Daily status: the DJI has dropped 2,274 points since the bailout passed on October 3rd. Your Federal tax dollars at work!
So Obama's somewhere around 10% ahead in the polls.
He's even further ahead in finances.
According to http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P00000001&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=
Obama's raised about $603 million of the $1514 million as of the end of September, while McCain's gotten $332 million. Yes, Obama's raised almost 40% of the total money in this election, while McCain is at a little under 22%.
Obama's spent more than twice as much - $469M against $229M.
Breaking his promise to take public funding really seems to be paying off for Obama.
How does not taking public funding mean Obama gets more money, you ask?
Well, its federal law. From: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml
"...To qualify for public funding, Presidential candidates and party convention committees must first meet various eligibility requirements, such as agreeing to limit campaign spending to a specified amount....Candidates also must agree to:
Limit campaign spending for all primary elections to $10 million plus a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) [The COLA brings it to $42.05 million!] This is called the national spending limit.
Limit campaign spending in each state to $200,000 plus COLA, or to a specified amount based on the number of voting age individuals in the state (plus COLA), whichever is greater.
Limit spending from personal funds to $50,000."
So by not taking public funding, Obama can raise and spend as much as he wants to, wherever he wants to. McCain has to follow the rules. Obama doesn't, even though when he was running against Hilary he agreed that he would.
Now, I can't prove any direct correlation between spending more and getting more votes. But is anyone going to contend that it hurts?
It would probably bother me more if the election were closer. I'd hate to think someone could buy their way into the Oval Office.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The book Freakonomics pointed out that the amount of money spent on a campaign historically did not correlate with the candidate's votes!
Besides what polls are you looking at?
AP Poll just came out with Obama 44, McCain 43 :D
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/2008/view/2008_10_22_AP_poll:_Presidential_race_too_close_to_call/srvc=home&position=recent
Don't let the numbers depress you, as Ann Coulter pointed out, the polls always err on the side of Democrats - sometimes wildly...
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=278
Well, I'd be willing to bet that spending more helps somewhat; after all, if you tell people something often enough, some of them are going to believe it.
OK, MOST of the polls show Obama pretty far ahead, and the electoral math looks even worse. Google "electoral college" and look at the various sites; most of them show a heavy lead for Obama in electoral votes.
We'll see!
CNN: Poll shows presidential race may be tightening
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/cnn.poll/
DNC Chairman: Obama-McCain Race Will Tighten, Predicts DNC chairman
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/10/23/obama-mccain-race-will-tighten-predicts-dnc-chairman.html
Obama: Obama warns race is set to tighten
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1021/1224454426803.html
Yeah, but look at the electoral situation.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_
20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_
update
Obama 260, McCain 163
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Obama 337, McCain 171
http://www.270towin.com/
Obama 264, McCain 176
Obama's SAFE states put him on the verge of victory. McCain has
to win virtually all of the swing states to reach 270.
Fair enough - but polls are notoriously wildly inaccurate.
The most accurate poll in the 2004 election shows McCain gaining on Obama for 2nd day in a row - now trails by 1.1 points:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309635713550536
:)
Post a Comment