Obviously a slow blogging day for me (real life, and all that…).
As I sift through the news, here are some numbers that struck me:
- $8 million: the amount of money the Obama campaign raised in a day in response to an e-mail to supporters about Sarah Palin’s speech (the Politico).
- $1 million: the amount the RNC raised in response to the Palin speech (Washington Wire).
- 6: the number of undergraduate institutions that Sarah Palin attended in the same number of years (the LAT).
- 4: the number of points that Obama now leads McCain in the daily tracking poll, down from 7 the day before (Gallup).
- 6.1%: the unemployment rate, the highest level in 5 years (the NYT).
Filed under: 2008 Campaign, US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Number’s up to $10 million. Go to a right wing blogger and tell him/her how much you appreciate her effort for the Dems.
And spread about her new name: Pork-barrel Palin.
September 6th, 2008 at 5:43 am
“$8 million: the amount of money the Obama campaign raised in a day in response to an e-mail to supporters about Sarah Palin’s speech”
Evidently the Dems thinks she’s a huge threat.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Devildog,
Perhaps.
But of course, by that logic the candidate who raises the most money is worse off. Somehow I don’t think that that is way it works in real life.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
A list of numbers that can all be interpreted as one sees fit.
I attended multiple undergraduate institutions. Someone got a problem with that?
September 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Dr. Steven Taylor:
This has nothing to do with the candidate that raises the most money; it has to do with an immediate knee jerk reaction to fear.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I would note that I did not comment one way or another on any of the numbers in terms of what they might mean, I simply saw them in the news yesterday (all of them) and found them interesting.
The fact that you are somewhat defensive on the topic suggests that you think the number is a negative.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Actually I didn’t take it that way from you. I’ve been reading your blog a long time. It’s not unusual for you to post a list of things that stand out (I’ve sort of gathered that it’s a way of filling up space on slow news days, but maybe I’m wrong. . . )
I am defensive of my own education, though, because I have had my academic credentials criticized in the past for no reason other than my perceived transience as an undergraduate student. This happened to me twice, first when I applied to the graduate school at the University of South Carolina, and again when I applied to the graduate school at the University of Georgia. Both forced me to enroll in “probationary” status and take several courses before I could be a “real” graduate student. It didn’t seem to matter that my cummulative GPA at all of my undergraduate universities was 3.87, or that I ultimately completed enough courses to satisfy the requirements of TWO majors (history and political science) and TWO minors (philosophy and military science). The fact that I transferred multiple times seemed more important to the gatekeepers than anything else.
UGA’s behavior I found particularly weird given that I had just completed a master’s program at USC with a 4.0 GPA. If it’s me, that matters more than anything that a person did over ten years ago as an undergrad. I ultimately finished my program at UGA with a 3.9.
The only reason I’ve not pusued anything further is that I find all of the rules and regulations by which universities operate off-putting. Perhaps your university doesn’t do this, but everywhere I’ve been, getting through a degree has been as much about stroking the ego of an “advisor” and otherwise pleasing a bunch of gatekeepers as it has been about actually walking away from the experience a better, more educated person. Rather than being providers of goods and services (how I see universities - I pay them, they educate me) they seem to perceive themselves as guardians of some sacred trust, and vermin like me (gadzooks, I was a soldier!) need extra scrutiny to make sure that we are “the right kind of person” to be awarded a degree.
I admire folks like you who can work in academia and not lose their minds. I spent only a few months as a reference librarian and that was it for me; I lasted longer in the Army. . .
September 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
University’s often have bizarre rules for admissions, to be sure. If it makes you feel any better, the professoriate are frequently as baffled by the behavior of the educrats as are students (incoming or otherwise).
Out of curiosity, were you specifically told that your transfer behavior was the issue? Typically schools only care about completed degrees, not their constituent elements. In my experience (and I none with UGA) is the probationary status is more likely than not linked to things like GPA (which weren’t an issue for you) and scores on standarized tests.
It also depends on supply/demand (i.e., how many applicants for each slot).
September 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
In the case of USC, I was directly told that my transience as an undergraduate was the problem. They wanted to see that I was going to stay enrolled, at USC, for the duration of the program and based on my past transience felt that I might not. I didn’t like it, but I figured, fair enough.
UGA never gave me a direct answer about why, and I never pressed too hard. It was a pick-your-battles thing; since I knew I could meet probation requirements it would ultimately be moot anyway and I didn’t want to fight over it. I got the impression that they looked down on the university that granted my undergraduate degree (Cleveland State) for its open enrollment policy (everyone is accepted, as long as they can pay the bill). This did not make sense in my case because open enrollment happened after I graduated (there were admission standards when I was there, though they were really pretty minimal). It also doesn’t make sense because although my undergrad university enrolls lots of people, it has a very low graduation rate - people who can’t perform aren’t given degrees. I did perform, and I did earn a degree.
The closest thing to a real reason they gave me at UGA came from my advisor about half way through my program. He told me that when we met he had reservations about whether I had adequate research skills.
Bear in mind that I had just earned a Master of Library and Information Science Degree, with a specialization in social sciences research, from the ALA accredited library school at USC, and did so with a 4.0 GPA. I had a MASTER’S DEGREE in social sciences research, for crying out loud! As a requirement for that degree I had to work in the library. I had helped people like him dig up data for the books they were writing.
Nuts!
I do respect you guys though, and admire what you do - like every job I know college professors run the gamut from the excellent to the total dud, and I am sure for the folks with principles it must be frustrating at times.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
There is no doubt that grad schools with high competition for admissions are often picky (mostly because they can be, whether the rules in question make sense or not is whole other issue).
Getting into USC is an accomplishment regardless of what hoops one had to jump through. UGA is no slouch of a school either.
And by way of enhancing understanding (not defending behavior), I would be willing to bet that they had more qualified applicants than they had slots and at that point it becomes a matter of finding reasons to cull people. No fun if one is being culled.
September 6th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Right. USC’s library school is one of the better such schools in the country and only one of two in the southeastern US with ALA accreditation. The graduate school at UGA is pretty competitive as well.
It’s a shame to me that, in spite of the high cost of education, culling needs to happen at all; it would be nice if everyone who is qualified and can put up the money could get a seat. I wish there were more seats! I think we’d be a better country for it.
For a little while I tinkered with becoming a lawyer. I applied to UGA, Georgia State, Emory, and Mercer. Of the four I was only accepted at Mercer. I don’t think it was so much because I wasn’t qualified as it was that there were not enough seats. I didn’t end up following that path, instead I took the librarian gig and have no regret about it.
It is an odd situation, however, when you have some people who can’t go to law school because they can’t afford it; and you have other people (like me) who can afford it but can’t go because there isn’t room.
I just wonder sometimes if there aren’t things we could do to the education infrastructure to eliminate some of these situations - really what they amount to is making the opportunity to pursue one’s dream a bit more difficult than simply having ability and motivation and a good work ethic. Sometimes it’s a question of the number of chairs. I find that sad.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Your fundraising comparison is not “apples to apples.” The first is the Obama campaign, while the second is the Republican National Committee, not the McCain campaign. McCain can not fund raise after the convention, but will receive approximately $85 million in public financing, to go with the nearly $80 million that the RNC already has to help. The DNC as of the convention had virtually no money, so Obama needs to fund raise like crazy just to play catch up. In fact, he will need to raise between 3-4 million every single day to have the same amount of money available that the Republicans are projected to spend on the general election. That’s not going to be easy.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
You’re kidding, right?
Go here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
As of July (when the last reporting was in) Obama had raised pretty close to 400 million dollars. Since his campaign began in earnest in late February, we can say he’s been collecting money for about 6 months, or 180 days.
He has therefore averaged a couple million a day for the last six months, and that was for the primaries. Hillary Clinton raised 225 million in a slightly shorter time period - where do you think all of those donors are going to go now that she’s out? I’ll give you a hint - it ain’t John McCain.
Money has never been, and will never be, a problem for the Obama campaign.