PDA

View Full Version : Democrats Outraising the GOP This Year



luckydevil
July-21st-2004, 03:10 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20040721/ts_washpost/a64672_2004jul20

John F. Kerry and the major Democratic Party committees have collectively outraised their Republican counterparts this year, blunting one of the GOP's biggest and longest-standing political advantages, new Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) reports show.


For the first time since 1992, the Democratic candidate and the national and congressional fundraising committees combined to outraise their GOP counterparts over a six-month span of an election year, FEC data compiled by The Washington Post found. From Jan. 1 through June 30, Kerry and Democrats raised $292 million, compared with $272 million for President Bush (news - web sites) and Republicans.


While Republicans maintain a sizable overall financial edge for this election cycle, the Democrats' across-the-board fundraising surge is providing an unexpected boost to Kerry and Democratic Senate and House candidates just as the election season intensifies.


Richard Bond, a former Republican National Committee (news - web sites) chairman, said, "John Kerry (news - web sites) is still in the full throes of a remarkable honeymoon. The Democratic base is energized as never before, and they are opening their wallets as never before." But, Bond contended, "this will turn into a tortoise-and-hare deal, and the Republicans will keep grinding it out and they will prevail."


Kerry, who is set to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week in Boston, accounted for the bulk of the financial turnaround by raising $160 million in the first six months of this year, compared with Bush's $95 million. The president dramatically curtailed fundraising in early April after hitting his goal of more than $200 million for the campaign. Still, Kerry raised more in each of the past four months than Bush ever did in a single month when his fundraising machine was cranked into high gear.


What's more, the Senate Democrats' campaign committee raised more than the GOP's in the past six months, $26 million to $24 million. While House Democrats were outraised by Republicans, they bested the majority party in June for the first time this election cycle.


Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, credited heavy fundraising by House Democrats for the one-month surge but predicted the NRCC would raise more at a fundraising gala tonight featuring Bush than House Democrats did cumulatively over the past three months. Tonight's fundraiser is expected to top $22.5 million, which will be split between House and Senate Republicans. "When you look at overall cash flow, we lead in all categories," Reynolds said.


Republicans still enjoy an overall advantage in both money raised and money available to spend now through the Nov. 2 election because of their fundraising success last year. In 2003, Bush and the RNC and congressional committees raised a total of $340 million, nearly three times the $117 million raised by Kerry and the three Democratic committees. At the end of May, the Bush campaign and the GOP committees had a cash-on-hand advantage of $74 million over the Democrats.


RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson said Democrats "should see an increase in fundraising. They've invested an enormous amount of money in mail and phones in an effort to catch up to Republicans." She predicted the GOP ultimately would outraise Democrats for this election.


But scholars and the parties' strategists agree that the GOP's historical financial edge is eroding in the post-campaign-finance-reform era -- at least temporarily.


The financial shift is debunking the conventional wisdom about the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which both sides predicted would hurt Democrats who traditionally relied more heavily on the now-outlawed six- and seven-figure "soft money" checks from wealthy voters, trade unions and corporations.


Predictions of a Democratic implosion failed, however, to anticipate two related developments: First, that hostility to Bush would mobilize liberal donors as never before; and second, that the Internet would provide an easy and accessible way to make contributions by credit card.


Rep. Robert T. Matsui (Calif.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the Internet has created a "greater universe" of money than anyone imagined only a year ago. But Republicans and Democrats alike said antipathy toward Bush is driving the turnaround.


Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego, said this election uniquely combines a highly polarized electorate and the prospect of a very close contests, strengthening both sides' donor bases. "The Democrats are really mobilized. Democrats are very unhappy with George W. Bush, and they are putting their money where their emotions are."


Iverson said the Democratic numbers are overblown because Bush did the bulk of his fundraising in 2003. But a top Bush fundraiser said Republican donors might not be as universally excited about the election as Democrats are: "The [Bush] campaign itself is still the best I have ever seen. It's the product that has got some problems right now."


The Democrats' fundraising surge is shaking up the campaigns. While Republicans once expected to spend the Democratic nominee into the ground, Kerry has raised enough money to match Bush dollar for dollar in many key states and media markets. When money from outside groups is factored in, Kerry and the Democrats are actually outspending Bush and Republicans in many of these areas. Democratic outside groups have outspent Republican ones by $76 million this cycle.


The races for control of the House and Senate are heavily influenced by the fundraising swing as well. Democrats, who need a net gain of two seats to win back the Senate and 11 to win back the House, are cutting into the GOP's financial edge not only at the committee level but also in the most competitive races. While winning back the House remains a long shot, the Senate is very much in play.





Roll Call newspaper, which covers Congress, reported this week that in the past three months, Democratic Senate candidates outraised their GOP opponents in seven of the 10 most competitive races.

"To the extent Democrats are animated, Republicans ought to be equally energized," said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political handicapper. "There's a very reasonable chance Bush could lose the White House, so that only raises the stakes of who controls Congress."

Researchers Brian Faler and Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.



---------------------------------------------------



For the first time since 1992, the Democratic candidate and the national and congressional fundraising committees combined to outraise their GOP counterparts over a six-month span of an election year, FEC data compiled by The Washington Post found. From Jan. 1 through June 30, Kerry and Democrats raised $292 million, compared with $272 million for President Bush (news - web sites) and Republicans.

so what happened in 1992?

Buford
July-21st-2004, 03:12 PM
so...what is this?

More people giving alittle compared to the GOP's regulars giving more?

Destino
July-21st-2004, 03:31 PM
92 = Clinton = Angry GOPers = Motivated to give
04 = Bush = Angry Dems = Motivated to give

Chopper Dave
July-21st-2004, 03:35 PM
Think about 2000. Republicans almost always raise more than Democrats, and that applied to 2000. This year, the Democrats are going up against one of the most conservative administrations ever (relatively, of course; obviously they're more liberal than the Jefferson administration), and they're more motivated to get Bush out of office because he stands for everything they don't. He's the antithesis of what the Democrats want, and the way he's been running the country has galvanized the Democrats and all liberals. Therefore, they're giving more money than ever. I know I will. Too bad I'm going to miss the election by 4 months.

luckydevil
July-21st-2004, 03:42 PM
This year, the Democrats are going up against one of the most conservative administrations

what exactly is conservative about this adminstration

Chopper Dave
July-21st-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by luckydevil


what excately is conservative about this adminstration

Well, where to start....

-They're fiscally conservative in some ways (as far as taxes and things like that, but not spending, as you can see by our deficit)

-Every action they take is a step towards keeping the majority of power in the hands of a select few

-They vehemently do everything to oppose most of our social programs

-The vast majority of the administration is pro-life

-They don't view war as a last resort, just a viable option (regardless of what they say)

-They believe we should use our world standing and military force to project our values upon the rest of the world (once again, regardless of what they say, but there hasn't been much effort on their part denying this)

-They believe that we need to have military and political presence around the world

-They give preferential treatment to religious groups (moreso than Democrats, anyway)

-They believe in censorship of every kind in nearly all forms of media

-They are anti-gay marriage

-They are anti-stem cell research

-They go out of their way to support Corporate America

Etc., etc., etc.

I'd say they're pretty conservative.

luckydevil
July-21st-2004, 04:20 PM
-Every action they take is a step towards keeping the majority of power in the hands of a select few

There is nothing remotely conservative about this



-They vehemently do everything to oppose most of our social programs

Then please explain the spending.



-They don't view war as a last resort, just a viable option (regardless of what they say)


-They believe we should use our world standing and military force to project our values upon the rest of the world (once again, regardless of what they say, but there hasn't been much effort on their part denying this)

I am willing to argue that the administration foreign policy is not conservative at all, but rather liberal


-They believe in censorship of every kind in nearly all forms of media

Nothing remotely conservative about censorship


-They are anti-gay marriage


-They are anti-stem cell research

yes, this administration is socially conservative



-They go out of their way to support Corporate America

expand


I'd say they're pretty conservative.

It is pretty clear to me that you clearly do not understand what it means to be a conservative.

Fred Jones
July-21st-2004, 04:24 PM
Now you opened up a can of worms.

chomerics
July-21st-2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by luckydevil


what excately is conservative about this adminstration

The fact is they AREN'T!!! They are Libral Republicans. They took a majority of old conservative views, primarily fiscal responsibility, and went the other way. Because of this you are seeing many traditional conservatives, or the so-called Regan Democrats turn back towards the Democrat party.

What this administration has done is exergize the opposition and simultaneously anger many staunch republicans because of their mad spending spree. Not a good position to be in, the last time the nation saw this was during the Carter administration. Now they are trying to paint the "liberal" view on Kerry, well unfortunately for Bush, he's been more "liberal" on many conservative views concerning the budget and Kerry will capitolize on this. He will bring the budget fight to Bush and use his blatent disregard for a balanced budget against him.

As for me, I'm the complete opposite as this administration (like I had to tell anyone this :laugh: ) I'm for some social programs, but also for fiscal responsibility. I think many Americans are in my boat, hence Clinton was re-elected and left with the highest approval rating ever. . . even after the Monica situation. For Bush, he'll go the way of his father with four and out, he may have done more to ruin the republican party than anyone wants to believe.

His extremeism form of government and lack of swinging to the middle will be his downfall, Iraq and his mismanagement of the war is just another mistake in a mistake riddles presidency.

chomerics
July-21st-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Bufford
so...what is this?

More people giving alittle compared to the GOP's regulars giving more?

I gave my $1k to Kerry, first time I've ever given to a political party.

luckydevil
July-21st-2004, 04:45 PM
The fact is they AREN'T!!! They are Libral Republicans.

agreed

SkinsHokie Fan
July-21st-2004, 04:52 PM
Yup.

And the funny thing. This probably will be the closest election ever, closer then the 2000 election.

If Kerry gets basically no bounce after the convention, similar to the bounce after the Edwards announcement, this will go down to the wire. Only a John Kerry type could be in such a close race with the sentiment in America today.

Oops, Al Gore was in a close race also despite a roaring economy and peace. Gosh what clueless characters the Dems have sent out the last 2 elections

Phat Hog
July-21st-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Destino
92 = Clinton = Angry GOPers = Motivated to give
04 = Bush = Angry Dems = Motivated to give

Game, Set, Match !

chomerics
July-21st-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan

Oops, Al Gore was in a close race also despite a roaring economy and peace. Gosh what clueless characters the Dems have sent out the last 2 elections

Agreed, I voted for Gore out of necessity rather than because I liked him. I do think Kerry's a better canidate than Gore, but Edwards was the best of the bunch. I wanted him from the get-go, but I was still happy with Kerry.

IMO, the Bush attack ads have done their job, and Kerry has yet to come out full force, it will be an interesting fall, but I think Kerry will win once people find out what he is about.

Chopper Dave
July-21st-2004, 05:22 PM
First of all, when one says conservative, it really defies the denotation of the word, which is "opposed to reform or change". This could also apply to them, but what I meant is the common connotation of conservatism, or neoconservatism, which is basically defined through the points I made. You don't debate any of the points, you only say that they aren't conservative. So fine. This is a neoconservative administration.


1) --Every action they take is a step towards keeping the majority of power in the hands of a select few.

"There is nothing remotely conservative about this"

- Conservatives are for a small govn't. Therefore, if Bush wants a small govn't AND wants to keep the majority of power in the hands of a select few, then this administration isn't just conservative, it's an oligarchy.


2) --They vehemently do everything to oppose most of our social programs

"Then please explain the spending."

- Fine... war. Defense. Government contracts given to Halliburton (oops, that'll come up later). Tax cuts. Federalization of airport security employees. Etc. Look it up for yourself. The point is, I'm not going to have Social Security and I'll be lucky to get Medicare. Those are social programs, and the neocon agenda is clearly against social programs.


3) --They don't view war as a last resort, just a viable option (regardless of what they say)

- Yeah, I wouldn't have touched that one either.


4) --They believe we should use our world standing and military force to project our values upon the rest of the world (once again, regardless of what they say, but there hasn't been much effort on their part denying this)

"I am willing to argue that the administration foreign policy is not conservative at all, but rather liberal"

- Maybe YOU should explain that


5) --They believe in censorship of every kind in nearly all forms of media

"Nothing remotely conservative about censorship"

- True, not really by definition (kinda, but not really), but by principle. Censorship is generally a conservative principle (except for Lieberman, and he's amongst the most conservative democrats out there).


6) --They are anti-gay marriage

- Again, there can't really give an argument against this. They are indeed anti-gay marriage. Not only does it make them conservative, it makes them prejudiced *******s.


7) -They are anti-stem cell research

"yes, this administration is socially conservative"

- And that's the main reason so many Democrats/Liberals want them out. They are the most socially conservative administration since Reagan.


8) --They go out of their way to support Corporate America

"expand"

-This administration favors corporate America, Bush and Cheney's associates especially. Most of their actions come in the form of policy that forsakes the environment in favor of businesses.

Think about it. Halliburton getting contracts in Iraq. Drilling Alaska for oil so that Bush's oil cronies can make $. Changing policies on pollution control to make life easier and cheaper for businesses relying on coal-based power. Giving legal opinions that carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant. Allowing companies to sell land containing toxic waste. Permitting illegal aliens to work (for cheap) in the US. CUTTING TAXES. $90 billion a year on grants, subsidies and loan guarantees for corporations. The list goes on.


It's pretty clear to me that you don't know when an administration doesn't dare stray from their agenda, their CONSERVATIVE agenda, even when it's obviously making our country worse off in every respect than it was 4 years ago, and all the while they're pulling the American Flag over our eyes to blind us from their mistakes.

luckydevil
July-21st-2004, 05:53 PM
So fine. This is a neoconservative administration.

I agree, this administration is neoconservative



Fine... war. Defense. Government contracts given to Halliburton (oops, that'll come up later). Tax cuts. Federalization of airport security employees. Etc. Look it up for yourself. The point is, I'm not going to have Social Security and I'll be lucky to get Medicare. Those are social programs, and the neocon agenda is clearly against social programs.

It is also clear that you do not know what 'neo-conservatism" is. Neoconservatives are essentially social democrats who believe in a healthy use of the military. The Bush administration has strengthen the federal government by increasing nondiscretionary spending( much more so than Clinton) and discretionary spending. Stop reading the DNC talking points.


Maybe YOU should explain that

Bush embraces a Wilsonian foreign policy


Censorship is generally a conservative principle

once again you clearly do not understand conservatism



$90 billion a year on grants, subsidies and loan guarantees for corporations.

more like crony capitalism, not conservatism.




It's pretty clear to me that you don't know when an administration doesn't dare stray from their agenda, their CONSERVATIVE agenda,

Hate to break it to you, but it is not a conservative agenda

What exactly is conservative about expanding the federal government? Bush has presided over the biggest spending binge since LBJ.

Chopper Dave
July-21st-2004, 06:04 PM
You're arguing connotation and we live in a world of denotation. To put it simply because I don't feel like going point by point again, this administration has taken all the bullet points of the Republican (associated with conservatism) platform and taken them to extremes. They haven't expanded the size of the government, only the amount of power it holds.


To make the point that I intended to make in my first post in less words, the Bush Administration is the oppitomy of today's Republican/Conservative/Neo-Conservative/Social Democrat/Whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-old-white-dudes who-do-a-bad-job-running-the-country-and-are-against-progress, and that's why the Democrats are opening their wallets more than ever. For every person who gives $ and votes for Kerry, you have to figure there's at least one who didn't contribute and is going to vote for him. And that's why the American People may very well fire the man who was never elected in the first place.

chiefhogskin48
July-21st-2004, 06:26 PM
DCogan1820 ,

Luckydevil is right on all points. You misconstrue what conservatism really is, which is basically defense of the US Constitution. The federal government has grown beyond the size and scope imagined in the original US Constitution and it's a value judgement whether this is a good thing or not.

Conversvative foreign policy isn't typically interventionist (though recently it has been under neoconservatism), but rather about more America First isolation. Liberal foreign policy is interventionist, especially in terms of peacekeeping and "humanitarian" missions.

You may actually be right about social conservatives; they don't care much about the Constitution if it happens to clash with their religious worldviews. But remember that many, many liberals (especially black and hispanic minorities) oppose things like gay marriage and even abortion.

terpfan44
July-21st-2004, 06:33 PM
I think every Democrat should just donate their Tax-cut checks to mrs. heinze's
marionette.

It would be just like catching a Homerun hit by the visiting team and like a throwing
the ball back on the field...go home a loser and ball less too.

luckydevil
July-21st-2004, 06:34 PM
You're arguing connotation and we live in a world of denotation.


I was defining conservatism( American) the movement/ideology.

While I am not a conservative

I will not continue to allow you to distort a movement/ideology that traces it roots back to the founding fathers and people like Edmund Burke.

And the notion that the republican platform represents conservatism is nonsense. That sort of simplistic thinking is frankly dangerous.

chomerics
July-22nd-2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by luckydevil



I was defining conservatism( American) the movement/ideology.

While I am not a conservative

I will not continue to allow you to distort a movement/ideology that traces it roots back to the founding fathers and people like Edmund Burke.

And the notion that the republican platform represents conservatism is nonsense. That sort of simplistic thinking is frankly dangerous.

I agree with your definitions of conservatism, neo-conservatism and liberal. I think DC is almost there, just not quite.

DC, goverment has expanded ALOT during this administration. Look at the federal budget for a good idea of how much government has grown. I don't think you're that far off, but lucky is right on his points, this administration is more democratic than you think, it's just that the DNC has swayed its position to the middle to try to gain support from the Reagan Democrats, a good idea.