in the media and national politics amazes.

Posted by: Charlie | December 4, 2008, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm

STOP BEING HATERS! Give the man a chance PLEASE!

Posted by: Virginia Brogdon | December 4, 2008, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm

Rove just figured this out? Did he pass 5th grade civics? Any person in this country with a brain could see that Obama bought the WhiteHouse. I hope he likes it now that he has to answer to the public’s scrutiny of him and his family. I do hope that Michelle can become less racist.

Posted by: jim | December 4, 2008, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm

I agree that all media should be reporting the news.
I was commenting on a post regarding FOX News. I was merely saying that Republicans have FOX News and the Democrats have CNN, etc., (so Democrats should not begrudge Republicans FOX).
It’s amazing to see all of the different opinions. People’s world view do indeed vary greatly.
It’s MY world view that the race came down to the definition of “character”.
Each side IS entitled to their opinion.
(remember, there’s good and bad character – it’s all how you see it.)

Posted by: old school - new attitude | December 4, 2008, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm

Rove was just commenting on the race.
It’s no big deal. Some people are making more of his comments than it actually is.
That’s what you do when you fail something. You re-evaluate the situation and move on. It’s the smart thing to do.
I think Obama is not concerned about comments like Rove’s. Obama has bigger fish to fry.
Nobody is really hammering Obama, as far as I can see at this time.
He’s picking his cabinet and White House staff. It’s only fair that people are allowed to comment on his choices.
Everybody does it in every election.
I’m sure Obama is not that sensitive; I hope not, anyway.

Posted by: old school | December 4, 2008, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm

Rove is an irrelevant idiot.
Candidates SPEND whatever they RAISE. Obama outspent McCain because OBAMA OUT-RAISED MCCAIN.
Rove should ask himself why everyone – both big donors and small ones – wanted Obama to lead our country!!

Posted by: Peter T. Davis | December 4, 2008, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm

I know where his money came from O.W. in Chicago she just used other peoples names to funnel the funds with.

Posted by: Ray | December 4, 2008, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm

McCain took federal dollars for his election. Obama said he was going to, but backed out of it. This hurt McCain.
It is what it is.
Now, McCain hurt himself by going ‘middle of the road’. Many big spenders did not give McCain because of hard feelings from the past.
As far as the popular vote, if Obama got just 3% less, and McCain picked up those 3%, McCain would have won the popular vote by less than one-half
percent (I believe. You can correct me if anybody cares to.)
As you can see, it wasn’t a landslide by popular vote.

Posted by: old school | December 4, 2008, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm

Karl Rove has done so much damage to this country and he continues his negative, twisted spin on any and everything.
He does NOT understand what our forefathers had in mind when they drew up our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Roger Ailes wants him, Ailes deserves him and can have him.
At least Rove is miles away from the Oval Office now.

Posted by: Peter Bright | December 4, 2008, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm

it had nothing to do money and everything to do with message. the racism at the end of the campaign turned many voters away from the republican ticket. if McCain and especially Palin did more to say “if you are a racist we do not want your vote”, it would have been a closer election. i think hate is on it’s way out. it’s toxic. for the republicans, so toxic it might have cost them the election.

Posted by: Paul Wall | December 4, 2008, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm

Mike_C— you can say Obama is a socialist a million times and it doesn’t make it true. say it once, we get your message, say it a million times, you’re just wasting space.

Posted by: Paul Wall | December 4, 2008, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm

SPENDING TIME ON THE REPORTER OF INFO IS
LAME. FACTUALLY OBAMA AGREED TO USE
FEDERAL FINANCING AS DID McCAIN BUT AT
THE LAST MINUTE, AS HE OFTEN DID, HE
“REVERSED HIS POSITION”. THAT LEFT McCAIN WITH A SPENDING LIMIT OF $84
MILLION AND OBAMA WITH NO LIMIT IN
COLLECTING AND SPENDING ON THIS ELECTION. HOWEVER, I THINK ROVE IS WAY OFF ON WHY PEOPLE VOTED THE WAY THEY DID: 1/ ECONOMY 2/ BUSH CONNECTION AND MONEY A FAR DISTANT THIRD.

Posted by: jon schurmeier | December 4, 2008, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm

jon schurmeier—easy with the caps. we get the message without all the caps (yelling). people tend to be more responsive when you aren’t raging.

Posted by: Paul Wall | December 4, 2008, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm

Rove is being simply being himslef, Rovian, again. The CFI data speaks for itself. Table 3 shows 49% of all donors to Obama were $200 or less. He’s obviously taking something Michael Malbin way out of context, or producing an outright fabrication. It’s troubling that a news media outside of FOX is covering Rove as if he has credibility. But then thanks, I needed reminding that my world view can be naive.

Posted by: kat | December 4, 2008, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm

I’m ashamed of the Rovians. And most ashamed of McCain for selling out to them, especially after he got his own taste of Rove 2 elections ago. Remember “would you vote for McCain if you knew he sired an illegitimate black child?” Maybe that tactic isn’t illegal, but it is certainly dishonest and disingenious.

Posted by: Carol Ann Bohrman | December 4, 2008, 7:08 pm 7:08 pm

You people don’t want to deal with the fact that he won because he was the change that people wanted and needed. The Bush administration stole the election for eight years and people were just sick of it. All those early voter were not about John McCain. Never in the history of America have people come out with early voting like they did in this election and it was not because John McCain was running. It was because Obama was and people were excited about the possibilites of change and that change that he could bring. So deal with it and get over it. He won fare and square for a change!!!

Posted by: Uzachi | December 4, 2008, 7:55 pm 7:55 pm

of course, Obama won fair and square.
Nobody is saying otherwise. I see a lot of sensitive people posting outrageous things.
When a person gives his opinion, it doesn’t mean you have to subscribe to it. However, when a person writes that ALL Republicans are this or that, it becomes a tad farfetched. People tend to skip over such comments.
Also, it’s never good when a person starts his post with ‘you people’.
I want to conclude with this:
For the most part, (I can’t say ALL),
Republicans backed John McCain because that was THEIR candidate. What’s wrong with that? You can cry ‘racist’ if you must, but you would be wrong.
Democrats do not like it when others put labels on them. So don’t do it to Republicans.

Posted by: reality check | December 5, 2008, 8:10 am 8:10 am

“of course, Obama won fair and square.” – reality check
Yes he did and given the economic downturn Bozo the Clown would have won too if he had been the Democratic candidate.
I don’t think NoBo had to outspend McLame to win.
We don’t need the “wisdom” of Carly to figure that out.
That said, I’m encouraged by the first moves Barack has been making although we don’t need a news conference every day.
Please God, help us all get through these interesting times.

Posted by: Noz | December 5, 2008, 9:13 am 9:13 am

Noz:
I was just responding to Uzachi. That’s all. Uzachi said that Republicans don’t want to deal with the fact that Obama won the election.
I don’t think that’s the case at all.
Nobody I know is really talking about Obama. We’re focusing on the economy and what’s taking place in the senate right now. Besides, Obama is just picking his cabinet and staff. That’s what he’s suppose to do at this time.
We all need to focus on the various reasons for the economic downturn.
It’s very interesting that Barney Frank’s name is in the paper today.
He’s quoted as saying, “He’s (Obama) is going to have to be more assertive than he’s been.” Frank was referring to the bailout of the financial industry and rescue of auto makers.
It’s interesting in the fact that it was Barney Frank who wrote the banking and housing laws in the first place.
Frank is the House Financial Services Committee Chairman (Democrat, Mass.)(as you know, I’m sure)
Frank is pretending he had nothing to do with anything.
In fact, everybody’s pretending they had nothing to do with anything.
So what do senators and representatives do all day? What do CEO’s and their board members do all day? What do Unions do all day? Nobody could see this coming???? -
It’s usually never helpful to put the blame on the other side, and not at least look at yourself.
Obama might be pretty good; I don’t know. Of course, he won’t be able to do this thing by himself. Nobody could. It took many people to get us in this mess.
People like Barney Frank, the Unions, ALL politicians, bankers, CEO’s, and ourselves all have to look at our role in this fiasco.

Posted by: reality check | December 5, 2008, 11:06 am 11:06 am

I pray that Sarah Palin remains the ‘sweetheart’ of the Republican party……..forever. Such a relationship will Guarantee the Democratic party a minimum of sixteen (16) years control of the Executive Office, and quite possibly twenty-eight (28)!!!

Posted by: bobj72 | December 5, 2008, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm

If Karl Rove wants to really know why Barack Obama won, the answer has two (2) parts; Obama was by far the Better Candidate AND Sarah Palin is the better part of the second reason.

Posted by: bobj72 | December 5, 2008, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm

OH MY GOSH! Give it a rest I say,I see the Mulligan’s Drunksteraunt sign everyday insulting anyone of color on Roswell Rd in Marietta Ga :-). You mean to tell me that comparing campaign cash makes one a believer in money talks? And something else walks? Ok, I’ve had my fun with that,Barack Obama won because when we saw his face all over the place he was giving us a positive message that most of society is not used to hearing nor ready to hear from someone of his culture.He is a person a lot of men will love to hate and envy, he has it all.Ask his wife and a lot of other women and men who dare to be honest. Even a mind of his own,not to allow the nation go down to pure nothingness.Because, if he does, his kids and family will be screwed along with us. I have noticed that some are expecting a quick “Obama Fix”…hunh! Let me be not even the first to tell you,common since…..if things don’t work due to the same old fashioned,generic plan that has been in effect for quite a few national leaders why keep incorporating the same team members chalkboarding the same dried out game plan on an advanced world? Dems keep your shirts on he’s on it, You can’t fix something within months that took years to destroy.Stop banging your heads on a rock trying to figure out how that brown man with the muslim name beat McCain. Just think of it as a larger corporation and we are the board that has to choose the candidate with the most years left,better resume, better track record,freshest ideas and have 100% better results with international clients due to his calm,laid back and diplomatic personality. To win at the world’s game, strategy may appear to be socialism….remember? When the boss tells all of the top admins that it is mandatory for them to appear at functions and be charming,even if it doesn’t come natural to you. Dress and impress is the name of OUR game. Not just politicians,check out the night clubs,gyms,on the job,golf course,black tie affairs,galas and where ever else we socialize, we are all socialists or at least try to be. If you didn’t you wouldn’t have friends or associates.

Posted by: jokerswild | December 5, 2008, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm

Democrats are calling for Obama to come forth with his ideas. Barney Frank,
(D-Mass), House Financial Serv. Committee Chairman, was the latest one.
(Doesn’t Frank have some nerve? He wrote the Banking and Housing Laws that help tank the economy.)
On Iraq, Obama is now echoing Bush’s words. Go figure.
Is Obama trying to keep us in suspense?
I know, ‘one president at a time’.
However, he could let us in on a sneak preview.
Lets hear Obama’s epiphany on the economy and the war. Obama was in the Senate for four years. What rare solutions has he come up with in the senate? Does voting ‘present’ count?
Don’t confuse ‘laid-back and calmness’ with innovation or diplomacy.
Have you ever seen and acknowledged the times when Obama did not have a speech in front of him? It’s something to behold. This is why Obama refused town hall meetings with McCain. Remember?
Now, don’t get me wrong. I really do hope he does great for America.
Who would foolishly wish for failure;
I don’t want to suffer; do you?

Posted by: reality check | December 5, 2008, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.