# I propose the ‘Obama’ as a mathematical value. [Corrected.]

The news that 224 people (out of roughly 500,000) had contributed a total of approximately \$39,500,000 (roughly 40% of the total) to the DNC/OfA campaigns in the second quarter of this year is, of course… interesting; but it doesn’t really drive home the implications of such high-powered ‘amateur’ lobbying being done by the bundling elite that’s doing such wonderful work for the Democratic party.  We need something that highlights the situation, as it were.  I therefore propose that political pundits adopt the obama as a mathematical value, where the obama is defined as “\$175,000, or the approximate value of a Democratic bundler.”  That gives the actual Obama campaign a second quarter value of 227 obamas, which isn’t quite right – but, heck, this isn’t actually higher mathematics.  Or even lower mathematics, so hush now.

Where this will be useful is in looking at the ratio between Obama’s obama number and the obama numbers of his current opponents (which we will call the Democratic Hypocrisy Index, or DHI).  To use the Politico article’s examples above: Mitt Romney collected \$517,000 in obama-measurable donations, while Pawlenty collected \$70,000.  That gives Romney a value of 2.95 obamas (more or less), and Pawlenty one of .4 obamas – which gives Mitt a DHI of 1.3% and Tim one of [.2]*%.  Put another way: this means that whenever Obama complains about big money donations to the GOP, he is being almost seventy-seven times more hypocritical than his target when he’s talking about Mitt Romney, and a staggering [five hundred and eighty-eight*] times more hypocritical when he’s talking about Tim Pawlenty.

Obviously, the President needs for that DHI number to go down, somehow.  Alas, that won’t happen as long as he’s leaning on Democratic elitist moneybags to keep his campaign afloat…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: The term that you are trying to remember is ‘millibears.’

[* Fact-checkers have corrected my bad math slightly: it's still bad math, but it's more accurate bad math.  Much obliged. - ML]

• kowalski

Who have in one way or another managed to save a lot of money in the past few years and earmarked it to get him reelected. Nobody should be surprised by that. His true believers were always deep-pocketed people because he had absolutley no name or face recognition when he got started. They were big insiders from the start and that is who they continue to be to this day. Those same folks are going to be loyal and do everything they can to keep him in power.

I expect he’ll raise close to a billon dollars, more than 5,700 “Obamas”, before it’s all over. It’s a pittance. In fact I really believe he will raise much more: something like 10-15,000 Obamas or 2-3 billion dollars.

Despite the poll numbers I see Obama’s fundraising potential right now as essentially limitless.

That’s why the Republicans are going to have to start narrowing down the field to someone who can beat him and quite soon.

• kowalski

You mean, the supposed shame that’s supposed to accrue because of some self-evident hypocrisy that the Democrats are the party of the rich? Ho ho. That’s not going happen. Everywhere in the world, the Democrats are the Party of the Rich, and they don’t feel the least bit bad about it.

I was thinking about this the other night in fact, looking at what happened in Massachusetts over the past 100 years: it used to be that you could honestly say that the Republicans/Conservatives were the Rich Man’s Party here in the Northeast. To make a statement like that today isn’t only untrue, it’s laughable. Everyone who has any money at all are Democrats.

The big problem for Republicans is: when are they going to realize that they’re now the Party of the Poor?

• johnt

Democrats, as befits the party of the people, the working family, the poor, the hardest hit minorities, & those not hardest hit, babies left in doorways, hungry puppies & lost cats, & people asleep in civil service offices, always average the larger donations. That’s why they’re the party of the people.
You think George Soros flying tourist or sharing a cab in NYC is going to give money to the plutocrats of the Republican Party?

• throwback59

.

• mine

Personally I don’t believe he is getting donations from the numbers of people he claims. At the last election I remember there were claims that people living in poverty donating thousands of dollars. The allegation is that wealthy people are funneling money through other people with or without their knowledge. Its worth checking names and zip codes for evidence of this. Personally I don’t think any sane person would contribute or vote for Obama.

• bk

As luck would have it, it is represented by his favorite word, and it represents the amount of entitlement cuts he has promised, i.e. an imaginary number.

See here for details.

• blooch

and since the Obama is now political currency, all Barry has to do is sip some mint tea and drop three zeroes.

• blooch

• reddog53

Moe, I think you’re on the right track, but I think it would be better to use the “obama” as the unit of measure of delay/ineffectiveness as an executive.

For example, the endless meetings over the ‘surge’ in Afghanistan, and the eventual partial surge that followed, took many more months than it should have.

Another example, the ineffective nonsense going on about the budget and the deficit limit.

So, the ‘obama’ could measure the apparent progress vs the real result, or compare the length of time taken to get to the “same place” on a given position or decision.

• Pingback: God Make Him Love Me

• Pingback: Long Distance Dating App

• Pingback: How To Get Over Boyfriends Ex