Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
October 31, 2008

Just to tie up a loose end from yesterday's post on Obama's money machine: only a quarter of his donations are from under-$200 donors, compared to 31% for Bush in 2004 and 37% for Kerry in 2004. So the myth that Obama's enormous financial advantage comes from small-dollar donors is just that, a myth.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 1:36 PM | Politics 2008 | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

Which means, I guess, that big business and the wealthy are supporting Obama's campaign as well. I figure that includes lots of those who will have to pay more under his plan. Altruistic of them. Maybe they should have a motto, like, say, "Country First."

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at October 31, 2008 1:56 PM

Why are you using % and not a number comparision?

Posted by: javaman at October 31, 2008 2:05 PM

Well, % is what was cited, but the relevant point is that Obama is more dependent on large-dollar contributions than either of the 2004 campaigns, which is contrary to his image.

Posted by: Crank at October 31, 2008 2:15 PM

"I figure that includes lots of those who will have to pay more under his plan."

If you are already wealthy, you don't have to worry about that - he hasn't proposed an asset tax.

Anyway, that is the Democrats, party of the very rich and the very poor. The middle class, not so much.

Posted by: Nobody at October 31, 2008 3:19 PM

You mean his image as a socialist?
Can we expect a post on Governor Palin's unusual interpretation of the First Amendement?

Posted by: rs at October 31, 2008 4:23 PM


It's converted to a percentage because that is the best way to objectively analyze the data. Comparing dollars to dollars would have limited meaning due to inflation, varying enthusiasm from election to election, changing total population (in number and demographics), and any number of other factors. The analysis must be normalized to something in order to be meaningful.

Posted by: DKH at October 31, 2008 5:04 PM

The general contrast between Rich Democrats and Rich Republicans is the following:

Rich Democrats: Got their money either by inheritance (daddy left it to them) or being lawyers (taking money from others), This is refered to as "the old fashion way"

Rich Republicans: Got their money by earning it building companies that produce something of value to society; they earned it themselves.

Hopefully the above only offends those who did not earn it.

Posted by: Lee at October 31, 2008 8:19 PM

Well Lee, I grew up with nothing. Well no money anyway, but a great family. I couldn't go to the college I wanted to, as I couldn't afford it. I'm older, wiser now I hope, better able to feed a family (thanks in a really huge part to great parents), who were Democrats, as am I.

Your generalization is cute, a bit humorous, and so ridiculous as to be insulting. BTW, does this also include that somewhat self made successful guy Warren Buffet, who endorsed Obama? Or Steve Jobs, maybe you heard of him? And I'm fairly sure you don't care for the politics of George Soros. Uh he grew up OK, if you consider surviving in Hungary during the Nazi occupation as OK.

Of course, we do have the Rich Republicans you mention, like the Bushes. Yeah, sonny boys, dad and grandpa made money the old fashioned way. They laundered some oil money, and became the bluebloods of Connecticut (sorry W for ruining your cowboy image).

I could go on, but really, I'm not offended. You'll have to try a much better brand of sarcasm before I am offended.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at October 31, 2008 9:33 PM

"Rich Democrats: Got their money . . . by being lawyers (taking money from others)"

Yikes! So Crank should be a democrat???

At least I'm one of the "good" lawyers, toiling hard for justice in our court system as opposed to one of those well-heeled, private lawyers in NYC....:)

Posted by: MVH at October 31, 2008 10:54 PM

Alter our national tax scheme so it targets wealth rather than income, remove the loopholes for insurance and trusts, then see how loudly certain people scream, among them Warren Buffet.

This election is, in part, a contest between strivers on the one side versus custodians and rent seekers on the other.

Posted by: Dai Alanye at November 1, 2008 12:05 AM

Makers vs. Takers- but its really Conservative vs. Liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats

Posted by: dch at November 1, 2008 12:36 AM

The general statements about where different political groups got their money is ridiculous. People earn wealth in all sorts of ways, regardless of their political leanings. It's about what you do once you have accumulated the wealth that matters. Personally, I think those who have gained wealth should know how difficult it is to do, and shouldn't then turn around and do things to make it more difficult for other to attain the same.

I am not saying spread it around, I am saying don't stand in their way.

Posted by: DS at November 1, 2008 7:38 AM

Who are you accusing of making it more difficult for others the become wealthy?

Posted by: dch at November 1, 2008 9:48 AM

Yes my comments were a vast over generalization. I accept all of you criticism that it deserved. It did start a lively discussion did it not? ;-)

What one does with THEIR money is important; no matter how they obtained it. Helping others is the right thing to do.

I am offended when people want to take my hard earned money and dispense it as THEY see fit. While they call me names like "unpatriotic" and "selfish" as they "steal" my wages. It is not the job of government to "spread the wealth" as THEY see fit. Just because THEY feel that a particular segment of our society is more deserving than another may not agree with my idea. That is why gving/sharing is a personal thing and should be dictated by the government.

Posted by: Lee at November 1, 2008 10:09 AM

Opps. Last line should be "That is why gving/sharing is a personal thing and should NOT be dictated by the government."

Gosh, I almost slipped into being a socialist! Too much Obama on the airwaves! ;-)

Posted by: Lee at November 1, 2008 10:16 AM

Obama is receiving all this money from people who dread the thought of four more years of Republican rule. Blame Bush for the contributions to Obama.

Posted by: Steve at November 1, 2008 6:29 PM

His big money-- that is, money beyond what a Democrat usually gets from teachers, lawyers and unions-- comes from the entertainment industry. He'll be the Dreamworks President. The United States of Fantasy opens to in late January.

Posted by: seamus at November 2, 2008 7:55 AM

GWB was the United States of Fantasy. Which is why the country is in tatters, thanks to faith-based nonsensel and anti-intellectual b.s. Good riddance.

Posted by: steve at November 2, 2008 1:35 PM

If steve were pro-intellectual, he'd know that the best way to support them is to not be stupid. As it is, we must assume he is ant-intellectual, because we know he is stupid. How else to account for his thunderously moronic adoption of someone else's intellectual effort (my modest "United States of Fantasy" in this case) to deride, uh, "anti-intellectualism". Plagarists, Joe Biden included and especially, aren't intellectuals. Neither are elementary school students on the playground yelling: "No, you are!". But if they go no further, they're not necessarily stupid. Stupidity requires assuming, ala steve, that such borrowing is the height of cleverness.

Posted by: seamus at November 2, 2008 4:00 PM

Seamus, you are probably one of those people who swoon over Palin. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: Steve at November 2, 2008 4:25 PM

steve has a curious way of showing his pro-intellectual bona fides. For instance "probably", by definition, connotes that something is not an established fact, that more information is required. To follow up an idea qualified by "probably" with a sub-literate "'Nuff said" is imbecilic. As evidenced by steve's "probably", enough has not been said to establish a) whether I swoon over Palin and b) what, if that's the case, it might mean about me. This back and forth has established one fact for certain though-- steve's grasp of the English language is very tenuous.

Posted by: seamus at November 3, 2008 6:20 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg