I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
OT: Time to vote for the Koufax awards!
Don't know what to make of those donations, except Bush get most of his at $2000+ a pop, no surprise there.
BudMan:
This shows that the "people", i.e., those who haven't major cash to contribute (under $200) aren't supporting the major tier candidates - especially they aren't supporting W.
Seems like among Democrats Kerry has a fairly low percentage of small donors. Not sure what that means. As a established politician maybe he has a fundraising apparatus among big donors while the others have had to develop a small-donor network out of necessity.
But I'm sure every successful politician remembers his/her donor base after the election is over.
check out Sharpton's numbers
no surprise
he always struck me as a Rove tool
looks like Dean has a great number of contributors who haven't hit the Federal limit of $2k. assuming that he shows some decent numbers in NH and SC, he can tap these folks for more. considering the number of big money contributions that Kerry and Edwards have, it'll be hard to go back to those wells
I think less are last quarter's numbers.
That is the Dec 2003 numbers haven't been posted yet.
I think the chart is misleading. look at the raw column of number of $2,000 contributions:
Candidate
Bush, George W 29,806
(long silence)
Edwards, John 4,396
Kerry, John 4,362
Lieberman, Joe 2,938
Dean, Howard 1,553
Clark, Wesley 512
Kucinich, Dennis 179
Sharpton, Al 79
Larouche, Lyndon H Jr 61
I dunno about you kinds, but this alone makes me dream of a Dean/Clark ticket.
This shows that the "people", i.e., those who haven't major cash to contribute (under $200) aren't supporting the major tier candidates - especially they aren't supporting W.
Umm, take another look at table and not the graph. Bush has 48,928 of the $200+ contributors compared to the 57251 combined figure of the Democratic candidates (I didn't add in Larouche).
Of the number of $2000+ contributors, Bush has 29806 compared to the combined number of 14019 for the Dem's. Bush against an individual candidate wins hands down for both $200 and $2000 contributors.
Try this trick (and spin it).
Set the "sort by" to percentage of donors of $200 or less. Something very strange in the resulting list. According to the percentage, Bush should come in just below Kerry. In the listing, he comes in just above Edwards.
Which is it, Bush has 11% or between 9% and 3%?
We need campaign finance reform. REAL campaign finance reform. The kind you can't get through the legislature. That chart is the most depressing thing I've seen all campaign season. The pubs have all the f'n money. And they mean to keep it that way by paying off the gw's of the world, and the compliant lap dog press.
what scares me the most is that THREE PERCENT of John Edward's campaign contributions are $200 and less!
Perhaps Dean cleaned up with small donors due to his early adoption of an Internet apparatus - Internet donations to Kerry and Edwards seem to be up a lot since Iowa.
Tried to rejigger these numbers myself to figure out total # of contributions, % from $200-$2000, etc. but it didn't come close to working - think the % numbers aren't "% of numerical contributions" (i.e. how many checks are $2000+ etc.) but rather "% of total campaign money" (i.e. how much booty is represented by checks over two grand). By my guesstimate, Bush has almost no support in the $200-$2000 range. Should we call that "middle class"? It's tempting, but seems a bit rich. Still, it's a potential vulnerability. I think Bush can be nailed on all sides for pocketbook issues if the Democrat can touch the third rail of spending. It might even swing over nervous deficit-hawks in the GOP in a Nixon-in-China sort of way - "only a Democrat presiding over a GOP Congress can cut spending"--they can even point to Clinton as a concrete example.
Kerry/Edwards - the corporate ticket.
Dean/Clark - the peoples ticket.
You decide.
"Bush has 48,928 of the $200+ contributors compared to the 57251 combined figure of the Democratic candidates (I didn't add in Larouche)."
Exactly. If the Democrats had only a single candidate, it would be accurate to gauge support by comparing the number of donors. Right now, since Georgie Boy gets a free ride through the primaries, it's meaningless to compare a single candidate from among seven, with the Republicans single candidate. Also worth noting is that Bush has been spending an enormous amount of time campaigning on the taxpayer's dime instead of running the country.
Why do they even bother with LaRouche? They might as well have the lobster claw guy. And Vermin, although I think he is Republican, right?
"This shows that the "people", i.e., those who haven't major cash to contribute (under $200) aren't supporting the major tier candidates - especially they aren't supporting W."
Umm, take another look at table
Umm, take your own good advise, jinx. The table doesn't show the number of people who donated under $200, only the percent of total funds those donations represent. Bush has raised a total of $84.5 million with 11% or about $9 million from the under $200. Dean has raised $25 million with 56% or about $14 million from the under $200. We can't be certain, but it's a good bet that more small contributors donated to Dean than to Bush.
Larouche has over 2000+ people who made donations...now that's frightening
indeed daudder.
so far i like the under 4200 #s for Dean and clark. sorry DK.
Hey, I ran a differnt SORT program and found that the percentage of under $200 supporters is exactly proportional to the amount venomous spittle coming from the mouths of the media pundits in their descriptions of the candidates.
This simply says it all. People donating over 2k cannot under any circumstances consist of the working class in this society.
MYOB'
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2004Jan22.html
Edwards is the only major candidate who refuses to provide a list of his major bundlers' and their networks.
Bush is more transparent than Edwards. Think about it. He's been refusing to provide the information for months. And this fraud goes around saying he'll represent YOU because he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Who is giving him that money? It doesn't flow down like manna from heaven.
The numbers in the link provided by Atrios might represent very good news for the eventual Democratic nominee for president.
Bush has a lot more money than any individual candidate, but a big part of that is because his supporters can safely give money to his campaign knowing he's going to be the Republican nominee. Right now, nobody knows who the Democratic nominee will be. Any Democrat who is committed to beating Bush would do well to hold back their campaign contributions until they know for sure who the Democratic nominee for president will be. Then, said Democratic supporter can give till it hurts, knowing the money will be devoted completely to ousting Bush, as opposed to defeating another Democratic candidate during the primaries. There is a lot of money sitting on the sidelines waiting for the Dems to get a clear nominee. When that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic presidential candidate ends up with as much campaign money as Bush.
Larouche has over 2000+ people who made donations...now that's frightening
Even Terrorism Supporter Pat Robertson got donations when he ran for president...
This is sorta OT but sorta not: got a piece of mail today, addressed to my dad, who first of all died over a year ago and secondly was a registered Democrat. It was a photo of George and Laura, addressed to Dad, and thanking him in advance for becoming one of Iowa's first "Charter Members" to elect (they said re-elect but hell...) Bush. In return, they expected anywhere from $1000 to $25.
I found a good set of photos of all the Dems save Carol Moseley Braun, enclosed that with the headline "all these men, and Carol, would be an improvement on your boy", asked them where the weapons of mass destruction were, and used their postage paid envelope to mail it all back to Marc Raciot...'twas the least I could do...
Nick,
I hope you farted in the envelope before sealing it.
Oh, Magnum, that was so immature and hilarious. It took me about 10 minutes to stop laughing.
The Pubs are very organized fundraisers. That's all they do all year 'round, not just in the 18 months leading up to a presidential election.
Somehow I got on someone's fax list list, and I started receiving faxes from Tom Delay and other odious types. Of course they always use their official title and other trappings of the office to make the letter it look official. The faxes informed me that I had been selected to receive some kind of award. All I had to do was call an 800 number.
Once, on a lark I called back. The nice lady told me that Tom Delay thought I was such an important business leader in my community that he wanted me to accept an award and an appointment to his Business Leaders Advisory Council. All I had to do was write a check for $500.00. I told the nice lady I was honored to accept the award and the appointment, but I was not going to pay $500.00. She was stumped. She repeated her little schpiel, and I repeated mine. She was completely at a loss and said someone would call me back. I mean, hadn't anyone else pulled that stunt before?
I thought this would get these people off my back, but no. I kept getting little surveys asking for my esteemed opinions on Republican issues. A month later I received an invitation to go to Washington to meet Mr. Delay at a White House Reception where I "might meet the President." I might be able to get my picture taken with the President. The cost = $1,500. You do the math. They have some million dollar club whereby those who raise a million bucks get access to the Prez, or something. This is how they do it. Bet it works like a darn.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
