Art Monk Fan Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Report Says Obama's Small-Donor Base Claim Is Off By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Despite attracting millions of new contributors to his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama received about the same percentage of his total political funds from small donors as President Bush did in 2004, according to a study released today by the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute. The analysis undercuts Obama's claim that his supporters "changed the way campaigns are funded" by reducing the influence of special-interest givers. First, the claim to change "decades of partisan politics as usual" is undercut by putting the Clinton team back together. Now, the claim to "change the way campaigns are funded" turns out to be empty rhetoric. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss -- very disappointing. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I think they're playing with language. Same percentage of funds does not mean same percentage of donors. Everyone throughout the election has uniformly stated that Obama's internet advantage and his ability to get so many 10, 20, 25 dollar donations added up to a big advantage. More, it gave him a huge database of people to contact and keep in the loop. The gross percentage may be similar, but the mechanisms to get to that number was different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Forty-eight percent of Obama's total take came from donors of $1,000 or more, compared with 56% for John Kerry and 60% for both Bush and John McCain, the analysis found. It's funny how they spell out "forty-eight" but write 56% and 60% using numbers. In other words 52% of Obama's donations came from people who donated $1,000 or less. 40% of Bush and John McCain donations came from people who donated $1,000 or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 It's funny how they spell out "forty-eight" but write 56% and 60% using numbers.In other words 52% of Obama's donations came from people who donated $1,000 or less. 40% of Bush and John McCain donations came from people who donated $1,000 or less. That's just AP Style -- you spell out numerals over nine, when they start a sentence. P.S. I'm an editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 I think they're playing with language. Same percentage of funds does not mean same percentage of donors. Everyone throughout the election has uniformly stated that Obama's internet advantage and his ability to get so many 10, 20, 25 dollar donations added up to a big advantage. More, it gave him a huge database of people to contact and keep in the loop.The gross percentage may be similar, but the mechanisms to get to that number was different. I think you're reaching because the truth makes you uncomfortable. Note this form the article: Meredith McGehee, a campaign-finance reform advocate at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, said Obama cannot claim "this election somehow created an alternative system for public finance. … The data doesn't show that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 In other words 52% of Obama's donations came from people who donated $1,000 or less. 40% of Bush and John McCain donations came from people who donated $1,000 or less. Haven't done the math, but 40% versus 52% seems statistically different. And if you broke it down to "small donations" that are under a 100 bucks, I'd bet the difference would be even more pronounced. I think you're reaching because the truth makes you uncomfortable. Note this form the article: It doesn't jibe with everything else we've heard. Even Rove and the Governors conference talked about the internet effect. When one report is an outlier, you tend to question it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I all seriousness....this is not meant to be inflammatory....but I am really dumbfounded to think that anyone believed this presidency would bring change or something different. It is what it is. Our current political system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I all seriousness....this is not meant to be inflammatory....but I am really dumbfounded to think that anyone believed this presidency would bring change or something different. It is what it is. Our current political system. Just to counter. I am equally dumbfounded by how many have declared status quo and no change before the guy is even sworn in and before he has enacted a single policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Just to counter. I am equally dumbfounded by how many have declared status quo and no change before the guy is even sworn in and before he has enacted a single policy.I'll third the dumbfoundedness back at you Burgold. If it wasn't for Hillary and perhaps Daschle, it wouldn't be an issue. I don't know how you can not see that.I think most people don't have a problem with the rest (especially Clinton's economic folks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 That's just AP Style -- you spell out numerals over nine, when they start a sentence. P.S. I'm an editor. Interesting, thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 It doesn't jibe with everything else we've heard. Even Rove and the Governors conference talked about the internet effect. When one report is an outlier, you tend to question it. I think the point here is that this is the first real study; everything before this has been based on claims made by the Obama campaign, impressions of what was occurring and other circumstantial evidence. BTW, Obama's superior online organization includes much more than merely fund raising, and that is the internet effect the Republicans are going to need to figure out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I all seriousness....this is not meant to be inflammatory....but I am really dumbfounded to think that anyone believed this presidency would bring change or something different. It is what it is. Our current political system. Our current political system has already changed and Obama didn't even take office yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I'll third the dumbfoundedness back at you Burgold. If it wasn't for Hillary and perhaps Daschle, it wouldn't be an issue. I don't know how you can not see that.I think most people don't have a problem with the rest (especially Clinton's economic folks). So, you're saying that people weren't yelling "he's not changing things enough" even before the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 So, you're saying that people weren't yelling "he's not changing things enough" even before the election? You were supposed to "fourth" the dumbfoundedness :doh: As to Daschle and Hillary. Probably neither would have been my first choice, but from what I've read and heard (including from Republican sources) they are respected and considered area competent. So, I'm willing to reserve judgement as to whether they will change. I am willing to take a leap and say that they will be a change from the current administration. So, it all depends on what degree of change you were anticipating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 That's just AP Style -- you spell out numerals over nine, when they start a sentence. P.S. I'm an editor. Brings me back to my college newspaper days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I think Obama's success with small donations should be commended. Those are certainly an indicator of real people support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 You were supposed to "fourth" the dumbfoundedness :doh: Considered it. But frankly, when I find dumbness on ES I normally don't consider it noteworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EersSkins05 Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Sorry, but I'm failing to see the relevance of these numbers to the rhetoric they're supposed to refute. The claim during the campaign was that Obama was getting a large number of donations in lower amounts in the 25-100 dollar range and they were primarily coming from sources that had never before donated to a political campaign. It was the fact that he was getting financial support, even in unusually small doses, from donors that were typically uninvolved in political contributions that indicated a shift in the paradigm of presidential politics. It wasn't the total AMOUNT of money being raised that was newsworthy- it was the sources from which much of it (52%, in fact) was coming. "91% of our contributions were in amounts of $100 or less" - Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. THAT is what was fascinating. Not the figure of donors that gave less than $1,000, or the total amount brought in by donors giving the $2,000 maximum at the end of the day. This study (and many of the responses in this thread) misses the point, and misses it badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 That's just AP Style -- you spell out numerals over nine, when they start a sentence. P.S. I'm an editor. Brings me back to my college newspaper days. I was the News Editor for my college newspaper...aren't they supposed to spell out "percent" and not use the % symbol? Or has that changed in the AP stylebook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 That's just AP Style -- you spell out numerals over nine, when they start a sentence. P.S. I'm an editor. That's not the MLA style that I was taught which is you spell numbers under 10; i.e. one, two, three etc. and use the numerals for those numbers over 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Considered it. But frankly, when I find dumbness on ES I normally don't consider it noteworthy. You skim a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 I was the News Editor for my college newspaper...aren't they supposed to spell out "percent" and not use the % symbol? Or has that changed in the AP stylebook? Yes, they're supposed to spell out percent -- just got the 2008 version of the Stylebook and it hasn't changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Yes, they're supposed to spell out percent -- just got the 2008 version of the Stylebook and it hasn't changed. to USA Today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 Sorry, but I'm failing to see the relevance of these numbers to the rhetoric they're supposed to refute.The claim during the campaign was that Obama was getting a large number of donations in lower amounts in the 25-100 dollar range and they were primarily coming from sources that had never before donated to a political campaign. It was the fact that he was getting financial support, even in unusually small doses, from donors that were typically uninvolved in political contributions that indicated a shift in the paradigm of presidential politics. It wasn't the total AMOUNT of money being raised that was newsworthy- it was the sources from which much of it (52%, in fact) was coming. "91% of our contributions were in amounts of $100 or less" - Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. THAT is what was fascinating. Not the figure of donors that gave less than $1,000, or the total amount brought in by donors giving the $2,000 maximum at the end of the day. This study (and many of the responses in this thread) misses the point, and misses it badly. No, I think you're missing the point. Although 90+ percent might have come in increments under $100, that same person continued to give in additional >$100 increments. It's a false number that was engineered by the campaign in order to manufacture the impression that 90 percent of funds were raised from individuals who each gave >$100. The individuals gave >$100 AT A TIME, but gave about as much as they have historically and in roughly equal percentages. Obama COULD have chosen to make a comparison between the fact that only 47 percent of his funding came from donors giving more than $1,000, while Bush and McCain both received 60 percent of their funds from donors giving more than $1,000. But his campaign chose to put out the disingenuous 90 percent figure. Now they've been called on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Why is this article basing it's findings on percentages? Those scale and hide the truth. How many total donors in each category did Obama get versus the rest. Remember he shattered records in fund raising, the percentage used here could hide very large differences in actual numbers of small donors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.