Actually, you are a more select group than you think. Only 300,000 donated less than $200 to his campaign, not ‘several millions’. In fact, less than 500,000 have even donated to his campaign. Over 50% of his money came from donors who donated large dollar amounts. In fact his, average contribution was ~$1500, compared to McCain’s $2000
You know what Obama’s 30-minute spot tonight is? It’s him basically announcing “checkmate in two moves.”
His 50-state plan has made him competitive in Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and other places that the Republicans never expected to have to defend. He’s closing the gaps even in places like Georgia, Texas and Arizona, which should’ve easily been +25 McCain.
Now McCain and the RNC have a choice: try to buy a 30-minute spot to counter Obama’s, or spend their money defending those states. They can’t really afford to do both, or even to defend all of the states that Obama has put into play.
Alright. My response is that they both get a lot of free airtime in the form of daily news coverage and debates.
The point is that the ad time was available in the marketplace. The fact that only one candidate chose to use his money this way is not unfair.
For starters it’d have to involve some activity that was at least immoral, if not illegal. Activity that is 100% legal by any definition wouldn’t qualify. This is advertising, not election rigging. If Obama was buying off McCain supporters or paying for rigged voting machines, you could make a valid charge he was buying the election.
I don’t know what that means. It’s certainly important to Barack Obama and John McCain. And, to the extent that the President affects American policy and governance, it’s important to the US and the world, although I don’t think you’re going to see many changes in your day to day life no matter who gets elected, unless you’re up for a job with one or other of the candidates, of course. I don’t know that it’s really any more or less important than the 2004 race, or the 2000 race, or the 1996 race, etc.
That doesn’t mean I can’t be sick of hearing about it and disgusted by the whole thing, though. And it’s weird, because I used to like politics…
I do not think Obama is “buying the election;” but then I’m one of those who opposed campaign-finance reform, and regarded it as a abridgement of the first amendment. I think all candidates should raise as much as they want, and spend as much as they want, however they want – BUT that it should all be fully disclosed.
I am quite certain, though, that if it were a republican who had massively outraised Obama, many people here and in the media would be find it horrible and terrible for one candidate alone to get a half-hour of TV, and that this showed the corrupting influence of money on politics.
More important at this point, I guess, is the question of whether it will help Obama. I’m inclined to suspect not. I won’t say it definately won’t, but the problem is that it brings up three things that Obama should be avoiding.
-
The perception of arrogance. Whether or not it’s true, there are things Obama and his supporters have done that have created the impression of arrogance (the seal, the roman-column stage at the DNC, the way some followers have a cult-like devotion, the repeated pronouncement taht Obama’s election will “change America” or the world). None of those things are a big deal by themselves, but add in an unprecedented ad buy like this, and eventually you start dealing with blowback.
-
The perception of it as unfair, and a manifestation of biased media. Liberals don’t like to hear it, but it’s a fact. Pew polling says that 70% of the population sees the media as pro-Obama. If that number is accurate – or even close – it means that at least one in three Obama supporters see the media as biased. Some people are going to have the same initial reaction as The Flying Dutchman: this doesn’t seem fair. Link that with the fact with many people already think Obama is being shoved down our throats, and again you have blowback. To Be clear: I don’t think it IS unfair – but some people, including undecideds and Obama leaners – will think it is. Again, blowback.
-
And finally, it raises an issue that has only started to come up in the last few days: How exactly did Obama raise all this cash? Yes, the bulk of it has been online through under-$200 donations … but given that Obama (contra McCain) has refused to release any names of those donors, given that we already know that many larger donors were phony names (Doodad Pro, et al), given that it now seems apparent that the Obama campaign disabled some of the security protections to prevent identity theft and fraud, and given that there are starting to be documented cases of people finding bogus campaign donations coming from their credit cards … regardless of whether there is any deliberate large-scale fraud going on there (I suspect not), this is not a topic that Obama wants in the headlines on Monday.
He’d be much better off, IMO, spending the money on more traditional campaigning.
Actually, as I just cited earlier, only 48% of his donations are in that category, as opposed to 34% for McCain.
Where people are mislead is that a single donor might donate multiple times. If Bill Gates goes online and donates $1 on two thousand separate occasions, that was sometimes being reported as 2000 $1 donations, when it is really just a single one.
Thankyou. I just had a vague memory of Republicans being accused of buying elections through large corporate donations, but after doing some googling resulting in the name of Joe Kennedy coming up frequently I now understand what the term exactly means.
I’m still uncomfortable with the fact that unequal money is a factor that can make a difference in elections.
The Dems were “uncomfortable” with that for a long, long time. The Pubbie discovery of such gross inequality is…well, rather recent. Somehow, it seems to have escaped their notice, until recently. Mmmm, yes. Funny thing, no?
Right - we agree. Well I might call it a little more important than the 00, 04 races, but only in that it has some historical significance other than the presidency.
mccain will be on larry king tonight on cnn.
i’m sure it will be close to 30 minutes.
Well I would agree with that. No need to complain if your candidate wins. But one presidential candidate getting unopposed 30 minutes time on several national networks has dramatically increased the sense of inequity and never before has money been such a factor in an election. I’ll bet the founding fathers would disaprove.
Watch for Larry cutting off McCains answers.
You haven’t supported this assertion. Increased whose sense of inequity?
I’d like a cite for this too. Public financing has only been around for about 30 years, and it’s only existed in its current form for a few election cycles.
Under the Constitution as they approved it, Obama probably wouldn’t be eligible to vote at all (assuming he’d been born in the original 13), so no, they might not approve. But again, I think you’re treating this election as if money was never a factor before, which is not true. Public financing is pretty recent, and even with public financing for individual candidates, the parties themselves can raise tons of money.
They probably would disapprove heartily of a black man getting elected president. You’re right.
Missed that; I stand corrected.
And even more problematic, IMO, is that on Obama’s site, Gates could have done it under 2,000 different names. That’s not something Obama wants to be bringing up right now.
Funny 
Not to mention some broad running on the opposing ticket. They’d also be a bit horrified that the colored folks and the women could vote, too.
Only if Gates has 2000 different credit cards and fake identities. You must use a credit card to donate. You can’t use paypal. You can’t send cash online. Now I’m no financial guru, but I have the feeling that if you provide false information with your CC number, somebody, somewhere, will notice and flag it.
For the record, in 1790, free blacks were allowed to vote in most of the United States.
Mine for one. Do you think its possible that I’m the only one?
Its been in the news. Record campaign contributions and expenditures with monthly reports eagerly put out by the candidates. Hillary at a disadvantage because she’s behind on contributions even though by historical measures she’s broken campaign contribution records as well.
Again you have misrepresented a statement of mine . Are you simply trying to hassle me or are you having difficulties. I never said money was never a factor before. I said money was never such a factor before. I hope you understand the distinction