posted
I'd link, but it's everywhere. Wander over to any news source, and it's among the top stories.
Why is this worthy of a thread?
Because I donated a miniscule amount to the campaigns of both Obama and Romney this quarter. Mostly, sports fans, I want to watch that particular race. I'm chastened to realize that I'm squarely in the middle of a trend. *sigh*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, the amount of coverage being given to this subject is ridiculous. The only two parts of it I would consider remotely newsworthy are Obama's and Romney's respective announcements- the former because of the sheer number of people who donated (100,000) rather than the actual amount of money, and the latter because it's genuinely surprising. And a big boost for the perceived viability of Romney's campaign.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was one of the itsy-bitsy donors to the Obama campaign. 100,000 people seems like a lot of people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a lot compared to the other candidates. Hillary and Edwards had 90,000 donors combined. It indicates that Obama's support is more heavily based in grassroots efforts (the "average American," if you will ) than his opponents'. This is further supported by the average donation numbers- the average donation to Obama's campaign was $250, versus Hillary's $520.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: It's a lot compared to the other candidates. Hillary and Edwards had 90,000 donors combined. It indicates that Obama's support is more heavily based in grassroots efforts (the "average American," if you will ) than his opponents'. This is further supported by the average donation numbers- the average donation to Obama's campaign was $250, versus Hillary's $520.
I don't know if I can agree that the numbers are as meaningful as you say. While using the American population as a whole isn't a good comparison, voter turnout is. Voter turnout is typically above 100,000,000, which would still place the number of donors under 1% of the actual voting population. Add all of the candidates together and there is still just around or just under 1% of the voting population. Despite this, more money is being collected and is going to be spent on this campaign than ever before.
Doesn't that number concern you in more than one way? On one hand, it's disturbing to see such a small percentage of the actual voting populace determining who has the most money to run. On the other hand, it's disturbing to see how so much money can be raised relatively quickly for political dogma, but it takes a crisis of epic proportions to convince donating in those kinds of numbers for persistent national problems, like relief funds for the sick and the homeless (as an obvious example).
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is encouraging that so many people are getting involved this early. It is heartening, in the face of the fact that TV (mostly) has made it impossible to run for national office without huge amounts of money, that small donors can make a difference.
And I think that people who are likely to donate to one thing are likely to donate to other things. I, at least, tend to "get in the habit" of donating.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I think that people who are likely to donate to one thing are likely to donate to other things. I, at least, tend to "get in the habit" of donating.
I'm incredulous of this statement, at least under the assumption that you mean that those who tend to donate to political campaigns are likely to donate to charities. I simply do not see it, or not nearly in the amount of money that is and further will be donated as a grand total to this presidential race. I will not be surprised if donations for this presidential race exceeds the amount of money donated to Katrina funds, for example. This is a mixture of speculation and skepticism, so take it for what it's worth. Perhaps I am dismayed because I donate to charities on a local level and on rare occasions to larger charitable organizations, but refuse to give money to popularity contests or support for PACs.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney raising this amount of money was *not* a surprise. Regardless of talk on this board about his Mormonism and his low standings in the polls, Romney has the backing of the Bush dynasty - and all the big-time funding that goes with it. We knew this before the fund raising numbers came in, and they were not surprising to Washington politicos.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should! Especially since I'm leaving so soon. I work in the Capitol itself, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I think that people who are likely to donate to one thing are likely to donate to other things. I, at least, tend to "get in the habit" of donating.
I'm incredulous of this statement, at least under the assumption that you mean that those who tend to donate to political campaigns are likely to donate to charities. I simply do not see it, or not nearly in the amount of money that is and further will be donated as a grand total to this presidential race. I will not be surprised if donations for this presidential race exceeds the amount of money donated to Katrina funds, for example. This is a mixture of speculation and skepticism, so take it for what it's worth. Perhaps I am dismayed because I donate to charities on a local level and on rare occasions to larger charitable organizations, but refuse to give money to popularity contests or support for PACs.
Just my own experience. The week I donated to the Obama campaign I also made small donations to Doctors Without Borders and The American Friends Service Committee. Both "new" charities for me, though I have been on their mailing lists for some time.
In terms of "urgent" fundraising, I know that my parish raised $50,000 in 8 days for tsunami relief and (in addition to making many thousands of dollars worth of money, supplies etc.) has been providing ongoing support to a community in Mississippi with volunteers etc. since Katrina.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Kasie that Mitt Romney's fundraising success wasn't that much of a surprise. I know that several weeks ago I heard at least one commentator (I think it was Howard Fineman) say that the Republican to watch in terms of fundraising was Romney - so there were at least some indications he'd come in really high.
Obama's success is really phenomenal and should be a real "wake-up" to the Clinton campaign. A much higher percentage of his donors maxed out on their contributions and can be asked for more.
What makes the total even more impressive is that Obama's campaign says it isn't taking money from PACs or lobbyists.
Good news week for Clinton, Edwards, Obama and Romney.
Giuliani's big news this week was having to address the revelation that his wife killed dogs as part of her job selling surgical supplies.
Fasten seatbelts - this is going to a long strange trip -- good for those of us who like that kind of thing. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Just my own experience. The week I donated to the Obama campaign I also made small donations to Doctors Without Borders and The American Friends Service Committee. Both "new" charities for me, though I have been on their mailing lists for some time.
In terms of "urgent" fundraising, I know that my parish raised $50,000 in 8 days for tsunami relief and (in addition to making many thousands of dollars worth of money, supplies etc.) has been providing ongoing support to a community in Mississippi with volunteers etc. since Katrina.
It sounds like you surround youself with pretty decent people. In my own experience, I've seen in my own area hundreds of thousands of dollars raised for state and local elections and political causes, and very little done even for things like local disaster relief, though I can say that there was a notable surge for Katrina relief.
I still will wait to see the numbers for how much money gets spent this election, and compare it with how much public (not government) money was put into Katrina relief from various organizations. I have a suspicion the election number will be noticably higher.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Separate out individual donations from big fundraising events and I think you'll see those numbers come far more closely into alignment. Also pay closer attention to the people who make less than 60K a year, which is the grand majority of Americans, and I think you'll see donations to charities outweigh political donations. It's just a guess, but I think it's a worthwhile one. It's the richy riches who donate and come up with most of that money, with their 10,000 dollar a plate dinners and other fundraising events that the average Joe can't compete with. 100,000 of us giving $100 to a campaign is matched up to maybe a 1,000 of them coming up with thousands or millions of dollars. When you get into the specifics, I think you'll find that individuals are far more charitable than you might imagine. But it's those 100,000 small people who come up with the money and donations to fill a semi truck with canned food and blankets to send down to katrina victims, or a local church that raises $10,000 through a bake sale for charities, and those are groups that don't give that kind of money to campaigns. They might donate their time, but not so much money.
Pundits have been saying for months that anyone who wishes to make a serious run for the White House needs to come up with a hundred million dollars by December. Hillary is by far on track to do so, but she has a monster of a political machine at her back helping her out. Obama's efforts are largely from small donors, and thus his even coming close to keeping pace with the front runners is very admirable.
Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race almost as soon as he started due to fundraising problems. He raised less in three months than Obama did in one week in November. But I think as worse as it's gotten, it's also gotten a little bit easier. The internet makes it easier to donate money to a candidate and to find information on their policies, it also makes it easier for people to campaign cheaply. TV is where most of the money is sucked up, and the rest is spent on the machinery of the campaign, paying the big consultants, setting up operations in the battleground states, etc.
They need so much money because come January they need to have operations set up and in place for every battleground state plus many of the opening primary states. Once Hyper Tuesday is over, we're going to know our candidates for both parties earlier than ever this year. Having all that money in the bank is going to be an enormous relief to a candidate who can campaign instead of spending all their time fundraising, and it'll start in January/February, a few months before a traditional party lock-up is usually assured.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case I wasn't clear, I think it is a bad thing that a candidate has to have so much money. I think it tends to make that candidate beholden to people who have a lots of money to donate. That is why I am encouraged that a lot of small donors can come close to "competing" with campaigns that rely on more usual fundraising.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, kmbboots, I wasn't saying you stated otherwise. I was more lamenting the amount of money and giving my own personal reason why it saddens me. I do not think you are a bad person, nor have you given me a reason to think you support the thing I mentioned bothers me. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a problem. You just made me realize that I hadn't been altogether clear. I do think that this is more important that a "popularity contest" - or at least it should be. Our government does (or could) impact many of the issues you mention.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is true, but I think the last election is a good example of how those issues are not usually in the forefront of the determining factors in voter decisions, nor are they often much of a campaign platform.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) than his opponents'. This is further supported by the average donation numbers- the average donation to Obama's campaign was $250, versus Hillary's $520.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
