Dems Trounce GOP In Campaign Cash

[William Haskins]

The presidential campaign finance filings for the 2nd quarter are in, and one thing is abundantly clear: the Democrats are, as a whole, vastly outraising their GOP counterparts. Under the headline "Democrats Continue To Beat Republicans At The Donor Box," the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/us/politics/16donate.html?ref=us) reports the "eight Democrats running for president raised more than $80 million from April 1 to June 30, while the 10 Republicans raised less than $50 million."http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070716.htm

the bad news is, while no one was looking, john edwards spent it all on a haircut.

[Perks]

the bad news is, while no one was looking, john edwards spent it all on a haircut.
That could be good news. I might vote for him if I can't recognize him.

[poetinahat]

Replacing the Democratic primaries with a Candidates-only Big Brother show was a stroke of genius. The pillow fight footage figures to be entertaining.

[MattW]

How many candidates will bow out before a single vote is cast? How much money will be spent by those chumps? And how much will be spent by the front runners trying to counteract those chumps?

With more money raised, I'm guessing Dems will be more irate at their wasted contributions. At least it's going to a needy charity.

[tourdeforce]

:partyguy: :PartySmil :TheWave: :PartySmil :partyguy:

[whistlelock]

So, is this a sign of a political shift in the American population or have the Dem's gottten better at cozying up to big business/contributors?

[dclary]

I would imagine most Republicans, being smart investors, are waiting until, oh, election year? before putting their money on a horse.

I wouldn't pick the Oscar winner in June. I'm sure as hell not picking the 2008 election winner in 2007.

[SarahinOhio]

I would imagine most Republicans, being smart investors, are waiting until, oh, election year? before putting their money on a horse.

I wouldn't pick the Oscar winner in June. I'm sure as hell not picking the 2008 election winner in 2007.

Gee, I didn't know it was a matter of picking the winner. I thought it had something to do with supporting the candidate whose platform reflects your concerns and values.

But then, me and my naivete sure is skeered of all dem bulls and bears.

[William Haskins]

I would imagine most Republicans, being smart investors, are waiting until, oh, election year? before putting their money on a horse.

I wouldn't pick the Oscar winner in June. I'm sure as hell not picking the 2008 election winner in 2007.

this is my view as well. as i see it, the republican donor base is better served seeing how the horserace across the aisle pans out. if it's obama, they will be running against a progressive darling; if it's hillary, they'll be running against the corporate dem machine. (edwards splits the difference, more or less).

this will dictate the dynamics of the race.

of course, for certain blowhards on the left (like olbermann, the most propagandist commentator on cable news... yeah i said it...) it indicates that republicans are depressed and disillusioned. while that may be true to some extent, it certainly doesn't mean that they won't crank up the machinery when it comes time to decide who'll occupy the white house for the next 4 to 8 years.

[dclary]

Gee, I didn't know it was a matter of picking the winner. I thought it had something to do with supporting the candidate whose platform reflects your concerns and values.

But then, me and my naivete sure is skeered of all dem bulls and bears.

Um... when you pick the guy you're going to vote for, don't you do so in the hopes that he's going to win? Aren't you then picking the winner? Maybe not the ACTUAL winner, but unless you're a Nader fetishist, you're certainly not going out and voting in the hopes of picking the loser.

[SarahinOhio]

Um... when you pick the guy you're going to vote for, don't you do so in the hopes that he's going to win? Aren't you then picking the winner? Maybe not the ACTUAL winner, but unless you're a Nader fetishist, you're certainly not going out and voting in the hopes of picking the loser.

My point was that people use their donations to make their guy or gal into a winner. You made it sound like Republicans are waiting for the primary to sort things out before they dip a toe into the pool. The primaries and caucuses are all moving increasingly toward a January do-or-die calendar. 2008 will be too late to have much of an impact on the primary.

Not a big deal if you think Giuliani and Romney are interchangeable (as I do), but I bet some Republicans might disagree. And why they aren't forking over all that dough from those "smart investments" is a bit bewildering to me.

[blacbird]

So, is this a sign of a political shift in the American population or have the Dem's gottten better at cozying up to big business/contributors?

It's mainly a sign of the level of enthusiasm in both parties for their available candidates. Polls show a similar trend, the last one I saw, a month or so ago, had 78% of Democrats satisfied with their slate of declared candidates, 53% of Republicans satisfied with theirs. Obama, in particular, has raised lots of his money from small donors; he has far more individual donors than Clinton has, for relatively similar amounts of money.

caw

[MattW]

Obama, in particular, has raised lots of his money from small donors; he has far more individual donors than Clinton has, for relatively similar amounts of money.

cawWhich, to me, is almost reason enough to vote for him. Almost. :tongue

He is beholden to many, and not the few who put him there.

[dclary]

I'd rather have a President who was beholden to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the duties of the office he holds.

[SpookyWriter]

I'd rather have a President who was beholden to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the duties of the office he holds.And what planet do you live on again, sir?

[dclary]

A kid's got a right to dream, right?

[MattW]

I'd rather have a President who was beholden to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the duties of the office he holds.Given the option to prioritize, yes, I'd go with that first.

Seeing how we won't be electing a unicorn as president...

[SpookyWriter]

A kid's got a right to dream, right?That's okay. Just keep watching the Disney channel and everything will be all right.

[robeiae]

I'd rather have a President who was beholden to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the duties of the office he holds.
http://www.poster.net/reagan-ronald/reagan-ronald-photo-xl-ronald-reagan-6234801.jpg

[SpookyWriter]

But he was just acting. Didn't you know that?

[Bad Penny]

of course, for certain blowhards on the left (like olbermann, the most propagandist commentator on cable news... yeah i said it...)

did you even land on the other ramp, or just overshoot the fair ground?

[SarahinOhio]

http://www.poster.net/reagan-ronald/reagan-ronald-photo-xl-ronald-reagan-6234801.jpg

Is there a Republican debate tonight or something? All of a sudden, Rudy And The Gang just showed up to lick my computer screen.

[dclary]

God Bless You, Ronnie. Rest in well-earned Peace, Gip.


http://www.poster.net/reagan-ronald/reagan-ronald-photo-xl-ronald-reagan-6234801.jpg

[blacbird]

A kid's got a right to dream, right?

That's a privilege, not a right. Don't go feeling all entitled.

caw

[dclary]

Pursuit of happiness, baby. It's inalienable. Which means, of course, illegal aliens aren't allowed to have it.

[blacbird]

Pursuit of happiness, baby.

Note the word "pursuit". It works like bass-fishing: catch-and-release. And you need a license.

caw

[SpookyWriter]

Pursuit of happiness, baby. It's inalienable. Which means, of course, illegal aliens aren't allowed to have it.We all have different ideals of happiness. I know mine.

http://securingamerica.com/ccnimages/greenbacks.jpg

[dclary]

Note the word "pursuit". It works like bass-fishing: catch-and-release. And you need a license.

caw

Nothing's worth having if you can't give it away.

[SpookyWriter]

Nothing's worth having if you can't give it away.
But you can't give away your virginity more than three times, so I'm told.

[dclary]

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the latest stem cell research...

[SpookyWriter]

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the latest stem cell research...Oh sure, bring Nixon into the conversation will ya.

[dclary]

How did you get 2000 posts in October of 2005?

[SpookyWriter]

Who are you talking to this time?

[dclary]

Uh... never mind. I'm insane.

[SpookyWriter]

No shit, sherlock. So when did you figure that one out? Hahhaaaa...