Are America's richest paving the way for Obama? - 10/19/08 01:11 AM
Today's USA Today quotes New York Times and says this:
Obama breaks spending record. He has, up till now, spent about twice as much money on his campaign as McCain has spent on his. Where has Obama got all that spending money from?
Some part of that money, I must admit, could be illegal. Mind you, I'm not saying that it is, but I really don't feel confident enough to say that not even a small fraction of it is. So, yes, some of it could be illegal. But if Obama is outspending McCain so handsomely - if Obama may have twice as much money to spend as McCain, and certainly at least 30% more than McCain - then where did all that extra money come from? I simply refuse to believe that 30% or more of Obama's money could be illegal. Come on, people, you surely don't believe that that much of Obama's money could come from illegal sources and the public would still not have a clue that that was the case?
No, I'm sure that by far most of Obama's money must come from legitimate donors. Which begs the question, who has that much money to give away, and why would they give it to Obama?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it is rich people in Ameirca who contribute most of the campaign money to politicians. Which means that if a politican does not appeal sufficiently to America's most affluent citizens, he or she will not receive enough money to be able to launch a successful Presidential campaign. In other words, a person who can't find favour with the rich will not get the financial means necessary to be elected President.
Now it appears that Obama has received much more campaign money than McCain, and in my opinion that has to mean that America's richest have decided to support Obama rather than McCain. But how can that be? Aren't the richest supposed to be Republicans?
On September 5 this year, Conservative writer David Frum wrote this article in the New York Times. Frum argued that as inequality grows in America, its citizens increasingly drift away from the Republican Party. This is particularly true in ares where rich and poor people live in comparative proximity. Frum wrote:
Because in the "unequal" parts of the United States it is not just the poor people who vote Democratic:
Indeed, Frum claims that the very richest Americans are far more Democratic-leaning than the nation as a whole:
The very richest Americans are those who have benefitted by far the most from George W. Bush's tax cuts. The very richest are those whose income has risen sharply during Bush's presidency. And yet they turn away from Bush, asking for a Democratic President instead.
If Obama has very much more money to spend than Obama before the November election, I take that to mean that those who can afford to give a lot of money to presidential candidates, the very richest Americans, have chosen to support Obama over McCain. I find that interesting.
Ann
Quote
• The New York Times -- Obama set to break ad spending record; is swamping McCain: "Senator Barack Obama is days away from breaking the advertising spending record set by President Bush in the general election four years ago, having unleashed an advertising campaign of a scale and complexity unrivaled in the television era. ... (The Democratic presidential nominee) is now outadvertising Senator John McCain nationwide by a ratio of at least four to one, according to CMAG, a service that monitors political advertising. That difference is even larger in several closely contested states. ... Based on his current spending, CMAG predicts Mr. Obama's general election advertising campaign will surpass the $188 million Mr. Bush spent in his 2004 campaign by early next week. Mr. McCain has spent $91 million on advertising since he clinched his party's nomination, several months before Mr. Obama clinched his."
Some part of that money, I must admit, could be illegal. Mind you, I'm not saying that it is, but I really don't feel confident enough to say that not even a small fraction of it is. So, yes, some of it could be illegal. But if Obama is outspending McCain so handsomely - if Obama may have twice as much money to spend as McCain, and certainly at least 30% more than McCain - then where did all that extra money come from? I simply refuse to believe that 30% or more of Obama's money could be illegal. Come on, people, you surely don't believe that that much of Obama's money could come from illegal sources and the public would still not have a clue that that was the case?
No, I'm sure that by far most of Obama's money must come from legitimate donors. Which begs the question, who has that much money to give away, and why would they give it to Obama?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it is rich people in Ameirca who contribute most of the campaign money to politicians. Which means that if a politican does not appeal sufficiently to America's most affluent citizens, he or she will not receive enough money to be able to launch a successful Presidential campaign. In other words, a person who can't find favour with the rich will not get the financial means necessary to be elected President.
Now it appears that Obama has received much more campaign money than McCain, and in my opinion that has to mean that America's richest have decided to support Obama rather than McCain. But how can that be? Aren't the richest supposed to be Republicans?
On September 5 this year, Conservative writer David Frum wrote this article in the New York Times. Frum argued that as inequality grows in America, its citizens increasingly drift away from the Republican Party. This is particularly true in ares where rich and poor people live in comparative proximity. Frum wrote:
Quote
Measured by money income, Washington qualifies as one the most unequal cities in the United States. Yet these two very different halves of a single city do share at least one thing. They vote the same way: Democratic.
Quote
In 2004, Fairfax voted for John Kerry over George Bush, 53 percent to 45 — the first Democratic presidential victory in the county since the Johnson landslide of 1964. Don't imagine that this is a case of the shanties voting against the mansions. Kerry won some of his handsomest majorities in the fanciest of Fairfax's 99 precincts.
Quote
Fairfax's Democratic preference is typical of upper America. In 2000, Al Gore beat George Bush, 56-39, among the 4 percent of voters who identified themselves as “upper class.” America's wealthiest ZIP codes are a roll call of Democratic strongholds: Sagaponack, N.Y.; Aspen, Colo.; Marin County, Calif.; the near North Side of Chicago; Beacon Hill in Boston.
If Obama has very much more money to spend than Obama before the November election, I take that to mean that those who can afford to give a lot of money to presidential candidates, the very richest Americans, have chosen to support Obama over McCain. I find that interesting.
Ann