Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win

[Dos Equis]

Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win



Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM

By: Jim Meyers 
 
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain.

But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory.

And one question is: Did Obama “buy” the election?

Obama’s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign.

“Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,” veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com.

Obama’s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month.

Almost half of Obama’s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported.

Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors.

The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”

Obama’s fundraising “revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,” Bloomberg observed.

Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama’s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain.

Obama’s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain’s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared.

On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900.

Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort.
 
. . .

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_fundraisng/2008/11/05/148218.html

[Straw Man]

I voted for him and I didn't get a penny

[Hugo Chavez]

BB= Baby

[The Coach]

I voted for him and I didn't get a penny had no idea why!

Fixed

[Hugo Chavez]

we're suppose to feel bad for sending Obama money, lol...

[Decker]

Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win



Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM

By: Jim Meyers 
 
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain.

But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory.

And one question is: Did Obama “buy” the election?

Obama’s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign.

“Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,” veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com.

Obama’s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month.

Almost half of Obama’s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported.

Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors.

The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”

Obama’s fundraising “revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,” Bloomberg observed.

Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama’s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain.

Obama’s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain’s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared.

On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900.

Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort.
 
. . .

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_fundraisng/2008/11/05/148218.html

I disagree.

The american voters sealed the win for Obama..


That and Obama headed off the right's attempted election fraud at the pass.

[Straw Man]

Fixed

I assume you voted for McCain because he's white

[Al Doggity]

Hey, I'd prefer it be bought rather than stolen the way it was during the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Doesn't the fact that he was able to raise this amount of money tell you something? Even if you want to buy into the avs fraud thing, ( )the majority of his money came from small donations.

[Dos Equis]

I disagree.

The american voters sealed the win for Obama..


That and Obama headed off the right's attempted election fraud at the pass.

I disagree.  His fundraising success was the single biggest factor in this election.  He was able to outspend McCain by millions in all of the battleground states.

Money is almost always the most important factor in an election.   

[drkaje]

All that money is considered free speech when Republicans win.

[Decker]

I disagree.  His fundraising success was the single biggest factor in this election.  He was able to outspend McCain by millions in all of the battleground states.

Money is almost always the most important factor in an election.   

The Sup. Ct. equates money with free speech.  Money is a factor but votes are what is counted....except for the presidential election of 2000.

Votes get candidates elected.

....Last time I checked anyways.

[Dos Equis]

The Sup. Ct. equates money with free speech.  Money is a factor but votes are what is counted....except for the presidential election of 2000.

Votes get candidates elected.

....Last time I checked anyways.

There is a direct correlation between money and votes.  Money = votes.  This is true at every level (local, state, national).

That is in large part why Dubya was elected in 2000.  The big money decided before the election to back him.   

[Decker]

There is a direct correlation between money and votes.  Money = votes.  This is true at every level (local, state, national).

That is in large part why Dubya was elected in 2000.  The big money decided before the election to back him.   

Bush won in 2000 b/c all the votes were not counted.  That's a little contrary to a democratic republic.

Correlation is not causation but I know where you're coming from.

[Dos Equis]

Bush won in 2000 b/c all the votes were not counted.  That's a little contrary to a democratic republic.

Correlation is not causation but I know where you're coming from.

I'm saying money is the most important factor.  There are always other factors involved.  Still have to field a decent candidate.  Still have to have a platform.  But there really isn't any question that money is the most important part of any election.   

[240 is Back]

If the roles had been reversed, and Mccain had realized he had the potential to raise $600 million -

and he didn't have the RNC's piggy bank of 300 million at his disposal -

I think he would have done the same thing.


If Obama hadn't done that, spending would have been
Mccain 350 mil (his own 85 mil plus the rest from the RNC)
VS.
Obama 85 mil (plus any scraps from the broke DNC).

Obama may have gotten beaten.

And I think IF Mccain had a way to use the 300 mil (RNC) and 600 mil (own donations), he could have beaten obama very handily.

[y19mike77]

BB= Baby

Truth hurts.

Amazing how libs can never admit to anything.

So in your eyes Hugo did Obama lie or not about public funding?

[240 is Back]

Of course Obama lied about fundraising.

And mccain lied when he said "Palin was the single most qualified candidate in the conutry" or "Plain knows more about energy than anyone else in the united states".

It's what politicians do.  Obama was just in a better position to spend, and he did it.  If mccian was in a position to double obama's spending, he woudl have done it too.

[The Coach]

I assume you voted for McCain because he's white

Don't pull that Matt T crap, him being black (1/2) had NOTHING to do with my decision to not vote for him.

[y19mike77]

Of course Obama lied about fundraising.

And mccain lied when he said "Palin was the single most qualified candidate in the conutry" or "Plain knows more about energy than anyone else in the united states".

It's what politicians do.  Obama was just in a better position to spend, and he did it.  If mccian was in a position to double obama's spending, he woudl have done it too.

Both examples you jus used are matters of opinions not blatant lies.

[Rimbaud]

Fixed

 

[IFBBwannaB]

we're suppose to feel bad for sending Obama money, lol...

No, you're suppose to be suspicious of him receiving millions of fraudulent donations  = getting bribed.

[Hugo Chavez]

Truth hurts.

Amazing how libs can never admit to anything.

So in your eyes Hugo did Obama lie or not about public funding?

I'm glad didn't go with the public funding... What you're really asking for here is that Obama get smashed by a massive GOP warchest.  No, I'm very glad we the people had the opportunity to fund his win.  If there is a promise worthy of taking back, it was this one for sure.

[OzmO]

I wonder when the crying is gonna stop.  It's getting embarrassing.

[y19mike77]

So as long as the results benefits democrats its ok to lie?

[Hugo Chavez]

I wonder when the crying is gonna stop.  It's getting embarrassing.

oh no, now it goes into overdrive.  This is what happens, the left will now sit on their asses thinking nothing needs to be said, they won and the rightwing attacks will escalate to epic proportions.  Rush said it yesterday on his show, said he was happy and then wispered, "we're back on the field"  I assume he means his show.  This is nothing, the attacks and crying and undermining will become massive.  They do risk a lot with blaming Obama for things before he's even in office tho so I'm going to laugh if they go apeshit out of the gate like they are.