Comments on: Obama fundraising: not groundbreaking except in scale

By: Obama fundraising: not groundbreaking except in scale « Top Daily Digest Reading

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:25:11 +0000

[...] If you want to read more about it, proceed here. [...]

By: UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:57:59 +0000

did doodad pro donate enough for a cabinet seat?

By: angryed

angryed — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:40:56 +0000

Holy shit! Obama isn’t the person he said he was? Next thing you know it’ll turn out he did pal around with terrorists. Uh wait…

By: Paul_in_NJ

Paul_in_NJ — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:29:00 +0000

Will the media correct the narrative, now that the election is over and the data is available?

Will the media start an investigation into credit-card fraud within the Obama campaign? No to both.

By: jerrytbg

jerrytbg — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:07:27 +0000

snaggletoothie on November 24, 2008 at 3:58 PM

That is sooo frightening!!!

By: jerrytbg

jerrytbg — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:05:40 +0000

You think turning off the AVS system and thus permitting anyone on the planet to donate in whatever amount they choose should be the model for the future?

Buy Danish on November 24, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Ignore the “o”shipley, he can’t handle the truth.

By: snaggletoothie

snaggletoothie — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:04:37 +0000

Tom_Shipley

Obama’s unwillingness to share info about these small donors makes every one of your pronouncements about them questionable. If only Obama had a track record for honesty, openess, change and hope he wouldn’t have to spend so much on astroturfing the big lies.

By: snaggletoothie

snaggletoothie — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:58:38 +0000

Reading this item in conjunction with Hitchens’ piece on the corruption in the Clinton WH, hmmm, I just wonder if the same people who bought Clinton have bought Dear Leader.

An important measure will be how much classified info ends up in China.

By: Buy Danish

Buy Danish — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:58:13 +0000

What indisputable is that Obama mobilized small donors much more effectively than Bush and McCain and his campaign is now the model for doing so. Tom_Shipley on November 24, 2008 at 3:29 PM

You think turning off the AVS system and thus permitting anyone on the planet to donate in whatever amount they choose should be the model for the future?

By: right2bright

right2bright — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:50:58 +0000

Well his big boys were more adamant about giving…and the small fish, will they blog but could never give up their bong for a donation.
What do you bet that dKos had the lowest % of givers of all Dems.
And as an added note…we were still giving to the church, the liberals don’t have to worry about keeping hospitals open, feeding the poor, taking care of abused and homeless children and women, the conservatives do that for them.

By: RightOFLeft

RightOFLeft — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:46:12 +0000

Looking at Obama’s total numbers, I’d say small donors were HUGE part of Obama’s success. What indisputable is that Obama mobilized small donors much more effectively than Bush and McCain and his campaign is now the model for doing so.

Tom_Shipley on November 24, 2008 at 3:29 PM

That’s what I’m afraid of. His arrogant refusal to provide a full accounting of his online contributions amounts to an admission of guilt. If you’re not willing to expect him conduct his fundraising transparently and ethically, you better not complain when the Republicans take the same liberties with campaign finance laws in future elections as Obama did.

By: meltenn

meltenn — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:34:23 +0000

Will the media correct the narrative, now that the election is over and the data is available?

Snort.

I’d just like to see an audit. What’s that? The FEC said they’re not going to do one. They’re going to audit McCain instead? What a surprise.

By: Terrye

Terrye — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:33:23 +0000

I think most people kind of figured this was the case anyway. They know Obama raised a lot of money from all sorts of people, they just do not care.

By: Aronne

Aronne — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:33:11 +0000

…an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama’s funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less…

Huh, I wonder why? Perhaps because the Taliban could contribute to his campaign and get away with it, if it simply did it in small chunks.

By: Tom_Shipley

Tom_Shipley — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:29:39 +0000

Half his money still came from small donors. He just happen to get enough of those small donors to give multiple times (not a surprise given the amount of emails he send out asking for more donations) to knock down the percentage who gave less than $200. But, still half of his campaign was funded by small donors compared. McCain had 32% funded by small donors while Bush had 31%.

Percent of campaign money that came from donation of $1,000 or more was 33% for Obama, 53% for McCain and 57% for Bush.

Looking at Obama’s total numbers, I’d say small donors were HUGE part of Obama’s success. What indisputable is that Obama mobilized small donors much more effectively than Bush and McCain and his campaign is now the model for doing so.

By: Dee2008

Dee2008 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:27:29 +0000

Every time I get myself talked into accepting Obama as my president, another story like this comes out. How can I hope for his success when I believe he got into office by cheating? How can I not hope for his success if I want my country to succeed?

By: sharrukin

sharrukin — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:21:20 +0000

Obama fundraising was groundbreaking in the sense that no else was so blatant about foreign donations, illegal donations, and credit card security being disabled.

The best part is the FEC is going to investigate McCain and let Obama walk. Groundbreaking, and very exciting stuff!

By: rbj

rbj — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:20:39 +0000

Reading this item in conjunction with Hitchens’ piece on the corruption in the Clinton WH, hmmm, I just wonder if the same people who bought Clinton have bought Dear Leader.

By: RightOFLeft

RightOFLeft — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:19:31 +0000

Anonymous online fundraising practically guarantees mischief. I wish Republicans were looking at Obama’s fundraising as closely as Ed has. This should be the biggest story of the election.

By: Count to 10

Count to 10 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:19:30 +0000

What was that line about stinking fish?

By: Romeo13

Romeo13 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:12:27 +0000

Wow, and wasn’t there a process in the Obama site to give small doner info “matching doners”? I remember seeing somthing like this when I was looking at their site…

By: Zorro

Zorro — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:12:11 +0000

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: “This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”?

Obama fits more into the fantasy category.

By: Romeo13

Romeo13 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:10:40 +0000

Just hit me…

We need to go back and ask some of those multiple doners IF they actualy gave multiple times.

It would be easy once a small Obama doners info was public info through the FEC database to give MORE money in their name, using either a gift card, or your own credit card.

Unless the doner checked their own info through the FEC, they would never know that money was given in their name.

By: Mark Garnett

Mark Garnett — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:07:27 +0000

Will the media correct the narrative, now that the election is over and the data is available? Or will they follow the advice given in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: “This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”?

No… Yes…

By: Dr Evil

Dr Evil — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:06:10 +0000

I love Gene Pitney, isn’t it a pity what a town without pity can do….Heads Up Barack Obama, you are not in Kansas or Chicago anymore. Washington D.C. Politics…”I Pity the Fool”