Obama Small Donor Claims

[alexey]

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.

"91% of our contributions were in amounts of $100 or less"

Yeah maybe they could have said something else or nothing at all. I think there is a difference between a statement structured to decieve and a statement structured to reinforce or suggest a notion. My personal opinion is that this statement is the latter.

Creating the impression of a "popular movement" was a very important part of Obama's strategy... and there actually was a popular movement.

[Larry]

OK, let's see if I'm following this thread correctly. (I skim a lot. )

The Obama campaign makes a claim:

"91% of our contributions were in amounts of $100 or less" - Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

(This claim, as near as I can tell, is undisputed.)

AMF finds an article. The article examines the statistics a different way. It examines a different statistic, and makes a statement about that different statistic:

President-elect Barack Obama received about the same percentage of his total political funds from small donors as President Bush did in 2004

The article also actually includes actual statistics: "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.", which not only don't support their statement, but which actually refute it.

AMF quotes the statement, but not the statistics which show the statement to be false.

AMF announces that because the Obama campaign presented one statistic, and the article presented a different statistic, this proves that the Obama campaign was lying through the deliberate slanting of the data.

(And several posters discuss the writing style of the article. )

Have I got that right.

[Titaw]

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.

Finally.....Someone has said what I have been thinking for years. Unless, the masses revolt and there is a full on revolution, NOTHING WILL CHANGE!!

[Art Monk Fan]

OK, let's see if I'm following this thread correctly. (I skim a lot. )

The Obama campaign makes a claim:

(This claim, as near as I can tell, is undisputed.)

AMF finds an article. The article examines the statistics a different way. It examines a different statistic, and makes a statement about that different statistic:

The article also actually includes actual statistics: "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.", which not only don't support their statement, but which actually refute it.

AMF quotes the statement, but not the statistics which show the statement to be false.

I quoted as little of the article as possible (only the lede) in order to get the message of the piece across and trusted folks to read it themselves, if so inclined. Nothing nefarious going on, just trying to be concise.

AMF announces that because the Obama campaign presented one statistic, and the article presented a different statistic, this proves that the Obama campaign was lying through the deliberate slanting of the data.

I never used the term lie, my word was disingenuous -- chosen quite deliberately to avoid being inflammatory. My contention is that Obama is not something new, he just plays the same old game better than his contemporaries. There's nothing inherently wrong with a politician acting like a politician, but I find the claims that he is something all together new and different a bit hard to believe.

(And several posters discuss the writing style of the article. )

Yes, yes we did.

Have I got that right.

Partially.

[WinSkins]

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

Think it might be useful to wait until the new guy gets in office before we diagnose how things are going? :doh: