The Obama campaign has been lying about its donor base:
If, as Obama says, most donations are grassroots and in small amounts, the numbers do not match up. If this many people donated to his campaign he would be polling at well over 50%.
In a grassroots movement, you smell the green. He's raised $600 million, as you say, in small donations. So divide it by ten bucks apiece and there's 60 million donors. If 120 million people vote on Tuesday, and he gets 50% that equals ...60 million voters! Honestly, you cynical rightwing losers, what's so suspicious about that math?
On Fox Newswatch on Saturday, Jane Hall said that many of her (journalism) students couldn't even calculate a percent. Of course, in this case, they're not motivated to figure it out, even if they know how.
Wow, this is lazy even for you, Rand.
The Obama campaign files reports that detail the number of donations, and the average donation. According to http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money24-2008oct24,0,2251238.story they have reported over 3 million donors, with an average donation of $86 (for the general election), as of mid-October.
The numbers in the Corner piece you cite are, umm, made up. But I suppose looking up publicly available data is too much work for you or Mark Steyn -- how much easier to fantasize about huge secret conspiracies.
Doing the math, indeed. Do the research!
I think Jim is right, here, Rand (you know what they say about stopped clocks). 3 million times $86 adds up to $258 million, which is about right for what he's spending on the general election. I presume a similar number gave equal amounts in the primary to defeat Hillary, adding up altogether to his $600 million.
I don't think we should be fantasizing about massive financial fraud. I'm quite sure that Obama is doing his best to get around the campaign finance laws, and I'm sure that, at least around the margins, they are knowingly breaking the law. But (1) the law is stupid, and I am underwhelmed with the importance of breaking a stupid law, and (2) I've never accepted the argument that you can buy an election, once everybody's past a certain basic level.
McCain has more than enough money to get his message out. He's not being muzzled, or overwhelmed by Obama. If, after all that, he can't win, it's because the message didn't take, not because no one heard it.
What I think should be the right's reaction to all this is not ha! you Obama bastards, you're buying the election! That's just letting the left continue to dictate the terms of the debate, by conceding the argument that the influence of money in elections is eeeeeevil, and if unchecked will result in plutocrats ruling us all.
What I think the right should say is: sure, by all means, Mr. O, raise a bazillion bucks over the Internet, some of it in questionable dollops from Mr. Ben Dover, and some of it in probably illegal combinations, e.g. 52 donations of $25 using the same credit card, allegedly from Messrs. A. A. Donor through Z. Z. Donor.
But let us hear no more about the eeeevil influence of money in elections. If it were evil, you wouldn't be rolling in it, would you? Keep in mind, every time in the future you trot out that Republicans are the party of the rich, they'll try to buy the election bullshit, we'll be pointing to your massive effort to buy the election this year.
I would also focus like a laser on the real important lesson to be learned by this event, which is that Obama breaks promises if it suits his convenience. He promised to take public financing, because raising private money is eeeeevil. But it turned out he could raise more money privately than get publically, so he broke his promise.
Come next year, when it proves impossible to fund all the bright new massive spending programs that will heal the planet while still keeping the campaign promise that "95% of you will not see your taxes go up one penny," what are the chances the Messiah will jettison that promise just as forthrightly as he jettisoned the campaign-finance promise?
And will any of your Obamabots parroting the line that heavens, it's right-wing craziness to think you're going to get whacked in taxes under the Obama Administration, because, gosh darn it, Obama promised you wouldn't have the integrity to be embarassed? Or will there be some neat rationalization. Oh! Well, of course, he meant won't raise your taxes unless necessary, naturally! Or: gee, it depends on the meaning of the word "raise," doesn't it? Et cetera.
I guess it means the "small donations" were actually $10.31, which would put him at 48.5% of the electorate.
Holy crap! Gallup is right on the money!
Carl, who is changing the subject now?
But going on, I have no doubt that McCain would end up breaking all kinds of pledges/promises if he wins the election and McCain certainly has no problems with lying when it suits him which McCain has repeatedly done throughout his campaign.
Carl, who is changing the subject now?
Dude, there is a big difference between
(1) Answering the question, addressing the point, responding substantively, and then...
(2) Changing the subject.
As opposed to:
(1) Changing the subject, thus...
(2) Avoiding the subject, dodging the question, finessing the criticism.
I have no doubt that McCain would end up breaking all kinds of pledges/promises if he wins the election
Yeah? What's your proof? Beside which, this is yet another of those tiresome "oh yeah? you're another" arguments from the left. As in, as long as McCain or the Republicans or really anyone on Earth does X, which we all agree is bad -- why, it's cool if Obama does it! Nice morals there, keeping up (or really down) with the Jones.
So basically, after all the fluff about a new politics and so forth, your guy's moral standard is: whatever the worst standard of anyone else is. Gee, that's elevating and inspiring.
Does your guy stand for anything besides getting elected? Is there no point at which he'd say, well, yeah, I guess my supporters could argue that our opponents have done this and such, which is bad, but we're different. We don't think just because our opponents are shitheads that that means we ought to be, too?
and McCain certainly has no problems with lying when it suits him which McCain has repeatedly done throughout his campaign.
I though we were talking about breaking your promises, dude. Can we stick to that? Give me a major promise McCain has broken, hmm? Furthermore, this is a lot more important for Obama than McCain. McCain, he's got a 20-year history. We know who McCain is, and what he's likely to do. We don't even really need to hear from him, his record is plain.
Obama, on the other hand, has very little record, and indeed big chunks of what he does have he seems quite interested in keeping kinda' secret. So about the only thing we do have -- the major reason y'all are voting for him -- is all those lovely promises he's making in his campaign speech. For Obama, the question of whether you can believe in his promises is a whole lot more important than for McCain.
Carl, I agree 100% with your first comment, stopping only briefly to add that John McCain is the last person who could meaningfully make the (correct, IMHO) case you proffer.
Carl, No, two wrongs don't make a right but I was just trying to point out your bias. Actually, to answer your question 'Does your guy stand for anything besides getting elected?', Why Yes, Obama does but apparently you only get your news from Fox. Let me answer another question: 'Will the Republican party do anything to get McCain elected? Why Yes, no matter how low a road they have to take including outright lies, character attacks and fear. Something Republicans are very good since they have been practicing for so many years.
Give me a major promise McCain has broken, hmm? How about his wedding vow to his first wife for starters or doesn't this count. Oh right, that isn't fair. OK, how about McCain's promise to run a clean campaign. Of course that depends on your definition of clean. OK, how about McCain's promise to suspend his campaign during negotiations of the federal bailout plan? Not a major enough promise. OK, I give up.
Unfortunately your claim that 'We know who McCain is, and what he's likely to do. We don't even really need to hear from him, his record is plain.' Was maybe accurate a couple years ago but looking at how much he has changed during this campaign (from moderate to far right), it is anyone's guess what he really stands for and how much control he will have over his cabinet. And of course we could all of a sudden have Sarah Palin as President and she has even a smaller record.
Jeff, you're absolutely right. If I had the free choice of anyone in the world, I sure wouldn't vote for McCain for President. He's done some dumbass things. But...reality being what it is, he's the better of the two choices. And, fortunately, Madison's Republic is fairly resistant to dumbass Presidents. This is why the promise of an Obama Administration doesn't freak me out. He's more wrong-headed than McCain -- actually, more theoretical and wrong-headed and out of touch with reality than nearly any candidate since JFK, and at least John served in the war honorably.
But the damage he can do is fortunately limited. It's even more limited, I think, because his batshit-crazy supporters think he'd be taking office with a Mandate For Fundamental Change, when nothing could be further from the truth. That means in their arrogance and egoism they will surely hugely overreach, and promptly destroy themselves.
Tom, you're hopeless. What "bias" are you pointing out? That I favor McCain over Obama? Duh. Besides, that's not what I call "bias," that's what I call "good judgment." "Bias" is what you get when you make a decision for no good reason. (You can look it up, and probably should.) I've got my reasons, and they're not stupid. You may not find them sufficient, but that's no reason to call them "bias." I don't call you biased -- I just call you wrong!
Give me a major promise McCain has broken, hmm?
Broke his wedding vows to his first wife? By cheating on her in the 1970s, you mean? Well, Tom, if there was a candidate so perfect in his politics and his promises to voters that I could reach all the way down to start judging him on his personal ethics 30 years ago, then, yeah, I guess McCain would lose to a man that'd kept the faith all those decades. You let me know when the Republic reaches such a glorious state, mkay?
OK, how about McCain's promise to run a clean campaign.
And so he has, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure you think it's been "dirty," but then you'd think that no matter what McCain did, unless he just sat at home with folded hands and merely provide a Potemkin opponent for The One.
OK, how about McCain's promise to suspend his campaign during negotiations of the federal bailout plan?
And didn't he? He was in Washington, twisting arms in the cloakroom, talking on the phone with Republican Congressmen and Senators. What else do you want?
To be noticed here, my friend, is that none of those promises were to his own supporters, like Obama's promises in the primary to oppose the new FISA act (which he reneged on) or to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately (which he reneged on), or promises to the country at large, like his promise to do public financing.
Frankly, in re the former, what I have to laugh about is the pathetic nature of those who have pulled the Obama train (I use the seedy term advisedly) since the spring. Those poor fools have been so used like cheap whores. The One took their money and their votes, sang them all the songs they wanted to hear -- and has been tossing them overboard and under the bus, stabbing them in the back left and right.
And they all tell themselves, oh that's just bullshit for the rubes, he's really one of us, and he'll revert January 25, 2009, to the Obama we fell in love with. Yeah right. What a bunch of "starter wife" deluded suckers. The more Obama shows his cynical colors, the more amused I am about the fact that in June 2009 it will be the deepest-dyed Obamabots who feel the need to stock up on Preparation H. Those of us who repaid his cynicism with our own, and put our trust in dollars in the bank rather than airy promises, will be just fine by contrast.
Tom, you wrote:
Give me a major promise McCain has broken, hmm? How about his wedding vow to his first wife for starters or doesn't this count. Oh right, that isn't fair. OK, how about McCain's promise to run a clean campaign. Of course that depends on your definition of clean. OK, how about McCain's promise to suspend his campaign during negotiations of the federal bailout plan? Not a major enough promise. OK, I give up.
See? You gave up, Tom. On the other hand, Obama has broken significant campaign promises. And if a few years down the road, a really sincere Obama has to raise taxes, stay in Iraq, or break any of his innumerable promises because well, he tried really hard and it just couldn't work, you'll probably just nod sympathetically because you voted for someone who would try to change things. Not someone who actually will.
Carl, in response -
Bias - A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.
Partiality - An inclination to favor one group or view or opinion over alternatives
You said yourself that you favor McCain and you are just plain wrong that Obama broke a pledge on campaign financing so it certainly fits the definition of bias to me.
Regarding McCain's broken wedding vow -
Aren't you yourself making your famous 'oh yeah? You're another' argument and nice moral there keeping down with the Jones which you so disdain? But I digress.
McCain's campaign has been all about his character over Obama's character, so yeah, why can't I go back that far? And sorry, but this isn't just about personal ethics. What about McCain's oath to our country? McCain could have got canned for his behavior.
Regarding McCain's broken promise to run a clean campaing -
Sorry, you're wrong on all counts. McCain should be talking about what he wants to do for this country but he or his handlers decided dirty politics was the only way he can win. And you don't have to take my word for it since there are plenty of key Republicans that are saying the same thing regarding McCain's dirty campaign. Of course what happens next to these Republicans? They get stabbed in the back by their own party as we've seen but that's what happens when you are on the Republicant train.
Regarding is broken promise to suspend his campaign -
McCain had to 'rush' to Washington but turns out he was AWOL most of the time. And his campaign still went on - yes to a lesser scale but I guess your definition of suspend is different from mine.
Karl, I gave up because there is no way I can beat a double standard. Looking down the road, I'm sure you'd be just as ready to blame the democrats when McCain has to back down on all his promises if elected. Of course seeing as McCain has said so many times that 'I know how to get things done', you'll need to find another excuse or did he forget about working with Congress?
Carl,
You wrote:
>>actually, more theoretical and wrong-headed and out of touch with reality than nearly any candidate since JFK, and at least John served in the war honorably.
I'm curious why you cite JFK this way. We Republicans have been using Kennedy as an example of our kind of guy since at least 1980. He was a strong anti-Communist, understood the concept of negotiating from strength, was willing to use force where necessary, pushed through supply side tax cuts to create economic growth and tried to improve the civil rights of blacks while maintaining the balance between the states and the federal government. So how do you feel he was so out of touch with reality? Please understand I'm not arguing with you, just trying to understand your point of view.