Hillary's base is the poor and working folks. Can she compete with the deep pockets of Obamites?

[jackson_dem]

I think Hillary will be able to raise enough cash to get her message out, like McCain did against Romney's unlimited funds, but she is at a distinct disadvantage because the rich are the group Obama does best with while Hillary's best group is the poorest of Americans (read any exit poll). http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

[rwheeler31]

1. This is such crap.

[LandOLincoln]

28. Read 'em and weep:

Obama gets as much corporate support as Hillary Clinton does. Ever hear of Goldman Sachs?

You might find this interesting:

A Black American reader of The Black Commentator recently wrote to me concerning Barack Obama: "With Obama the system is employing a bait and switch tactic. On the surface the guy looks like he represents all that is new and hopeful, but he is a product of the corporate culture and that is where his heart and interests lie." In my opinion, this reader’s observation is correct.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/260/260_keeping_it_real_pimping_of_black_america_corporate_media_obama.html


And this:

Obama gets three-quarters of his campaign money from the rich - from the huge corporations that recognize their own interests will be protected by a President Obama. He told them so, in no uncertain terms early in his Senate career, when he voted to limit citizens' ability to sue corporations in state courts. Obama made sure that his corporate donors understood he would be a loyal servant - a King Herod to Wall Street - when he voted against an amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Barack Obama has no problem with predatory lenders - the people who are foreclosing on the Black middle class.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=234&Itemid=46

But thanks for your concern. :sarcasm:

[Windy]

33. That's a rather militant publication you cited... rather fringe. Can't put too much stock into it.

[LandOLincoln]

40. I cited two publications. Which one did you have in mind?

And did you bother to read either piece?

[polpilot]

164. Obama supporters include the rich, the poor, the disenfranchised, the old

the young, the patriots, the anti-establishment, the establishment, the writer's guild, the nursing home workers, the communists, the anti-communists, the republicans, the democrats, the tv satellite installers, the plumbers, the heating contractors, the guys, the gays...you get the point!

[Capn Sunshine]

117. Both those guys asked to join Obama's campaign and were rejected.

Funny how they soured on him right after that.

I really think they resent their loss of gravitas to another more charismatic leader.

[LandOLincoln]

139. Linky? n/t

[thevoiceofreason]

184. CAPPED at 30%

What a favor! I'm sure that would have put a huge crimp on them! That's one of the reasons he voted against it -- the "cap" was a joke -- far too high. Kind of like voting for a little bit of war, just not too much.

[ursi]

142. Let's see, I have several poor people in my family ...they split their caucus votes

between Obama and Edwards. I don't know any poor people who like the Clintons. Where does this crap come from?

[mondo joe]

182. From exit polls, which are far more reliable than your family anecdote. NT

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

150. I think the OP s/b "Hillary says Lobbyists are people too..."

and her favorite donors...

[donheld]

2. Yea right!!!

That's just too funny.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Hillary is a corporate lawyer with very deep pockets. I'm sure she will be just fine.

[Canadian_moderate]

10. Not if she has short arms

;o)

[faithfulcitizen]

4. Thanks, this place needed a little humor! LOL

[SteelPenguin]

5. 70% of her donors have maxed out

compared to only 3% of Obama's donors maxing out. That points to the majority of her money coming in the largest amount possible (ie from rich people and corporations), while most of Obama's comes in dribs and drabs of $25 or less.

I'm not sure that meshes with the deep pockets of the Obamites theory.

[Windy]

11. delete

[mondo joe]

14. Interesting. Link please?

Thanks.

[SteelPenguin]

21. Newsweek

http://www.newsweek.com/id/108697

"Obama has lots more money now and deeper pockets moving forward. He raised $32 million in the month of January compared to about $14 million for Clinton. Only 3 percent of Obama's hundreds of thousands of small donors have "maxed out," which means that the campaign can go back to them again and again for more. By contrast, roughly 70 percent of Hillary's donors have contributed the $2,300 maximum allowed by law."

[mondo joe]

30. Thanks very much. I'd be interested to see more breakdown of their

contributions - notably, how many donors they each have.

Given Hillary's strong support among low and fixed income persons, I would expect a significant percentage who can;t donate at all.

[SteelPenguin]

38. What would be interesting...

Is to compare the amount of donations per income group to each candidate, and correlate that to their voting trends, from the low and fixed incomes, to the working poor, to the rich, and the corporate donors.

Obama has plenty of poor people who support him as well from students to the black community, and he's getting donations from them, so I'd be curious as to just how poor Clinton's base is that they can't donate at all.

Or if Clinton's supporters donate less across the entire spectrum, other than corporate donors, etc.

[mondo joe]

41. Sure. I don't expect to see anything like that though. NT

[SteelPenguin]

43. Well no of course not

Rational questions without spinned answers? Heaven forbid.

[mondo joe]

45. Hm, I was thinking more like that's a degree of data analysis I wouldn't much expect

anyone to reveal.

All that said, the ext polling certainly appears to support the idea that lower income Dems tend to vote more for Hillary, higher income for Obama.

[SteelPenguin]

50. Then how do we explain the 70% vs 3% max out

Even if Hillary has more support from lower income whites and hispanics, and Obama has more support from lower income blacks, what overall percentage of her support is that vs donations, and how does that corrlate with her maxing out 70% of her contributors, with Obama only maxing out 3%.

Yes if someone comes along and has the full support of people making less than 20k a year, while someone else has the full support of the wealthy, the second candidate will have far more money, but he/she'll also be much more maxed out, one would expect, than the candidate with the poor base.

[mondo joe]

52. In light of the data from Open Secrets in another post it doesn't seem the

discrepancy is quite so remarkable.

[SteelPenguin]

55. I must be looking at different numbers

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=S

How do those numbers not show that Hillary relies far more on wealthy contributors than Obama?

[mondo joe]

62. I don't know what to make of the word "relies". More of her donors have maxed out

than have Obama's. But that doesn't mean more of her donors - or supporters - are wealthy.

We're looking at giving levels with a cap - not household income.

[SteelPenguin]

75. Yeah but how many poorer people have given 2300?

If they've maxed out, they have more money than me, so they ain't poor.

If 70% of her's have maxed out, that means 70% of her supporters have a couple grand they can throw around. Sure some of those might be poor democratic extremists, but most will be fairly well off. If only 3% of his have capped, and 90% of his support has given $100 or less, it indicates alot more money coming in to Obama of the smaller variety, so while Clinton has more voting support from the poor, Obama has more monetary support.

Though I wonder at what level of income poeple actually start donating really anything. Even $25. I doubt many people of any stripe making less than 20k a year do, so maybe even his support of $50 from someone could indicate someone making at least 40k or 50k, or more. I don't know.

[mondo joe]

80. But donors don't come in only two flavors: rich and poor.

I don't think the 70% of donors who are maxed out are likely lower income - they are likely higher income.

But Obama's lower gift amount doesn't necessarily mean those donors are lower income - just that they haven't maxed out.

And I would say it makes sense that if Obama has a greater percentage of middle and upper middle income donors, they might make a lot of mid range and even smaller gifts, but not max out.

No one said that Clinton doesn't have any wealthy or higher income supporters - just that the exit polling indicates that more of her supporters are low income, and more of Obama's high income.

[SteelPenguin]

85. Right, but I'm saying that's a separate issue

Exit polling indicates she has more low income supporters, but there has been no correlation of those numbers to whether they donate money.

Did you vote for Clinton or Obama? is a different question from Did you donate to Clinton or Obama, and how much?

[mondo joe]

89. Agreed. But I think the OP's point was that if Obama's voters are generally

higher income than Clinton's, he has the greater fundraising potential, even though Clinton might have maxed out her smaller pool of potential max-level donors.

[bvar22]

185. There is only one explaination:

Obama's donor base is much larger than Hillary's base, which disproves the OP's claim.

Hillary's campaign has been funded mainly by large single source contributions (RICH) which have "Maxed Out", while Obama's funding comes mainly from much wider low dollar contributors which will probably never max out.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. You don't notice the spin in that?

He references Obama's "small donors", but only Clinton's donors.

How does a small donor max out?

If you look at the actual numbers, it's very different:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems_img.asp?filter=A&sortby=P

[SteelPenguin]

54. Obama has more smaller number support though

From that site...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=S


Barack has 26% of his donors giving less than $200 vs 12% of Hillary's.

She has 19,949 who have donated 2,300+ vs Barack's 16,259

All the numbers there point to her getting more big money numbers while Obama gets more from smaller sums.

[mondo joe]

59. I guess I'm not sure where you're going with that.

She has a few thousand more donors who maxed out.

He has more people who gave lesser amounts.

It looks like in Hillary's case, those who could were more likely to max out. In Obama's case, they were less likely to do so.

[SteelPenguin]

67. Right....

...hmm...ok...

I'm not claiming that the wealthier and educated whites don't support Obama more, or that Clinton's base isn't poorer than Obama's base. Both those facts are true, as far as voting base.

However the original topic of discussion related to monetary funds, and donations, and so we bring the money into the issue.

yes Clinton has more support amongst lower income whites, and Obama with more amongst lower income blacks, however the numbers indicate that Obama is receiving far more support from those lower income segments than Clinton is, whether or not they support her in a poll or in a voting booth. He's recieivng far more smaller donations than Clinton is, while she is reling more on larger donations.

The disconnect is in separating out someone supporting via a vote, and supporting via cash, and Obama seems to be getting more cash in smaller numbers from his donors, which suggests, but doesn't prove, larger monetary support for Obama from all sectors.

[mondo joe]

76. Apologies if I'm being dense. I've had some wine after a hard day.

You state: "the numbers indicate that Obama is receiving far more support from those lower income segments than Clinton is".

I don't think that is necessarily so. The size of the gift doesn't necessarily reflect the income of the donor - with the exception of the highest level gifts which are largely out of range for the lowest income donors.

Although Clinton received more maxed out gifts, Obama may well have a whole lot more high income donors who are simply not giving at that level. Or not doing so yet.

[SteelPenguin]

82. Very true

And shame on you for not sharing the wine.

I guess I'm just poking holes in the numbers. We don't have enough data to really assess anything, and really even people saying that "hillary has the support of the working class whites" makes it sound like 100% of them support her, when it's really just a majority. Signficant, sure, but it's not like all supporters of Obama are drinking wine after a hard day... ;)

Me i'm still on coffee. I still have more work to do tonight...and i haven't donated to either candidate yet. I'm saving my cash for the general. ;)

[mondo joe]

87. Thank you for one of the nicest exchanges I've ever had on GD:P.

This is more of what I was hoping for than...well, what is.

[MonkeyFunk]

69. Perhaps

but the notion that 70% of Clinton's donors have maxed out compared to 3% of Obama's is just wrong.

[jackson_dem]

31. Which income group does Obama do best with?

A) 0-15k
B) 15-30K
C) 30-50K
D) 50-75K
E) 75-100K
F) 100-150K
G) 150-200K
H) 200K or more

The answer for Hillary is A.

[SteelPenguin]

42. You keep confusing two separate things

Who votes for a candidate, and who donates to a candiate, are two separate questions.

[jackson_dem]

65. Not anymore

The influence of the the bigwig $2,300 donors declines progressively each quarter as more of them max out. Donors who can't give the maximum become more important. This is where class comes into play. Obama has more supporters who can write a $500 or $1,000 check than Hillary does. This explains why he raised $20 million more than her last month despite her having as much, if not slightly more, support than he does among voters.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Not true at all

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=P

Here's their donors by who's maxed out. Clinton looks to be around 63%, Obama around 42%.

[mondo joe]

49. Mike Gravel has a long way to go though!

[snappyturtle]

177. Bingo! n/t

[angie_love]

6. What a load of garbage

The reason Hillary didn't raise as much money is because Hillarys donors were the rich ones who gave her the MAX donation early on and Obama's supporters were the ones who gave a tiny bit at a time which payed off in the end. Stop hating. I had hope for you yet, but see you are just another disappointment.

[Deja Q]

7. The gossip I heard claims Hillary hangs with the rich...

[Windy]

8. What a load of crap. Obama has gotten his money from MANY people giving small donations!

Hillary has got her money in large donations from corporations, rich friends, etc.

I find the spin in this regard amusing!

She never asked for funding from the "little guy" until recently!

Totally ridiculous assertion from the pundits who haven't been right about a damn thing all election cycle so far!!!

[rodeodance]

12. yeah--and now we are finding out the demographics of those doners.

[Windy]

19. its donors...and yes we are. Obama has a cross section

and the election proves that he wins across all demographic lines...

From Georgia, to Connecticutt, to Kansas and Missouri, Colorado and Iowa

North East, South, West and the heartland too!

Don't have a lot of rich people in middle america right now... and its not all african americans or student either...

[mondo joe]

39. Both candidates have cross sections. The fact remains that lower income people

vote more often for Clinton, higher income more often for Obama.

[SteelPenguin]

47. lower income whites and hispanics

lower income black people vote for Obama.

I wonder how much of the lower income and less educated non-black population supporting Hillary is somehow based in racism, which is far more prevelant in the lower income and less educated populations.

[mondo joe]

51. Are you suggesting a racial inclination in lower income whites and hispanics but not blacks?

[SteelPenguin]

58. No

I'm not suggesting anything, so much as asking the question.

And no, i'm not suggesting it's not in Blacks as well. I wasn't asking that aspect of the question, but I'd insert that in as well.

Do you think that lower income hispanics and whites tend to support Clinton because of inherent racism, and that lower income blacks tend to support Obama because he's black?

[mondo joe]

66. I have not attributed these demographic trends to racism, and I don't now.

:-)

[Leopolds Ghost]

110. Given all the racism in the upper-class white liberal ranks in my parts...

Among people who treat Obama as a "magic negro" to quote a black
cultural critic and thus feel comfortable voting for him, because
theirs is a different sort of racism and they do not feel economically
threatened by poor blacks...

I'm quite willing to believe that the lower class whites and ESPECIALLY lower class Hispanics are willing to vote for Hillary over a black man even if she doesn't represent the interests of the working man AT ALL...

Most poor white people (and quite a few rich white people) would not want
"their daughters" fawning all over a black man at a rally, even if he
supports their financial needs. Hate to say it but its true. Hell look
at the people on *DU* talking about whether Jewish people should vote for
a black man.

[xmas74]

122. I'm white, I'm lower income

and I'm a Hillary supporter. If my daughter were of age to attend a rally I'd have no problems with her "fawning over" a black man.

Once again someone on DU has stated that if you are white and lower income you must automatically be a racist. I'm so sick and tired of this shit.

[Leopolds Ghost]

123. I just said most people in the US are racist... don't you get?

I'm sick and tired of this myth that working class people are naturally
CONSERVATIVE, which the Hillaryites are spreading. They want to repudiate
liberalism by repeating the old "welfare cadillac" "liberal elitists"
"you must make a lot of money to care so much about fair trade social justice"
mantra.

[xmas74]

126. I AM one of those "working class people".

Please don't tell me what you think you know about us. And I'd love to know who the hell you think you are by stating that most Americans are racist! That's bs and you know it.

(And by working class I mean I make $15,000 a year. I'm also a single mother who tries to live off of that income and support a child at the same time.)

[xmas74]

120. I'm white, I'm lower income

and I support Hillary.


Does that automatically make me a racist?

[rodeodance]

15. used to call it the YUPPIE crowd

[Windy]

22. I call it farmers and factory workers... and office workers ... and students...

and grandmothers and grandfathers... etc...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

`

`

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Have You Ever Looked At Exit Polls?

There is a positive correlation for income and education among Obama voters...The higher the level of education you attained and the higher your income is the more likely it that you are supporting Obama...Beside African Americans Obama's strongest demographic is folks esrning more than $200,000.00 per year...

And the fact that Hillary has a lot of fat cat donors doesn't change it...

[mtnsnake]

48. Uhh, you've already been proven wrong 6 times in this thread alone

but what else is new.

[journalist3072]

9. Tavis Smiley was basically talking about this today...saying that the more low-income, poor voters

have been voting for Sen. Clinton, while the upper crusts have been voting Obama.

Interesting dynamic.

[maximusveritas]

18. That's true, among white and hispanic voters at least

Still, Clinton has been raking in the big-money donors, while Obama has been relying on small donors.

So there's a difference between the voters and the donors.

[Rosemary2205]

20. That's odd

I live in a heavily democratic, low income area that had a very high voter turnout and went more than 80% for Obama on Tuesday. 65% of the people in my precinct are at or below the poverty level.

Either I live in an anomaly or else Tavis is all wet on this.

[jackson_dem]

24. It's true. Look at the exit polls for any state

Hillary does best with the poor and does gradually worse as folk's incomes rises. The opposite is true with Obama. The wealthier you are the more likely you are to support him.

[newmajority]

13. Complete and total horseshit

The DLC has been the ANTI working class wing of the Democratic party since it's creation. Hillary is a corporatist. Always has been, always will be.

[mondo joe]

17. Is that a matter of our opinion or actual primary votes?

[Leopolds Ghost]

113. It has nothing to do with Primary votes. Bill and Hillary INVENTED Wal-Mart

Which was a minor local grocery chain in Arkansas when they got on the board and started pushing China trade deals and just-in-time warehousing, market saturation to put Mom and Pop out of business nationwide.

[Windy]

25. The DLC and its members brought the country nafta... clinton didn't get saddled with its ill effects

as it took time for the corporations to put together and implement their outsourcing plans...

we are paying for it now!

[jackson_dem]

26. What is the difference between Obama and the DLC?

How many policy disagreements are there between Obama and the DLC? 0

[cloudythescribbler]

96. Obama's differences with the DLC are more than the Clintons' -- the latter do much to DEFINE DLC

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

154. He's not a member, doesn't support their war, he helped with 50 state strategy

There's more, but its like you want someone to do all of your work for you.

[Whisp]

16. omg, that is the funniest ever.

yes, Obama is a brazillionaire and the Clinton's have only have mac and cheese - on their private jet.

:rofl:

[jackson_dem]

27. Do you ever read exit poll data?

[Whisp]

35. NH exit polls was the last one. :)

I wouldn't touch a poll with a ten foot pole anymore.
the game is set. Hillary wins.

but. but.
overwhelming popular participation is the only thing that matters. Street smarts is the the thing that will deliver, not Diebold.

[Windy]

29. Really, you've got to be kidding me. Billy is going to "cash out" wtih a supermarket magnet

buddy of his and receive a cool $50 million so he can try and buy his wife's election in the fall as they don't have the ground support...

Must be gold plated mac and cheese! Certainly not from a cardboard box!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. We're Mixing Apples And Oranges

Just because the Clintons' are nouveau riche doesn't mean their supporters are...Obama is the candidate of the bourgeoisie and Hillary is the candidate of the proletariat...

[Whisp]

56. ha! wrongo.

Obama's contributers are the nickle and dimers. only 3% or so have maxed. but he has volume.

Hillary maxed out because of the ceiling of 2300.
consider who the 1% - 10% ers are and who is not. do the math.

it's quite representive of who the real people are.

[Windy]

63. Volume being the KEY word that should concern the clinton campaign more than dollars

I tried to log on to the obama website and it took awhile to open. Must be getting a large amount of traffic!

[mondo joe]

72. Of course. With his greater percentage of higher income voters, he has greater

potential to fundraise. That was the OP's point.

[mondo joe]

70. Incorrect.

Far more than 3% have maxed.

And the exit polling is quite consistent in showing who the lower income Dems support.

[jackson_dem]

73. That was debunked upthread

42% of Obama's have maxed out, 63% of Hillary's have. As the fat cats max out class becomes increasingly more important. Think about it. Whose supporters can more easily write checks for $500 or $1,000? The data shows Obama's. This is why he is beating her in fund raising now despite being tied with her, or even slightly behind, at the voting booth.

[Whisp]

78. I stand corrected.

don't know what to believe in numbers, and I admit it.
lots of misinformation.
yours may be right.
but regardless.
Obama has a deep well to bucket. Hillary has to bucket her personal finances and finite supporters.

[jackson_dem]

81. And a big reason is because Obama's base is far richer than Hillary's

[Whisp]

92. lol. sorry, I can't believe that.

Obama managed to get a richer base, in his rather short time on the scene, and millions poorer than the Clinton's? :rofl:

[mondo joe]

93. You're in what's called DENIAL. You're refusing to face reality because it doesn't

match your preferred ideas.

[jackson_dem]

95. Yup. The exit poll data is very clear on this

As you go up the income ladder the more likely you become to support Obama. The lower the income the more likely someone is for Hillary.

[Whisp]

98. my reality does not include a warmonger with a resume of such.

I deny the idea that very few make a lot of political grist and cash from killing people over there like they are not human. very much reminds me of 'cockroaches', that mentality.

I deny that a family in Iraq is probably right now, sitting at dinner, maybe laughing at things so hard to laugh at, and getting their guts splayedd out for their children and parents to see because some politicians on this side think it's 'just the way it is'. too bad, so sad.

American interests, ya know.
those Iraqi's should just pull up their boot straps (that have been hacked at since Gulf War 1) and get witht he program.

[mondo joe]

100. Cling to your fantasies if you like. That truly is cultish behavior.

Truly.

[Whisp]

102. sorry to hear you are so numb.

to the hardships of others, over there.
but i'm in The Cult, not you. not you the cult of not giving a shit if it's not your personal ass being shredded.

[mondo joe]

128. Afraid not. Your rant bears no relevance on the facts.

And the facts are that the working class tends to support Clinton. You don't like that, so you live in denial.

Now go to bed. Maybe you'll feel more rational in the morning.

[Whisp]

133. facts are Hillary's vote for the war

has ugly effects, like death and maiming.

but whatever, it doesn't seem important to you.
I think it did when Bush was the perpetrator enemy #1, but not so much when a Clinton had a hand in it.

k. I understand.

[mondo joe]

134. Facts are: Obama voted to fund it. Facts are: Obama wasn't in the senate for the

IWR so who knows what he would have done.

Your hatred for Clinton is your right. But your denial of facts based on your hate is just irrational.

[Whisp]

136. I'll go with the 'who knows' instead of 'I definitely know.' nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. If you think poor people (except the retired elderly) give money to pols you are sadly mistaken

Poor people give money to charity and local causes and give a higher
percentage of their income to charity than do the rich people who claim to
support them. They DON'T waste their hard earned dollars on DLC political
campaigns and manufactured "class" distinctions between the merely rich
and the really most sincerely rich.

[gmudem]

147. I'm not sure how true that is

Because Obama's base is blacks and young people. Those 2 demographics aren't exactly among the richest. Now that Edwards is out I may give him some money if I can, but I'm a college student and while I do work, I'll have to think about whether I can spare 20 bucks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. I'm Not Talking About Contributors ...I'm Talking About Voters

Here:

Less Than 100K

Clinton -54%

Obama 37%


More Than 100K

Obama 49%

Clinton 47%


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CADEM

[SteelPenguin]

61. ...and Pears too

Just because Clinton's voters are poorer than Obama, doesn't mean she relies far more on the support of the wealthy than he does.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. I'm Getting Confused

I suspect Hill has a lot of fat cat donors... All I am saying is Hill's base is older folks, glbt folks, Jews, Asians, working class whites, and Latinos...

Obama's base is African Americans, whites with college degrees or higher, and folks earning over $200,000 a year...

And of course there are exceptions...My mom's family doctor is Puerto Rican and an ardent Republican...In his case his profession trumps his ethnicity...

[Leopolds Ghost]

119. Wait, so you are saying the upper class naturally gravitate towards liberalism

And that the working class, latinos, and "glbt people" are naturally
economically conservative?

[Leopolds Ghost]

116. "Obama is the candidate of the bourgeoisie. Hillary is the candidate of the proletariat"

Can I save this quote, DemocratSinceBirth?


and mail it to my leftist friend (who is near homeless, BTW)?

[mondo joe]

129. If your friend is near homeless maybe you should take him in instead of being a snark.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

180. Hillary candidate of the Lobbyist n/t

[Whisp]

37. the larks tongue in aspic version of mac and cheese. ;)

[Leopolds Ghost]

115. The Clintons eat at Applebees. Obama disdains Applebees. Pelosi said

we need to support Applebees because that is where real working class Americans who have working class pride eat dinner. yuppies buy french ingredients and cook their own gourmet meals.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

32. this is deplorable ....what an embaressment to the Obama campaign

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. I think I'll recommend this thread just to shame you

[pingzing58]

53. The DLC just as bad as Neo-Cons have Obama in their pocket and they're licking their chops.

[skipos]

57. Rupert Murdoch, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh seem likely to fundraise for Hillary

so you should be in luck.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

60. talk about swiftboatering.....why are you all so blinded

[jackson_dem]

74. Murdoch's flagship newspaper endorsed Obama

For every corporate newspaper endorsement Hillary gets Obama gets 3.2...

[calmblueocean]

64. Are you kidding? 90% of Obama's donations are $100 or less.

Some deep pockets!

[Danger Mouse]

68. Yes, Hillary Clinton is the downtrodden grassroots candidate.

:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

121. Don't you know, she's trying to return us to the full employment and stable low-pay jobs of the 90s.

Complete with outsourcing and an "end to the government commitment
to counterproductive social entitlements for poor people."

After all, we all know REAL poor people are deadbeats, and most of them
do Not Look Like Us Working Folk :eyes:

[Danger Mouse]

187. Bill Clinton's welfare reform showed that he loves the poor so much.

[THUNDER HANDS]

71. Obama has raised about $40 million in 2008 from 325,000 donors

that's an average of $120 a donor.

[SteelPenguin]

77. the median would be a better indicator

If 10 people were to donate to Clinton, one with 2300 and 9 with just a dollar, then the average would be over 200 dollars a person, but the median would only be a dollar per person...

I'd be curious as to the medians of both candidate's donors, though it won't affect my vote.

[jackson_dem]

84. Who has an easier time shelling out $120?

Someone making $200,000 or more, Obama's best income group, or someone making less than $15,000, Hillary's best income group?

[AZBlue]

83. She's got lobbyists and lobby money.

She's got more than almost any candidate ever - possibly the most of any candidate ever. She's not relying on any individuals - she's propped up by corporations.

[LittleClarkie]

86. Maybe they're poor lobbyists living on the street, barely able to get by

The poor things.

[mondo joe]

91. That makes sense, since so many of her voters can't afford significant donations. NT

[jackson_dem]

105. She raised less than a million from lobbyists

Corporations are a different matter. Obama gets about as much $2,300 checks from corporate executives as Hillary. It's never been proven that he gets less such money. He didn't raise $100 million in a year solely from average folks...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

108. and so does Obama have lobbyists money...you're being duped like the bushies were

[AZBlue]

189. I haven't been duped.

I know exactly the amount and how that money came to him. And I know the same about Hillary Clinton. And I know who wants to put an end to a lobbyist-run government and who doesn't. And that's why my choice is clear:

[DrFunkenstein]

88. Tell It to The Lincoln Bedroom...Or Just Ask Marc and Denise Rich

Real salt of the Earth types.

[mondo joe]

90. Irrelevant. Hillary certainly has some wealthy donors. But overall Obama has

greater support from the higher income voters, and Clinton has more from the lower income voters.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

97. Former community organizer. Former corporate attorney.

One raises most of his money through grassroots donations. The other raises hers through big donor party insiders and, recently, personal wealth.

[mondo joe]

101. And that has precisely nothing to do with their voting base. NT

[jackson_dem]

106. Those are Obamite myths

Most of the money raised by both celebrities comes from wealthy donors giving big donations.

Party insiders? Obama has almost as much party support as Hillary and gotten almost all the endorsements since Iowa except for Waters.

[cloudythescribbler]

99. This oft-cited "salt of the earth" meme for Hillary voters needs MUCH closer scrutiny ...

First off, why would Obama have greater support from those with more education and (at least among the middle classes) usually more money? Well, one reason is POLITICAL INERTIA. Hillary was more popular at the start and more well-known nationally among ALL groups, but those who have tended to follow politics more closely, AS DEMOCRATS NOW, have liked what they see and hear from Obama. In my family, the fact that Obama was head of Harvard Law Review is seriously impressive to some of them.

Over time, I think that with greater exposure, the breakdown becomes less and less a 'salt of the earth' for HRC. Let's look for example at Missouri. Not only the college towns but the big cities (and not just African Americans) went for Obama, while the suburbs seem to have gone for HRC. The pattern in many areas of the South, with HRC still winning the majority of whites even in states like Georgia that Obama won handily, also is likely to put her supporters on average in higher income brackets.

I think that the "salt of the earth" tendency then varies significantly from place to place/region to region, and is also likely to change significantly over time.

[xmas74]

124. Not all of the college towns went for Obama.

Just Columbia.

Rolla didn't, Marysville didn't, Cape G didn't, Springfield (big college town in MO!) didn't, Kirksville didn't and neither did Warrensburg. (I know that one for fact-I live there.)

Out of all the college towns only Columbia went with Obama.

[cloudythescribbler]

144. point well taken. Did the press in MO have demographics on NONblacks voting Obama in the cities

I ask the question that way because it is suggested that -- other than among African-Americans -- Obama is getting the rich Democrats and HRC the presumptive salt of the earth. This is the empirical question I am curious to explore, rather than simply assuming it as does Jackson_Dem, Proud2BAmurkin, and others.............

[xmas74]

149. I don't know.

I do know that most of whom they showed were African Americans and most were rather young. They showed mostly under the age of 30 offering support to Obama and mostly males.

Even driving around town (I live in a college town) you see cars with Obama stickers and then stickers with their frat letters next to it. You see Hillary bumper stickers on SUVs, compacts, older vehicles and station wagons (the classic soccer mom vehicles or the older vehicles that from the working class we've all spoken of.) When I attend Sunday services I see Obama bumper stickers on the high school and college vehicles (we have a very active branch on campus and do get quite a few students on Sundays). You see the Hillary stickers on vehicles belonging to mothers. (You see quite a few McCain stickers too. This is, after all, a military town along with a college town.)

If you drive around town you see dorm rooms with Obama signs in the windows but you don't see them anywhere else. You see the Hillary signs in the older homes in town where the working class,the young families and the elderly live. Drive into the new subdivisions and you see mostly McCain signs with an occasional Huckabee and a smattering of Ron Paul. You don't see any dem signs out there.

I do wonder about the demographics. I suspect it's age more than anything else. A good friend attends an AME church and she stated that not a single member was overly impressed with Obama. Most were giving their support to Hillary. She said it was the same with her family throughout Missouri-older African Americans, especially women, were still supporting the Clintons while the younger were with Obama.

I'd love to see the stats. I know from speaking to people around the area it's mostly the young and urban areas supporting Obama while the others are with Hillary. And we need to pull together soon because I've already heard the talk about McCain.

[Azathoth]

103. Yeah, poor Hillary with her $110 million warchest raised from lobbyists

I don't know how she gets by.

[jackson_dem]

109. She raised less than a million from lobbyists

Another Obamite myth. Obama has raised about as much as her from corporate interests.

[Azathoth]

114. So Hillary has received almost 8 times what Obama has from lobbyists

And she also leads in donations from commercial banks, lawyers, and "health providers".

So much for the "she's depending on the poor working folks" talking point.

[jackson_dem]

125. And Barack matches her every step of the corporate way

So much for the "candidate of change" talking point.

[Azathoth]

127. So you're conceding your original post was bullshit

and instead you're attempting to segue into another attack on Obama. Classy.

[jackson_dem]

131. Do the math

What percentage of their money comes from banks, the drug and insurance industries, etc.? Where does the rest come from? Having wealthier supporters is more important as a campaign goes on. Obamites can delve into their pockets for another $500 much easier than Hillary supporters can. Those who gave before are less likely to be able to give again.

[Azathoth]

138. HAHAHA....70% of Hillary's donors have maxed out

They can't contribute another $500 because federal law prevents them from doing so. Only 3% of Obama's have maxed out. They can continue contributing because they aren't ultra-rich superdonors.

[mondo joe]

141. You're quite incorrect - a much greater percentage of Obama donors has maxed out.

The 3% is incorrect.

But that's irrelevant with regard to the fact that Obama voters skew to the upper income, and Hillary to the lower.

[Azathoth]

148. Ah yes, when the facts are inconvient, simply claim they are wrong n/t

[mondo joe]

151. The facts are neither convenient nor inconvenient. They simply don't add up to

to your erroneous claim.

[cloudythescribbler]

145. Azathoth == I think you have hit the nail on the head

[mondo joe]

132. So what? Individual contributions are significant, and Obama - with his more well heeled

supporters - has the potential to earn a good deal more moving forward than Clinton does with her predominantly working class voters.

[Azathoth]

135. 70% of Hillary's donors are maxed out

Doesn't sound like she's raising money from "working class voters."

[mondo joe]

137. You have foolishly confused VOTERS with DONORS.

Of those who donated to Clinton, most have maxed out.

Of those who voted for Hillary, most can't even afford to donate at all.

Did you miss out on basic logic in your education?

[Azathoth]

140. In other words, Hillary is the typical machine candidate

In the pocket of lobbyists and rich superdonors while selling herself as the "candidate of the working class".

Obama, on the other hand, is financing his campaign through donations from the average Joes, the people who can afford $25 or $50, but not $2300.

[mondo joe]

143. No, quite incorrect. Hillary is the candidate of the working class because that is who is voting

for her.

Obama's voters are not the average Joes - they are well above average in income.

You continue to confuse donors and gift levels with voters.

[Azathoth]

146. So I guess Bush is the candidate of the working class, since that is who voted for him

Following your logic, of course.

[mondo joe]

152. If you want to argue that, go right ahead. I'd say he's more the candidate of evangelicals,

but that would not be the case for Clinton.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

153. Hillary WILL unite the republican party n/t

[mondo joe]

155. They'll be united regardless of the Dem candidate. This kind of talk gets tossed out at

every election cycle. Only newbies or those with selective memory don't know that.

[JVS]

104. Don't worry plenty of corporate cash for her.

[DebJ]

107. Note that the educated also vote for Obama...not necessarily

rich, just like to use their heads.

[jackson_dem]

111. Another classist for the "uniter"

The economic demographics voting for Obama also vote rethug. Are people who "use their heads" rethugs"?

[mondo joe]

130. You mean the less educated classes don't like to "use their heads"? What an ugly Repupublican

attitude.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

162. That sort of elitism is disgusting to see on a liberal message board

If you had a brain in your head, you'd know that. But thanks for exposing Obama fans' true colors. It's always nice to see the ugly truth exposed, when someone's too clueless to know they're making their candidate look bad.

[krabigirl]

174. unless they have multiple PhDs, like my husband, and vote for Hillary

[zulchzulu]

112. Her bloviated bundlers and corporate toadies are tapped out

There are plenty of people from all walks of life donating to Obama. A lot of people pay in smaller amounts.

Your spin is fantastically Clintonian.

[Thrill]

156. Deep Pockets? This is hillarious. Hillary has the big donors

Obama has a bunch of regular people who give 20 dollars here and there. Thats why most of hers are maxed out and his still have a ways to go

[mondo joe]

157. Obama's supporters are "regular people who give 20 dollars here and there"? Prove it.

And define "regular people" in terms of income please.

[Thrill]

158. You already have the Proof

He has twice has many donors and very few are maxed out. Whereas Hillary's donors have already given the max.

[mondo joe]

159. That reveals how much they've given - not their income or giving capacity.

Fact is that higher income voters have trended for Obama, lower income for Clinton.

Fact is more of her donors have maxed out, though his are increasing.

That fewer of his are maxed out doesn't tell you much of anything about his donors, or his voters.

[marions ghost]

160. what is this about???

:shrug:

The candidate most supported by the fat cats will be Republican.

Hillary and Obama seem to be on the same wave, looking for as much support as they can get from anywhere.

John Edwards is the strongest champion of the poor.

Obama may be the candidate of the future poor (ie. many of the college graduates of today).

These generalities between Obama and Hillary donations, while interesting-- aren't adding up to much that's worth debating, seems to me.

[workinclasszero]

161. Hillary sold her soul

to corporations and lobbyists. Everyone knows it too. Who you tryin to fool??:eyes::rofl:

[mondo joe]

163. You're clearly not looking at the exit polling. The well heeled are trending toward

Obama, the lower income people toward Clinton.

[dionysus]

165. thanks for informing me i'm rich... i never knew how wealthy i was until you just told me...

[mondo joe]

166. Don't know if you're rich, but you seem to have some real reading disability.

Nothing in the OP said YOU were rich.

[dionysus]

169. ah, the stock asshole response from a shillbot...

yeah, i don't know how to fucking read, and am so stupid i can't see what the bullshit OP is implying...

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

170. It is a FACT, confirmed by exit polls, that Obama's supporters (on average) have more money

Your anecdotal evidence (I'm not rich, so how can that be true?) was pathetic. Don't deny concrete facts, unless you want to look like a cultist.

[mondo joe]

171. If you can really read that well, your error is yet more grievous for being dishonest

as well as inaccurate.

Try taking a look at who is voting for these candidates in the primaries.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

167. You mean there's an Obama supporter who isn't rich? I guess that changes everything

After all anecdotal evidence trumps exit polls any day.

[OnionPatch]

168. Hillary's for the poor?

Why does she not care if their jobs are sent overseas, then?

[mondo joe]

176. You can debate that. But the poor are for Hillary, among Dems, to a greater degree

than they are for 0bama.

That's a matter of fact.

[pberq]

172. You've got to be kidding!

Thanks to babylonsister for the original post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The Oligarchy Has Picked Its Candidate!
by Stephen Fleischman | Dec 27 2007



The wreckage caused by the Republicans and the Bush Administration is even too much for the corporate oligarchy to take. Although Republicans have usually been their favored party, they now want a Democrat in the White House and they want that Democrat to be Hillary Clinton.

The Hillary-Bill combo has worked for the oligarchy before and will work for it again. They've been tried, tested, and vetted to carry forward the oligarch agenda. Our two-party system pays close attention to the dressing of democracy; there always has to be a choice, a Tweedledee and a Tweedledum and always a way to vote for a lesser of two evils -- which, unfortunately, becomes the evil of two lessers. Through the strategy of triangulation, the Clintons have achieved the strangulation of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Where are you, Dick Morris, now that the Clintons need you again?

The running dogs (the fourth estate) have gotten the message and you can hear the slow build of their howl. They can stage a mighty convincing horse race. But the election is already being fixed, as it was stolen in 2000 and 2004.

That's capitalism, for you. Its nature is to show the appearance of democracy, masking the actuality of oligarchic control, while robbing the working class of the surplus value it creates. The Clintons have proven they can do the oligarchy's dirty work when called upon to do it. They will get the prize money for services rendered.

So, let's follow the money.

The Military Industrial Complex is a Member of the Oligarchy (MOTO). This year, the war industry, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics, to name a few, has shelled out more money to Democratic candidates than to Republicans, and Hillary has gotten the lion's share of that. The manipulators of power always hedge their bets. They play both sided against the middle.

more...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11759

[blm]

173. Clintons actually SERVE the Haves and HaveMores and Dubai and Saudi Arabia and

various BushInc thugs they've protected throughout the years - Jackson Stephens, Marc Rich, James Bath, et al.

[mondo joe]

175. And yet the poor and working class Dems are voting for her. They seem to disagree with your

assessment.

[blm]

178. Corporate media helped Bush portray himself as a 'good Christian' too. But any study

of his actual record proves that to be untrue.

Clintons have been held up for years as Democrats and saviors of the left when they have been deceitful and complicit with the Bushes on MANY issues throughout the years and made decisions that have been tragic for this nation BECAUSE they sided with BushInc and the powerful elite throughout the 90s.

How many working class folks or MOST of the Dem party are even AWARE of how much Clinton protected Bush1 and effectively ASSURED that Bushes could return to WH in 2000?

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

You think the corpmedia would ever share the details of THAT story with the public?

[mondo joe]

179. You are entitled to feel poor and working class democrats are misguided or fooled.

It's not an argument I'd care to make, personally.

[robbedvoter]

181. It's quite obvious on DU as well when you see donations drives & reactions

I am hoping that the many Hillary voters shall come through - I made an effort, and had to give up other things.
The other side writes about rather flushing $50 down the toilet ...

[Lerkfish]

183. wow, pass over what you're smoking, stop bogarting the clip!

:LOL:

[Tropics_Dude83]

186. The poor and working folk were Walter Mondale's base as well

In the democratic primary and look where it got them.

[HeraldSquare212]

188. That's her base now - now that her rich supporters are maxed out. nt

[Califooyah Operative]

190. hahahahahahahahahahah

you're kidding right? she has like 50% or more of her donors maxed out at 2300 a long time ago, that's why her money is drying up. Obama has nearly 700k donors, many of which are small donors like my self who give over and over. He actually has a small percentage of 2300 dollar donors, unlike Clinton.

good one though!

[mondo joe]

191. And yet, the low income voters trend for Hillary, the high income voters for Obama.

Of course the higher income donors can kick in more mid range gifts to Obama.