Sack Perry

[piscinin]

He raised $200m+ through individual transactions under $200. On an aggregated basis (i.e. people whose ultimate contributions totalled $200 or less), he raised about $152m. As of the DNC, he'd raised about $119m from these donors.

 

The data also doesn't support much of a bandwagon effect on the part of big money donors. He raised an additional $185m between the DNC and the final figures on October 15th yet the percentage of $200 or less contributions drops only slightly from 26% to 24%.

 

 

 

Am not denying that Obama was a prolific fund raiser. That says nothing about the composition of that funding, though.

 

All you are telling me is that the CFI changed the definition of small donors.

 

The fact is still that he raised 200m from small donors up to the primaries. That was more than anyone else could raise in total (including their vested interests, and trust me Clinton and Mccain had plenty of those).

 

The fact the 200m number went down because those same people threw him an additional 50 bucks seems less like myth-busting and more like a statistical shell-game designed to confuse and disarm.

 

The bottom line is through small donations, he was able to neutralize big money. That's the real lesson not a % of a magically morphing label for a donation.

[Stu Monty]

All you are telling me is that the CFI changed the definition of small donors.

 

The fact is still that he raised 200m from small donors up to the primaries. That was more than anyone else could raise in total (including their vested interests, and trust me Clinton and Mccain had plenty of those).

 

The fact the 200m number went down because those same people threw him an additional 50 bucks seems less like myth-busting and more like a statistical shell-game designed to confuse and disarm.

 

The bottom line is through small donations, he was able to neutralize big money. That's the real lesson not a % of a magically morphing label for a donation.

 

But not the big money of his National Finance Chair, the 204th richest person in the US with a worth of about £1.7billion. You know, the one that pillaged the poor with her sub-prime mortgages.

 

Small donations never put him in the seat, big ones did, they always do.

[piscinin]

But not the big money of his National Finance Chair, the 204th richest person in the US with a worth of about £1.7billion. You know, the one that pillaged the poor with her sub-prime mortgages.

 

Small donations never put him in the seat, big ones did, they always do.

 

What you say is true but it's not the whole picture. Without the intervention of those small donors Clinton or Mccain would be president. Those small donors realized a) that by pooling their resources they could have an overwhelming voice that would otherwise be ignored and b) relying on the ballot box alone is a waste of time. If you want to mediate power these days you have to do it economically.

 

There are important lessons there for those who are prepared to look past the shell games. We got numbers on our side.

[Ponz]

All you are telling me is that the CFI changed the definition of small donors.

 

The fact is still that he raised 200m from small donors up to the primaries. That was more than anyone else could raise in total (including their vested interests, and trust me Clinton and Mccain had plenty of those).

 

The fact the 200m number went down because those same people threw him an additional 50 bucks seems less like myth-busting and more like a statistical shell-game designed to confuse and disarm.

 

It's not a shell game to argue that one person giving 10 discrete $200 donations is fundamentally different to 10 people donating $200 each.

 

The bottom line is through small donations, he was able to neutralize big money.

 

He may have neutralised it against Clinton but he had no qualms exploiting it vs. McCain. Hence the cynical disavoval of his public financing pledge.

[Mustangt125]

Sack Perry?

 

Don't quit your day job.