I got a lil change in my pocket goin ching-a-ling-a-ling…
So who in Washington has reaped the most benefit from the government’s ignorance towards Fannie Mae over the past few years? I think the facts might amaze you. Let’s look at the top three politicians who received campaign funds from the now tax payer-financed Fannie Mae:
- Dodd, Christopher Dem, CT $165,400
- Obama, Barack Dem, Ill $126,349
- Kerry, John Dem, Ma $111,000
Provided by OpenSecrets.org
Behold, the party that will bring about “change.” Change paid for by our hard earned tax dollars and vanishing retirement investments.
So the next time you hear Barack Obama claim to “champion the working man” or “take on Wall Street,” ask him where he got the money for those “Yes We Can” posters.
~Man Overboard
23 Comments
The above list was compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Is the above list True or False…
VERDICT:
Who hired Johnson for his campaign?
Who has raised almost three times as much money as his competitor, and yet is in a dead heat with his competitor?
Do you want a guy who has totally mismanaged the financial end of his campaign “managing” our economy?
No, not really. That’s a good point.
Will,
I don’t know as much as you so can you explain how Obama has mismanaged the financial end of his campaign?
And also explain why the amount of money a candidate raises should be the primary indicator of how well they do in the polls. I personally think there are too many other factors involved that influence the polls.
Fund raising should not be a total indicator of poll success, just look at Ron Paul, he raised a ton of money with the strength of the Internet. His “money bombs” were enormous successes. Too bad it did not propel him in his quest for the White House.
But it did propel the creation of Paulville…
Here it is, right from the home page.
Andrew, how can funds raised not be a direct reflection on how a candidate does in the polls?
Funds raised are used for purchasing advertising mediums (internet, commercials, etc.) to deliver a message to voters. The more advertising medium bought, the more people see the intended message and are influenced…a direct correlation between money and polls.
There is a reason Obama hosted a celebrity fundraiser for his campaign after the Palin effect took effect. He used those millions of dollars to do exactly what I said in the previous paragraph and evened out the poll numbers.
One easy way that funds raised does not equal success in the polls is when you spend your time at a $2500/plate dinner with the hollywood liberal elite while your oponent campaigns in rural Ohio.
If you expect the working man to beleive your looking out for him then you can start by spending a day in the political trenches instead of hiding in your LA stronghold singing the change song to a bunch of rich nuts who live in a fantasy world.
I think Will was more speakig on the management of said compaign funds rather than the total amount raised. I think the point was that if Obama can’t manage a several million dollar campaign budget, how can he managed a 3 trillion budget?
Will has a great point. But I still don’t know enough facts to convince me that Obama actually mismanaged his campaign funds.
Jon, I understand the marketing formula, I just think there are a lot of other factors that can effect how a given individual reacts to an advertisement. We all know media has a hypnotic influence, and even if we can pretty much predict in what direction people will be influenced, there will always be events that blow up the best plans that money can buy.
Example: Sarah Palin being chose as VP.
I’m sorry, but no matter how well Obama spent his money, there was nothing that could stop the poll jump from Palin. It was a great political decision exactly because it didn’t cost much money. And, it was sensational enough to get hours and hours of free press coverage for two weeks.
I like Will’s point of Obama raising 3 times the campaign funds as his competitor and being in a dead heat. Either Obama mismanaged his funds or McCain has proved that he can do more with less. Either way…advantage to McCain for the sake of this argument.
As soon as Palin was announced as the VP, the Obama campaign hired and deployed 30 lawyers to Alaska for the single purpose of finding dirt on her. That require$ a lot of money. Would you say that money was well spent or mismanaged?
And on another note, didn’t Obama say he was not going to be this type of politician? What a liar!
This argument that the biggest fundraiser does the best in the polls is completely flawed. Again, I will refer to the point I made about Ron Paul earlier. Check out the info…
It is not money per se that drives the polls, it is media attention. Sure we may think the media is biased, untruthful, and often times corrupt, malicious, and agenda driven in their reporting; nevertheless the media has a bigger impact than anything. This is why the Palin choice was indeed a home run. It is a result of the immense news coverage this story received that drove McCain’s meteoric ascension in the polls.
Plain and simple, the GOP was very smart and went for the sexier story – one that was worth more than money.
And need I mention the current financial crisis which is being covered 24/7 on all the major news networks…Free coverage of an issue that can either make or break a candidate, depending on their party and the particulars of their platform.
Obama didn’t have to pay any money for his recent poll bump. Rather, he can thank McCain for being the incumbent to an administration whose 8 year presence is being associated with the financial crisis.
And once again, is there a site or accessible document that has detailed information to prove that one candidate is managing their funds better than another? If there isn’t than we should just stop talking about this, cause its all conjecture.
You are correct. Money raised is not the only factor in poll success. It is a combination of that plus how you spend it along with general campaign strategy. On paper, Paul obviously did well raising money but failed to spend it correctly and implement a winning strategy.
Just for shitz and giggle, here are some statistics on campaign funds between Obama and McCain.
Some irrelevant math (having no argumentative value whatsoever),
Current Poll: Obama 48% – McCain 48%
Obama ($401,165,231) = 48%
Cost per percentage point = $8,357,608.97
McCain ($171,092,489) = 48%
Cost per percentage point = $3,564,426.85
You should use RealClearPolitics for polls. They take all the polls and give you the average. Their results…
Obama – 48.1
McCain – 45.6
Thanks Andrew. That site is pretty sweet. Just bookmarked it!
The average of all polls has to be pretty accurate. It’s sort of like using limits in basic Calculus.
How so?
As we approach election day, the average of the polls will change less and less yeilding a final poll estimate which has been accurate for the last couple of elections I believe.
The same thing happens in Calc as you approach the limit of a function. Example: When x=3, f(x)=2.95. When x=4, f(x)=2.97. When x=5, f(x)=2.99. This shows that the limit is clearly 3.
Going one step further, the same thing is applied when finding the area under a curve using integrals. First, underneith the curve, you make a bunch of vertical bar graphs (lets say you make
and calculate the area of the bars. Then you make 16 and calculate the area of the 16 bars. Then you make 32 and you will see what the area under the curve is going to be based on the number that the areas of 8,16, and 32 bars is approaching.
Anyway, as we approach election day, the polls will produce a more and more accurate prediction, especially when taking the average of all of them as the website you mentioned does.
The smiley face in the above comment is supposed to be the number 8 and a closed parenthesis, however, it looks like emoticons are turned on for this blog..lol
I think you might be on to something with your smiley face…
It won’t be long before all math is reduced to the fundamental emoticon formula…