More media bias

[DRZinn]

I don't know if I'm the only one who's noticed, but early in the campaign I was constantly hearing the exact figures for how much Bush had spent and how much Kerry had spent. Bush's expenditures were significantly higher than Kerry's, then an odd thing happened: Kerry started to catch up to Bush, spending more and more, then the coverage stopped dead. I haven't heard a word about campaign expenditures in at least 3 months.

No media bias?

 

[JesusCow]

studies from the left show only right-wing bias in the media

(source: authors - al franken and bill mauer)

 

[reagansquad]

Bush had quite a bit more money than Kerry, so he started spending sooner at a higher rate. Kerry caught up because he had to save his for closer to election time.

 

[DRZinn]

That's beside the point. I'm talking about to-date total expenditures, regardless of when they were spend. When Bush was spending more, it got coverage. But to mention that Kerry has spent as much as or more than Bush wouldn't fit the man-of-the-people image, would it?

 

[ajm792s]

Bush campaign money overall greatly outweighs the Kerry campaign. Its like a small cornerstore competing with a international chain. Thats the point. Republicans have the wealthy supporters.

Think about it, you donate 2k and save millions. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Still don't see how Republicans can support Bush.

 

[Warbow]

ajm792s wrote:

Bush campaign money overall greatly outweighs the Kerry campaign. Its like a small cornerstore competing with a international chain. Thats the point. Republicans have the wealthy supporters.

Can you provide a source for your claim?

 

[ajm792s]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4751584

The president raised a record $180 million, and half of that was budgeted for campaign operations, the other half for pre-convention advertising. But of the advertising budget, $90 million, the Bush campaign has already spent at least $40 million.

There you go, easy to find in many different media sources. Do you live in a cave or just watch FoxNews?

 

[jfh]

the link doesn't work, ajm792s--

and, IIRC, those are old numbers now--noticably old. Further, I believe that the numbers cited for the Democrats did not include the value of the 527s advocating for them.

Finally, if you look carefully at the actual contributions, etc., I think you will find that the Democrats have far greater large individual donors, and the Republican party has more from smaller ones. I'll see if I can locate the links for this, and I'll add them later.

You seem to be operating under the old stereotypes, where the Democrats represented 'the little guy'--and that is simply no longer true.

 

[BeLikeTrey]

dems represent big business too

Daschle's wife was a lobbyist for the airlines...
I love the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[ajm792s]

No, having a father that is a CPA who looks at that "classes" finances I have secondhand knowledge. His clients all gave to Bush's campaign the maximum and dozens of other Republican related charities. One of his clients alone save over 40 million on tax breaks by Bush.

Its been fact that Bush's financial backing grossly outweighs Kerry's. To argue this is quite desperate.

 

[0007]

Actually all it proves is that your father has some clients who contribute to the republican party. If the value of "contribution in kind" by the various pro-demo organizations gets factored in, the demos have far out spent and out collected the repubs. And for the record far more of the demo money comes in as large checks. Do some research and try again.

 

[Desertdog]

From what I hear, they can spend all they want to BEFORE they accept the nomination.

After they accept the nomination they are limited to the $75M they receive from the treasury.

Kerry accepted his nomination weeks before Bush did so, he had to make his $75M last for several more weeks than Bush did.

So while Kerry was conserving his $75M, Bush could still spend as much as he wanted to and they screamed and hollered about how much money Bush was spending.

After the Republican Convention, Bush had the same amount of money as Kerry, so Kerry couldn't scream and holler anymore.

I have heard estimates that the Kerry 527s, the trial lawyers and unions, including the teacher's union, are spending between $500M and $1B in helping Kerry. You won't hear this from the lefty news media sources.

 

[Warbow]

ajm792s, that MSNBC article is from April.

I looked for myself and your claim that Bush's finances grossly outweigh Kerry's is not true.

Bush funds received: $338,315,189
Kerry funds received: $311,146,688

Bush has received 27 million dollars more than Kerry. How does that "grossly outweigh" Kerry's funding?

And, yes, I do watch FOX News.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Welcome to THR, ajm792s. This is a great forum for debates of all kinds.

Are there any other gun forums---1911forum.com, ar15.com, thefiringline.com, glocktalk.com, etc--that you regularly post at?

Just curious.

 

[carebear]

The August 2(?) Newsweek about Kerry actually has him with more money en toto than Bush, his big advantage is in 527 monies. I'll see if I can find it online.

 

[Warbow]

I know it's probably useless, but...

Bueller? Bueller?

 

[carebear]

Can't find it online. Ah well, mebbe it'll still be in the barbershop in a week or so.

 

[mcneill]

ajm says "Republicans have the wealthy supporters."

Ever hear of George Soros, Barbra Streisand and all the rest of the liberal Hollywood crowd?

Jim

 

[jefnvk]

Anyone else think it is disgusting that two men have spent six hundred million dollars trying to get elected? If you can honestly believe that either is for the common man, I think you are mistaken.

 

[kbsrn]

Only problem with this is

"Bush campaign money overall greatly outweighs the Kerry campaign. Its like a small cornerstore competing with a international chain. Thats the point. Republicans have the wealthy supporters.

Think about it, you donate 2k and save millions. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Still don't see how Republicans can support Bush."

that the billionaires are mostly supporting Kerry. They know that Kerry will keep the middle and lower classes in their while Bush will do everything he can to give people a chance to do better.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"Anyone else think it is disgusting that two men have spent six hundred million dollars trying to get elected? If you can honestly believe that either is for the common man, I think you are mistaken."

Advertisers spend $2 million for a 30-second ad during the Superbowl. I'm not into sports, but if the Superbowl runs for a couple of hours or more, with two or three minutes of advertising every fifteen minutes, that's a lot of dough.

Which is more important: a can of Coke or the presidency?

Back on to the topic of media bias. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Saturday had a huge, above-the-fold headline about the elections in Afghanistan. I was expecting something along the lines of, "10 Million Afghani's Vote For First Time In Elections," or, "Afghanistan Elections First In Country's History," or something along those lines. Instead, the headline said "Factions Challenge Elections," or words to that effect.

A story with a similar slant ran a few days back. It said that the percentage of Iraqis who plan to vote in the January elections has fallen from 88% to 67% because of fear of violence.

Well, shoot. In this country, a 67% turnout of eligible voters would be unheard of.

Which candidate--Bush or Kerry--do such headlines and stories benefit?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Yeah, well everybody knows all Democrats are poor and struggling. That's why Kerry is a "man of the people".

 

[Warbow]

ajm792s seems to have disappeared.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

www.opensecrets.org

Check out this website. A nonpartisan guide to money in politics by the Center for Responsive Politics. Here's an interesting link regarding the 1998 elections. Notice Dems and Republicans came in about even dollar wise for large contributions, but the Republicans came out 2-1 in small donation dollars. There's an article...here it is. This link shows donations from the 2002 election broken down by size of contribution. Rebublicans have a commanding lead on all donations less than $1000. The only time Democrats break even is over $100,000. Over $1 million dollars they have a huge lead (92-8) which is the only reason they can keep up w/ Republicans. The next time you hear "Republicans are bankrolled by a bunch of rich fat cats" shoot them that link...