ImaginativePRO Blog

DONALD TRUMP'S FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR YEARS 2015-2020

The House Ways and Means Committee on Friday, December 30, 2022, released redacted versions of six years worth of former President Donald Trump's federal tax returns, ending Trump's years-long effort to keep his returns from the public. 

The Democratic-led committee voted last week to make Trump's tax returns public, then released two reports, one from its members and another from the Joint Committee on Taxation, noting that the IRS did not audit Trump the first two years he was in office. The move to publicize the returns comes days before Republicans take control of Congress in January. 

The publicized returns offer a more detailed account of the former president's financial portrait in the years he was running for and in office. 

The report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, or JCT, said Trump paid no federal income tax in 2020, the final year of his presidency. The former president paid a net of only $750 in income taxes in 2017. He paid $1.1 million in net federal income taxes combined in 2018 and 2019. 

WHY HAS DONALD TRUMP FOUGHT SO HARD TO KEEP HIS TAX RETURNS SO SECRET?

The Supreme Court’s rejection Monday, February 22, 2021 of an attempt by Donald Trump to keep Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance from seeing his tax returns (and other financial documents) was rightly cast as a major legal setback for the former President.

But buried in that conclusion is this nagging question: What is Trump so afraid of? As in: Why has he fought so incredibly hard for the past five-plus years to keep anyone from seeing his taxes?

Remember that Trump’s view on releasing his tax returns was not always what it is today.

“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely,” Trump said in 2014. “And I would love to do that.” The following year, Trump told conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt: “I would certainly show tax returns if it was necessary.”

In January 2016, Trump was still dangling the possibility of releasing his returns. “I have very big returns, as you know, and I have everything all approved and very beautiful and we’ll be working that over in the next period of time,” Trump said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Absolutely.”

But then something changed. By February 2016, Trump, who was starting to look more and more like the GOP presidential nominee, was starting to backtrack on his previous promises. “We’ll make a determination over the next couple of months,” he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in an interview that aired on February 24, 2016. “It’s very complicated.”

By the following day, Trump had found his excuse for not releasing his returns; “I get audited. And obviously if I’m being audited, I’m not going to release a return,” he said. “As soon as the audit is done, I love it.”

That, of course, is a flimsy excuse – since there is no law against any person releasing their tax returns while under audit. (Richard Nixon did it while he was in the White House.) The “audit” – which apparently is still going on! – was simply a convenient cover for a decision Trump made sometime in late January or early February 2016: That releasing his returns would be far more politically damaging than the negative publicity he would take for not releasing them.

Trump became the only major party presidential candidate in the post-Watergate era to never release any of his tax returns.

(Sidebar: My strong sense is that when Trump was saying he would release his taxes in the early days of the campaign, it was one of many empty promises he made – assuming that he would never be a serious candidate and/or be called on his various pledges.)

So if an ongoing audit wasn’t – and isn’t – the real reason that Trump has fought so hard to keep his taxes secret, what is? Thanks to The New York Times having obtained a large number of Trump’s past tax records, we now have the ability to answer – or at least make an educated guess – about the answer.

The most likely reason for Trump’s reluctance to release his taxes is that they would reveal two facts:

1) He didn’t pay any taxes for years and years

2) He has massive debts

Let’s take the first point, er, first. Here’s what the Times’ reported about Trump’s taxes:

“Mr. Trump paid no federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years that The Times examined. In 2017, after he became president, his tax bill was only $750.”

How? Well, in large part, by claiming more than $900 million in losses on his 1995 tax return, which could have allowed him to avoid paying taxes for decades. Trump also aggressively sought to lower his taxable income, including claiming a $72.9 million tax refund that remains under investigation by the IRS. As the Times’ David Leonhardt wrote: “Over the past two decades, Mr. Trump has paid about $400 million less in combined federal income taxes than a very wealthy person who paid the average for that group each year.”

Now to Trump’s debts. And again, Leonhardt:

“In 2012, he took out a $100 million mortgage on the commercial space in Trump Tower. He has also sold hundreds of millions worth of stock and bonds. But his financial records indicate that he may have as little as $873,000 left to sell.

“He will soon face several major bills that could put further pressure on his finances.

“He appears to have paid off none of the principal of the Trump Tower mortgage, and the full $100 million comes due in 2022. And if he loses his dispute with the I.R.S. over the 2010 refund, he could owe the government more than $100 million (including interest on the original amount).”

Trump’s refusal to release his taxes during the 2016 campaign is likely explained by the first point. It’s not exactly endearing to voters when a wealthy person paid somewhere between very little and nothing in taxes for years. His considerable debts – and the questions about whether or not he will be able to pay them – are likely the driving force for why Trump continues to work to keep his returns private. If everyone knows he’s in debt and with few options to get out of it, he loses any leverage he might have to go to the financial institutions he owes money to and renegotiate the terms of the loans.

Trump always acts out of self-interest. And he is purely transactional in all of his dealings. His shifting stance on the release of his returns – and his ongoing battle to keep them private – is reflective of both of those points. Trump knows the details of the returns make him look bad and potentially kill any remaining leverage he has to dig himself out of the financial hole he is currently in. And so, he fights like hell to keep them secret.

WHO PREPARED DONALD TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS:

Former President Donald Trump's returns show he made substantial payments to his now-former accountant to prepare his individual tax returns. 

His 2015 return shows he paid $573,581 to accounting firm WeiserMazars LLP for "tax preparation fees" (On Jan. 1, 2017, WeiserMazars changed its name to Mazars USA). Donald Bender, who worked on Trump's personal and business taxes for four decades, is listed as the "paid preparer" on Trump's 1040 tax return that year.

In 2016, Trump's tax preparation fees more than doubled — he paid $1,295,385, also to WeiserMazars, and Bender again prepared his tax returns for that year. 

Subsequent returns released by the House Ways and Means Committee don't reveal the tax preparer fees. This is likely because the tax law passed by Congress in 2017 and signed by Trump in the first year of his presidency eliminated the deduction for personal tax preparation. The fees can still be deducted from business tax expenses, but the line-item deduction can no longer be used by individual taxpayers.

DOWNLOADS:

To DOWNLOAD a copy of the Report To The House Committee On Ways And Means Chairman Richard Neal regarding former #POTUS Donald Trump's income tax returns for the years 2015-2020 you can do it here:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/jc-treport-full/f668ccce9e46c975/full.pdf

To DOWNLOAD a copy of former #POTUS Donald Trump's IRS 1040 for the years 2015 through 2020 you can do it here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trumps-tax-returns-released-today-2022-12-30/

COMMENTARY:  I am not a tax expert and make no opinions or take any responsibility (financial or otherwise) regarding the accuracy or authenticity of former #POTUS Donald Trump's federal income tax returns.        

Courtesy of an article dated December 30, 2022 appearing in  CBS News and an article dated December 30, 2022 appearing in the New York Times and an article dated February 23, 2021 appearing in The Point by CNN Politics 

 

 

THE 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACE WILL BE A BATTLE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCE -- HERE'S WHERE EACH CANDIDATE STANDS, AND THE WINNER IS!!

Donald Trump and Jeb Bush are the frontrunners as GOP hopefuls for President of the United States; Hillary Clinton leads the field among Democratic Party candidates.  Bernie Sanders is coming on strong only 5 points behind Hillary Clinton in the CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll. (Click Image To Enlarge)

With 17 major candidates and counting, 2016 presidential candidates — and those who'll likely join them — are increasingly looking for ways to stand out through various social media platforms.

Gone are the days where candidates would raise money and cut television ads. The way the American public follow campaigns and candidates has transformed over the past two election cycles, and social media is at the forefront.

We took a look at the influence potential of each candidate through their various social-media platforms. We measured their followers or subscribers on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. Some candidates are even turning to Snapchat — a platform that, campaign-wise, remains in its infancy as candidates experiment with it.

Here's a look at each candidate or likely candidate's potential social influence:

Click Image To Enlarge

Courtesy of an article dated June 24, 2015 appearing in Business Insider

COMMENTARY:   Jeb Bush narrowly leads the GOP field in New Hampshire, the state that will host the first primary of the 2016 presidential campaign, but Donald Trump's gains in the state suggest the billionaire businessman is establishing a following in New Hampshire.

The new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary poll finds Trump at 11%, just behind Bush at 16% in a wide open contest for the Republican nomination for president. Bush and Trump are followed by Rand Paul at 9%, Scott Walker at 8%, and Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio both at 6%. Ben Carson and Chris Christie each have 5% support.

Click Image To Enlarge

All jokes aside, the Republican Party is officially afraid of Donald Trump.

He has virtually zero chance of winning the presidential nomination. But insiders worry that the loud-mouthed mogul is more than just a minor comedic nuisance on cable news; they fret that he’s a loose cannon whose rants about Mexicans and scorched-earth attacks on his rivals will damage the eventual nominee and hurt a party struggling to connect with women and minorities and desperate to win.

Former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer says.

“Donald Trump is like watching a roadside accident. Everybody pulls over to see the mess. And Trump thinks that’s entertainment. But running for president is serious. And the risk for the party is he tarnishes everybody.”

Those risks were amplified this week after a trio of polls showed him likely to earn a coveted invitation to the party’s debates, which ironically were restructured with the very goal of avoiding the circus-like atmosphere of 2012. Giving Trump a major platform just as the country is tuning in is not exactly the Big Tent the party’s bigwigs had in mind..

An unnamed RNC member confessed.

“I’m not excited about somebody as divisive as Trump or somebody as obnoxious as Trump being on the debate stage.”

Trump currently sits in eighth place among Republicans, according to the RealClearPolitics’ average of national polls — ahead of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. And this week, he came in second in two New Hampshire polls and in a Fox News national poll, finishing behind only former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in all three.

Hillary Clinton appeared to be the front-runner among Democrats running for president until Senator Bernie Sanders (DEM - Vermont) entered the race.  Keep in mind however, that Vermont is next door to New Hampshire, and New Hampshire voters are very familiar with Bernie, and this raises his popularity considerably.  Clinton leads Sanders by only 5 points -- 43% to 38%.

Click Image To Enlarge

These political polls can change overnight.  With just one good debate, anyone of these front-runners for either party could vault right to the top in the ratings.  There is still plenty of time for some of them to screw up (e.g. Mitt Romney's "47%" comment).  I am betting that Trump will be the biggest screw-up.  However, even with his reputation for making controversial remarks, he has something the other candidates do not have.  A very successful trackrecord as a businessman and job creator and strong celebrity status as the host of The Apprentice and countless TV appearances. Trump has branded himself like no other Republican candidate.  

To insure that the Trump brand does not get tarnished, he continues to communicate with his fans on Facebook (1.9 million fans) and on Twitter (3 million followers).  However, according to Business Insider, only 42% of his fans on Facebook are Americans. The rest are foreigners.  His political slogan is "Make America Great Again."  Very catchy, but the same slogan was used by Ronald Reagan.  To make it his, The Donald has applied for a patent on the slogan.  That's ballsey.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for President is no slouch when it comes to using social media.  She also has a very strong following on Twitter (3.77 million followers) and Facebook (978K fans).  From what I could tell, Hillary Clinton does not have a political slogan, but a simple (albeit controversial) campaign logo that looks like this:

Hillary Clinton presidential campaign logo (Click Image To Enlarge)

Hillary's campaign logo has been criticized for being "uninspiring", "weird" and "saying nothing" (Washington Post), but it is meant to convey "hope for America" through Hillary (the BIG H) and the big red arrow symbolizes a forward looking belief that America can "move on" to bigger and better things as a nation if you elect her as US President.

Montenico Montanaro of NPR.org says,

"Clinton's simple logo, though, is certainly saying something now. On Tuesday, the day of the Supreme Court oral arguments on gay marriage, her H on both Facebook and Twitter were changed to rainbow-colored.

Click Image To Enlarge

And it's not the only example of how the campaign has tried to adapt the logo. For Iowa, the background is an open field with corn in the foreground. For New Hampshire, mountains.

It's kind of becoming the Empire State Building of presidential campaign logos — changing colors to celebrate any variety of milestones and holidays, from pink for breast cancer awareness to red, white and blue for Memorial Day to "pastel fades" for Easter. (The Empire State Building has a whole calendar of scheduled colors.)"

Hillary's presidential campaign logo certainly reminds you of how Google adapts its logo on an almost daily basis to represent causes, holidays, etc.    

It's Hillary In A Landslide Over The Donald

Democratic pollster Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling just tested a matchup between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the Bluegrass State, and the results are, simply, hilarious. Even though Clinton currently trails the rest of the GOP pack by anywhere from 5 to 10 points in Kentucky, she leads Trump by a 45-42 margin.

Imagine that! A Democrat winning Kentucky! That hasn't happened in 20 years, when Bill Clinton edged out Bob Dole by a single point. It just shows how truly despised Trump is, but it also leaves us giggling over a follow-up question: What would happen if this 26-point swing were replicated nationwide?

Jensen has Clinton winning an insane 45 states and taking a beyond-comical 513 electoral votes to just 25 for The Donald. That's an FDR-level landslide, leaving Trump with just a teeny outpost of red in the far west, plus a dot here for Oklahoma and there for West Virginia. That's it, and nothing more. (Click here for a complete state-by-state breakdown of the carnage.). Here's that landslide map again:

What a Hillary Clinton electoral vote landslide would like like if she ran against Donald Trump in the 2016 General Election for US President (Click Image To Enlarge)

Trump is a showman with a huge ego.  He is flamboyant and loves to be in front of the camera, and you can bet that his handlers will make sure he gets a lot of exposure off and on the campaign trail. He always has something to say, and doesn't regret what he says, and doesn't apologize if he hurts feelings. This is the sort of thing that launched Ronald Reagan into office.  This is what is often referred as being "genuine."  What you see is what you get.  Sarah Palin was also "genuine," and Republicans were soon to find out how dumb she was.  A genuine liability.  The Donald is not a repeat performance of Sarah Palin.  He's smart, shrewd and not afraid to say what is on his mind.  Genuine.  He understands the importance of marketing, especially social media.  Many Americans are mesmerized by Donald Trump.  He has a serious following, and should not be underestimated. He knows that marketing, showmanship and boldness are all part of politics.  He has the financial means to run a Presidential campaign, and you can bet that social media will be an important element of the marketing mix.   

Courtesy of an article dated June 24, 2015 appearing in Business Insider, an article dated June 26, 2015 appearing in Politico, an article dated June 25, 2015 appearing in CNN News, and an article dated June 24, 2015 appearing in the Daily KOS

Follow Me:   Twitter: turk5555    Facebook: 797743955    LinkedIn: turk5555

THE INSANE OPULENCE OF THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL PALACE UNDER ITS FORMER DICTATOR

WHEN YOU'RE ROBBING STATE COFFERS TO GILD YOUR TOILETS, TASTE BECOMES SECONDARY

During the summer of 2011,  Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych opened up his modest home to six television reporters, revealing what a journalist with the AP described as "a cozy place with a small office just big enough for his grandchildren to play in." Except even at the time, it was pretty obvious that he didn't live there. The same AP story went on to detail "strong evidence he actually lives in very different digs: a luxurious, marble-columned mansion with a golf course, a helipad, and even an ostrich enclosure."

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

Yanukovych's critics were right. When the public finally got a glimpse of the leader's true housing situation after he fled Kiev a week and a half ago and found refuge in Russia (just before Ukraine's parliament voted him out of power) they found all of the above, plus a replica galleon floating on an artificial waterway, elaborate statuary on neatly manicured lawns, garages filled to the brim with vintage cars and motorcycles, bathrooms the size of studio apartments with gilded toilets, and more.

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

The Ukrainian presidential palace has a dining room that is nothing short of overwhelming. The mansion wouldn't look out of place as the country abode of an oil baron or a Hollywood starlet, perhaps, but this is the private resident of a public official, who for most of his career made a salary in the realm of $2,000 a month.  Yanukovych is currently missing (hiding out in Russia, thanks to that other crook Putin) and wanted on charges of mass murder related to the killing of Euromaidan protesters, who for the past three months have been protesting Yanukovych's policies, including rejecting an accord with the European Union in favor of strengthening ties with Putin's Russia. How Yanukovych's grand residence came to be is a baffling tale of corruption, secrecy, and questionable design choices. Now vacated and overrun by journalists and citizens hoping for a glimpse of the president's secrets, the palace remains an architectural tribute to the fantastic wealth and power wielded by its owner. And yeah, it's pretty ugly.

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

Mezhyhirya, as the residence is called, was, up until 1923, the home of a monastery. In 1935, the 350-acre estate was taken over by the government and turned into a park with summer houses for Soviet officials. In 2007, Yanukovych privatized the property in his final days as Prime Minister, demolishing the Soviet-era buildings and erecting a five-story palace built by Honka, a Finnish company that specializes in log houses.

Click Image To Enlarge

In Yanukovych’s final weeks as Prime Minister, his government illegally privatised  Mezhyhiriya. No money was paid to the state for its sale; instead, a couple of semi- derelict buildings in Kyiv were handed over in return (they have continued  to fall down ever since).

Mezhyhiriya, meanwhile, was acquired, without any competitive tendering process, by a Donetsk company called ‘MedInvestTraid’, which immediately resold it and a few years later filed for bankruptcy.

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

COMMENTARY:   What is it with these Russian and Ukrainian presidents presidential palaces. Vladimir Putin's presidential palace is also very over the top and opulent.  But former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych went way over the top with his presidential palace. No wonder he was overthrown. 

Courtesy of an article dated March 5, 2014 appearing in Fast Company Design

THE WHITE HOUSE CHRISTMAS 2012, THE TREE ARRIVES, DECORATING THE TREE AND WHITE HOUSE, AND FIRST LADY MICHELLE AND FIRST DOG BO

The White House Christmas Tree 2012 arrives at The White House by horse drawn carriage (Click Image To Enlarge) 

On Friday, November 23, 2012, The White House Christmas Tree arrives by horse drawn carriage. The First Lady Michelle Obama is presented with the White House Christmas Tree, which will be displayed in the Blue Room of the White House, a tradition ince 1966.   The White House Christmas tree is a 19-foot Fraser fir and was grown and harvested by Peak Farms in Jefferson, N.C., which is owned by Rusty and Beau Estes.

 

First Lady Michele Obama talks about the spirit of Christmas 2012 and how hundreds of volunteers participated in decorating The White House so that it sparkles during the Christmas holidays.

 

Time-lapse video of The White House Christmas Tree for 2012 being decorated.

 

First Lady Michelle Obama welcomes military families, including Gold Star and Blue Star parents, spouses and children, to the White House for the first viewing of the 2012 holiday decorations.

 

In this video, Bo the First Dog and Obama family pet inspects the White House decorations and Christmas Tree, including a paper mache statue of himself.

 

COMMENTARY:    I hope you enjoyed The White House Christmas Tree 2012. 

PHYSICIST SAYS U.S. HAD SECRET PLANS TO NUKE THE MOON DURING HEIGHT OF COLD WAR IN ORDER TO INTIMIDATE THE SOVIET UNION

The U.S. may have had secret plans to detonate an atomic bomb on the moon at the height of the Cold War (Click Image To Enlarge) 

A story that surfaced over a decade ago is making the rounds again this week, as some media outlets are reporting that the U.S. considered detonating an atomic bomb on the moon in an effort to intimidate the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

On Sunday, the Daily Mail revived the story, citing a 12-year-old interview with physicist Leonard Reiffel, formerly of the U.S. military-backed Armour Research Foundation and later a deputy director of NASA. Celebrated astronomer Carl Sagan also was said to have been involved with the secret project, which reportedly was known as "A Study of Lunar Research Flights" or "Project A119." Sagan died in 1996.

 

In the interview, Reiffel reportedly said the plan had been to launch a rocket that would deliver a small nuclear device to the moon's surface, where it would detonate.

Reiffel, now 85, is believed to be the only official to have publicly confirmed his association with the project. However, a 190-page document called "A Study of Lunar Research Flights, Volume I" dated June 19, 1959 is available online through the Information for the Defense Community database. The document, available in PDF format, is credited to Reiffel and bears the heading of Air Force Special Weapons Center and the Air Research and Development Command based at Kirkland Air Force Base in New Mexico.

Click Image To Enlarge

The abstract reads:

Nuclear detonations in the vicinity of the moon are considered in this report along with scientific information which might be obtained from such explosions. The military aspect is aided by investigation of space environment, detection of nuclear device testing, and capability of weapons in space. A study was conducted of various theories of the moon's structure and origin, and a description of the probable nature of the lunar surface is given. The areas discussed in some detail are optical lunar studies, seismic observations, lunar surface and magnetic fields, plasma and magneti3 field effects, and organic matter on the moon.

Reiffel spoke to several publications about the project in 2000. His statements then coincided with a then-new Sagan biography, which suggested that the celebrity scientist might have breached security by revealing the classified project in an application for an academic fellowship, the Associated Press reported at the time.

Military officials abandoned the idea, Reiffel said, in part because of the danger it posed to people on Earth if the mission failed. Scientists also were concerned about contaminating the moon with radioactive material.

In an interview with The Observer, also in 2000, Reiffel said he did not know why the plans were scrapped but was glad that they were."Thankfully, the thinking changed. I am horrified that such a gesture to sway public opinion was ever considered," he said.

In a new interview with The Huffington Post, Richard Rhodes, a Pulitzer-prize-winning author and an affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, said he was unfamiliar with Project A119. If there had been a plan to send a nuclear missile to the moon in the 1950s, he said, it would have been hard-pressed to advance past the study stage. The first Soviet craft crash-landed on the moon in 1959, followed three years later by the American craft Ranger 4, reports National Geographic.

"I doubt we had any rockets that would have had the power to leave earth's orbit and hit the moon," Rhodes said. "It takes a lot of power to take things out of earth's gravitational pull, much more than to just put something in orbit."

If there had been a secret plan, the show of U.S. technological prowess would have been meant as a counter to Sputnik, Rhodes added.

Though nuking the moon sounds far-fetched, Rhodes said some of the projects that grew out of Cold War tensions were far from funny.

"One of the craziest things we ever did was develop and deploy nuclear tipped anti-aircraft missiles, plane to plane. That's always seemed like insanity," he said. Once miniaturized nuclear weapons were created, "as all the services wanted their share--so they had to think of some use for these things, and their uses were marginally insane," at least by today's risk-reward standards, he said.

When asked about the project, the U.S. Air Force declined to comment, the Associated Press reported in 2000.

COMMENTARY:    What a crazy, idiotic idea to bomb the Moon, just to demonstrate our machismo and flex our nuclear muscles just to intimidate the U.S.S.R.   Growing up during the height of the Cold War, I can clearly remember the air raid warning alarms and nuclear bomb safety tests that the schools used to conduct.  The teachers would get the students in their classes to crawl under their desks and pretend there was a nuclear bomb attack.  These tests would've done absolutely zero to protect us in the event of a real nuclear attac.  

The whole idea of arming ourselves with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the World 100 times over on the theory that our enemies would never use their nukes is pure lunacy.  If you ask me, all of this is done just to keep the Military Industrial Complex in business making weapons of mass destruction and the latest in tech weaponry.     

Courtesy of an article dated November 28, 2012 appearing in The Huffington Post and an article dated November 28, 2012 appearing in CNN.com

FLORIDA FINISHES COUNTING VOTES AND PRESIDENT OBAMA WINS FLORIDA'S 29 ELECTORAL VOTES, WINS OVERALL WITH 332 VS ROMNEY'S 206

The 2012 General Election is now officially over and in the history books.  Florida finished counting its 2012 General Election votes and as everybody had already predicted two days ago, President Barack Obama won the State of Florida's 29 electoral votes with 49.9% of the total votes, and former Massahusetts Governor Mitt Romney winning only 49.3%.  President Obama also won the popular vote with 50.5% or 61.164 million votes versus 48.0% or 58.159 million votes,  

Clik Image To Enlarge

Courtesy of an article dated November 8, 2012 appearing in Huffington Post

 

HOW BOTH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND MITT ROMNEY GROSSLY OUTSPENT THEIR PREDECESSORS DURING THEIR CAMPAIGNS

AN ELECTION DAY INFOGRAPHIC TALLIES UP THE MONEY DRIVING BOTH CAMPAIGNS, ILLUSTRATING THE VAST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN 2012 AND EVERY OTHER ELECTION YEAR.

Well, the day is finally here. Whether you voted early or are running to the polls today, it’s going to be a tough one to sit through. We all know infographics are a noted cure for anxiety (and a leading cause of distraction), so here’s one more 2012 election graphic from Best Degree Programs to keep you busy until you can go home and park yourself in front of the TV.

This election cycle has been dominated by stories about money: the candidates’ own money. The candidates’ plans for America’s money. The money (or lack thereof) of their supporters. The exorbitant sums of money given by unseen interest groups. The exorbitant sums of money each campaign will have spent by the closing of polls today.

Click The Infographic To Enlarge

But then, it seems like every election in living memory has been the subject of campaign finance controversy. Were this year’s fundraising tallies really so astronomical? According to this inflation-adjusted comparison of every election since 1860, yes. Yes, they were. In 2011 money, Obama and Romney have outspent every presidential candidate since Lincoln defeated Douglas (Lincoln would have spent $2.8 million total had he run this year) by several hundred million dollars.

There are some other interesting insights to be had, too, if your delicate constitution can handle the over-the-top graphic design. For one, a comparison of who gave what to each campaign reveals that most of Obama’s donations came in small sums. Obama raised $354 million of his campaign funds in individual donations under $200, while Romney only received $78 million in donations under the same amount. Romney made up the difference in donations over $2,000, which contributed $170 million to his campaign. Meanwhile, Obama’s big spenders contributed a paltry $92 million. The huge disparities in these numbers speak both to the Obama campaign’s deft outreach strategy (Rufus Gifford, you sly son of a gun) and to the income brackets of Obama and Romney supporters.

Unsurprisingly, conservative super PACs have outspent their democratic rivals by more than $200 million. Restore Our Future, a Romney super PAC, will have spent $142 million over the past year. The largest democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, will have spent less than half of that. The story is much the same when it comes to partisan committee raising, with the RNC outdoing the DNC by roughly $100 million.

In other words: The popular little-guy-versus-big-guy narrative is largely true when you compare the finances of each campaign. But when it comes to a historical reading of this year’s fundraising, both candidates are big guys.

If you want to go deeper (and ditch the graphics), check out the New York Times’ excellent interactive tally here. Infographic via Business Insider.

COMMENTARY:   It's remarkable just how funds U.S. Presidential candidates need to run their election campaigns.  Although President Obama out-raised Romney in individual donations, he lost by a huge margin when it came to Super-Pacs contributions.  Romney can thank former President George W. Bush and a majority Congress and Senate for passing legislation making unlimited Super-Pac contributions.   

The morale of this story is that money DOES NOT buy elections, and in the final analysis, President Barack Obama won because he was true to principles, positions and campaign pledges. Romney was all over the place and changed his political positions constantly.  Romney alienated minorities, hispanics, young voters, and the poor with his "47%" comment during a fund raiing event, and his comment about "binders of women"   

Courtesy of an article dated November 7, 2012 appearing in Fast Company Design

 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA ANNOUNCES WIN BY TWEETING "THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE OF YOU. THANK YOU. FOUR MORE YEARS."

With his re-election all-but-confirmed, President Barack Obama took to Twitter to thank his supporters in a series of tweets. First with a "This happened because of you. Thank you.", "We're all in this together. That's how we campaigned, and that's who we are. Thank you. -bo" and then simply a "Four more years." with a picture of the first couple hugging.

Around 11:15 pm EST, just as the networks were beginning to call the race in his favor, Obama took to Twitter to proclaim himself the winner over Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Obama tweeted.  

"This happened because of you. Thank you."

That the president would take his message to Twitter before taking the stage in Chicago underscored the tremendous role social media platforms like Twitter played in the 2012 election.

Minutes later, with the race called in his favor, Obama tweeted again.

"We're all in this together. That's how we campaigned, and that's who we are. Thank you. -bo."

Through the course of a long and bitter presidential campaign, Twitter often served as the new first rough draft of history.

Top campaign aides used the Internet tool to snipe at each other, the candidates used it to get out their messages and political reporters used it to inform and entertain.

On Election Night, the tweets were flowing.

By 10 p.m. EST, with the race still up for grabs, Twitter announced it had broken records.

There were more than 31 million election-related tweets on Tuesday night, making Election Night   Twitter spokeswoman Rachael Horwitz. Between 6 p.m. and midnight EST, said that there were more than 23 million tweets.  She said. 

"This was the most tweeted about event in U.S. political history." 

Horwitz noted the previous record was 10 million, during the first presidential debate on October 3.

Horowitz said.  

"Twitter brought people closer to almost every aspect of the election this year.  From breaking news, to sharing the experience of watching the debates, to interacting directly with the candidates, Twitter became a kind of nationwide caucus."

In the moments following Obama's win, Twitter was in a frenzy, with a peak of 327,000 tweets a minute.

Another tweet from Obama, one that read: "Four more years" and showed a picture of him hugging his wife, became the most retweeted tweet in the history of the site.

'FIRST TWITTER ELECTION'

Love it or hate it, Twitter and its role in politics appears to be here to stay.

For Rob Johnson, campaign manager for Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry's failed presidential run, had this to say.  

"Twitter changed the dynamic this cycle and will continue to play a bigger role in years to come. We no longer click refresh on websites or wait for the paper boy to throw the news on our porch.  We go to Twitter and learn the facts before others read it."

The 2012 race was the first where Twitter played such an important role. Top campaign advisers like Romney's Eric Fehrnstrom and Obama's David Axelrod engaged in Twitter battles through the year.

With many political reporters and campaign staff on Twitter and Facebook, social media websites were often the first place news broke. Some top news stories were kept alive or thrust into the headlines after becoming hot topics on Twitter.

Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire, said in an email.

"It was one heckuva echo chamber." 

Johnson said Twitter was the driving force behind some of the year's biggest political news stories.

Johnson said.  

"The twitterverse shapes the news and public opinion.  The Internet is truly a real and powerful tool in politics."

In future elections, candidates and their campaign staffs will have to include social media as another battleground, Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons said.

Simmons said.  

"This was the first Twitter election and social media is now fully a part of our election mechanics.  Going forward candidates must have an aggressive social media strategy if they want to win."

COMMENTARY:    President Obama also announced his re-election Facebook, but for some reaon neglected to post anything on Google+, so I took the initiative.

Courtesy of an article dated November 7, 2012 appearing in Reuters

2012 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS, PRESIDENT OBAMA WINS BY ELECTORAL COUNT, BUT FINAL FLORIDA VOTE COUNT REMAINS

This is where you'll find the Florida election results for the 2012 presidential election, the state's Senate race and House contests and how citizens voted on ballot measures.

Florida has 29 electoral votes. In 2008, President Barack Obama won the Sunshine State, garnering 50.9 percent of the vote.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, had a slight lead in the Florida polls going into the 2012 general election, although some prediction models still called the state a tossup between the two candidates.

Click Image To View Interactive Electoral Map

COMMENTARY:   As of Wednesday evening, November 7, 2012, President Barack Obama had 49.87 percent of the statewide vote versus 49.27 percent for Romney, with just 49,963 votes separating them, according to the Florida Division of Elections.

Officials throughout the state blamed an unexpectedly high number of absentee ballots and the length of the ballots, which included 11 proposed state constitutional amendments, for long lines at polling places and delays in tallying final results.

But Republican Governor Rick Scott's decision not to extend early voting ahead of Election Day, after it was cut back from 14 to eight days by Scott and the Republican-controlled Legislature, was also cited as causing exceedingly long voter lines at many precincts on Tuesday.

Democrats have said repeatedly that the cutback was a part of an unsuccessful attempt to blunt turnout in Florida by Obama supporters.

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez apologized for the long lines in his county on Wednesday, after acknowledging that some voters had been forced to wait up to six hours to cast their ballots.

Gimenez, whose county accounts for about 10 percent of Florida's nearly 12 million registered voters said.

"That should not have happened.  We had a very long ballot. It was the longest ballot in Florida history."

The final margin of victory in Florida may be less than a percentage point.

Some political pundits say the delays highlight Florida's seeming inability to hold elections that are free of controversy and public mockery.  

Seth Gordon, a former political consultant based in Miami said.

"There are so many different potential sources of interference and conscious efforts to muck it up, we won't know for a while yet who to point the finger at.  We could have been there in the bulls-eye of the whole works looking idiotic just like last time," he said, referring to 2000, when George Bush won Florida by 537 and captured the White House.  We may be just as idiotic this time, but it doesn't matter because no one is watching.  Last time, we held up the entire country."

As of 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 7, 2012, all of Florida's votes still had not been counted. However, preliminary totals are available as follows:

Click Image To Enlarge

As you can readily see, President Barack Obama is ahead of Governor Mitt Romney by about 47,000 votes, but according to several election analysts, the final Florida vote count lead is not likely to change much, but increase in favor of President Obama, because the remaining uncounted ballots are from voters in heavily Democratic Dade and Broward counties.

Courtesy of an article dated November 6, 2012 appearing in Huffington Post Politics and an article dated November 7, 2012 appearing in the Chicago Tribune

LEAN FORWARD -- WE'RE NOT DONE