Obama 30 Bush 3

[Zoooma]

Obama's 30th fundraiser tonight
By JULIE MASON

The White House says President Obama isn't focused on his reelection campaign, but tonight he will headline his 29th and 30th fundraisers for the year.

Mark Knoller of CBS News, tabulator of White House statistics, said Obama so far this year has raised money in six states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico.

At the same point in former President George W. Bush's reelection cycle, he had done only three fundraisers, Knoller said.

Obama in 2008 raised more than $745 million, setting a new record for presidential campaign spending. The 2012 effort is expected to generate a billion dollars. The two fundraisers tonight are at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. Later this week, Obama will attend two more, in New York City.

Obama's 30th fundraiser tonight | POLITICO 44

 

[DaisyDay]

And?

How much money had Bush raised in his 3 compared to Obama's 30? Is it possible that Obama is relying on more, smaller donors compared to fewer, larger ones?

The story doesn't say enough.

 

[chaz345]

And?

How much money had Bush raised in his 3 compared to Obama's 30? Is it possible that Obama is relying on more, smaller donors compared to fewer, larger ones?

The story doesn't say enough.

Actually, historically, and in direct contradiction to what "everyone knows" it's Dems who get their money from large contributions and Repubs who get their money from small donations.

 

[MachZer0]

Obama's 30th fundraiser tonight
By JULIE MASON


Obama's 30th fundraiser tonight | POLITICO 44

The more time he spends fundraising and golfing, the less time he has to screw with America

 

[Ringo84]

Repubs who get their money from small donations.

...and big corporations.
Ringo

 

[blueapplepaste]

Is it time for publicly financed campaigns yet?

 

[chaz345]

...and big corporations.
Ringo

Both parties get lots of money from big corporations. But the notion that Repubs are the party of big business and the Dems are the party of the little guy is just plain nonsense. Repubs get, as a portion of the total as much if not more of their donations from little guys as the Dems do. And Dems get, as a portion of their total as much, of not more from big corporations.

 

[Ringo84]

But the notion that Repubs are the party of big business and the Dems are the party of the little guy is just plain nonsense.

Yeah....can't understand why that notion persists nowadays.
Ringo

 

[Zoooma]

Yeah....can't understand why that notion persists nowadays.

It doesn't matter why the notion persists. That's deflecting off of what Chaz said.

 

[KrimsonDraegon]

Peace be upon you,

Why did Mr. Bush need more fundraisers than necessary? I mean, after all, he had rich Saudi friends, at least, to keep him well funded.

~ Shaeykh

 

[chaz345]

Yeah....can't understand why that notion persists nowadays.
Ringo

It persists because the Dems do a great job at image control. They TALK a good game when it comes to opposing corporations but they don't actually DO anything. When it comes to being bought and paid for by large corporations, there is little if any difference between the two parties.

 

[DaisyDay]

Both parties get lots of money from big corporations. But the notion that Repubs are the party of big business and the Dems are the party of the little guy is just plain nonsense. Repubs get, as a portion of the total as much if not more of their donations from little guys as the Dems do. And Dems get, as a portion of their total as much, of not more from big corporations.

Would you mind providing a source for that?

 

[Insane_Duck]

It persists because the Dems do a great job at image control. They TALK a good game when it comes to opposing corporations but they don't actually DO anything. When it comes to being bought and paid for by large corporations, there is little if any difference between the two parties.

I could say the exact opposite and it would still be equally un-backed.

 

[Zoooma]

When it comes to being bought and paid for by large corporations, there is little if any difference between the two parties.

Would you mind providing a source for that?

See if you can glean anything from this...

Corporate Political Giving Swings Toward the GOP - WSJ.com

It looks like in 2009, Democrats got more from corporations than Repubs did.

Then it 2010 it switched to GOP getting more...
and 52 to 48% is pretty much what Chaz said -- little difference between the two parties.

I'm not sayin' this is the final answer, just one article I found in about 4 seconds. People so often want sources and I understand that, but in the time it takes to ask for a source, one could find a source themselves

 

[Ringo84]

It persists because the Dems do a great job at image control. They TALK a good game when it comes to opposing corporations but they don't actually DO anything. When it comes to being bought and paid for by large corporations, there is little if any difference between the two parties.

Nope. It persists because the GOP does everything it can to pander to big business and its interests. The DNC does not.
Ringo
Ringo

 

[chaz345]

Nope. It persists because the GOP does everything it can to pander to big business and its interests. The DNC does not.
Ringo
Ringo

What have the Dems actually DONE to counter the interests of big business? Contributions from corporations are very close to equal with whoever is in power usually having a slight edge. So if the Dems aren't pandering, then why would a corporation contribute to someone who is going to work against their interests?

I know you want to cling to your fantasy of the evil greedy Repubs in bed with the Corporations and the Dems fighting that with everything they have but that's simply not reality. The Dems are every bit as much bought and paid for by the corporations. The roughly equal corporate contributions proves it.

 

[Luke_1989]

Is it time for publicly financed campaigns yet?

We uh....did. That is until Obama reneged on his promise to take public funding in 2008 so he could raise a ton of money and outspend McCain 8:1 or whatever it was. That particular scandal is sitting right next to Jeremiah Wright and Obama's Weather Underground pals in the dustbin of stories that the media didn't feel was "relevant."

 

[Belk]

Nope. It persists because the GOP does everything it can to pander to big business and its interests. The DNC does not.
Ringo
Ringo

I would say that the DNC panders to a different set of big businesses. They tend towards Hollywood and entertainment rather then traditional manufacturing.

 

[Ringo84]

What have the Dems actually DONE to counter the interests of big business?

Wall Street reform....credit card reform....consumer protection, to name a few.

I know you want to cling to your fantasy of the evil greedy Repubs in bed with the Corporations and the Dems fighting that with everything they have but that's simply not reality. The Dems are every bit as much bought and paid for by the corporations. The roughly equal corporate contributions proves it.

The Republicans are in bed with big business..not just because of campaign contributions.
Ringo

 

[Luke_1989]

I would say that the DNC panders to a different set of big businesses. They tend towards Hollywood and entertainment rather then traditional manufacturing.

You're generally right. Both parties are far too cosy with special interests for my tastes. Republicans tend to do well with what might be called "mainstream business" while Democrats clean house with labor unions, and many professional organizations, including and especially lawyers.

For everyones, information, the best place to check this stuff out is opensecrets.org. It's a website thats entirely dedicated to easily showing the public who's getting how much money from where. For instance, you can easily see that Obama's small donor talking point is a complete myth, as far less than 10% of his total campaign haul came from people giving less than $500.