31
This is a Joke, Right?
Try to believe that John Hinderaker actually wrote this:
Whatever the numbers may be at the moment, the Democrats have turned themselves into the party of the super-rich, and for the foreseeable future, they’ll have a financial edge over the Republicans, even though that advantage will be manifested in soft money, which can be given to “independent” groups like MoveOn.org in infinite quantities.
Whenever someone begins their argument with the clause “whatever the numbers may be,” you just know they’re about to say something incredibly stupid. “Whatever the numbers may be” is basically code for “I don’t give a damn about evidence.” It’s like a sports writer who says, “Whatever the numbers may say at the moment, Angel Berroa has turned himself into a better shortstop than Derek Jeter. No, I don’t care if Jeter’s OPS+ last year was 40 points higher than Berroa’s! I know what I’m talking about!”
Here’s some exit poll data for voting in the 2004 presidential election by yearly income:
-Of voters making less than $15,000 a year, 63% voted for Kerry, 36% for Bush
-Of voters making between $15k and $30k a year, 57% voted for Kerry, 42% voted for Bush
-Of voters making more than $200,000 a year, 35% voted for Kerry, 63% voted for Bush.
Now, here is a list of the ten richest Americans and their total contributions to each political party over the years. There are indeed some very wealthy Democrats (most notably Warren Buffett and Microsoft’s Paul Allen), but their individual contributions are dwarfed by those of Michael Dell and the Waltons:
1.) Bill Gates: $53,400 to Republicans; $39,950 to Democrats
2.) Warrenn Buffett: $6,900 to Republicans; $43,000 to Democrats
3.) Paul Allen: $14,000 to Republicans; $163,000 to Democrats
4.) Michael Dell: $459,000 to Republicans; $13,000 to Democrats
5.) Larry Ellison- $90,500 to Republicans; $164,000 to Democrats
6.) Christy Walton- $64,000 to Republicans, $16,750 to Democrats (I had to cobble this data together from multiple sources; it may not be exact)
7.) Jim Walton- $730,252 to Republicans; $7,100 to Democrats
8.) Rob Walton- $269,750 to Republicans; $23,100 to Democrats
9.) Alice Walton- $247,131 to Republicans; $224,750 to Democrats
10.) Helen Walton- $41,400 to Republicans; $8,500 to Democrats
By my calculations, then, the ten richest people in America have given a total of $1,976,333 to Republicans and $853,900 to Democrats. So yeah, I guess we’ve really become the party of the super-rich even though the super-rich donate twice as much money to the other party.
And just in case Hinderaker starts whining about MoveOn.org, it should be noted that they received a total of $12.558 million in campaign donations in 2004, which was less money than The Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, who received $17 million. I’ll concede that the Democrats still have a vast advantage as far as 527 groups are concerned overall, but that’s more because they got a huge running start during the 2004 campaign. Give the GOP time to build the proper infrastructure, and they’ll be raising millions of dollars through 527’s too- look at how successful the Swift Boat Vets became in such a short period of time. And besides, it’s not like the GOP has a shortage of billionaires giving them money or anything.
Jay Brida said,
January 31, 2006 at 18:10
It works a little better in this context:
“Whatever the numbers say, Johnny Hindrocket has the IQ of taffy.”
Mal de mer said,
January 31, 2006 at 18:26
And, I mean…Moveon.org is also dwarfed by that other 527 group, FoxNews, isn’t it?
…Swift Boaties sucked back 17 million dollars and 5 million more than Moveon? Ho. Ly. Fuck.
Campaign finance reform, stat!
Mike said,
January 31, 2006 at 18:32
“He goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing”
tigrismus said,
January 31, 2006 at 18:36
It’s funny that everyone thinks Buffett is a financial genius, poring over every word in his annual reports and aping his actions and philosophy, and yet they ignore his support of Democrats and what that says about how he thinks the parties affect the economic health of the nation.
Dr. FDS., The Goat Blogger said,
January 31, 2006 at 18:43
Whatever the numbers say, more people like my inane mediocrities than don’t.
Ian said,
January 31, 2006 at 18:45
The 527 thing is actually kind of a fraud, too. The thing is that Republicans funnel a lot of this kind of money into ‘nonpartisan’ 501(c)’s. While hard numbers are hard to produce, the money spent on ‘issue’ advocacy by groups like the NRA and Progress for America and the American Taxpayer Alliance and the NRLC appears to dwarf that spent by liberal 527s, and it’s subject to virtually no standards of openness, it’s tax deductible, and it’s pushing the edges of tax law quite hard. It’s also been going on for decades. 527s are for us semi-honest amateurs, not those crooks.
Vladi G said,
January 31, 2006 at 19:07
No, I don’t care if Jeter’s OPS+ last year was 40 points higher than Berroa’s! I know what I’m talking about!”
So Brad, what name do you post under at Baseball Primer (or BTF for the newbies).
Brad R. said,
January 31, 2006 at 19:22
Vlad- I don’t. But I know my sabermetric stats (though I still think VORP is a ridiculous calculation).
fillerbunny said,
January 31, 2006 at 19:35
OPS+?? VORP??? BTF???? da Fack??
and you guys make fun of geeks/nerds?
TravisG said,
January 31, 2006 at 19:39
Whatever the numbers say, a majority of senators opposed the confirmation of Samuel Alito.
Brad R. said,
January 31, 2006 at 19:44
OPS+?? VORP??? BTF???? da Fack??
I make fun of them because I secretly am one.
That said, even I’m not as nerdy as that commentor at Dean’s World who wrote stories about a character named the Sledgehammer of Justice.
John said,
January 31, 2006 at 20:06
What’s the correct number for Bill Gates? Is it 53,400 or 534,000?
Brad R. said,
January 31, 2006 at 20:09
Sorry about that. It’s $53,000
FlipYrWhig said,
January 31, 2006 at 22:17
Yes, but answer me this — what’s Warren Buffet’s DIPS ERA?
Brad R. said,
January 31, 2006 at 22:19
Whatever it is, it ain’t lower than Pedro Martinez’ career DIPS ERA or his ERA+. I honestly didn’t realize HOW GOOD Pedro was until I saw those career stats. He blows just about everyone else out of the water.
GuinnessGuy said,
January 31, 2006 at 22:29
Good lord, conservatives just keep giving and giving huge tax cuts and provide loopholes for these million and billionares’ companies to exploit, but they just can’t get any love from those mean old rich people!
Those Democrats have corrupted them with promises of marijuana, butt sex, and all the aborted fetuses they want.
The Bastards!
Dick C. said,
January 31, 2006 at 22:56
did someone say “aborted fetus”?
*lip-smacking sounds*
teh l4m3 said,
January 31, 2006 at 23:35
tig: no kidding. Remember the flak he got for suggesting that maybe Californians could pay a little more in property taxes if they were so concerned about their schools? He compared what he pays on his place back East to what he paid on his place in Malibu, and he thought it was outrageous that Californians property taxes are so low. And of course, the attack poodles were sicced on him…
Geezer said,
February 1, 2006 at 1:11
And how many millions were sunk into the little propaganda outlet called Pajamas Media?
shargash said,
February 1, 2006 at 1:28
“Whatever the numbers say, Johnny Hindrocket has the IQ of taffy.”
Despite the protests of the anti-taffy defamation league, I would guess that the numbers do, in fact, support that allegation.
Pinko Punko said,
February 1, 2006 at 2:27
Pedro is a god, but he’s gonna be a gopher machine with decent Ks from now on MAYBE
Oh yeah, Hinderaker is so goddamn meta it’s crazy.
I await the white=black post.
pluripotentate said,
February 1, 2006 at 2:45
calling assrocket on his crap is good, but remember to be happy that we’ve got all the decent rich people on our side, AND all the people who actually work for a living. i hope it stays that way.
the wal-mart folks can throw all the money they want at rush limbaugh and foxnews and assrocket — it ain’t gonna change wrong to right.
The Rev. Schmitt. said,
February 1, 2006 at 3:00
I can’t believe how brazen he was about not caring about ‘the numbers’. It’s like he was admitting that he knew full well what he was talking utter dribble.
Gop McChoad said,
February 1, 2006 at 4:37
The link you give for Bill Gates isn’t quite as complete as this NewsMeat report:
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Bill_Gates.php
Reason is that Bill Gates Sr. gets mixed in with megabillionaire Bill Gates III.
That is all.
Marq said,
February 1, 2006 at 5:42
Geeze, Brad–those Sam’s Scions really throw this little bell curve for a loop. Perhaps it would be better to consider them one aggregate entity, and place them at the #1 spot, or wherever their combined fortune would land them, then fill their empty spots from below with more billionaires. ‘Course, that could skew things even more Republican….
llld said,
February 1, 2006 at 6:34
There are a (very tragic) few of us who have always known how good Pedro Martinez has been - we Expos fans.
If you had seen him pitch the year he won his NL Cy Young… incredible.
Brad R. said,
February 1, 2006 at 6:59
If you had seen him pitch the year he won his NL Cy Young… incredible.
2000 was even better. He had an ERA+ of 285 and a WHIP of 0.737. Those are both historically amazing numbers. No one has topped them.
Major (Wilbur) Woody said,
February 1, 2006 at 7:04
Whatever the numbers may be at the moment, Joe Carter deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
Brad R. said,
February 1, 2006 at 7:10
Joe Carter deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
His ‘93 homer does, yes. But other than that, no.
Career OBP of .306? Career OPS+ of 104?
Although, he was a fantastic clutch hitter. But that doesn’t make him a HOF’er.
freq flag said,
February 1, 2006 at 7:37
infinite quantities
Hey, once you’ve chosen George-Bush-scrotum-licking as your latest career move, you really don’t need to worry any more about facts, numbers, logic, or any of that other ridiculous crap that the stupid liberals always love talking about on their stupid “blogs.”
Buncha Saddam-lovin’ pointy-headed intellectuals…always thinkin’ they’re better’n everybody else. Them and their “infinite quantities.”
spencer said,
February 1, 2006 at 18:37
Although, he was a fantastic clutch hitter.
Isn’t that one of those things everybody believes but can’t ever be proved? I mean, how do you define a “clutch hitter?” What metrics would you use?
Of course, whatever metrics you chose would have to allow for comparisons between hitters, so we could determine the clutchiest hitter of all time.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the best clutch hitters would not end up being the same guys we would expect.
D. Sidhe said,
February 2, 2006 at 3:36
the wal-mart folks can throw all the money they want at rush limbaugh and foxnews and assrocket — it ain’t gonna change wrong to right.
No, but it’s looking like that sort of thing can change “illegal” to “legal”.