• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

2012 Presidential Candidate Fundraising Summary

hazlnut

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
2012 Presidential Candidate Fundraising Summary




The first 2012 presidential primaries and caucuses may still be months away, but potential contenders are already crisscrossing the country in bids to boost their political profiles and raise money. Presidential candidates are required to file campaign finance reports with the Federal Election Commission each quarter this year, and each month beginning in 2012. Here OpenSecrets.org highlights how the candidates are stacking up in the money chase, as they build massive political war chests to get their messages out to voters.
Click to expand...

Obama: 82 Mil
Romney: 32 Mil

I'm just wondering how the right-leaning folks on DP explain this. I mean, if money equals free speech and corporations are people, then why is Obama raising more than twice as much as Romney?

It would seem that more people with money want Obama to serve four more years--despite his push for a modest increase in the upper income taxes.
 
hazlnut said:
2012 Presidential Candidate Fundraising Summary






Obama: 82 Mil
Romney: 32 Mil

I'm just wondering how the right-leaning folks on DP explain this. I mean, if money equals free speech and corporations are people, then why is Obama raising more than twice as much as Romney?

It would seem that more people with money want Obama to serve four more years--despite his push for a modest increase in the upper income taxes.
Click to expand...

Tax money.
 
hazlnut said:
2012 Presidential Candidate Fundraising Summary

Obama: 82 Mil
Romney: 32 Mil

I'm just wondering how the right-leaning folks on DP explain this. I mean, if money equals free speech and corporations are people, then why is Obama raising more than twice as much as Romney?

It would seem that more people with money want Obama to serve four more years--despite his push for a modest increase in the upper income taxes.
Click to expand...
All the Democrat money is going to one person and all the Republican money is split between multiple campaigns. You'll get a more accurate comparison of their fundraising and its implications after the primaries and it's just both of them going head to head.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
All the Democrat money is going to one person and all the Republican money is split between multiple campaigns. You'll get a more accurate comparison of their fundraising and its implications after the primaries and it's just both of them going head to head.
Click to expand...

I forgot about the others.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
All the Democrat money is going to one person and all the Republican money is split between multiple campaigns. You'll get a more accurate comparison of their fundraising and its implications after the primaries and it's just both of them going head to head.
Click to expand...

This is why.
 
The real numbers would have to include super PAC contributions. So far in the Republican primaries the super PACs have been outspending the campaigns 2-1.
 
hazlnut said:
2012 Presidential Candidate Fundraising Summary






Obama: 82 Mil
Romney: 32 Mil

I'm just wondering how the right-leaning folks on DP explain this. I mean, if money equals free speech and corporations are people, then why is Obama raising more than twice as much as Romney?

It would seem that more people with money want Obama to serve four more years--despite his push for a modest increase in the upper income taxes.
Click to expand...

When it comes to corporations, they hedge their bets. Which is why Goldman Sachs is one of the top donors for Obama AND Mitt. They throw their money to all because they want the winner to have their backing and the only way to be sure is to spread it all around.
 
AdamT said:
The real numbers would have to include super PAC contributions. So far in the Republican primaries the super PACs have been outspending the campaigns 2-1.
Click to expand...

And this is the most insane ****ing stat evar!!!1!!11!!!!
 
Amigo said:
Oh, and George Soros!
Click to expand...

I could have predicted that moronic comment would have been made somewhere in this thread, but #3 posts in...? You don't waste time.

I gave you a link to dozens of other names and associations that contributed to Obama's war chest and you took the lazy Fox News talking point way out.
 
poweRob said:
When it comes to corporations, they hedge their bets. Which is why Goldman Sachs is one of the top donors for Obama AND Mitt. They throw their money to all because they want the winner to have their backing and the only way to be sure is to spread it all around.
Click to expand...

You think once Romney is a shoe-in, the money will pour his way?

With the GOP splitting moderates from social-cons, the convention is going to be a mess, these people don't like to hold their nose. And then if Mitt picks a Palin to lure the far-rights back into the fold, it will backfire on him just like McCain.
 
hazlnut said:
You think once Romney is a shoe-in, the money will pour his way?

With the GOP splitting moderates from social-cons, the convention is going to be a mess, these people don't like to hold their nose. And then if Mitt picks a Palin to lure the far-rights back into the fold, it will backfire on him just like McCain.
Click to expand...

Goldman money will remain stable between the two candidates in the general until the final weeks were polls show who the winner most likely will be and then they will dump loads into that candidate so they can say they were with them all along. They prefer the Republican because they speak the language they like with the deregulation mantra but they will dump their cash load on who they think will win first and foremost. Buying post election favoratism.


*edit

No way no how will anyone EVER pick Palin as a running mate. Ever again. Here political career is over forever. She will from now on, at best, be just a political commentator. Which I think suits her because she can't handle the scrutiny of the spotlight that holding office brings. She's way too thin skinned for it.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
You think once Romney is a shoe-in, the money will pour his way?

With the GOP splitting moderates from social-cons, the convention is going to be a mess, these people don't like to hold their nose. And then if Mitt picks a Palin to lure the far-rights back into the fold, it will backfire on him just like McCain.
Click to expand...

The current ‘Republican primary ruckus’ is typical of US politics. Unfortunately the electorate has a VERY short memory. Consider that in ’76 the Democrats began with 13 candidates. Then in ’80 there were only 3. Kennedy and Carter battled it out right up to the convention where Ted tried to get delegates to renege on their voting commitments. He dropped out of the race on the second day of the convention…and you think it is crazy this year…not hardly.
 
Obama is tied with Paul for highest percentage of funds from small donors at 48% (well, Roemer at 82%, but he's got like a buck fifty). Gingrich is close with 43%. Santorum in the middle at 21%. And pulling up the rear, Romney at 10% and Perry at 4%.

Banking on Becoming President | OpenSecrets
 
hazlnut said:
I could have predicted that moronic comment would have been made somewhere in this thread, but #3 posts in...? You don't waste time.

I gave you a link to dozens of other names and associations that contributed to Obama's war chest and you took the lazy Fox News talking point way out.
Click to expand...

I don't even watch Fox News.
 
poweRob said:
No way no how will anyone EVER pick Palin as a running mate. Ever again. Here political career is over forever. She will from now on, at best, be just a political commentator. Which I think suits her because she can't handle the scrutiny of the spotlight that holding office brings. She's way too thin skinned for it.
Click to expand...

Not Palin, but a Palin-like far-right airhead. Someone with a life story that the social cons will eat up.
 
AdamT said:
Obama is tied with Paul for highest percentage of funds from small donors at 48% (well, Roemer at 82%, but he's got like a buck fifty). Gingrich is close with 43%. Santorum in the middle at 21%. And pulling up the rear, Romney at 10% and Perry at 4%.

Banking on Becoming President | OpenSecrets
Click to expand...

Great point. Small donors mean many votes.
 
hazlnut said:
I could have predicted that moronic comment would have been made somewhere in this thread, but #3 posts in...? You don't waste time.

I gave you a link to dozens of other names and associations that contributed to Obama's war chest and you took the lazy Fox News talking point way out.
Click to expand...

And I could have predicted the moronic knee jerk comment about Fox News.

And regarding the myth that Obama gets a lot of money from small donors:

A new analysis of President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign fund-raising punctures one of the most enduring pieces of conventional wisdom from his presidential run — that small donors powered his record-breaking money machine.

The study, released today by the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan group, goes deeper than previous analyses of Mr. Obama’s fund-raising in examining donors who made discrete contributions of $200 or less, and found many of them donated repeatedly to exceed that amount.

The institute found that while nearly 50 percent of Mr. Obama’s donations came in individual contributions of $200 or less, in reality, only 26 percent of the money he collected through Aug. 31 during the primary and 24 percent of his money through Oct. 15 came from contributors whose total donations added up to $200 or less. The data is the most recent available.
Click to expand...
Study: Many Obama Small Donors Really Weren't - NYTimes.com

Obama didn't raise any more of his money from small donors than Bush did in 2004.
 
I don't think money will be an object to either campaign when its all said and done. Whatever shortfalls the "official campaigns" may experience, will be adequately made up for by the Pacs....
 
Gill said:
And I could have predicted the moronic knee jerk comment about Fox News.

And regarding the myth that Obama gets a lot of money from small donors:


Study: Many Obama Small Donors Really Weren't - NYTimes.com

Obama didn't raise any more of his money from small donors than Bush did in 2004.
Click to expand...

How strange that you left out this paragraph:

Nevertheless, when it comes to large donors who gave $1,000 or more in aggregate to Mr. Obama, they still accounted for a smaller proportion of his total money haul than others. Contributions from such large donors accounted for 47 percent of his money through August 31, compared to 56 percent for Mr. Kerry, 60 percent for President Bush and 59 percent for Senator John McCain.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
How strange that you left out this paragraph:
Click to expand...

I left it out because it had nothing to do with the subject of the story.

I would think that should be obvious. Do you quote every single sentence from links ?? answer- NO
 
Gill said:
I left it out because it had nothing to do with the subject of the story.

I would think that should be obvious. Do you quote every single sentence from links ?? answer- NO
Click to expand...

The story is about the character of Obama's donors, claiming that Obama really didn't have an unusual amount of small donors when you look at aggregate contributions. But he did in fact have fewer large donors than Bush or McCain, which seems pretty relevant to me. Basically the character of Obama's donors WAS different, but it was unique insofar as he had a higher concentration of mid-level donors as opposed to small donors.
 
AdamT said:
The story is about the character of Obama's donors, claiming that Obama really didn't have an unusual amount of small donors when you look at aggregate contributions. But he did in fact have fewer large donors than Bush or McCain, which seems pretty relevant to me. Basically the character of Obama's donors WAS different, but it was unique insofar as he had a higher concentration of mid-level donors as opposed to small donors.
Click to expand...

And none of this affects the myth that an inordinate number of Obama supporters gave small donations.
 
Gill said:
And none of this affects the myth that an inordinate number of Obama supporters gave small donations.
Click to expand...

Right, it establishes that an inordinate number of Obama supporters gave medium-sized donations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom