“Is it just me…? – L

Yes. Yes it is. Happy to help.

“I suspect that many of Obama’s donors are like me as opposed to those that typically give to Republican candidates.” – rr

The point of the Washington Post article, is that there is actually no difference in the makeup of small donors vs. large donors when comparing contributors to BHO vs. GWB. In fact, GWB had a slightly higher percentage of small donors. Which means that the BHO campaign is actually funded more by large donors than was GWB.

There is however one big difference between BHO and GWB fund raising. There are a lot more donors for Obama of all sizes, which is also consistent with your experience – as a first time contributor. The point is simple – the notion that the BHO campaign is funded primarily by small donors is false. He is more reliant on big contributors than was GWB. That is all.

You want to find a distinction between “donors” and “contributors” – dl

@DougL
You appear to have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. I am not making a distinction between “donors” and “contributors”. I am just explaining how there is difference between counting individual “contributions” – which is what you did in your comment, and counting “donors” which is what the Washington Post article does.

It is pretty simple really. One donor can make multiple contributions. That is why you get a different percentage than the Washington Post. You are counting contributions. The Washington post is counting donors. If you can’t understand that difference, I can’t help you.

Before commenting, I suggest you sit down with a tall refreshing glass of iced kool-aid, and slowly and carefully read what you are commenting about. Glad to help out.

Like halliburton with Cheney – but the telecom industry instead of oil…

NO WAR FOR CELL PHONE SERVICE!
CELL TOWERS ARE THE ONLY REASON WE ARE IN (insert nation here)

I’m a small donor to the campaign. I’ve definitely given almost $500 at this point over the course of the campaign but I’ve never given more than $25 or $50 at a shot. Why? I couldn’t afford to give more. Most of the people that I know that have donated are like me. They can’t afford to give a large sum at once. I suspect that many of Obama’s donors are like me as opposed to those that typically give to Republican candidates. This is also the first candidate in any election I’ve donated to which is also common among the people I know that have donated to Obama.

“They lost in the Supreme Court and moved on…” – JS

I accept that as a rational explanation. However I don’t really believe you are speaking for the majority of the left on this question.

Regarding the threshold for small donors, obviously it is an arbitrary number. However, the big point of the WaPo article that George W. Bush had a larger percentage of small donors / large donors than Obama, is probably not going to change by sliding the threshold to some other arbitrarily larger threshold.

“Oh you’re just full of huff-and-puff… – GM

I prefer to think of it as – “facts”. I note your response did not disagree or challenge the factual basis of my statement.

To answer your question: It depends on “how close”. If the election finishes with Obama showing an 8%+ margin of victory, then no – I don’t think it would make a difference and Obama would have won anyway. If the margin of victory is close – lets say ~3%, then yes I think that the huge disparity in contributions and spending could very well be the primary factor and the difference in victory or defeat.