Obama's financing

[Ddrak]

In case you've not stuck your head outside: link

The real question is how much this changes the playing field. It does mean that Obama will personally be able to spend a *lot* more than McCain (like 2x or more), but the RNC has a bunch more cash than the DNC to spend. I don't think there's much doubt that advertising money makes a huge difference to an election and it makes me wonder how many PACs are going to enter into the fray this time and if they'll make the same difference they did back in '04.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

It will be interesting to watch. The way Obama has chosen absolutely depends on individual donations, which are capped at $2,300 per individual I think. (Might be off on that number). Will Obama continue to pull in the money he did when he ran against Clinton? There's only so much cash out there, and the nomination race went on so long, I feel that between Clinton and Obama, the nomination race extracted a lot more available cash than they think.

Does the electorate supporting Obama have $500 million to give? Especially with gas and food prices shooting up? I don't know, but it will be interesting to watch.

[Harlowe]

I think he's doing the right thing if he has any hope of competing not so much against McCain's campaign, but against all the 527 groups that will be pumping out millions in smear ad campaigns just as they did in the previous election.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Campaign finance is going to be an interesting part of this election year.

There are also many questions as to Ron Paul's fund raising efforts going to work for the Libertarians. Paul was able to raise insane amount of money from the "grass roots voters" (individual donations vs. corporate donations) for his run. Now that he's suspended his campaign, those supporters are having to look for someone else to send their support. I think it might be Obama's hope to grab those "disenfranchised" Republicans and Conservatives (no, they're not the same anymore), and he just might be successful at it.

Paul is very against John McCain (fellow Republican) and has many consistencies with Bob Barr, though Paul has yet to (if he even does) endorse Barr.

Harlowe, I was discussing the 527's the other day with a co-worker. People have already been responding poorly to "smear tactics" during the primaries, hence the more "personal" ads put forth. It's nice to see someone else saying that lesson won't be learned and the 527's will smear anyway.

Ddrak -- thanks for freaking me out a little linking the local paper. I was like "I thought I was on Rants"...weird to have a "small town" paper linked for a change

-TF

[Klast Brell]

Campaign finance is going to be a joke this year. The FEC does not have quorum so absolutely nothing can be challenged. Doors are wide open boys. After your candidate is elected he can say he is sorry and donate some pac money to charity.

[Arathena]

It will be interesting to watch. The way Obama has chosen absolutely depends on individual donations, which are capped at $2,300 per individual I think. (Might be off on that number). Will Obama continue to pull in the money he did when he ran against Clinton? There's only so much cash out there, and the nomination race went on so long, I feel that between Clinton and Obama, the nomination race extracted a lot more available cash than they think.

Does the electorate supporting Obama have $500 million to give? Especially with gas and food prices shooting up? I don't know, but it will be interesting to watch.

47 percent of the $263 million Mr. Obama received has come in amounts of $200 or less.

Can he get 4 million Democrats to give another $50 a head? Maybe. Especially when the DNC puts out the call of 'Mr. Obama needs your donation of $50 or less to keep John McCain from drafting your babies and sending them to I-Rack!'

[Partha]

I'm one of the 47 percent. Yep, now that the donation limit resets, he'll have very little problem continuing to raise small donors.

Also, the RNC may have more cash on hand than the DNC, but overall it's the Democrats with more cash on hand.

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php

Add to that the knowledge that twice as many Senate Republicans face reelection battles as Democrats and that McCain has to defend a large number of 'leaning' states. Bottom line, it doesn't look pretty.

[Ddrak]

Like 2000 and 2004, it appears to be the Democrats' race to lose.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Agreed.

Obama has huge momentum, huge cash raising ability and a savvy inner circle. Its his election to lose.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

And if he wins, welcome to socialism.

[Harlowe]

That makes zero sense.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Nationalized energy....

redistribution of wealth...

attacks on 2nd amendment rights (removal of our "last line of defense" against our gov't)

making "friendly" with nations that have shown us no kindness and even bloodshed...

universal, gov't controlled health care (seriously, can we not see the countries that already have this are failing?!)

Socialism.

-TF

[Partha]

Nationalized energy....

As opposed to Enron? Make mine 'Hell Yes'. But it won't be 'nationalized' anyways. Can we at least burn the straw to get heat when you're done beating it out of the puppet?

redistribution of wealth...

As opposed to the current system of wealth capture? Yep, mark it 'Hell Yes' again.

attacks on 2nd amendment rights (removal of our "last line of defense" against our gov't)

Tell you what. You go take your P226 or your Matty Mattel replica and go fight the man. Me, I'll go into the funeral home business and chuckle all the while.

making "friendly" with nations that have shown us no kindness and even bloodshed...

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone ever heard of Germany? Japan? North Korea? Israel?

universal, gov't controlled health care (seriously, can we not see the countries that already have this are failing?!)

Hmm, let's check that assertion.

We spend more per capita in government dollars NOW than any other nation with this 'socialized' health care, and get worse outcomes.

'countries that already have this' are failing? You mean like Japan? Australia? Britain? Germany? Denmark? Sweden?

Oh, yeah. Failing miserably. Sure.

[Harlowe]

That's pretty rational Tarfang, you get all your news from Rush?

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

No, should I? What resources do you count on? Perhaps I can go there and learn another side of things.

I extracted a list of beliefs from The Democratic Socialists of America web site. I found several things on there that I disagree with that they're fervently in favor.

Socialism allows (by definition) the gov't to control all aspects of its people.

Nationalization of oil and other energy resources contradicts our Capitalist way of life. The oil companies should be allowed to do their business as long as they perform their duties ethically. There are rules put in place to govern that, both by the state and federal government.

Continually taxing the wealth and taking windfall profits (punishing companies for making money, heaven forbid!) isn't the answer. There are many who believe our current system isn't the answer either. Other suggested taxation methods include flat taxes and re-tooling the current income tax. The other question might be: "Why just the oil companies?" Will McDonalds start paying windfall taxes too? How about Reebok and Nike?

In the universal health care realm, I had this conversation last night with a Canadian. He was musing that the idea of uni-care was popping up in our politics. He stressed many ways it has, to use his word, failed. It has cost their nation loads of money. They, and several other nations, are investigating the rationing of their health care due to high costs. Too old? Sorry, no medicine for you! What will it be in our nation? Are a few of you actually telling me you don't mind paying for health care (not that we aren't already, but...) for all the illegals that come into this nation?

Partha, you list some interesting countries. Using Japan and Germany as examples, I can show how it was American efforts that have done them some good. Yes, those nations had a great willingness to learn, but they did it with our help. In fact, I daresay they're now doing it loads better than we are, especially Japan. They should be commended for it. Amazing how well Capitalism has worked from them versus their former Socialist counterparts.

I believe the government has done an absolutely crappy job at running the nation. My beliefs center around small government and strong rights to the people. We're, at a state level, smart enough and savvy enough to know what we need to get by. Not to mention, the situation isn't the same in all of the states equally. The government will do what it can to treat us all alike, when we're so very different in needs.

-TF

[Embar Angylwrath]

And I wonder how loud Partha would scream if we instituted a national health system, and paid for it with the same tax rate we have on cigarettes and booze, applied to fast foods, soda, ice cream, potato chips, twinkies, etc.

Can you imagine the collective scream of America if they actually have to pay $10 for a happy meal to help pay for the health effects of their obesity and diet-fueled heart problems and diabetes?

What say you Partha... tax the food and drink products to pay for socialized medicine?

[Partha]

Nope, but solely because it's a regressive tax that would be even worse in its effects on the poor than a gas tax. Now, a surtax on vehicles based off of the value of the vehicle? Better idea.

[Partha]

Nationalization of oil and other energy resources contradicts our Capitalist way of life. The oil companies should be allowed to do their business as long as they perform their duties ethically. There are rules put in place to govern that, both by the state and federal government.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Nope, but solely because it's a regressive tax that would be even worse in its effects on the poor than a gas tax. Now, a surtax on vehicles based off of the value of the vehicle? Better idea.

How hard do you lobby for the repeal of taxes on cigarettes and booze? Regressive as well, wouldn't you say?

[Partha]

Nope, because one can choose to stop smoking or drinking booze. I've seen people choose to stop eating, but too much of that leads to death.