Comments on: Presidential fundraising from small donors enhances perceptions of candidate

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:31:54 +0000

Can you speak more directly – I don't understand what you are saying re: dyed in wool GOP being at the Dem convention?

Do you want to offer up whatever audit you rely on for the assertion that Obama's base is composed of “struggling 20-somethings”?

Sorry – I'm completely not getting what you're point is.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:06:54 +0000

It's more accurate to say that in Obama's case, the amount of donations he got from his support base of struggling 20-somethings vs Clinton's more-established, more numerous supporters enhances my curiosity. It also enhances my desire to see an audit of those contributions before the democrat Convention in August where died-in-the-wool republicans will preside over the formal vote to usher in their favored boy: Obama.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:03:52 +0000

You raise good points, questions & concerns. Sadly, our entire political system is made of teaching us from a young age to expect one thing and then, when we become adults and go out into the world, things are not as we were taught. I'd say that this system of how funding works falls into that category. But there are a lot of groups out there that work against each other – trying to dispel myths and others propelling them, and still others trying to be watchdogs.

This is one of the reasons that blogs and other more independent information sources are flourishing – people do not know what to trust for information any more.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:51:45 +0000

I wonder how many believe that people can give millions to a single candidate or that corporation can give directly to a candidate. Most people do not have a clue how money is raise for candidates. Even though their perceptions are important, that probably have no basis in reality.