Romney loosing donors

AdamT said:

And again, you make no sense whatsoever. The polls favor Obama. That's just how it is. Sorry if that doesn't fit into your hackish world view.

Click to expand...

Actually, the polls I cited (from RCP) are pretty much within the margin of error (you probably didn't even look at them). That you think even polls are good for Obama but bad for Romney, then it's not my worldview which is hackish.

I, of course, did not make the opposite claim, that they're good for Romney but bad for Obama.

You keep claiming I make "no sense" when you're getting shellacked on your hackishness. No one buys it.

jerry7 said:

Obama filed with the Federal Election Commission to run in early 2011. That's when he began fund raising. The administration made no secret of their goal to raise 1 billion dollars. After watching McCain accept federal funds in 2008 and get outspent by Obama 4 to 1 why would Romney even consider matching funds? Obama destroyed the system and has turned his presidency into a perpetual fund raising campaign.

Click to expand...

Obama destroyed the system? His fundraising was the return volley of the 527’s, for example the $22 mil Swift Boat spent against Kerry in that single election, in what has been an escalating spiral. But destroyed? Only if you consider a proof of concept and return to a more small donor funding centric funding by the candidates and a swing back towards ads that the candidate puts their name on “destroyed”.

This year, unloosed by Citizens United the PACs were swinging back (from both sides) with no limits on contribution (effectively not even by nationality) and a lack of transparency if they so desire.

Harshaw said:

Actually, the polls I cited (from RCP) are pretty much within the margin of error (you probably didn’t

Click to expand...

That +4 Obama isn’t going to be within the 95% confidence range of most of those polls in solitude, it certainly is NOT within the 95% confidence of their aggregate. The state-by-state polls towards calculating the Electoral College votes, and EC voters are what it comes down to, are no better.

That leaves Romney at maybe 30:1 odds longshot for an election vote held today. That is what the kids call a “sucker bet”.

Dwight said:

That +4 Obama isn’t going to be within the 95% confidence range of most of those polls in solitude, it certainly is NOT within the 95% confidence of their aggregate. The state-by-state polls towards calculating the Electoral College votes, and EC voters are what it comes down to, are no better.

That leaves Romney at maybe 30:1 odds longshot for an election vote held today. That is what the kids call a “sucker bet”.

Click to expand...

Exactly. My boy Harshaw does not understand how polling works.

Dwight said:

Obama destroyed the system? His fundraising was the return volley of the 527’s, for example the $22 mil Swift Boat spent against Kerry in that single election, in what has been an escalating spiral. But destroyed? Only if you consider a proof of concept and return to a more small donor funding centric funding by the candidates and a swing back towards ads that the candidate puts their name on “destroyed”.

This year, unloosed by Citizens United the PACs were swinging back (from both sides) with no limits on contribution (effectively not even by nationality) and a lack of transparency if they so desire.

Click to expand...

Obama's small donors in 2008 only combined for 20% of his total contributions. Were do you think the big money came from?

**************************************************************************************************************
It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought. Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated.

"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth
CFI Press Releases > Realty Check - Obama Small Donors

Hairytic said:

I still want some proof that Democrats are being oversampled by any percentage. Where does this idea come from? It sounds more like a sore loser making up excuses rather than a factual statement.

Click to expand...

Heres the deal. there are more dems in this country than reps and probably always have been. Then there are people who see themselves as progressive, lib moderates (like me) and so on. Its a matter of perception. When the Reps claim the polls are skewed this is Newspeak. they are not "skewed" per se its just that there are more dems than reps and that grates on them.

Let them bitch. It is what it is.