Economy is bad yet donations to the presidential candidates set record highs.

[raebrek]

I have a question about the primaries and the economy. I don't understand how the economy can be bad and yet the people running for president can set record highs with their fund raising. I thought I would open up a thread so people can talk about it if they are interested. I just can't see how both can be true. I guess I look at it in one of these ways.

1. Money is tight. So where are the candidates getting theirs?

2. Money isn't really that tight yet and that is why the candidates are getting money.

I am not interested in where each candidate gets their money specifically. I don't think that people that have to chose between eating or medication are choosing instead to give money to a candidate and giving up both eating and medication. I am also not interested in which candidate you favor in this thread because I don't think that applies to my question.

Raebrek!!!

[keep_it_real]

1. People really want change and are will to support a candidate for change

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Kinda like megachurch preachers never wanting for money.

I'd much rather we had pubic financing. Then we'd have to ::::gasp::::: compare candidates by issues, not fundraiser skills.

[raebrek]

3. Yes indeed. n/t

[Juche]

4. Only the dems are raising record amounts

McCain is raising about $12 million a month and has been since January, which isn't remarkable. It is mostly Obama who is raking in the money at about $40-50 million a month. HIllary is making about $20 million a month. Alot of it is just the fact that the public want new leadership and are donating to reflect it. McCain, as I said, is not even keeping up with the dems.

With Obama he has 1.3 million individual donors. When you have a million people giving $75/month or so then it adds up pretty quickly.

As for the economy being bad, just because it is bad doesn't mean people lose sight of priorities. Paying $50/month to a candidate who wants to cut taxes and expenses on the middle class by several thousand a year is a good investment.

As far as affording it, about 60% of households subscribe to cable TV, which is about $30/month and works out to $2 billion a month on cable TV alone. We spend an average of $200 million a month on gum in this country. The 3 candidates are raising about $80 million a month.

So despite what the TV is showing about this being a record fundraising period, in America we are still spending about 3x more on gum than on the presidential election, and we are spending 25x more money on cable TV than on presidential candidates.

[raebrek]

5. Raebrek doesn't chew gum because he will bite his cheek. n/t

[ThomWV]

6. This is easily explained.

You see, it works like this. Lets say that you have $500 left in the world, no food in the kitchen and a $1,000 rent due tomorrow and dam near that much in credit card bill the week after. You can't possibly make the rent and you had to get something to eat anyway; so you say 'fuck it'. You go out and burn up a couple of hundred bucks on food and head back home and make a $10 donation before they shut off your internet service. What the hell, ten bucks wasn't going to make any difference anyway.

[Donnachaidh]

7. Because the uber-wealthy is covering all bases -- this time it's the Democrats

Don't kid yourself if you think it's just the *little guys* giving to the candidates. Many of the employees of big corporations are giving the MAX to candidates, so that their companies will benefit down the road. This is also how the candidates can *fib* about getting corporate money (I don't take money from corporations) -- it's a new angle on a very ugly situation. Anyone who believes otherwise is criminally naive. The Republicans are circling the drain, and the monied elite know this. So they're making sure their contributions get to the appropriate person.