Aziz Poonawalla: December 2008 Archives

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute of the fundraising totals through August 2008, the percentage of people whose total donations to Mr. Obama aggregated to $200 or less was 26 percent. That almost matches President Bush's 25 percent in the 2004 election. But Mr. Obama relied less on donors who gave $1,000 or more (47 percent) than Mr. Bush (60 percent).

[...]

Mr. Obama must lead a serious conversation about the role of the public financing system and how Internet fundraising should affect its structure. In an op-ed last month in The Post, Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer championed a new campaign finance system centered around the Internet. He proposed matching funds for small donations up to $200 per donor, increasing the campaign spending limit to $250 million, reducing the individual contribution limit and closing the loophole for joint fundraising committees, which allowed supporters of Mr. Obama and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), to skirt the current $2,300 limit.

A lot of people here distrust American Muslims because they think of them as an alien presence with morals and prejudices that are incompatible with our way of life. I've come to distrust American Muslims because they're exactly as petty, mean, and self-serving as any other group of Americans. And for all the whining and carping they do about how hard it is to be a Muslim here, oh how eager many of them were to join up with the people who call them devil-worshipping terrorists to deliver a Brooklyn-style beatdown to someone a little lower on the social ladder. I'm talking of course about support for propositions 8, 2, and 102, which most muzzies couldn't wait to vote on.

Of course, as there are plenty of intelligent and conscientious followers of Muhammad, a few spoke up, said that this was wrong, and either for practical or ethical reasons (or both), opposed the measures. And good for them. But you know what? Fuck the rest of them. Seriously, I never want to hear again, even once, from anyone who supported props 8 or 102, that they're a victim of discrimination. Boo fuckin hoo. How d'ya like them apples?

Muslims are far from alone here. Mormons are upset now because the same people they spent thousands of dollars disenfranchising are showing up at their doorstep to call them on it. Wait, it's RELIGION. You have to respect it and not punch back when it punches you, right? Wrong. Every Mormon who voted for or contributed money to 8 is liable, and angry gays (and their straight allies) were absolutely within their rights to go back to the source and confront them.

the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.