Union Mad at DNC for not supporting Wisconsin recall

[peter grimes]

1.Hell, why not just burn down the state house then, as apparently anything that prevents something they disagree with from happening is okay by you.

2.Its an interesting trap though, which Forma just willfully barged into. If you support the tactic that the Democrats used in Wisconsin which is extreme by any measure, then you can't simultaneously be against Republican filibustering.

3.So which is it radical libs of civfanatics? Are the Wisconsin dems and Congress Republicans right? Or are they wrong?

1. That would be arson. Only reactionary ideologues resort to that sort of stuff.

2. Both are within the rules, as much as I think the rules should be reformed. I never claimed that everything is hunky-dory as-is.

3. I'm not a radical liberal, but I'd say that both groups are 'right' in the sense that they are doing what they feel they must, within the existing rule structure.

I guess the difference between me & kochman is I think the rules are broken.

 

[History_Buff]

Obama outspent McCain on a 3 to 1 proportion (Obama spent $771 million compared to $239 million of McCain). Was his election a farce?

Generally, I would say yes. Even what little of it spilled onto Canadian TV was nuts.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It was actually $333M to $730M.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008

And it was McCain's decision to limit his campaign contributions so he would qualify for federal funds. He certainly didn't have to do so. Corporations would have clearly given him more funds than they did Obama if he had decided to use the same strategy.

 

[MobBoss]

Didnt Obama initially promise to limit his campaign and use federal funds as well, then went back on that promise later in the campaign?

 

[luiz]

It was actually $333M to $730M.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008

And it was McCain's decision to limit his campaign contributions so he would qualify for federal funds. He certainly didn't have to do so. Corporations would have clearly given him more funds than they did Obama if he had decided to use the same strategy.

This is where I got my figures:

What’s clear is that whether or not Republicans can raise more money than Democrats between now and November, President Obama won’t enjoy the massive cash edge he had in 2008. In that election, Obama raised $771 million as compared to just $239 million for Arizona Sen. John McCain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-barack-obama/2012/05/21/gIQA3QcMfU_blog.html

Anyway, would you say Obama was the candidate of the plutocrats considering the huge financial advantage he had against his opponent?

 

[History_Buff]

Anyway, would you say Obama was the candidate of the plutocrats considering the huge financial advantage he had against his opponent?

Given how poorly he's responded to the economic crash, it certainly looks that way. Of course it might also be pragmatism, knowing that the House Repubs will certainly block any tax increase or financial regulation.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So which is it radical libs of civfanatics? Are the Wisconsin dems and Congress Republicans right? Or are they wrong?

Whats good for the gander is good for the geese or as Romney put it sauce for the gander and geese or something something rich people.
Republicans got 98% of what they wanted so I guessing it is a very important lesson for the future

 

[Formaldehyde]

This is where I got my figures:

That is highly misleading because it doesn't mention the federal funds which McCain received, and that Obama didn't spend all the money he raised.

And again, it was McCain's decision. He could have easily received far more campaign contributions than he did and outpaced Obama considerably. But he intentionally decided to limit it expressly so he could qualify for those federal funds.

Anyway, would you say Obama was the candidate of the plutocrats considering the huge financial advantage he had against his opponent?

I think that is preposterous, although I guess you could argue that was the reason McCain decided to not get so much money from those very same plutocrats which completely control the Republican Party. I don't think there is any doubt that big business and the rich have wanted a Republican president and a Republican-dominated Congress at least ever since the 60s, and that they largely buy that influence with contributions.

 

[peter grimes]

Anyway, would you say Obama was the candidate of the plutocrats considering the huge financial advantage he had against his opponent?

Yes, Obama is the candidate of the oligarchs. But so is every other presidential candidate. Candidates who aren't willing to do what the oligarchy wants are weeded out well before they reach the party nomination. Just look at what happened with Kucinich, Nader, Paul (although this time it's much more interesting!).

I certainly don't think that Romney would be less of a candidate for the oligarchs than Obama. But I don't think you were trying to imply that.

 

[luiz]

That is highly misleading because it doesn't mention the federal funds which McCain received, and that Obama didn't spend all the money he raised.

And again, it was McCain's decision. He could have easily received far more campaign contributions than he did and outpaced Obama considerably. But he intentionally decided to limit it expressly so he could qualify for those federal funds.

The fact that McCain limited his campaign budget while Obama went for about 0.8 billion dollars should speak well of McCain, according to your logic. Even with the federal funds (which Obama refused so he could run his billionaire campaign) McCain was still vastly outspent.

And of course you can't know whether or not McCain would be capable of raising more money. If it's indeed true that he could do it but chose not to, isn't that someting good under your logic? At least as far as campaign financing go, you ought to prefer McCain's position to Obama's.

I think that is preposterous, although I guess you could argue that was the reason McCain decided to not get so much money from those very same plutocrats which completely control the Republican Party. I don't think there is any doubt that big business and the rich have wanted a Republican president and a Republican-dominated Congress at least ever since the 60s, and that they largely buy that influence with contributions.

Those plutocrats still donated the better part of a billion dollars to Obama, and not to McCain.

 

[luiz]

I certainly don't think that Romney would be less of a candidate for the oligarchs than Obama. But I don't think you were trying to imply that.

I wasn't indeed. I was just showing how absurd it is to pretend the Republicans somehow have the monopoly of Big Money backing. Last time around the Democrats actually beat them in that department. This time Romney might win this particular contest, but it won't be a big margin. And the most likely scenario is still definately Obama raising more.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The fact that McCain limited his campaign budget while Obama went for about 0.8 billion dollars should speak well of McCain, according to your logic. Even with the federal funds (which Obama refused so he could run his billionaire campaign) McCain was still vastly outspent.

Yes, I was very impressed with his effort to try to limit spending and the inevitable favors expected of him. I think that along with willing to stand up to that woman who claimed Obama was an "Arab" shows that McCain was from from being your typical Republican presidential candidate, even if he did pick a complete bimbo as his running mate.

I was also somewhat disappointed that Obama didn't follow suit. But part of the reason was likely because he knew that small personal donations were going to be so overwhelming, and he likely knew that it would get the people more involved in his campaign than what normally occurs.

And of course you can't know whether or not McCain would be capable of raising more money. If it's indeed true that he could do it but chose not to, isn't that someting good under your logic? At least as far as campaign financing go, you ought to prefer McCain's position to Obama's.

I don't think there is much doubt about that. Republicans have traditionally gotten more corporate money and larger personal donation amounts than Democrats do. Why should this election have been any different than all the others in the last 50 years?

I think it was clearly due to McCain's personal decision. And I doubt it really hurt his election all that badly to do so. That amount of money reaches diminishing returns long before $730M. I doubt McCain thought his campaign was financially strapped at all.

Those plutocrats still donated the better part of a billion dollars to Obama, and not to McCain.

That is not true at all. Individual donors were over $345M of that total. So that means actually far less than half that amount came from other sources.

And many of Obama's other donors weren't really "plutocrats" at all. For instance, his largest donation came from the University of California and the third was Harvard University. Universities were a quarter of his largest 20 contributors. Unions also factored heavily into the amount, many of which were organizations like teacher's unions. Those are not your typical "plutocrats", although I imagine some may find union and college donations to be even more reprehensible.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The fact that McCain limited his campaign budget while Obama went for about 0.8 billion dollars should speak well of McCain, according to your logic. Even with the federal funds (which Obama refused so he could run his billionaire campaign) McCain was still vastly outspent.

I think it would have been a huge advantage to the Republicans at that time where GOP fund raising, voter turn out and chance of winning would have been at an all time low. McCain though given hes continue work to put limits on election spending was genuine.

In Hindsight I doubt that Republicans would have abided by any campaign spending limited. The moment it was not an advantage for them. As Mitt put it

" Corporations can vote too my friends " or something like that.