That is possibly the worst ad I’ve ever seen. It didn’t offer any alternative, any evidence to the contrary, nothing. Oh, and if you want proof that nationalized health care works, take a look at the top healthcare system in the world. I’ll give you a hint… it rhymes with Prance.
“That has a pretty significant effect as well. And France, for instance — which is not my model in any way — but France and Switzerland, which is perhaps one of the most market-oriented of the European style systems, in their case.
In France, for instance, the patient pays 25% of the hospital bill, 30% of a doctor’s bill and 35% of prescription costs. Now they exempt certain conditions so that people aren’t paying a lot if they get diabetes or whatever, but they create a pretty significant consumer or patient incentive.”
Here are the numbers excluding Palin for the various PACs with the percentage of funds that come from donations under $200 in parentheses (credit goes to Rusty from C4P for the data)
1) Mitt Romney $1,924,375 (31%)
2) Eric Cantor $855,879 (3%)
3) John Boehner $725,499 (1%)
4) John McCain $523,483 (52%)
5) Mitch McConnell $360,303 (0%)
6) Jon Kyle $358,214 (0%)
7) Mike Huckabee $304,674 (71%) David Camp $282,105 (0%)
9) Spencer Bacus $269,000 (0%)
10) Pete Sessions $243,450 (0%)
11) Thad Cochoran $216,870 (0%)
The search engine marketing community SLAMMED Hutchison for black hat (cheaters) tactics on her new website. Google delisted the whole thing and “disappeared” them.
Evidently what goes on in SC doesn’t necessarily stay in SC.
Mitt raised in June what Huck raised in 6 months. Romney has got nearly $1,000,000 Cash in Hand and Mike has -$63,000. Romney is carrying advisors and communications people on retainer and Huck is laying people off. By the time we get to Nov 2010, Mitt will have given millions to GOP congressional and gubernatorial candidates to help take back those seats.
But isn’t that the problem here, as well? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it seems like your argument is that French citizens still have to pay a significant portion of healthcare costs. We have the same problem in America. This problem is not uniquely French, or even unique to countries with a public healthcare provider.
I’m surprised that so much of McCain’s PAC donations comes from the $200 or less crowd.
You would think he would have been much higher given his access to the donor list for the 2008 election and that he raised more money than any other Republican in history according to Fred Malek.
In 2000, George W. Bush won about 48% of the popular vote, and 271 votes in the electoral college. In 2008, John McCain won 46% of the popular vote, but only 173 electoral votes. A lot of attention has been paid to the decline in Republican voting power in much of the country, especially in suburban districts in the northeast, midwest, and on the west coast.
But despite Obama’s big win in 2008, there are a number of congressional districts throughout the country that are actually trending Republican. And many of them are held by Democratic incumbents.
Here are some prime examples:
OK 2 – Dan Boren. Bush won 52% in 2000. McCain won 66% in 2008.
TN 4 – Lincoln Davis. Bush won this with only 50% in 2000, but McCain won 64% here in 2008.
TN 6 – Bart Gordon. Bush won 49% in 2000, McCain 62% in 2008.
AR 1 – Marion Berry. Bush ‘00 – 48% in 2000, McCain 59% in 2008.
AR 4 – Mike Ross. Bush – 48% in 2000, McCain 59% in 2008.
WV 3 – Nick Rahall – Bush – 47% in 2000, McCain 56% in 2008.
That’s a lot of districts in the south. What about the rest of the country?
How about NY 13, the old Vito Fossella seat that Republicans lost in 2008? Bush lost this district in 2000 with only 44%, but McCain won it in 2008 with 51%.
Or PA 12, John Murtha’s seat, where likewise Bush only received 44% in 2000 but McCain won narrowly in 2008. In the neighboring PA 4, Bush won with 52% in 2000 but McCain increased that to 55% in 2008.
in NY 1, a district that went back and forth between the parties in the 90s but has been held by the Democrats since 2002, Bush won 44% in 2000 but McCain got 49% in 2008.
Even in Massachusetts there are signs of life. Bush got only 39% in Bill Delahunt’s 10th congressional district in 2000. McCain won 44% in 2008.
As Ryan pointed out on Wednesday, the generic congressional ballot numbers are looking pretty good for the GOP at this point. In a good year, we should be able to reverse the trend in many districts that have drifted away from Republicans lately. But we should also take full advantage of the districts that are already turning in our direction, even in places like Arkansas where we haven’t really put up much of a fight in the past.
Perhaps. The big money people may not see him as influential in terms of politics or policy any longer and thus, their money is going to Romney, Cantor, and Boehner
However, McCain does show a decent level of grassroots support. I would imagine this group is probably closed to Romney and Huckabee and open to Pawlenty and Palin at this point.
Pawlenty will need to win McCain’s grassroots group to even have a chance at this thing but it appears that there are more McCainiacs than you have initially guessed.
Tommy,
It will be very interesting which way McCain indicates his support. In that sense, he still has meaningful influence, especially as we move towards consensus.
McCain has connections to all three. Huck was a strategic partner in taking Romney down up through Super Tuesday, but then continued to string it out for another couple months. Romney moved huge parts of his campaign over to McCain as soon as he dropped out on Feb 5, including, importantly, Spencer Zwick his head of fund-raising. And Sarah took a huge flight with him to come on as his running mate.
There will be his public endorsement, which is likely not to come until the outcome is not in doubt. But behind the scenes, he is capable of steering the donors in his chosen direction. He has done that for a quarter century here. If you don’t have his blessing, you just aren’t going to get any money.
If the market crash was the low point, I ask him for his best memory from the campaign. “The high point, I think, was the convention, the selection of Sarah Palin, and the enthusiasm that was generated all over the country.” His fondness for Mrs. Palin and her family strikes me as from the heart; he believes she was a net asset for the ticket.
“Let’s face it,” he says, “she galvanized our base in a way that I couldn’t. Everywhere she went she drew enormous and enthusiastic crowds like a rock star.” He says his only regret in selecting the Alaska governor was that no one on the campaign predicted the ferocity of the assaults against her. “To the liberal left, particularly the feminists, she is their worst nightmare.”
Tommy Boy. Thanks for that data. Whay is not evident though is the percentage of the contributions that were under $200. Not having the data to work with it would appear that a very high percentage of Mitt’s (and even more of Huckabee’s) came from contributors giving under $200.
I hope you see what I’m saying. His data shows that 31% of the dollars contributed were 31% from contributors giving under $200. That’s very different than what my figure would be. I would believe that Mitt’s would be over 80%, and Huckabee’s over 90% of the figure I’m talking about.
No matter how you cut it, Romney received more money from small donors than anyone else, by far. Small donor contributions ($200 or less), $596,000 bucks!
July 31st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Not as good as the first one.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Al Franken is a moron!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25667.html
July 31st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Barney Frank spills the beans on socialized medical care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98
July 31st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I think MN should elect Bruno as their other Senator. Why not? Senators Bruno & Stewart Smalley hailing from the great state of Minnesota!
July 31st, 2009 at 4:51 pm
That is possibly the worst ad I’ve ever seen. It didn’t offer any alternative, any evidence to the contrary, nothing. Oh, and if you want proof that nationalized health care works, take a look at the top healthcare system in the world. I’ll give you a hint… it rhymes with Prance.
July 31st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“That has a pretty significant effect as well. And France, for instance — which is not my model in any way — but France and Switzerland, which is perhaps one of the most market-oriented of the European style systems, in their case.
In France, for instance, the patient pays 25% of the hospital bill, 30% of a doctor’s bill and 35% of prescription costs. Now they exempt certain conditions so that people aren’t paying a lot if they get diabetes or whatever, but they create a pretty significant consumer or patient incentive.”
This plan Max?
July 31st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Here are the numbers excluding Palin for the various PACs with the percentage of funds that come from donations under $200 in parentheses (credit goes to Rusty from C4P for the data)
1) Mitt Romney $1,924,375 (31%)
David Camp $282,105 (0%)
2) Eric Cantor $855,879 (3%)
3) John Boehner $725,499 (1%)
4) John McCain $523,483 (52%)
5) Mitch McConnell $360,303 (0%)
6) Jon Kyle $358,214 (0%)
7) Mike Huckabee $304,674 (71%)
9) Spencer Bacus $269,000 (0%)
10) Pete Sessions $243,450 (0%)
11) Thad Cochoran $216,870 (0%)
July 31st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
The search engine marketing community SLAMMED Hutchison for black hat (cheaters) tactics on her new website. Google delisted the whole thing and “disappeared” them.
Evidently what goes on in SC doesn’t necessarily stay in SC.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Astandbykay.com
http://searchengineland.com/dear-sentator-and-texas-gubernatorial-candidate-kay-bailey-hutchinson-heres-a-free-crash-course-on-seo-23393
July 31st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
TB
Mitt raised in June what Huck raised in 6 months. Romney has got nearly $1,000,000 Cash in Hand and Mike has -$63,000. Romney is carrying advisors and communications people on retainer and Huck is laying people off. By the time we get to Nov 2010, Mitt will have given millions to GOP congressional and gubernatorial candidates to help take back those seats.
What does all this mean?
July 31st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
@Illinoisguy
But isn’t that the problem here, as well? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it seems like your argument is that French citizens still have to pay a significant portion of healthcare costs. We have the same problem in America. This problem is not uniquely French, or even unique to countries with a public healthcare provider.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Arizona,
I’m surprised that so much of McCain’s PAC donations comes from the $200 or less crowd.
You would think he would have been much higher given his access to the donor list for the 2008 election and that he raised more money than any other Republican in history according to Fred Malek.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Trending Republican
http://www.w-r-s.com/blog/2009/07/31/trending-republican/
In 2000, George W. Bush won about 48% of the popular vote, and 271 votes in the electoral college. In 2008, John McCain won 46% of the popular vote, but only 173 electoral votes. A lot of attention has been paid to the decline in Republican voting power in much of the country, especially in suburban districts in the northeast, midwest, and on the west coast.
But despite Obama’s big win in 2008, there are a number of congressional districts throughout the country that are actually trending Republican. And many of them are held by Democratic incumbents.
Here are some prime examples:
OK 2 – Dan Boren. Bush won 52% in 2000. McCain won 66% in 2008.
TN 4 – Lincoln Davis. Bush won this with only 50% in 2000, but McCain won 64% here in 2008.
TN 6 – Bart Gordon. Bush won 49% in 2000, McCain 62% in 2008.
AR 1 – Marion Berry. Bush ‘00 – 48% in 2000, McCain 59% in 2008.
AR 4 – Mike Ross. Bush – 48% in 2000, McCain 59% in 2008.
WV 3 – Nick Rahall – Bush – 47% in 2000, McCain 56% in 2008.
That’s a lot of districts in the south. What about the rest of the country?
How about NY 13, the old Vito Fossella seat that Republicans lost in 2008? Bush lost this district in 2000 with only 44%, but McCain won it in 2008 with 51%.
Or PA 12, John Murtha’s seat, where likewise Bush only received 44% in 2000 but McCain won narrowly in 2008. In the neighboring PA 4, Bush won with 52% in 2000 but McCain increased that to 55% in 2008.
in NY 1, a district that went back and forth between the parties in the 90s but has been held by the Democrats since 2002, Bush won 44% in 2000 but McCain got 49% in 2008.
Even in Massachusetts there are signs of life. Bush got only 39% in Bill Delahunt’s 10th congressional district in 2000. McCain won 44% in 2008.
As Ryan pointed out on Wednesday, the generic congressional ballot numbers are looking pretty good for the GOP at this point. In a good year, we should be able to reverse the trend in many districts that have drifted away from Republicans lately. But we should also take full advantage of the districts that are already turning in our direction, even in places like Arkansas where we haven’t really put up much of a fight in the past.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Yep, this health care stuff is really untested.
I mean, the U.S. is the FIRST country to EVER try and enact a government health care plan…
What a horrible advertisement.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
12 TB
Is that a referendum on how donors see McCain’s power and influence in the future? Maybe all the big money is just going someplace else.
July 31st, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Arizona,
Perhaps. The big money people may not see him as influential in terms of politics or policy any longer and thus, their money is going to Romney, Cantor, and Boehner
However, McCain does show a decent level of grassroots support. I would imagine this group is probably closed to Romney and Huckabee and open to Pawlenty and Palin at this point.
Pawlenty will need to win McCain’s grassroots group to even have a chance at this thing but it appears that there are more McCainiacs than you have initially guessed.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Tommy,
It will be very interesting which way McCain indicates his support. In that sense, he still has meaningful influence, especially as we move towards consensus.
McCain has connections to all three. Huck was a strategic partner in taking Romney down up through Super Tuesday, but then continued to string it out for another couple months. Romney moved huge parts of his campaign over to McCain as soon as he dropped out on Feb 5, including, importantly, Spencer Zwick his head of fund-raising. And Sarah took a huge flight with him to come on as his running mate.
There will be his public endorsement, which is likely not to come until the outcome is not in doubt. But behind the scenes, he is capable of steering the donors in his chosen direction. He has done that for a quarter century here. If you don’t have his blessing, you just aren’t going to get any money.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Arizona,
McCain sounds pretty mad in this interview from today but here is what he had to say about Palin:
Pulling No Punches The maverick on Obamanomics, Sarah Palin, and the media.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320620620327870.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
If the market crash was the low point, I ask him for his best memory from the campaign. “The high point, I think, was the convention, the selection of Sarah Palin, and the enthusiasm that was generated all over the country.” His fondness for Mrs. Palin and her family strikes me as from the heart; he believes she was a net asset for the ticket.
“Let’s face it,” he says, “she galvanized our base in a way that I couldn’t. Everywhere she went she drew enormous and enthusiastic crowds like a rock star.” He says his only regret in selecting the Alaska governor was that no one on the campaign predicted the ferocity of the assaults against her. “To the liberal left, particularly the feminists, she is their worst nightmare.”
July 31st, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Tommy Boy. Thanks for that data. Whay is not evident though is the percentage of the contributions that were under $200. Not having the data to work with it would appear that a very high percentage of Mitt’s (and even more of Huckabee’s) came from contributors giving under $200.
I hope you see what I’m saying. His data shows that 31% of the dollars contributed were 31% from contributors giving under $200. That’s very different than what my figure would be. I would believe that Mitt’s would be over 80%, and Huckabee’s over 90% of the figure I’m talking about.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:23 am
No matter how you cut it, Romney received more money from small donors than anyone else, by far. Small donor contributions ($200 or less), $596,000 bucks!