Buying An Election?

[Dr. Shane]

Obama Outspending McCain Nearly 3 to 1 on Television

While the struggles of McCain and his party over the Wall Street bailout bill that passed Congress last week after much sturm und drang have been well documented, the practical political impact of Obama's decision to forego public financing for the general election and McCain's choice to accept the $84 million in public funds has not been as fully explored.

Obama's fundraising machine has continued to churn in recent months -- bringing in $67.5 million in August alone and ending that month with more than $77 million on hand...

In Florida, where recent polling suggests an Obama surge, the Illinois senator disbursed more than $2.8 million for television ads in the last week while McCain spent $623,000 -- a massive $2.17 million spending gap.

In North Carolina, Obama dropped approximately $1.5 million on television commercials last week while McCain spent only $137,000. Such a wide spending disparity explains why a series of polls has shown Obama trending upward in the Tarheel State of late.

Even in Pennsylvania, the state where McCain is now focusing much of his time and energy in the final month of the campaign, Obama's spending advantage is massive. Obama disbursed a little more than $3 million in the Keystone State last month as compared to $1.2 million in ad spending by McCain and another $807,000 by the RNC. It adds up to a million-dollar edge for Obama on television -- meaning that he outspending Republican by roughly 33 percent in Pennsylvania.

In Virginia, a state that has gone Republican in every presidential election since 1964, Obama's pronounced spending advantage is also being felt. Obama spent $1.6 million on ads in the Commonwealth last week while the combined forces of McCain and the RNC spent $909,000 -- giving Obama a $700,000 spending lead.

Only in Minnesota and Iowa did McCain have a spending edge on television over Obama in the last week.

[text from link]

[Woody]

This is a shame.

[Neil D]

This is a shame.

Why? Because McCain didn't forsee that there would be a need for spending? Because McCain didn't think that the democrats were tired of Republicans and their ultra-conservative ways?

It's McCain's blunder....and not anyone else's...

[Woody]

McCain has always been opposed to wasteful spending.

[Neil D]

McCain has always been opposed to wasteful spending.

Is it wasteful spending on Obama's part to explain where he is coming from? Or is it McCain's niggardly-ness to NOT see that the Obama PR machine is out to out spend McCAin? If McCain can not see how much he spend on Hillary, what make anyone think that he can just spend a few dollars and everyone will be convinced that he is right?

McCain has never explained WHY his plan is the right plan for the country. McCain has just said, in essence, "I am right and you [JQ Public] need to listen to me." Right now, JQ Public is demonstrating that they are a bit smarter than to accept that "Trust me, I am in goverment." line.

[Dr. Shane]

McCain has always supported election finance reform. The public funding is to decrease the influence that lobbyists and special interest groups have on a candidate. McCain is walking the walk and not just talking the talk. Obama talked the talk and said he would take public funding until he realized he actually had a real shot at getting the nomination. Then he decided talk is one thing and walk is another and one shouldn't get their walk and their talk mixed up.

[Woody]

Quote:

Or is it McCain's niggardly-ness to NOT see that the Obama PR machine is out to out spend McCAin?

I don't find that McCain has any niggard qualities. But on the other hat .... I find that Obama has shown himself to be a niggard. I will give you an example.

During the debate last night ... it was Obama who continually tried to be selfish and stingy by taking and demanding more time than the rules allowed. It may not be that he was stingy with money. But he was stingy with time.

[Bravus]

The vast majority of Obama's funding is not from lobbyists and corporations, although some is, but from ordinary people who believe he is the best choice for the country and are willing to put their money where their mouths are. They are contributing to the campaign at an unprecedented rate. IMO that's a positive thing for the country, with a huge number of people who care a lot about its direction and leadership.

[Neil D]

Quote:

I will give you an example.

During the debate last night ... it was Obama who continually tried to be selfish and stingy by taking and demanding more time than the rules allowed. It may not be that he was stingy with money. But he was stingy with time.

A man with a plan, in a debate, has to explain his plan and defend himself against the detractor. McCain didn't say much and therefore was able to stay well within his time. Most of what he said was, "Listen to me and this is what I will do and this man is going to raise your taxes and spend your money and you don't want that!"

Now, when someone resorts to that tactic, it usually means that he's run out of meaningful things to say.

[Woody]

Oh Brother. You obviously were listening with a bent ear when McCain was speaking. Because now you speak with forked tongue.

[Neil D]

Forked tongue??? Well, I guess that truthfull if you consider that I am currently eating dinner and my fork is ON my tongue.....

[Dr. Shane]

The vast majority of Obama's funding is not from lobbyists and corporations, although some is, but from ordinary people...

A lot is coming from the internet in small donations which do not have to be traced. Thus no one knows where they are coming from. For example, an Australian could log on to his site three times a day and give $20 to his campaign. It is illegal to take contributions from foreign sources but since the amount is so small it doesn't have to be traced. Obama is receiving a very large amount of his contributions in those small amounts while McCain is receiving most of his contributions in the larger $1,000 or $2,000 dollar amounts which have to be traced.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

The vast majority of Obama's funding is not from lobbyists and corporations, although some is, but from ordinary people...

A lot is coming from the internet in small donations which do not have to be traced. Thus no one knows where they are coming from. For example, an Australian could log on to his site three times a day and give $20 to his campaign. It is illegal to take contributions from foreign sources but since the amount is so small it doesn't have to be traced. Obama is receiving a very large amount of his contributions in those small amounts while McCain is receiving most of his contributions in the larger $1,000 or $2,000 dollar amounts which have to be traced.

Which means that with all those donations, he is representing the middle class americans....

[Dr. Shane]

Maybe. Or maybe a bunch of no one knows who.

[Dr. Shane]

Obama money from abroad could total $3.3 million

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has raised about $3.3 million from contributors who did not list a home state or who designated their state with an abbreviation that did not match one of the 50 states or U.S. territories, according to records provided by the Federal Election Commission.

Most of those contributors did identify themselves as living abroad in foreign cities. Under federal law, foreign citizens cannot make political contributions, but U.S. citizens living abroad can.

[text from link]

[Dr. Shane]

CBS reported this morning that Obama is out spending McCain 7 to 1. Wow! And he is ahead in the polls. Sounds like the White House is for sale to the highest bidder.

[carolaa]

That's why it was a dumb argument McCain was trying to put out that Obama is spending a record amount of money on negative ads, when the reality is that Obama is spending record amounts of money on ads, period, both positive and negative. McCain didn't mention that most, if not all, of his own ads have been negative.

[Dr. Shane]

However it wasn't a dumb argument at all. It wasn't dumb for McCain to point out that #1 Obama promised to accept public financing and #2 told Hillary Clinton that he would sit down with McCain to discuss it and then broke both of those promises. That really shows us that Obama cannot be trusted to keep his promises or that his promises are simply of no value. So Joe the plumber may be right when he says he doesn't believe Obama will ever give him the tax break that Obama's plan spells out. Obama is not a man of his word. He says one thing and does another.

[carolaa]

You are bringing up separate arguments than what I was talking about.

I agree with you about Obama going back on his word. On the other hand, when is it ok for a candidate to change his mind? Personally, I don't have a problem with him changing his mind, but I felt he should have come forward and explained such a drastic turnaround to the American people way better than he did.

[Dr. Shane]

This is how he explains it. He says this:

"Look, I know John McCain authored the current campaign finance law. The legislation bares his name. So there is no possible way he cannot accept public finance. If he refused it that would mean he authored a law that was good for others to obey but not him. So I know as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow that John McCain will take public finance.

"I am not going to take public finance because I can raise more money without it. In fact, I can outspend John McCain 7 to 1. That means I can beat him like a drum. It will be like a boxer beating up on someone with only one arm. John McCain will have a limited amount of money to spend and I will be able to keep going back to the well.

"When I promised to take public financing before that was before I actually thought I had a chance at winning this thing. Hey, I am the nominee now. All bets are off. I am going to pound this McCain guy like no one has ever pounded anyone in the history of Presidential politics."

[Tom Wetmore]

CBS reported this morning that Obama is out spending McCain 7 to 1. Wow! And he is ahead in the polls. Sounds like the White House is for sale to the highest bidder.

It sounds to me like just a bunch of whining and complaining to me... It is simply marketing, you have to spend $$$ to get the word out. That is a simple fact of political life.

The amount spent is a matter of how much is available to spend. And the amount available is obviously dependent on how much can be raised in campaign fundraising from supporters. The more supporters you have the more $$$ you will raise to spend. And the facts are that Obama is not only winning th ehearts and minds of America more than McCain - Obama is also winning the fundraising battle as well. He has more supporters willing to invest their money in a winner.

And here's a news flash for you - In the modern era of presidential elections, the winner has almost always outspent the loser. And the law of sour grapes is that the loser is invariably going to complain that the reason he lost is that he was outspent. It is easier than admitting that you didn't have enough strongly commited supporters willing to both vote for you and give you dollars to help you win.

Tom

[carolaa]

OK, that's what we already know, and of course he's not really going to say that. So I guess there's really nothing he can say.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

And the amount available is obviously dependent on how much can be raised in campaign fundraising from supporters.

Wrong. The candidates that take federal funding are limited to how much they can raise. That is why Obama didn't take federal funding.

[Tom Wetmore]

And that is optional, a choice that McCain could have made also.

The concept behind the federal funding from tax dollars (The source is that check the box option on your tax return) is that it is money from the people[/] and not corporate, lobbyists and PAC and other special interest government parasites. And since the results of Obama's grass-roots fundraising accomplished the very same thing way beyond expectations, the same thing was accomplished without using federal money. The reason McCain is peaved is that he doesn't have that kind of wide-spread grassroots support.

[Dr. Shane]

And since the results of Obama's grass-roots fundraising accomplished the very same thing way beyond expectations, the same thing was accomplished without using federal money.

This is kool-aid drinking SPIN. You have to have a very big glass of very red kool-aid to swallow all of that. Either that or be very gullible. I am not either.

Obama didn't take the federal money because it would limit him on how much he could raise and (this is important so pay attention) he knew McCain had to take public financing because campaign finance is one of McCain's most well-know signature pieces of legislation. It was like Obama taking a gun to a knife fight knowing that his opponent would only have a knife.