Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
01:26 PM on 11/30/2008
i exceeded the $200 cap to count as a small donor by this study's standards, yet i donated all of my money in increments of $50 or less over the course of nearly a year; i hardly think any objective observer would categorize me as anything other than a small donor.
01:24 PM on 11/30/2008
Gosh, I gave $250. Gee, am I a large donor. What about those that give the max - $2300, what are they called. I gotta tell my son that this right wing Cheney guy working for the right wing AEI with no right wing spin to come up with has designated my $250 as 'large contribution' to Obama.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ajax2
12:52 PM on 11/30/2008
"... the report relates, deep within, that Obama, in fact, received donations under $200 from a staggering 2.5 million people..."
Case closed.
12:42 PM on 11/30/2008
The important point is that because so many people contributed to Obama's campaign he is not obligated to to the few or to special interest groups, but to the many. He is already demonstrating by his actions that he intends to do what is best for America and for the world, not for select groups. I loved his response to the reporter who asked what he was going to do for his "friends". He pointed out that this is not about "friends" - this was the old way of doing things. He is selecting administrative personnel based on competence and capability, not on friendship or ideology, the way of the past. These are the words of a true statesman. I fully expect him to follow those words with congruent deeds.
12:36 PM on 11/30/2008
I am definitely a small donor. Over the course of his primary and general campaign, I don't think I gave over $100 at any one time. I mostly contributed in increments of $25 and $50. By the end of the campaign, I think I had given a total of $550 which somehow makes me a "large" donor. Heh.

Yes, the author had an agenda. I'm not sure what the point of his paper is, though. Obama still had an unprecedented number of donors and their strong support won him the election. It wouldn't matter how much money a candidate had if he didn't have enough supporters to go out and actually pull the lever for him.
12:30 PM on 11/30/2008
I gave 25 bucks a month for about fifteen months. That adds up to $375. I would definitely consider myself a small donor. I kept hearing this same tired argument from my conservative friends during the campaign. But it's a fact that the average donor to the Obama campaign gave about $85. That's pretty small, people.

Conservatives need to at least get their stories straight, and decide if Obama's a fascist, or a marxist, or a terrorist, or a novice, or a typical pol, or too black, or too white, or...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:26 PM on 11/30/2008
I made the following points on the other thread before I saw this blog. I hoped I'd gotten my logic wrong, but it seems I didn't. Hard to believe MSM didn't look harder at this...

CFI's argument hinges on the $200 definition of "small donor," which isn't washing. First, this campaign had a strong fundraising timeline of over 12 months. Second, the Internet facilitated both the donor base and more frequent donations. Third, the intensity of this contest spurred more donations from more people. Federal reporting guidelines notwithstanding, an independent study on this topic should use a more fair standard, caveat its conclusions with disclaimers about the accuracy of the Fed's information, and provide access to the raw data.

Barring recalculation of "small donor" at a figure like $690--which is 15% of the legal giving limit--a fairer threshold would be the $1,000 line already included in the figures. Obama raised 53% of his contributions from that sector, to McCain's 41%, Kerry's 44%, and GWB's 38%. This sector accounted for 67% of Obama's revenue compared to McCain's 47%, Kerry's 57%, and GWB's 43%. Using the more reasonable $1K limit, Obama's small-donor claims remain intact.

The $200 "small donor" definition needs to be updated. The $1K ceiling may be too high, but a small-donor ceiling set at a mere 4.35% of the legal giving limit of $4,600 seems as inadequate and unfair today as a $75M public campaign financing limit in a billion-dollar race.
12:12 PM on 11/30/2008
So the CFI study was authored by someone with right wing roots, an agenda, and time on their hands. Guess we won't be able to let our guard down anytime soon. Way to go Greg.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheHandyman
Death...the last new experience you will ever have
12:55 PM on 11/30/2008
Yet none of those things in and of itself keeps the analysis from being true any more than the rebuttal was by a left-winger, with and agenda and time on their hands. Every analysis ever done was done to prove some point.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jpsoraire
12:06 PM on 11/30/2008
This "myth" as the study finds just threw down the hammer in the 2008 elections
11:55 AM on 11/30/2008
Coverage of the study is another example of what ails the MSM--blindly accepting what is fed them--calling Judy Miller
11:53 AM on 11/30/2008
We'll get the real answer to this when we see how Obama governs.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Cheryllou
Knowledge is Power
12:30 PM on 11/30/2008
no sh#t. How about when he REALLY wins the election.
01:30 PM on 11/30/2008
I don't understand what you're driving at
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
judesedit
01:30 PM on 11/30/2008
Poor Cheryllou. Are you saying McCain won???? Or are you still in denial about the illegitimate Bush administration??? I guess you failed to notice the hundreds of thousands of supporters for Obama in previously red states. Even though the GOP tried to steal this one, too, the American people came out in such numbers for Barack, it could not be done. Thank you America. I'm already sleeping more soundly.
11:46 AM on 11/30/2008
Small has nothing to do with the amount given. Small has to do with the amount of money those who gave, earn and have. How about making the defintion of "small" fit into those who fit into the middle and lower income bracket of 250,000. What are the % if one does that?
11:29 AM on 11/30/2008
This was the first time I ever contributed to a Presidential candidiate as it was for many I know. Do the Obama naysayers want us to e-mail them verifications of our conviction and dontation amounts?
This is not difficult research and we all know what it would reveal again. Of course the right will sprinkle the results with thier distortion dust to make it look as unsavory as thier practices.
11:29 AM on 11/30/2008
I gave over $2000 to the Obama campaign, but in many little increments over a year and a half. I had never given to a political campaign before. I have no lobbying or political connections, nor do I expect my donations to buy me any influence I am certainly not a "large donor", though this study would attempt to lump me in with the multimillion dollar bundlers that most rational people think of as large donors.
11:17 AM on 11/30/2008
So, the author of this study worked for Cheney. The LA Times and USA Today articles both described this Campaign Finance Institute as "independent." That may be true, but omitting the fact that its author has ties to the worst of the worst in the Republican Party leadership is as dishonest as the spinning of the numbers in this study.

Despite the myth that the media are selling about Obama's donor base, Obama had an overwhelming money advantage over McCain because of the millions of small donors. I think that the small donors to Obama's campaign may have made the difference between victory and defeat.

Obama would have been buried in the McCain and third-party attack ads that painted him as a scary Marxist secret Muslim (and black) radical who pals around with terrorists and who will raise taxes on the middle class. But he was able to afford massive ad buys that countered the smears.