So what is the problem.  Obama has raised 112 million from rich people.  I dont see why that is a problem, or why the Times piece was in any way misleading.  The simple fact is that for all his claims for change, Obama is a politician, and he always has his hand out.  He takes money from anyone who will give it, rich or poor.

Yes, McCain has his hand out to the poor as well.  Fortunately, they can see through his charade, which is why he has to depend on the rich for contributions!

33% vs. 75%.

No difference according to POV.

33% vs. 75%.

No difference according to POV.

Typical right-wing fuzzy math.

_The_ Math, apparently

WZ

the difference is Obama got more money.  Is that to fuzzy for you to understand?  Do I need to draw you a picture in crayon so you will understand?

The percentage is the relevant data, not the raw amount!

Do you need someone to draw you a picture?

Exactly why is the percentage the relevant data, because MMFA says so?  How do you defend your view that the bottom line dolar figure does not matter?

It's not that he got more, it's how. Pretty simple. Obama has a huge following in the middle class while McCain is having his team review his bundlers after it was revealed this week that "supporters" who's median income was $56,000 a year were "giving" 25% of their yearly salary to McCain.

Read the analogy that another poster made. It's sad that even after your talking point has been decimated you refuse to let it go.

Joe gets $10 from Group A and $20 from Group B. Group B could easily get twice the influence that Group A gets.

John gets $2 from Group A and $15 from Group B. Group B could easily get 7 times the influence.

The issue is the amount of influence of larger donors versus smaller donors. The percentage is what matters. Even though Joe got more money from both groups of donors than what John got, it's the percentage that matters.

I guess you didn't read the NYT article bobble blonde.  It clearly states the big donors are looking for clout in a Barry "dumbo" Obabma administration: 

Many fund-raisers sit on the campaign’s array of policy working groups, getting a chance to weigh in on policy positions and speeches. Mr. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of Mr. Obama, leads the technology working group. Fund-raisers from private equity and hedge funds sit on Mr. Obama’s economic policy group.

But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge-fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Mr. Obama at a time when their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington.

 

The shady george soros was buried deep in the article.  That should hit home as he is the driving force behind this web site.  

 -- Exactly why is the percentage the relevant data, because MMFA says so?  -- POV

Great point...mmfa will search until they find the scenario to fit their agenda. So here's a little math for the supporters of "The percentage is the relevant data, not the raw amount!".

Exxon donates $42k to Obama and $35k to McCain...nearly equal amounts. Yet using the holy percentage dogma...Obama gets 11% of his O&G money from Exxon and McCain gets just 3%...meaning Exxon has nearly 4 times the amount of influence on Obama vs. McCain...making me LMAO. 

"So what's the problem?"

Except for the misdirection of MediaMatters, none really. It's simple, big donors gave more money to Obama than to McCain, thus giving them more influence over Obama.

MediaMatters would like us to believe that it is the intra-$$-ratio that is more important than the inter-$$-ratio.

And you are wrong.  For the sake of argument let's say that campaign contributions equal votes and any important decision the candidate must make is decided by the interests of who bought his votes.   7 out of 10 of McCain's votes have been paid for by big donors, only 3 out of 10 of Obama's are.  In the election for McCain's votes the big donors have the clear majority victory but for Obama they have a minority voice and lose.  See how simple that is?

In your own words:

"I give you $50 and Bob gives you $10. Taking only the amount of money we have given you into consideration clearly I have more influence over you than Bob does." (We need not add Kevin into the mix.)

And, that is what matters -- Who has bought more of whom!

Wow, you almost seem to get it, but stop just short of the conclusion.  By the example and by the reality, Big Donors have bought a larger percentage of McCain than they have of Obama.

Except for the misdirection of MediaMatters, none really. It's simple, big donors gave more money to Obama than to McCain, thus giving them more influence over Obama.

Not so. Obama had many more big donors, but it was a much smaller percentage of his total amount.

McSame, meanwhile, got most of his money from big donors, not small ones. So who's the man of the people, eh?

It's a big distinction-- but then, logic isn't the Rights strong point. Hate and invective and innuendo is their stock in trade.

I dont see why that is a problem, or why the Times piece was in any way misleading.

The problem, fine sir, is that it means that MOST of McCain's money comes from the well heeled. That's a lot different than Obama. 

I did not catch the broadcast...was there follow-up on this teaser?

Also, I wonder why Obama's popularity is seen as a negative by "the media"

I do not see Obama getting special favored treatment by the media, as others suggest.

It's sloppy for Mike Barnicle to imply that everyone who gives over a thousand to a campaign is "rich."

 I gave about $2,000 to John Kerry's campaign in 2004 and I'm not rich.  I just wanted to do everything I could to stop Bush.  Which obviously wasn't enough to stop Bush.

 

It's a little difficult to stop the opposition when they have the company that produces the voting machines in their back pocket.

Demin,

Please provide proof of your allegation that the voting machines were/are rigged by Diebold.

Otherwise someone might get the idea that you don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. :-)  

AA,Where did I state that the voting machines were rigged?

Then just what did you mean when you wrote:

It's a little difficult to stop the opposition when they have the company that produces the voting machines in their back pocket.

Where I come from that suggests you think something fishy is going on. Like rigging elections?

The chairman of Diebold did proclaim in public that he was guaranteeing the state of Ohio for Bush in 2004.

The machines' code is an "industry secret" and therefore not under the scrutiny of a non-partisan body.

Smells fishy to me.

Demin,

Please provide proof of your allegation that the voting machines were/are rigged by Diebold.

Otherwise someone might get the idea that you don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. :-)  

Sorry for the double post.

The owner and CEO of Diebold promised to deliver Ohio for GWBush in 2004.

Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter!

"Stephen Spoonamore, founder of IT security firm Cybrinth and former advisor to John McCain, claims he has new evidence of election tampering by Diebold in the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senate races. A whistleblower gave Spoonamore a patch that was applied to Diebold machines in person by the Diebold CEO. Spoonamore confirmed that the patch did not correct the clock problem it supposedly addressed, but contained two parallel programs. Without access to the hardware, he could not learn more. He reported his findings to the Justice Department, which has not acted."

Read:

"Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?  Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count."

Author:  Steve Freeman

If you read 20 pages, you won't put it down.

TIN FOIL HAT ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Credible news org's only please...far left wing conspiracy sites with no links to back up their story don't count!  

Money well spent!  At least you felt good, right?  

But my estimate Obama has likely received about 75,000 donations at the $1000+ so-called fat cat level and McCain has likely gotten about 60,000 at the $1000+ level.

For Obama, this leaves about $214 million that he's raised from individuals who've given less than $1000.  My guess is that these are the result of anywhere from 750,000 to 900,000 individual 'small' donors.

For McCain, after the $1000+ donations are removed, he's left with $31 million.  My guess is that McCain's 'small' contributions are from about 125,000 individual donations.

Obama proabaly has about half a million more 'small' contributors than McCain. 

And, hopefully the voting results will reflect that difference.

Obama could have 1 to 1.5 million more contributors than McCain who've donated under $1000.  Unbelievable spin by Barnicle (and the NY Times).

I'll just repost this from yesterday...

WASHINGTON — Alice Rocchio is an office manager at the New York headquarters of the Hess Corp., drives a 1993 Chevy Cavalier and lives in an apartment in Queens, N.Y., with her husband, Pasquale, an Amtrak foreman.

Despite what appears to be a middle-class lifestyle, the couple has written $61,600 in checks to John McCain’s presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee, most of it within days of McCain’s decision to endorse offshore oil drilling.

A former FEC official said that it’s possible that the Rocchios had the means to make those hefty contributions — their first reported donations to a federal campaign. But the official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that their donations also could trigger a complaint or otherwise catch the eyes of the agency’s enforcement staff, tasked to ensure that companies or wealthy individuals don’t illegally circumvent contribution limits by using employees or other third parties as “conduits” for cash. Read on…

TPM has been all over this story and it now appears that the Rocchios aren’t the only ones who are under the microscope for questionable donations to McCain and the RNC. And is it a coincidence that only a week after donations from a major American oil company low level employee, Flip Flop McCain changes his attitude on off-shore drilling?  On top of that, in a TPM update, the Rocchios are renters and that their donations exceed the median household income for the area they live in.

Late Update: There’s a bit of dispute over whether Flushing, Queens, should be described as “middle class” or “lower middle class.” It turns out that the median household income in the Rocchios’ zip code is $58,069. Read on…

When the Norman Hsu story broke, Hillary Clinton was pounded day after day by the media, so we should expect them to be all over this story — right?  Perhaps Keith Olbermann will run with this story and give it the national scrutiny it deserves.

 

P.S. Wanna make some quick cash off of stupidity? McCain is now paying people to post his campaign talking points on other peoples' web sites. Anyone want to join me in my new money making scheme? ;)

Given some of the recent activity here, we maybe late taking advantage of this Snoop.

In case their watching though.

GO MCNASTY!!!!

Go McCain! He's a man who really loves our soldiers! Yay!

Obama is a job killing machine! Go McCain!

Cha-ching! Another t-bill from my man John!

MSNBC News Or Opponent

I did a quick scan of how many stories were related to MSNBC. There are many. At what point to we rise the question what is their role in our election process? So far, there is many incidents that point to their support for John McCain. Yet, there are some questionable manipulation dynamics that bare review and concern.

Do you recall how vicious MSNBC was toward Hillary Clinton during the primary process? Most of Barack Obama's supporters did little to rise any concerns for the claim Chris Matthews' obsession with Clinton when beyond reporting to dedicating more then half his show bashing her. I know I was concerned for the unequal funding burden imposed on her from the endless attacks on her campaign. After record funding goals, she still came up short as a result of the attacking nature of the press, mostly MSNBC and CNN. It is one thing to battle a candidate and another to battle TV networks. The end result is she lost.

There were many who was concerned that all the love given to Barack Obama would turn sour when the general election came. As it stands, those concerns were well founded. MSNBC has dropped all support for Obama for, yes you guessed it, John McCain. From all of this I have one very import question: Why did they want Obama elected as nominee? Without having to note it, I have my own conclusions for why.  

MSNBC and their conservative counter parts are not finished with Clinton. There is the matter of vice president, and they are making sure she does not get on the ticket. When a Republican says Clinton as the VP pick will help them, they are lying through their teeth. If that were the case, do you think they would broadcast it and campaign to make sure she is not chosen?  As I note these comments Brewer from MSNBC is having a phony debate with a Republican and Democratic strategist . You know the Democratic strategist who seems to agree with every negative claimed against their Party. They are debating if Clinton is  trying to steal Obama's nomination. From the video they used to make the claim, you have to stretch it to come to that conclusion, and MSNBC had no problem doing so. 

My claim is this: What MSNBC is doing amounts to undue influence and questionable manipulation of the facts, airways and our election process. When you have a network with the financial influence MSNBC has, there is cause for concern. Now, until November, we have to watch this network do the same thing they did to Clinton to Obama. But now, the stakes are very high. I don't think this country can stand another Republican administration. This story will continue.

 Joseph

 

I thought MSNBC was in for Obama.

 

I'm probably mistaking one or two people for all of MSNBC. But to be quite honest, I think every network has people who support both candidates. Some at each network support Obama, some support McCain, and others support someone but are more interested in getting high ratings.

I watch news programs for informed opinions anyway.

You Make Network Strategy A Success 

Your opinion is what I fear. I fear their attempts to make the viewer feel they are being fair and balanced is working. If you look closer, you see that even the Democratic spokesperson is a "plant." Absolute power is dangerous and networks use it control viewer's reality. I am sure you have wondered why certain points are not expressed. My friend you are being played, and you think you are being entertained and enlighten. Wake up. 

 

Joseph 

Joseph,

I watch a lot of political programming on MSNBC. Please give some specific examples of these alleged Dem "plants" you claim are there, cause I don't see it.

Watch Again

 

Every time you see a so-called Democratic strategist on MSNBC, you can bet that strategist will under sell the Democratic perspective. I refuse to grant your request for examples. Whatever I present, you would read it how the media wants you to. I can only point you to where it happens daily. But I bet the next time you see a Democratic strategist on MSNBC, you will at least look and listen closely.

 Joseph

Joseph, I don't know if the GOP is just offering bigger checks with their current desperation, but have you noticed a real change lately with the "Democratic Strategists" on the cable news shows?

I was used to the meekly apologizing Susan Estrich model, I've seen SpokesNegro Juan Williams go from half-hearted dem defender to Fox news patsy, but lately I've seen the "Dems" on TV take a real serious slide.

Tonight I caught Bob Beckel on Hannity & Colmes. Hannity is still issuing his ridiculous "challenge" to Obama to appear on the Fox Clown show, and Beckel responded with some analogy to Custer returning to Little Big Horn.

The implication was that Obama had been there, and been beaten badly. The logical response would have been to point out that a presidential candidate should, justifiably, have no interest in accomodating a semi-retarded liar who has a few hours a day on the radio that he calls the "Stop the Radical Obama Express".

Hannity just leaned back & chuckled as the other side of the fair & balanced equation (supposedly Beckel) implied that Obama had been bested by Hannity.

I've seen this more and more often lately, the media descending into a completely fictional world where their desperate lies are presented as reality. I realize nobody but the Fox target audience really buys these "opposing viewpoints" as actual representatives, but it's become so lopsided that I wonder about some of those "on the fence" voters who may be uninformed enough to fall for this crap.

Not only have the Democratic strategist taken a slide, but one could argue they are not Democratic at all. When they argue for the left, it is often very weak and missing the primary point of contention. It is like how you noted; the networks are building a false reality complete with the strong Republican view beaten up on the weak Democrat.

The drilling argument is a very good example of a staged argument the media have framed the Republicans to be winning. Another is the use of Gallup polls, whenever  a host ask a Democratic strategist some stupid question about why John McCain is so close to Barack Obama, they first drill the strategist to say the poll is cause for concern. Never have I heard a Democratic strategist say Gallup and Rasmussen polls are conservative and bias. This daily tracking role they play serve as a tool to lower Obama's numbers as needed.

 

Joseph 

Every time you see a so-called Democratic strategist on MSNBC, you can bet that strategist will under sell the Democratic perspective. I refuse to grant your request for examples.

What? You refuse to grant my request? Maybe that's because you pulled this load of crap out of your a-hole & you have NO examples.

This is just so typical here on Planet Moonbat.

Do you watch MSNBC? I do. I am a regular viewer of Morning Joe, Race for the Whitehouse, & Hardball. Occasionally I even hold my nose & tune into Olbermann.

Let's take Olbermann right off the table in your stupid claim. That show is a Dem/Lib lovefest, where never was heard a discouraging word...about Dem/Libs.

On any given day you will find on the other shows: Harold Ford. Eugene Robinson. Rachael Maddow. Joan Walsh. Bob Shrum. Dee Dee Myers. Wesley Clark. Chris Kofinis. And there are many more...

Now come on Joe, put up or shut up. Maybe your fellow Lib bobbleheads will just buy your crappola without proof. But I won't.

Maybe You Should Hold Your Nose When You Write

 

Don't try and take me through an academic exercise to prove something you would deny as all lying Republicans like yourself would do anyway. Not only would I not provide you examples, but I will stop responding to you all together. Because you feel embolden to attack with indignant comments while you are on the internet does not prove anything but you have an adolescent quality about what you don't get. I will not play you back of the school bus games. My guess is you hold others to standard you don't abide by. Hence, you have not provided any examples either. Get a life, and stop playing school teacher. 

Joseph 

 

 Read more >>   Options >>  

Of course you'll stop responding to me...I called your bluff. I caught you in a lie.

Come on Joey, tell us all how just one person I named fits what you wrote here: they are not Democratic at all. When they argue for the left, it is often very weak and missing the primary point of contention.

Can you seriously say that about Rachael Maddow? Or the others I named? No you can't. Go ahead Joey, prove your point--IF you have one. You can't & you won't. Go crawl under your mommy's skirt.

You Continue Too Be Arrogant Childish 

 

I thought about not responding to your crap, but then it became clear you feel you are the only one capable of presenting material with a back up. Not only will the video prove my point of a weak Democratic strategist, but it also proves how racist MSNBC is. If ;you think there are not examples of the racist claim, keep watching morning Joe.  In this video I am provided, it is loading with an attempt to show a strong Republican point and a very agreeable Democratic strategist who is obviously there to collect a check:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d_1uAiN4dE0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d_1uAiN4dE0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

In case the video is not inserted as an object into my comments, here is the link to the video. Have a nice day. 

Joseph 

I watched the video twice.

Keith Boykin was a fine advocate for Obama. He didn't back down. He didn't back off. He didn't come off as a wimp, or weak.

What's your beef? That he didn't raise his voice or yell & carry on like a nutjob?

IF this is your one example, you failed miserably.

Face it Joe, you got nothing.

Now kindly explain to me how the examples I gave meet your criteria? They don't. All are strong Democratic voices that more than hold their own on MSNBC. You'd be a liar to say otherwise.

I'm done here. You aren't worth my time if you can't be honest.

P.S. Now you're trying to change the subject by bringing up racism? Sorry. No sidestepping here. Stay on topic.

Let me get this straight. Suppose there are 'SmallDonors' and 'BigDonors' and 'CandidateA' and 'CandidateB.'

'SmallDonors' give $12.00 to 'CandidateA' and $5.00 to 'CandidateB.'

'BigDonors' give $8.00 to 'CandidateA' and $5.00 to 'CandidateB.'

I grant you that 'CandidateB' received 50% from 'BigDonors,' while 'CandidateA' only received 40% from 'BigDonors.'

But, 'BigDonors' have 60% more buying power with 'CandidateA.'

It surely appears that MediaMatters is obfuscating for Barack.

Ok, dumbing things down even further for you:

I give you $50 and Bob gives you $10.  Taking only the amount of money we have given you into consideration clearly I have more influence over you than Bob does.  How much we gave Kevin doesn't enter into the formula for how we influence you.

But, since you asked, Bob gave Kevin $7 and I only gave him $3.  Bob has more influence over Kevin than I do, even though he gave Kevin less money than he gave you.

Get it yet?

Why don'y you focus on Media Matters' numbers...

Instead of useless theoretical examples.

Obama has received $214 million in individual donations under $1000.

McCain has received $31 million in individual donations under $1000.

If the average donation under $1000 for each candidate is $100, then Obama has 2,140,000 small contributors and McCain has 310,000.

If the average donation under $1000 for each candidate is $100, then Obama has 2,140,000 small contributors and McCain has 310,000.

And that works out to 6.9 small contributor Barack Obama has to every small supporter Gramps McCain has.  Since people who contribute money are likely voters, this bodes well for an Obama Landslide....  :-)

You're pretty close Governor...

I'm a small donor for Obama.  I've given him about $100 (about 4 donations of $25).

On a recent fundraising e-mail from camp Obama, I believe they said they had 1.7 million small donors who have given less than $100.

So your figure is pretty close.

Wow!  I'm in fundraising but I have to admit that those were total guesses.

I just sent Barnicle an e-mail...

This is just classic corporate media in action.  They want to diminish Obama's prodigious fundraising from "ordinary people," and this is the tack they'll use.

This way they can present Grampah as an underdog--even a populist.  Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what he really is.  Barnicle is a corporate turd.

In plain raw numbers BHO has received more $ from larger conntributors (and more $ from smaller contributors).  By using percentages, MMFA is clouding the issue. But, hey, that's politics, use whatever method fits your agenda.  With such a large $ lead, why is BHO only a few points (or even) in the polls?

MMFA cloud the issue......never

But if they did not, people like bottleblonde would not make the incredible statment that how much money BO has is not the issue, the issue is the percentage.  People like her are in a dream world so clouded by partisan views they can not even begin to see the light of day. 

It is very simple.  BO has rasied a lot of money, from donors big and small.  But he has in fact raised more from big money donors than McCain has.  Yet he is unable to pull ahead in the polls.  Still, idiots like Wz-wannabe-writer still think there will be a landslide. 

When the issue is how much influence big donors have with candidates, the percentage of money they get from the big donors versus the small donors is all that matters.

The incredible (meaning not credible) comments have all been coming from your side, POV.

If somone goes to a public university where the tuition is $20,000, and one set of grandparents pay $15,000 and the other pays $5000, the first set of grandparents deserve a lot more of the credit for getting that kid through school.

If someone goes to a private school where tuition is $80,000, and one set of grandparents pays $50,000 and the other pays $30,000, the burden each set pays is greater, but there's less difference between the credit that each set of grandparents are due.

The problem we fair-minded voters want to avoid is too much influence from one set of contributors over the other set of contributors. In the analogy above, the one set of grandparents in the first example wield a much bigger hammer than the other. In the second example, the power each one wields is more even.

In Obama's case, his small donor base is much larger, percentage-wise, than his large donor base when compared to McCain's. McCain will be more beholden to his larger donors than Obama will. It's not the amount of money that's important. It's the percentages that matter.

Concentrating on the dollars clouds the issue.

Ok, dumbing things down even further for you:

I give you $50 and Bob gives you $10.  Taking only the amount of money we have given you into consideration clearly I have more influence over you than Bob does.  How much we gave Kevin doesn't enter into the formula for how we influence you.

But, since you asked, Bob gave Kevin $7 and I only gave him $3.  Bob has more influence over Kevin than I do, even though he gave Kevin less money than he gave you.

Get it yet?

 

• - MoonbatYouBet / Thursday August 7, 2008 5:13:16 PM EDT

Media assistence plays a large part IMO.

Yes, the percentages matter.  They are a big factor.  However, some seem to have trouble seeing that, so let's look at the numbers.

On the chart from the earlier MMFA article listed, McCain had a total of about $121.2 million total.  $90 million of that was from large donors.  Take away his large donors and he's left with $31.2 million.

Obama received a total of about $336.7 million.  $122.7 million of that was from large donors.  Take away the large donors and Obama still has $214 million.

Without his the large donors, McCain is crippled.  Without his large donors, Obama is just fine.  He still has more money than McCain with or without McCain's large donors.  I'm sure Obama is happy to have the money, but he doesn't badly need it.

McCain is very dependent on, and therefore more beholden to, his large donors.

Obama is much less dependent on his large donors.  That makes him less beholden to them.

There, isn't that simple?

Therefore BHO has more people to answer to, probably with many different views (however slight).  Who is going to have the more influence in any decision BHO might make as President, Joe Homeowner with the $50 contribution or John Corporate with the $1000 donation?  Sure 20 Joes might have equal influence if they are united in their "wants" but who is to say that would be the case?