politics

Political email: Raffle to eat with Romneys.

28 Comments

I’ve always gotten email and snail mail from both Republicans and Democrats. I’m used to all the feverish language telling me the horrible dangers if the other side wins. But this is a new to me method of raising money. It seems I can enter a raffle to win a meal with the Romney’s. Has anyone else seen these? Is Obama doing them?

The email looks sort of like this:

Lucia,

These Grab a Bite meals have been a lot of fun. Mitt and I leave the table each time feeling inspired and energized just from meeting and chatting with supporters over a good meal. In fact, I think we feel as much like we’ve won something as the actual “winners” do.

I just wanted to let you know that the entry deadline for our next Grab a Bite meal is tonight at midnight. And Mitt and I would love to meet you.

So donate $3 or more today to be automatically entered for a chance to grab a bite with us:

https://www.mittromney.com/donate/grab-a-bite-may
 
I admit I’m tempted to donate $3. I could ask Romney his position on Global Warming. I’d be tempted to donate $3 to Obama if it meant getting seat at the table with the President. I could ask him the same thing.

28 thoughts on “Political email: Raffle to eat with Romneys.”

  2. Ahh! So it is both sides. That’s pretty interesting.

    I kind of like it because it means that the politicians are likely to spend some time with people who might only donate as little as $3. Otherwise, campaign pressures being what they are, they are likely to spend lots of time with people who donate loads, and/or are lobbyests, other politicians or insiders of some sort.

    Maybe I should give the $3. It has a deadline. (But I bet there will be other ‘chances’. 🙂 )

  3. If you know how to use a whip and don’t mind wearing leather then you could probably at least a whole afternoon with President Clinton.

  8. I think those raffles are merely an indicator for the candidates and how they should be aiming their campaigns. The greater the reception to such offers the more they can dumb down their campaigns even though they may currently be near the limits.

  9. Consorting with, and breaking bread with known politicians???

    Why am I reminded of ‘First prize is a week in Philadelphia, second prize is 2 weeks?’

  11. I missed the deadline! Drat! I’m sure there will be more opportunities between now and early October.

    Nick–
    The thought of eating dinner with willard is scary!

  12. “The thought of eating dinner with willard is scary!”

    Bring your cat, I am sure he/she would enjoy having willard for dinner.

  13. Lucia,
    “The thought of eating dinner with willard is scary”
    Personally, I’d be happy to, while I would find the idea of facing Mitt and Ann “energized” alarming. But it’s true there might be rhetorical questions.

  14. j ferguson, actually I’m in Oxford, Mississippi (I work at olemiss).

    Carrick

  17. I presume that the more you donate, the better the chances of winning, so if you only donate $3, when others are donating $5000 or more, your chances of actually being amonst the 4 winners is remote.
    I expect that the people attending will be the Romney’s friends and big supporters, who have donated many $000’s.

  18. Ray– I haven’t checked the rules. It may be that the chances are per entry and not weighted by size of the donation. Of course even if that’s so, one could enter N times giving $3 each time but busy people won’t do that.

    Steve E– I wouldn’t want to win a dinner if luminaries were there. I want a “regular joe” dinner!

  19. Lucia,
    I checked the rules and it does say that “The odds of winning depend upon the number of eligible entries received”, so on the face of it, a donation of $3 would stand as much chance as one of $5000 and to increase you chances, you should make a lot of $3 donations.
    However, it also states “no purchase necessary to enter or win a prize”, and “making a contribution does not increase your chances of winning”, so a lot of zero contribution entries seems to be the best option, if allowed!.
    However, there is a clause to say that while the potential winners will be chosen at random, the sponser may conduct background checks on the potential winners, to ensure they do not present a security risk to Mitt Romney.
    Also, winners must submit an Affidavit of Eligibility, a Liability Release and a Publicity Release, so read the rule carefully before you enter any future competition!

  20. Also, winners must submit an Affidavit of Eligibility, a Liability Release and a Publicity Release, so read the rule carefully before you enter any future competition!

    This seems fair enough. Obviously, the Romney’s are going to want reporter to cover the eating session. So, they need a publicity release.

    They don’t want to risk a suit if you get food poisoning from the egg salad or if a nut decides to gun everyone down during the meal. Ordinarily no one would sue a host who takes you to a restaurant when a nut breaks in and guns you all down– but the Romney’s are rich and people are litigious. So, the liability waiver seems fair.

    I don’t know what an “affidavit of Eligibility” would be.

    Maybe I’ll enter. As I said, I could ask him about his views on climategate. 🙂

  21. Clinton used to raffle off nights in the Lincoln bedroom. But the ticket prices had 3 or 4 zeros at the end.

  22. There should be a raffle to be President (or Prime Minister) for a day.

    Well, it can’t be any worse…. 🙂

  23. I have said for years that members of the U.K. second chamber should be selected at random, like jury service.
    That way, it would be truly representative of the population and would exclude those with political ambitions.
    I suppose that eventually the members would end up as corrupted as the elected politicians.

  25. I like the word “stochascracy”. But in fact there are existing words like “demarchy” and “sortition”.

  26. Nick Stokes said above re Romney, “Mitt hides his real name. It’s willard. (ps Anthony Watts does too).”

    So what? Obama doesn’t just hide his name: he hides his country of birth, too!

  27. That exaggerated first hump in the letter M in Romney’s signature is weird. I think it implies a certain flexibility of identity ;P

Comments are closed.