Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
June 30, 2011
POLITICS: The Biggest Money

This graph is pretty compelling as far as looking at who contributes the most to political candidates and campaigns. This is the status quo that the critics of independent expenditures are so desperate to protect.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:27 PM | Politics 2011 | Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

The chart certainly does not reflect total money given, including PAC, where the big bucks are (show that one please), and shadow organizations, like the Swift Boat Veterans for Untruth.

However,If I were a labor union, and the chart is accurate, I would demand an investigation. Because none have lost more in the last couple of decades in this country than unions and organized labor. Dammit, is there anything worse than someone who won't stay bribed?

Posted by: Daryl at June 30, 2011 9:07 PM

Lies, damn lies, and bar graphs? Let's see. If I want to prove something is lop-sided, what can I do? I know. Aggregate the figures for the side I disagree with and disaggregate everything else.

Really, Crank. This is proof to you?

Posted by: Magrooder at July 1, 2011 9:29 AM

Obviously, the outside money picture is also weighted towards the unions.

Somewhere in the Pacific, an aging Japanese soldier is crawling out of his cave, impressed by Daryl's dedication to his Kerry '04 talking points.

Posted by: Crank at July 1, 2011 2:46 PM

Crank, somewhere in the world, say, to people who are 15 years old (not all, my youngest at 15 has an understanding of history), the world of 2004 is this ancient time. In the real world, when I thought up a quick example of undocumented money that influences us, you make fun of it. Sad, pathetic, and is that really the best you could come up with?

Money talks, bullshit walks, that's been true since the Phoenecians learned how to assay gold (oops, ancient history, but since it was the real start of a global economy and trade beyond barter, it's probably good to know). Unions have lost too much power and influence over the last few decades for their money to be so important. Over all the PACs? Don't think so.

Posted by: Daryl at July 2, 2011 10:08 AM

Hacktastic Crank!

Posted by: Berto at July 2, 2011 1:44 PM

It's not that 2004 was so long ago, it's that the Kerry campaign talking points about the Swift Boat Veterans have been debunked so many times that it's wearisome to revisit that nonsense again.

Posted by: Crank at July 2, 2011 3:36 PM

What's funny here Crank is that you cited a graph as "pretty compelling" even though it's painfully obvious that it does not include PAC money, as Daryl pointed out, and it suffers from the aggregation flaw that Magrooder noted. Rather than respond and try to engage in a productive dialogue, you only focused on Daryl's example of the Swift Boaters.

Do you have a valid response to the argument that the graph is not actually "pretty compelling" given that PAC money is not included? Do you have a valid response to the fact that, given PAC money is not included, the graph is decidedly not "the status quo that the critics of independent expenditures are so desperate to protect"? Do you have a valid response to the argument that any graph that purports to compare totals from two sides but completely disaggregates one side is the basis of a deeply flawed argument?

Posted by: Jim at July 3, 2011 11:21 AM

Allow me to defend Crank.
He is a well-educated lawyer. He just plays a complete fucking moron on the internet.
Put him in the "liar" not "moron" category.

No problem, Crank. I hope you'll have my back at some point.

Posted by: Berto at July 3, 2011 12:25 PM

OK, if Crank's figures are not correct-which of you uber liberals can show the "correct" numbers instead of just pouring out your liberal dribble?

Posted by: Lee at July 3, 2011 2:54 PM

Berto, please leave the stupid comments to the Palins and Bachmans, OK? As I said, Crank is guilty of the sin of omission. When you mention political funding and you leave out PACs, it's like talking about oceans, and mentioning how big the Indian is, while not mentioning the Pacific. Of course I can understand Crank, why you left out the Pacific. You are clearly terrified of an Imperial Japanese soldier coming out of the jungle and striking you down. Well, as a fellow Met fan, I guess it's possible. Anything terrible is possible to us.

Posted by: Daryl at July 3, 2011 3:25 PM

So Daryl, you won't post the data that you say Crank is avoiding showing?

Posted by: Lee at July 3, 2011 3:36 PM

"I don't like the data this graph is showing to me. It challenges my worldview. Therefore, I'm going to complain about what the graph doesn't show, and completely ignore the graph's conclusions, because any graph that doesn't cater exactly to my personal wants and needs is worthless.

Oh, and I won't even consider actually modifying it to create a graph that fits my needs, because that would be actual work, and it's much easier to just whine and complain."

Posted by: David at July 3, 2011 4:06 PM

It's not challenging my world view. But in the modern world, direct contributions is but a small blip. Otherwise, why would the governor of Wisconsin be so easily taken by the Koch Brothers prank call? Because of the soft money, the PAC money, the under the table money that goes on that so far exceeds direct contributions. To say otherwise is disingenuous. I mentioned the Swift Boaters because it quickly came to mind, was very well financed and had an enormous impact on the election.

Posted by: Daryl at July 4, 2011 10:41 AM

Daryl,

So please show us the data to back up your statement "But in the modern world, direct contributions is but a small blip."

Thank you.

Posted by: Lee at July 4, 2011 8:30 PM

Let's face it, it's hard to quantify just how much secret, or so called secret money is spent. And probably you would, or certainly should, add up the money spent by MSNBC and Fox News. You see, you can't call the other networks telling only one side just because you don't like what they say. I will certainly grant you MSNBC, and you have to give me back Fox. KaChing!!

Direct contributions are the tip of an insanely hidden iceberg. If labor is the number one giver of money, why then, are they losing on almost every front? And BTW, don't think I'm thrilled with the idea that a civil servant should necessarily have union rights the same as, say, the UAW. I think there should be tradeoffs for working for the public. Security and various safety issues, but trust me, retiring at 55 ain't one of them. It, like Medicare, Medicaid and Defense, are all funded like there is no tomorrow. I happen to think that medical care is a right, not a priviledge, but up to a point that doesn't include some of the end of life issues that really cost so much, but whom do you tell gets to die faster? And defense is now not a national defense expense, but a very very large jobs program. Just try to close an army base in a senator's district, and see how needed that base suddenly is.

Posted by: Daryl at July 5, 2011 10:50 AM

What passes for logic among the wing-nuts:

1. Crank makes an assertion and provides a graph he characterizes as "pretty compelling" in support of his assertion.

2. Commenters point out "pretty obvious" flaws in the graph.

3. Ditto-heads claim that those commenters have the burden of proving the opposite of Crank's claim.

Too much Faux News and Right Wing talk radio turns brains to gelatin.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 5, 2011 10:50 AM

"...it's hard to quantify just how much secret, or so called secret money is spent."

So Daryl, you basically have no data to disprove Crank's numbers-is that correct? All you are doing is postulating a theory w/o any facts to back it up-correct?

Posted by: Lee at July 5, 2011 8:48 PM

So Lee you think it's a theory that enormous amounts of money is spent under the table? You want to buy a bridge?

You really think it's necessary to hunt down the allocations for MSNBC and Fox? OK, Fox will be less than a real news organization, since they don't actually have reporters doing actual digging of stories, but people like O'Reilly and Hannity cost a pretty penny, not to mention the chalk budget for Glenn Beck.

Posted by: Daryl at July 5, 2011 9:12 PM

Daryl,

Yes I think you really do have to produce numbers to counter Crank's data. Otherwise how do you prove he is wrong? Just saying he is wrong does not prove it.

If you can't produce counter data, then we will have to conclude you are just expressing your opinion.

Sorry, time to step up.

Posted by: Lee at July 6, 2011 7:24 AM

The graph does have a disaggregation problem. You would want to add together all those "industry" funds that are separated and compare them to the "labor" line, but you also would have to add the "teacher's union" funds to the labor funds to be consistent. It's a misleading graph.

Everyone knows that labor unions donate a lot of money to the Democrats. I'm sure there are better graphs to make that point more credibly.

Posted by: MVH at July 6, 2011 9:15 AM

Lee, all anyone here does is express opinion. In your case, sometimes in a disagreeable fashion as well. All I originally said was that Crank's post sinned by omission. I never said labor didn't give loads. But it's hard at the same time to figure out where secret money lies, no matter how large. Of course, if you are kind enough to grant me subpoena power, and maybe a few large agents in dark glasses to serve and enforce them, I'll be glad to get back to you.

Posted by: Daryl at July 6, 2011 10:02 AM

MVH,

What is the basis for concluding that "teacher union" money is not already included in the "labor union" bar? I went back to the Powerline post and couldn't find anything. Just curious.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 6, 2011 10:35 AM

It's the seventh one from the left.

Posted by: MVH at July 6, 2011 11:01 AM

Daryl,
Crank is guilty of the "sin of omission" way too many times on this site to think it's accidental.
Surely you remember his screed about the deficit which only mentioned spending, but omitted the revenue side of the equation. Or him blaming the current President for the nation's deficit after 8 years of calling anyone who criticized W's "tax cuts while starting 2 wars" policy as sufferers from Bush-derangement syndrome.
Perhaps he isn't a liar, and he really is too stupid to bring logic into his arguments. But I've heard he's a well-educated lawyer, so I'm still leaning to the liar category until someone can make the case he's truly dumb as a box of rocks.

Posted by: Berto at July 6, 2011 12:59 PM

Got it, thanks.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 6, 2011 2:01 PM

Berto, never assume a box of rocks is dumb. Just go to 3:06.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HZ5ObjUtvs

Posted by: Daryl at July 6, 2011 4:02 PM

Daryl,

So your reponse is:
-Everyone does not back up their statements: "..all anyone here does is express opinion."

-Insult me "In your case, sometimes in a disagreeable fashion as well."

-State that you don't have any data "But it's hard at the same time to figure out where secret money lies, no matter how large. "

Actually a number of people back up their posts with data. Crank of course does it with the original post and MVH does a great job of backing up his posts with data. I also have from time to time.

I don't recall insulting you, but I do acknowledge making so harsh statement to others. After all I have called some liberals.

So from now on I can expect that your posts just contain your opinions and that probably are not backed up with any data-correct?


Posted by: Lee at July 6, 2011 7:37 PM

Uh, Lee, in thinking about it, you are right. Shame on me for lumping you with Spongie. I acknowledge my error. You don't make it personal, and I hereby apologize. But I do wonder: how do you provide backup data to monies that are, by essence, secretive. I can look up what Ariana Huffington laid out for the Post, but now what she does privately. Do I really know how much the Koch Brothers lay out? Secret slush funds, are, by nature, secret.

Do I doubt that all unions (especially the teachers' unions) don't give fortunes? Of course, they have to contribute above the table. Considering how much ground they have lost, despite this supposed mountain of cash, really does say how much is given secretly, or in ways that is really hard to track. Or, as I wrote in an earlier post here, are our Congresspersons so corrupt they can't stay bribed, or do they simply stay with the highest bidder?

Posted by: Daryl at July 7, 2011 10:03 AM

Daryl,

Your argument is based on some questionable assumptions.

(1) Labor unions have not been able to succeed in pushing their agenda because they have been outspent. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion - just because you donate a lot of money doesn't mean you get what you want - and in any event you have nothing to back up that belief.

(2) Because the graph does not show them being outspent, there must be a slush fund of secret money that favors the other side. Yes, there are funds that this graph may not show, but how do you know that those funds favor the Republicans, and to an advantage that makes up for the difference in the graph?? You admit the funds difficult to trace, so why jump to any conclusions at all? The Dems surely have their own PACS and other sources of funding.

It's not only that you lack data, but also that the assumptions you are making involve some pretty big leaps of faith.

Posted by: MVH at July 7, 2011 10:41 AM

"...but I do acknowledge making so harsh statement to others. After all I have called some liberals."

Ha ha, liberals!
Those yahoos said cutting taxes during wartime would be a financial disaster. And that the Iraq War would be a clusterfuck that would last MUCH longer than 6 weeks or 6 months.
Those liberal fools were against the repeal of Glass-Steagall, thought the fall of Viet Nam would not lead to a domino effect of nations falling to communism, and that giving tax breaks to US corporations to move jobs overseas would cause unemployment to rise here.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Man, you are harsh, Lee.

Posted by: Berto at July 7, 2011 10:54 AM

Considering the right wing's hard core belief in some Bronze Age superstitions, I am happy to leave leaps of faith to your side. Mine just has to deal with the realities that money always talks, bullshit always walks.

Right wing bullshit this time around? AGAINST the Stimulus Package, which was government sponsored jobs plan that costs us many billions; AGAINST any cuts to defense, which in the end is really a jobs plan that costs us trillions. So just who invests in companies like Lockheed-Martin et al? Hint: it's not the poor bastards who couldn't get out of New Orleans. OK, sometimes money doesn't talk, it shouts.

Posted by: Daryl at July 7, 2011 2:01 PM

My side? Since when have I become a conservative republican? You assume, without any evidence, that a secret slush fund of money overwhelms the democratic coffers. You admit it can't be measured, yet you believe it anyway.

That's a leap of faith, among others, and you are posting on a conservative blog where people will require you to back up your arguments instead of simply accepting your point-of-view.

Even to a moderate, your argument is full of holes. If you don't fill them, then don't be surprised if you aren't convincing anyone. Why do you think I post data all the time? Why should anyone take at face value my anonymous posts here? I'd be disappointed if they did.

Posted by: MVH at July 7, 2011 2:49 PM

Poor little Daryl, so upset at Free Speech he wants to burn books. Where are Kerry;s complete military records which he promised to release to the public. Does Kerry have something he wants to hide. How involved was he with the faux winter soldiers who plotted to kill the president?

Posted by: PaulV at July 10, 2011 9:19 PM

Scott Walker did not know what Koch's voice sounded like because he had never heard it. It proves the opposite of what you contend. A bunch of fuzzy brain libs who cannot read a chart and are unable to produce any act out so absurbly. LMAO!

Posted by: PaulV at July 10, 2011 9:27 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg