Chicagoist: Ozinga Cements Candidacy

A2

Fri, 02 May 2008 08:14:55 -0600

Ha ha ha! Nerds on parade! Interesting finds.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Thu, 01 May 2008 23:38:47 -0600

Well done, sir! I did my own crunching using opensecrets.org and found the opposite. I used the 2006 congressional elections crossreferenced to the Dow Jones companies and found that: 1.) Democrats were more likely to give larger donations all at once. And then to one candidate. Republicans were more likely to spread the wealth between multiple candidates/PACs. 2.) Of companies (eg Altria) that skewed Republican, they were more likely to have a large number of high donations to Republicans and only Republicans. 3.) People with titles beginning C* (CEO, COO, CFO, etc.) spread it around pretty evenly. 4.) But Democrats came out ahead, albeit slightly. (Methodolgy: take donors whose last name begin A through F by company, then sum by candidate, by party... ie, a lot of work for a small conclusion.) Opensecrets.org only keeps records of single donations of greater than $200 at a time. I used that election cycle because: a.) There didn't seem to be a foregone conclusion as to who would win the most seats, and b.) The donations encompassed both primary and general election results. I completely agree with your conclusion. I think we can confidently say that moneyed interests like this system just as it is. Or, as a donor myself that doesn't clock >$200 (with two, storied, exceptions that shall remain unattested), that the funding doesn't seem to skew either way, partywise. I suggest a second conclusion... that the posters on Chicagoist make this the fucking smartest in the Istaverse, as it were.

A2

Thu, 01 May 2008 22:08:53 -0600

Instead of writing a doctoral thesis or taking my own survey, I spent about a half hour finding the most impartial data on the subject I can. The best article I found cited that while more wealthy districts are represented by Democrats, individual voters making over $100,000 a year vote Republican 52 percent to 47 percent across the country. I can't find specific data on millionaires, multi-millionaires or billionaires. But even disregarding the district data, I don't think a 5% voting difference makes the Democrats the party of the poor and the Republicans the party of the rich. If you can find more compelling data, I would like to see it.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:32:51 -0600

That is data. Take its standard deviation then.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:23:42 -0600

So let's work through your replies... CNN's exit poll last fall showed that voters in the East making between $150,000 and $200,000 favored Democratic candidates by a 63-37 majority." Now you only need to add in the other regions of the country. "Eight dollars out of every $10 collected from individuals by Democratic-leaning 527 groups have come from donors who have given at least $250,000 each, according to an analysis by The Washington Post of data on 527 donations maintained by Center for Public Integrity." Now you only need to add in what the equivalent was for Republican-leaning groups. "Despite popular stereotypes of Republicans as the party of the rich and Democrats as the party of the working class, the wealthiest member of the Senate (John Kerry of Massachusetts) and the wealthiest member of the House (Jane Harman of California) are both Democrats. Of the top six wealthiest senators, five are Democrats." What is the total distribution for both chambers of Congress? "“Democrats now control the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.” Exact numbers please. I see what you're doing here, of course. This isn't data, it's cherry-picked facts. What's worse, I'm completely willing to concede your point if you can just get me to some actual data, not something you found that you already believed in. So, A2, I'll concede the point if you'll get me the numbers for the rest of the country on bulletpoint #1. You did look at the numbers this article was quoting to verify its veracity, yes?

A2

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:23:14 -0600

That is data. If you don't believe Obama's campaign is being propelled by the wealthy and mega wealthy, google "Obama" "Washington Post" and "April 11" for a good story on it.

Navin

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:22:01 -0600

I don't even own a radio. My favorite conservatie columnist is Charles Krauthammer, who I guarantee is about 10 times smarter than you. Ooooooh...burn! Well it certainly is weird that Republican politicos are so poor yet so concerned with giving corporate welfare to the wealthiest corporations. Are they retarded?

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:57:45 -0600

Take two seconds to google it. Google "democrats" "rich" and "super rich" for my point of view. That's not data! That's a Google search. Data, man, data! Plural of datum.

A2

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:51:59 -0600

Navin, I don't even own a radio. My favorite conservatie columnist is Charles Krauthammer, who I guarantee is about 10 times smarter than you. A few stastics since you obstinately deny facts that are obvious to anyone who reads the paper. "CNN's exit poll last fall showed that voters in the East making between $150,000 and $200,000 favored Democratic candidates by a 63-37 majority." "Eight dollars out of every $10 collected from individuals by Democratic-leaning 527 groups have come from donors who have given at least $250,000 each, according to an analysis by The Washington Post of data on 527 donations maintained by Center for Public Integrity." "Despite popular stereotypes of Republicans as the party of the rich and Democrats as the party of the working class, the wealthiest member of the Senate (John Kerry of Massachusetts) and the wealthiest member of the House (Jane Harman of California) are both Democrats. Of the top six wealthiest senators, five are Democrats." "“Democrats now control the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.” This is what I found in about two minutes. We won't even talk about Hollywood, Soros, Bing, Lewis or Pritzker.

Navin

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:38:09 -0600

Sorry, I guess I stupidly assumed Obama might figure into the equation That sounds about right. You said this: Oh yeah and who is giving Obama more money than any candidate in history? Implying that I mentioned Obama or said that his shit don't stink, I did not. It's more like what you wanted me to have said. In reality I told you to quit listening to your favorite talk radio blowhard and realize that both parties are pretty much equally beholden to corporate interests. Like YTB, I'd like to see you offer up something more substantial than 'because I said so' to back up your bumper sticker talking points too.

A2

Thu, 01 May 2008 15:45:17 -0600

Take two seconds to google it. Google "democrats" "rich" and "super rich" for my point of view. I haven't bothered looking for information against my point of view, though I am sure it exists. The reason there is no doubt millions of ways to parce the information is because "rich" is a nebulous term, as well as measuring which party they support--voting, donations, districts represtented, etc.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Thu, 01 May 2008 15:36:45 -0600

Citing statiscs is uselesss because there are a million different ways to parce the information Prove it. Parce the information to demonstrate both points of view.

A2

Thu, 01 May 2008 15:27:55 -0600

Navin, Citing statiscs is uselesss because there are a million different ways to parce the information, but the rich and super rich are supporting the Democrats somewhere on par at least with the Republicans. Therefore, I think the CW that the Republican party is the party of the rich is inaccurate. Sorry, I guess I stupidly assumed Obama might figure into the equation since he is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

fed up

Thu, 01 May 2008 15:04:28 -0600

I really dont think halvorson should be given a promotion for her complicity in the farce that is state goverment in Ill. She helped kill the recall vote today and ajourned the senate before a second recall bill could be voted on. Its a shame both canadates seem so flawed. Maybe the loser of the kirk/ seals race could move down south either would be better than these two.

Navin

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:21:52 -0600

Oh yeah and who is giving Obama more money than any candidate in history? The unwashed masses? March of dimes, right? Hardly. Who said anything about Obama? You're the one who started this Democrats are more tied to money than Republicans thing. I think they both are, but I'm not a pawn of either party. No one has me fooled, so please don't talk down to me with your paucity of expertise. Sorry, I'll just try to ignore what *you actually wrote* next time.

A2

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:11:38 -0600

Oh yeah and who is giving Obama more money than any candidate in history? The unwashed masses? March of dimes, right? Hardly. No one has me fooled, so please don't talk down to me with your paucity of expertise. I just find an unabashed, Republican greed monger like Sam Zell less nauseating than a self-righteous Hollywood movie star who's spent his entire life trying to pursue the most decadent life possible yell at all of the dumb midwesterners for voting Republican.

matilda

Thu, 01 May 2008 13:25:12 -0600

"Dems and Republicans have both got you fooled if you think that both of them aren't equally tied to lobby money." Best sentence so far today.

I_h8_toyota_and_BT

Thu, 01 May 2008 13:25:07 -0600

if ozinga gets elected, you can start the ozinga death watch. that guy is an ethics/corruption scandal waiting to happen. he's already broken multiple city laws in order to get around minority contracting regulations. he's a pure and complete scumbag. He's kind of like Jerry Weller in that way. scumbags.

Navin

Thu, 01 May 2008 13:21:41 -0600

A2, Dems and Republicans have both got you fooled if you think that both of them aren't equally tied to lobby money. Democrat's policies are a little less damaging to the world than Republicans though, not much of a consolation, but true.

magilla gorilla

Thu, 01 May 2008 13:20:57 -0600

rich people typically don't come out publicly and endorse republicans because it would make them seem greedy, which they no doubt are. trust me, the rich vote republican. rich democrats are just more vocal

Navin

Thu, 01 May 2008 13:16:32 -0600

Ozinga likes Blago too, he's donated $23,000 to his campaigns. He's also run into a little trouble with allegations of creating front companies to win minority city contracts. I guess he's a better stand-in candidate than Alan Keyes or Ditka.

fed up

Thu, 01 May 2008 13:03:21 -0600

I dont know a thing about ozinga but Halvorson is the Dem majority leader in the state senate. She is E.Jones and blago's gofer she has stalled ethics legislation for over 18 months and is helping to stop recall legislation I dont really think she is the answer to problems in washington.

A2

Thu, 01 May 2008 12:46:50 -0600

Tony, My take on it would be that the super rich don't care if you tax them another 5%-10%, and voting Democratic is the easiest, most meaningless way to asasuge one's guilt over a lifetime of pillaging.

Navin

Thu, 01 May 2008 12:14:03 -0600

An urban cement magnate with lots of public works contracts? What could go wrong..... Ha, It shouldn't take long to shake the skeletons out of this dude's closet. Like so many other 'my brudder knows a guy' lucrative city contract holders who enjoy gaming the system and taking our tax money, I'm sure he's as clean as a they come.................

Ward Up

Thu, 01 May 2008 12:11:57 -0600

Suggested campaign slogan: "Marty Ozinga: Not just another pretty face."

TomDArch

Thu, 01 May 2008 12:05:14 -0600

Part of the appeal of the Republican spin is that it is aspirational - I wanna get mine! (so screw you!) Actual rich people (as opposed to those aspiring to "wealth") find themselves in the position of needing to protect their situation. Having lots of digits in the number that represents your balance in the bank's computer is worthless if we're facing environmental or societal crises. Thus, many (smart) rich people have a pro-Democratic bent. (Not that I'm biased in the least...) But more on point: What? No mention of the Ozinga company billboards? The company spent a fair amount recently advertising the company name. When is the last time you actually selected a supplier of paving materials? How exactly did those billboards increase company sales? Hmmmm?

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Thu, 01 May 2008 11:32:52 -0600

Oh, but keep in mind that as the Dems have both chambers the wealthy will begin giving more to them... they're lobbying, after all, and it's more of a gimme gimme than some ideological statement.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Thu, 01 May 2008 11:30:02 -0600

A2: It's a pretty even split with a lean towards the Republicans, especially by the wealth of Wall Street. (I can't remember where I saw the breakdown back in 2006... The Atlantic maybe?) Rich Republicans do have a habit of living in blue states, though. BuyBlue.org was great for finding how companies' boards leaned (skewed red, but not overwhelmingly so). Now it seems to be under new management with none of the tasty data it used to have... perpetually under development.

mepps

Thu, 01 May 2008 11:25:29 -0600

I would agree- And, I can't find it now, but the top 20 or 30 wealthiest senators and congressman are mostly democrats. There is a list of this somewhere...

A2

Thu, 01 May 2008 10:58:28 -0600

It's funny how the GOP is often painted as the party of the rich. I believe the rich and super rich support Democrats much more than Republicans though, no?