I saw this coming at the end of January when his contribution figures started coming in, so not too surprised.

Here's the cnn article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...ing/index.html

Will be interesting to see how this plays. I'd normally call it a negative, but combined with not taking lobbyist money it could be spun either way. Especially considering how the McCain campaign is still taking lobbyist money and has a number of them on his campaign staff.

Mr Campaign Finance Reform is financing his campaign through unreformed lobbyists? Can anybody say unsubstantive hype, the kind made to appeal to people who aren't paying attention?

Originally Posted by ECSuite_Russell

I saw this coming at the end of January when his contribution figures started coming in, so not too surprised.

Here's the cnn article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...ing/index.html

Will be interesting to see how this plays. I'd normally call it a negative, but combined with not taking lobbyist money it could be spun either way. Especially considering how the McCain campaign is still taking lobbyist money and has a number of them on his campaign staff.

Umm.... Thats a bit biased don't you think? After all, it was McCain who called for the commitment not to take public money, which both candidates held to during the primaries. In fact, for McCain to stick to that commitment after Obama has been outraising him is impressive. If McCain were to take the money($84 million)the FEC is trying to force him to take, the finance part of the election would be much closer. Both candidates have had questionable staffers which, in every case I've seen so far, have been dismissed the minute they were made aware of the issue.

Don't get me wrong, both candidates are useless as hell.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Umm.... Thats a bit biased don't you think? After all, it was McCain who called for the commitment not to take public money, which both candidates held to during the primaries. In fact, for McCain to stick to that commitment after Obama has been outraising him is impressive. If McCain were to take the money($84 million)the FEC is trying to force him to take, the finance part of the election would be much closer. Both candidates have had questionable staffers which, in every case I've seen so far, have been dismissed the minute they were made aware of the issue.

Don't get me wrong, both candidates are useless as hell.

I must be remembering this wrong, I thought McCain called for a commitment during the primary that in the general both would use public financing. Obama agreed early on but when he started raising massive sums of money he shied away from the idea?

Originally Posted by ECSuite_Russell

I must be remembering this wrong, I thought McCain called for a commitment during the primary that in the general both would use public financing. Obama agreed early on but when he started raising massive sums of money he shied away from the idea?

My apologies. You had it right. McCain is busy calling Obama the "Expedient" politician for backing out on his promise to use public money, not the other way around. Its odd because, from what I read this morning, McCain is now trying to dump his public money and was at odds with the FEC about it. Strange.

This will be spun 100 different ways, but one can certainly understand why McCain wanted him to take the public money and cap his spending, given the amount Obama has raised so far. One can also understand why Obama would want to dump public money and spend without limits. Obama will paint McCain as part of the problem for using public money, showcasing his small and private doners. McCain will call Barack a liar for backing out of his commitment. Obama will mesmerize his many followers into thinking there was never any such commitment. I'm not sure how much effect it will really have as I'll bet the 527s will outspend both candidates before the day is done. MoveOn.org is already in full swing with McCain attack ads.

Sounds like you got it right on the money on most points, this came out over lunch from David Plouffe:

Even though we stood to receive more than $80 million in taxpayer funding for our campaign, the system has been so gamed and exploited by our opponents that it is effectively broken.

John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and their allies in so-called 527 groups that raise and spend unlimited contributions are dedicated to manipulating this broken system to raise as much money as possible -- and they've proven that they're very good at it.

A top McCain adviser told MSNBC earlier this month, "now that we're in the general election, the RNC money counts, the DNC money counts. So the truth is today, John McCain has more cash on hand and more money than Barack Obama does."

In April alone, they raised nearly $45 million. That's more than our campaign and the Democratic National Committee combined. And that doesn't include the plans of 527 groups like the one called "Freedom's Watch," which has said it will spend as much as $250 million under Karl Rove's direction to attack and defeat Barack Obama.

Here is the factcheck.org verification, lobbyist cash makes up an insignificant portion of McCains campaign money.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ins_money.html

Also, a bit of humor. Newsweek just released a poll showing Obama with a 15% lead over McCain amongst registered voters. They followed up their fine poll with a special article detailing how Obama finally got his "Bounce" albeit a bit late, and why Obama is the candidate of choice amongst so many. The humor comes from what every other poll is saying.


USA Today/Gallup__ 06/15 - 06/19 50 44 Obama +6.0
Newsweek________ 06/18 - 06/19 51 36 Obama +15.0
FOX News_________06/17 - 06/18 45 41 Obama +4.0
Rasmussen Tracking_06/17 - 06/19 48 44 Obama +4.0
Gallup Tracking_____06/16 - 06/19 46 44 Obama +2.0
Reuters/Zogby_____06/12 - 06/14 47 42 Obama +5.0
ABC News/Wash Post06/12 - 06/15 49 45 Obama +4.0
Cook/RT Strategies__06/12 - 06/15 44 40 Obama +4.0

Does something seem amiss here? So funny to see a "respectable" news outlet rooting for a candidate. IMO, the most accurate current information information comes from tracking polls run by independent organizations. Gallup comes to mind. Check out this:


According to Gallup, Obama's lead has shrunk to 2 points, a statistical dead heat and the lowest lead in a week. What gives Newsweek?

The cheerleading reason should be obvious, newsweek is part of the same company as nbc isn't it?

The polling might actually just be an anomaly. In NH only one polling organization had Hillary in the lead and they were right. In California only one poll had Obama in the lead and they were wrong. It happens, I don't know statistics well enough to explain it though.

The only accurate polling across the board that I've seen was a post regression analysis done after super tuesday. Basically they took exit poll data and applied it to the demographics of all the remaining states. Only one that was wrong was Texas, which should have been a huge Clinton win but didn't turn out that way.