New York Times Death Spiral Watch (David Brooks Edition)

Jared Bernstein tells us that Mark Schmitt writes, apropos of the execrable David Brooks:

Brooks also completely mishandles the analysis of Obama's donors that is at the heart of the column. First,he makes it sound like Obama is lying:

When he is swept up in rhetorical fervor, Obama occasionally says that his campaign is 90 percent funded by small donors. He has indeed had great success with small donors, but only about 45 percent of his money comes from donations of $200 or less...

It's not that complicated: 90 percent of his donors are <$200 and they account for 45% of the money. Either number is staggering, totally unprecedented, as is the ratio.

But because these smaller donors are not required to provide occupational information, they don't figure at all in Brooks' analysis of $ from commercial bankers, hedge funds, etc. So when he says, "the real core of [Obama's] financial support is the rising class of information professionals," he should be clear that he's only talking about 10% of his donors. In fact, all the categories he identifies, including "professors and other people who work in education," put together amount to less than 20% of Obama's total of $290 million.

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Comments

[Ken Houghton]

Defining "small donors" arbitrarily as those who contribute less than $200 (out of a possible $2,300 pp) gets you to 45% of the money.

But if Brad DeLong wrote a cheque for $250 for the primary, but Mark Thoma wrote one for $100 for the primary and writes another for $150 for the general election, is BDL a "large donor" and Thoma a large one?

Picking an arbitrary dollar value on the break line for "small donor" is just inviting an innumerate NYT/WP columnist (think George Will endorsing indentured servitude, as channeled by Mankiw last week) to display his skill at navel-gazing math.

[Adam]

See also Jesse Taylor at Pandagon on this waste of op-ed space.

[jm]

On a related matter:

An Obama victory in Novemember will present a fascinating natural experiment. What impact will the 90% of donors with their 45% of total contributions have on policy outcomes versus other 10% with their 55% (I'm assuming, of course, that significant differences exist among the respective agendas of Obama's supporters)?

And if, as the past couple of weeks seem to indicate, Obama governs as a true centrist how many, if any, of the 90% will close their wallets in 2012 cycle?

[corvid]

If I'm running for dogcatcher, and 10 people contribute to my campaign, and 9 of those people give me $10 or less but one guy gives me $1,000, who will my dogcatcher door likely be open to if I'm elected? The 9 small donors with diverse and sometimes conflicting dogcatching requests, or the one big donor with one big, perhaps unsavory request?
.
It wouldn't matter if Obama actually got 90 percent of his money from 90 percent of donors giving $200 or less. That's anonymous money, in effect. What matters is the big guys who, like hedgehogs, want one big thing.
.
This is why Obama's rejection of public funding is so doubly damning. Not only did he prove that his word is utterly worthless (no matter how "pained" he was), he also undermined any notion that we need to get the big, utterly corrupting money out of American politics. (Of course, we need to weed out the really big opportunity for bribery--the corporate promise of zillion-dollar do-nothing or lobbying jobs for congressmen after they leave office--but that's yet another dreary and filthy story.)

[howard]

prof, david brooks isn't a member of the press corps; he is a paid propagandist allowed space on the ny times editorial page.

[kharris]

corvid,

You have turned the entire logic of political obligation on its head. If 90% of Obama's donations come from what you think of as nameless donors, then why would he be obliged to the big-guy 10%? He can afront them and still have 90%. On the other hand, modern political research allows him to associate money with the political preferences of the 90% with reasonable accuracy. If we assume - as many do - that Clinton was sunk by a stance on Iraq at odds with Democratic rank-and-file voters, why would Obama make the mistake of ignoring his rank-and-file 90% to listen to a disposable 10%?

Your argument sounds very much like the conclusion was reached before the analysis was attempted.

[Sarah]

DARN THAT LEFT-WING MEDIA! DOWN WITH THE RICH!!

So says our Davie B in his op-ed below. Oh boo hoo, David "of the masses" Brooks, who pulled himself up from his Stuyvesant Town boostraps and found a little tiny community college to give him an edumacation (doubtless while he sold matches on street corners at night in the snow)-- a little place known as the UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO (current annual cost est. $52,450), and writes for the most prestigious newspaper in the country, the New York Times. But don't number him among those heathen, the .... intellectuals. The "innellechuls", the ones he hopes will buy his books, are at it again, running the most lucrative businesses, the most successful sectors and the most prestigious (and rich) universities in the country, and shucks that means the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Becuz they're all for this Obama kid --this privileged, silver spoon-fed, child of the wealthy ... I mean, this smarty pants, protected child who grew up in a suburban cocoon immune from the world of divorce, loss and racism .... I mean, ummm, this, like uppity black guy who has no idea how grateful he should be to the white folks for letting him speak and stuff.
That's what you really mean, isn't it David?

That's what all the bastards who resent Obama's speech pattern, his message, and his intelligence mean. They just cannot believe a black guy isn't talking slang and wearing a medallion. Of course, they'd annihilate him if he were, because then he'd just be a 'stupid but inevitable' product of his 'lesser' race, now wouldn't he? So Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he mentions his fantastic support among all the smartest, richest people in this country, who know just exactly how badly Bush and his cabal have fucked us up, he will be called an elitist; but if he refers to his overwhelming support among the 'little people' then Obama will be called a liar.

By the way, dickhead, 45% of Obama's budget coming from donations of $200 or under is pretty amazing; I'd like to see comparative stats on other candidates.

And David, you would know something about those left-wing schools, wouldn't you, University of Chicago '83, famed really smart, grindy students, high tuition and ... Milton Friedman! Now there's a daring left-winger if I ever saw one!

(Well, I guess you do have a point, because Harvard is certainly going to hell now: they got a GIRL running the university!)

Yeah, Davie "Crockett" Brooks, how y'all doin'? How many squirrels have you shot for dinner lately?