Democrats Losing Race For Funds Under Dean

[Texsox]

This is for Dems to discuss what the party can do to help raise more money for the upcoming elections. It is not for Republicans to come in and heckle and POLITICIZE this discussion.

 

The Democratic National Committee under Howard Dean is losing the fund raising race against Republicans by nearly 2 to 1, a slow start that is stirring concern among strategists who worry that a cash shortage could hinder the party's competitiveness in next year's midterm elections.

 

The former Vermont governor and presidential candidate took the chairmanship of the national party eight months ago, riding the enthusiasm of grass-roots activists who relished his firebrand rhetorical style. But he faced widespread misgivings from establishment Democrats, including elected officials and Washington operatives, who questioned whether Dean was the right fit in a job that traditionally has centered on fundraising and the courting of major donors.

 

Now, the latest financial numbers are prompting new doubts. From January through September, the Republican National Committee raised $81.5 million, with $34 million remaining in the bank. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, showed $42 million raised and $6.8 million in the bank.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1101833_pf.html

 

As you can see this is from the unbelievably GOP biased Washington Post so take it with a grain of salt.

[southsider2k5]

Ooh, ooh that means this is my turn to post links from unbelievably biased blogs, make fun of your intelligence, and then cry when things don't go my way, right?

 

:crying

 

Ok your turn.

[Texsox]

Ooh, ooh that means this is my turn to post links from unbelievably biased blogs, make fun of your intelligence, and then cry when things don't go my way, right?

 

:crying

 

Ok your turn.

 

I never use blogs as sources unless the author is clearly identified and well know in their field. Actually I can't ever remember using a blog reference. And never cry when things don't go my way. I will make fun of your lack of intelligence when I return. BTW, If I allow you to post in this thread, will you mail a check to the DNC?

[JUGGERNAUT]

This is not a heckle. It might do the DNC a wealth of good to actually develop some ideas that appeal to campaign contributors. The unions & lawyers don't seem to be enough any more.

[Rex Kickass]

I believe the gap is smaller than it was last year. (Not necessarily with money in the bank, but with actual fundraising.)

 

Money won't win this election. Obama won his Senate primary despite being outspent 8 to 1 by the frontrunner. If the Democrats are successful at drumming up their base support, it won't matter.

[Texsox]

Rex, with all do respect, money for tv is so huge. The Illinois race was mismanaged from the start, and not a typical case.

 

I'll take the lesser candidate and 8X the money and 99 times out of 100, you'd lose. By the time all my money is spent, my candidate will be the better candidate.

 

I think Juggs has an excellent point. I also think that the RPC has a huge media advantage with the GOP Radio Network. It's a 24/7 telethon. Contributors hear the cause and the message. No such outlet for the DNC.

 

The Dems hope could be that Dean is rousing the masses and creating voters and volunteers and just lagging in donors. We all know if the candidate is hot and gaining mind share, the money will follow.

[kapkomet]

I agree 100% with Jugg's observation. If the Democrats EVER get a mainstream message, they will kill the current Republican caucus. I wish they would, because it's hurting the country to simply be 'opposed to' the Republican ideas.

[Rex Kickass]

Rex, with all do respect, money for tv is so huge. The Illinois race was mismanaged from the start, and not a typical case.

 

I'll take the lesser candidate and 8X the money and 99 times out of 100, you'd lose. By the time all my money is spent, my candidate will be the better candidate.

 

I think Juggs has an excellent point. I also think that the RPC has a huge media advantage with the GOP Radio Network. It's a 24/7 telethon. Contributors hear the cause and the message.  No such outlet for the DNC.

 

The Dems hope could be that Dean is rousing the masses and creating voters and volunteers and just lagging in donors. We all know if the candidate is hot and gaining mind share, the money will follow.

 

 

DNC funding does not equal campaign funding. Part of the reason party funding may not be as high for the Dems as it could be is because there are a lot of races for 06 that are already raising a LOT of money. Casey is doing well in the cash race against Santorum. Chafee and DeWine's competitors will be very well funded. But not from the party.

 

Money doesn't matter. Base does. I live in a county where every Dem candidate lost narrowly, not because we weren't spending enough money, but because our base vote program didn't produce base votes. That's not from a lack of money - that's a lack of outreach.

[EvilMonkey]

Money doesn't matter. Base does. I live in a county where every Dem candidate lost narrowly, not because we weren't spending enough money, but because our base vote program didn't produce base votes. That's not from a lack of money - that's a lack of outreach.

In many elections, money = outreach. More money = more people see and hear your message. Of course, if your message still sucks, the point is moot.

[Rex Kickass]

In many elections, money = outreach.  More money = more people see and hear your message.  Of course, if your message still sucks, the point is moot.

 

Not true. Money = money.

 

You can have all the money in the world but if you don't have a volunteer base going door to door and talking with your supporters and energizing them, you don't have s***.

 

All the money in the road doesn't change that.

 

In my local race, we drastically outspent our opponents. Our base didn't turn out like they needed to. We didn't do a good enough job getting them energized. We lost.

 

By the way. I worked GLBTI outreach for my precinct. Me and my co-worker did it basically by ourselves. Our targeted precincts showed up at 106% of where we needed them to be. We spent no money on specific outreach there.

 

We were able to reach the Haitian community because we talked to them, not because we spent money.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Well there is another angle to all this but I'm sure some of you don't want to hear it. Religion favors the GOP. Put aside policies for a second & try to think about the average Joe & Mary Jane in America. The GOP is unafraid & unabashed at embracing God & mentioning their faith any chance they get. It comes as natural to them as drinking water. In contrast the Dems acts as if they are sanitizing religion.

 

So as a result of this one simple thing Joe & Mary Jane feel more comfortable listening to the GOP than the Dems. Now attached to that comfort is that good ole' southern dialect that blends the GOP members with the town preachers. That connection leads to the **ca-ching** value

of rhetoric.

[jasonxctf]

As a hardcore (D), I'm not overly concerned with the fundraising issue. It's funny, I can kind of equate this to the Sox vs Cubs. I think of the Sox as (D) and the Cubs as ®.

 

We saw that if the Sox put a quality team on the field, money/attendance came pouring in. The Cubs can have a poor team and still get the money/attendance.

 

The diehard (R's) have issues that drive financial contributions no matter what. Many on the hard-right would donate their kids college education funds in order to try and overturn Roe v Wade. Many on the hard-right would donate tons of money in order to try and regulate prayer in school. Then, let's not forget about the tax breaks for large businesses. That generates a lot of donations as well.

 

My point I guess is in 2 phases. Phase 1, put a quality candidate out there and the base/indep's will cough up the cash. Phase 2, generate some hard-hitting issues that will generate additional money from the sidelines. This is obviously harder to do when your major positions are the law (no prayer in school, right to choose, etc) The right to protect (Status Quo) will never generate as much $ as the idea to overturn and re-regulate.

[Balta1701]

Kos...

This piece on the DNC fundraising this past year starts as a hit piece:

 

    The Democratic National Committee under Howard Dean is losing the fundraising race against Republicans by nearly 2 to 1, a slow start that is stirring concern among strategists who worry that a cash shortage could hinder the party's competitiveness in next year's midterm elections [...]

 

    Now, the latest financial numbers are prompting new doubts. From January through September, the Republican National Committee raised $81.5 million, with $34 million remaining in the bank. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, showed $42 million raised and $6.8 million in the bank.

 

Sounds horrible! Except we must put it all in its proper context:

 

    In the previous election cycle, the DNC had raised $31 million, compared with the RNC's $80 million, at this point in 2003 [...]

So Dean has cut the RNC's traditional 3-1 advantage (or more) in fundraising to a 2-1 advantage and raised $11 million more than McAuliffe raised in 2003. Not to mention that Dean's numbers come the year after a presidential election -- the worst political fundraising time possible, while McAuliffe's came during the presidential cycle. Meanwhile, the RNC has remained static.

 

Dean has also been fundraising in the states, FOR the states. Past DNC chairmen would sweep into Lousiana or California, raise some money, and then ship the cash off the DC. Dean has garnered raves in the states for funneling that money to the local parties. Those are dollars not tallied in the RNC versus DNC comparisons. Mehlman isn't out tirelessly raising money for state parties.

 

The more worrying figure is the Cash on Hand numbers, with the RNC sitting at $34 million and the DNC at $6.8 million. While it would be nice to see more transparency in the DNC's spending (they'll need it if they expect to raise signficant money online), fact is that Dean has invested seriously in building up local parties. He's put three DNC staffers in 38 states, and will be staffed out in all 50 states by the end of the year. He's fundraised for the state parties, rather than pilfering all that cash.

 

So what's the source of all the kvetching? The big donors are upset that Dean hasn't kissed enough ass.

 

    As some see it, Dean's larger problem is with the care and feeding of wealthy contributors, people capable of giving the maximum $26,700 allowed annually under federal law. Bob Farmer, a past DNC finance chairman, said that "where the chairman can make an impact is with the big donors and the big fundraisers."

 

    Dean does not enjoy long relationships with these people and remains uncomfortable asking for a significant contribution after just meeting a donor, said party operatives familiar with his style. One high-dollar donor in the Washington area said the outreach by Dean has been woeful: "The only explanation I can fathom for the virtual total lack of quality communications is they are still in the process of figuring things out in terms of who their major donor list is."

 

What, did this high-dollar donor lose the address to the DNC? What a whiny sack of s***.

 

High dollar donors who care about the party and the nation should be able to give without getting wined and dined by Dean. Long term, that is where the Democratic Party needs to go -- funded by small dollar donors and supplemented by big donors who have their priorities in the right place.

 

Oh, and let's talk about this gem of a quote:

 

    Several Washington Democrats not favorably inclined toward Dean said the party was willing to gamble on his "potential for hoof in mouth disease" -- in the words of one lobbyist -- because of the unexpected fundraising prowess he showed in the 2004 race.

 

The "party was willing to gamble"? What asshole Democrats made that asinine quote? "Washington Democrats" didn't have a choice. Dean was selected by outside-the-beltway Democrats, despite proclamation from establishment DC-based Dems that Dean would be the death of the party. If it was up to the DC crowd, Dean wouldn't have gotten within 500 miles of DC.

 

Again, Dean has already surpassed McAuliffe's vaunted presidenital-cycle numbers. Period. And they'll only get better. Dean has started rebuilding the state parties -- something DC Democrats could care less about (considering they never bothered trying to do it before).

 

And as to establishment and DLC fears that Dean would be an electoral disaster for Dems? Two words:

 

2005 elections. 'Nuff said.

[kapkomet]

If Howard Dean makes sure that the local levels are taken care of, the rest will take care of itself.

 

But- I still wish they would get a mainstream message.

[Texsox]

I guess the mainstream message is don't over turn existng laws.

 

Looking at Roe v. Wade, if it is such a great fund raising tool for the GOP, no wonder they have never really battled to have it over turned.

[kapkomet]

I guess the mainstream message is don't over turn existng laws.

 

Looking at Roe v. Wade, if it is such a great fund raising tool for the GOP, no wonder they have never really battled to have it over turned.

There's a TON of truth to that statement.

[Texsox]

In a companion thought, homosexuals are the new communists. Without a commie under every bed, Churches and political parties needed something, and homosexuals filled the gap, God bless them.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Churches and political parties needed something, and homosexuals filled the gap. . .

 

Must. . . resist. . . tasteless. . . anatomical joke. . .

[kapkomet]

Yea, Flaxx, there's about a million different ways to go on that one.

[Mercy!]

The fundamentalists know well that you have to have an enemy. After the demise of global communism and the cold war, they searched around for some replacements to rally the troops. Many seized on feminism, but as more women became part of the workaday world, their focus shifted to abortion. In the same vein, the gay rights movement became a convenient target, but as more people became willing to identify themselves to their families and friends, the focus shifted to the gay marriage issue.

 

The fundies are about fear, hatred, being against something, and believing their morality is the only valid way to live one’s life. And in the ‘60’s and 70’s they started working at the grass roots, an organizing principal the Democrats seem unable to grasp unless an election is imminent. And they hijacked the Republican party.

 

I think enough people are disgusted with the present state of our country that they would vote in a minute for a true centrist candidate. These are the kind of people who find late term abortion personally repellant, but don’t consider every egg and sperm sacred, or every blastocyst to be a human being with rights trumping those of the already-born.

 

They are the people who may still have a problem with the “ick” factor when they think of homosexuals (of course, we’re talking icky male stuff here; lesbians have always been okay!), but don’t think that the government has the right to be in people’s bedrooms.

 

Technology has so changed the availability of information, that I agree with jasonxctf, put forth quality candidates and you’re half-way there.

[kapkomet]

The fundamentalists know well that you have to have an enemy.  After the demise of global communism and the cold war, they searched around for some replacements to rally the troops.  Many seized on feminism, but as more women became part of the workaday world, their focus shifted to abortion.  In the same vein, the gay rights movement became a convenient target, but as more people became willing to identify themselves to their families and friends, the focus shifted to the gay marriage issue.

 

The fundies are about fear, hatred, being against something, and believing their morality is the only valid way to live one’s life.  And in the ‘60’s and 70’s they started working at the grass roots, an organizing principal the Democrats seem unable to grasp unless an election is imminent.  And they hijacked the Republican party.

 

I think enough people are disgusted with the present state of our country that they would vote in a minute for a true centrist candidate.  These are the kind of people who find late term abortion personally repellant, but don’t consider every egg and sperm sacred, or every blastocyst to be a human being with rights trumping those of the already-born.

 

They are the people who may still have a problem with the “ick” factor when they think of homosexuals (of course, we’re talking icky male stuff here; lesbians have always been okay!), but don’t think that the government has the right to be in people’s bedrooms.

 

Technology has so changed the availability of information, that I agree with jasonxctf, put forth quality candidates and you’re half-way there.

I agree with you, Mercy. /faints

 

To me, the political graph looks like a normal distrubution curve - the standard bell shape. The top and bottom 5% run the parties of either side. And because that's the case, it's hard to run as a centerist candidate, because you have to have the party support first.

 

I really, really, really wish that there were a viable third party option, however, the two dominant parties have worked together to put a stop to that pretty much. Isn't it amazing that they are "bipartisian" on that deal?

[Texsox]

I agree with you, Mercy.  /faints 

 

To me, the political graph looks like a normal distrubution curve - the standard bell shape.  The top and bottom 5% run the parties of either side.  And because that's the case, it's hard to run as a centerist candidate, because you have to have the party support first. 

 

I really, really, really wish that there were a viable third party option, however, the two dominant parties have worked together to put a stop to that pretty much.  Isn't it amazing that they are "bipartisian" on that deal? 

 

I get all choked up when two of my favorite posters find common ground. My work here is finished. Up, up, and awaaaaaaaay.

[mr_genius]

I really, really, really wish that there were a viable third party option, however, the two dominant parties have worked together to put a stop to that pretty much.  Isn't it amazing that they are "bipartisian" on that deal? 

 

 

What, you want more than 2 political choices? Thats just un-American.

 

lol

 

Yea, legitimate 3rd parties would be great. I usually vote third party just out of principle. I don't always agree with all their policies and I know they will lose, but it is important to get a more diverse political atmosphere. I'm such a self-rightous martyr.

 

mr_genius in 08'

[Mercy!]

I agree with you, Mercy.  /faints 

 

To me, the political graph looks like a normal distrubution curve - the standard bell shape.  The top and bottom 5% run the parties of either side.  And because that's the case, it's hard to run as a centerist candidate, because you have to have the party support first. 

 

I really, really, really wish that there were a viable third party option, however, the two dominant parties have worked together to put a stop to that pretty much.  Isn't it amazing that they are "bipartisian" on that deal? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I, too, am really down on our two party system. But third parties are too rare on the national stage to put any effort into. I often wish that we had a parliamentary system, with true proportional representation requiring coalitions to form and work together around shared issues. I think minorities of all stripes can feel that they have more of a stake in society that way.

 

And I darn well don’t like our winner take all electoral college, despite understanding why it was originally conceived. You sure don’t see us holding it up as a neat way to decide national elections in those “emerging democracies” do you?

[Texsox]

We have gridlock most of the time with a two party system. Three parties and they will look like monkeys at the zoo, masturbating and pulling lice out of each other's hair. They'll be busy, having fun, but only helping each other and themselves to have a good time, while disgusting us.