Forums
This is an index of all forums posting across the site.Dem's will continue to out fund raise the GOP
Forums > Elections > Dem's will continue to out fund raise the GOP
Dem's will continue to out fund raise the GOP
It's funny how significantly the public is voting against the war with their wallets, specifically through the fundraising efforts of Hillary, Obama and Edwards. I don't think there is a way for the GOP to come back- no matter how good Thompson is tonight. That said, it's amazing how the GOP still "owns" middle America, which probably gives more troops to the war than the coastal "blue" states. Think the middle will get blue too?
By "the public" do you mean average, everyday, random Americans? Or do you mean elites, hollywood-types, and leftist special interest groups who can individually or collectively fund the maximum contributions that result in the most effective donations?
In the light of the fact that the latter contributors generally fund the more radical candidates, I take heart in the fact that the GOP still "owns" (if you insist on putting it that way) middle America. I'd rather have 2,000 Joe Schmoes from Iowa, Florida, Utah, or what have you give a dollar each to support their conservative candidates than have one Susan Sarandon giving $2000 to each of the left-wing's candidates. In the end, who is being more represented when the electorate chooses the president, no matter the outcome?
Besides, this is "just" the primaries. Comparing "contributions per candidate" is somewhat meaningless given one individual can give to multiple candidates as a way of hedging bets in the horse race. In the end, it matters who they actually vote for. 2,000 Joe Schmoes voting for a conservative is greater than 1 Susan Sarandon voting for a liberal according to my math figures.
Agree with Mike's original post in the sense that it seems the Dems are killing in fundraising this year. I don't think it's a middle America issue as W. had pretty amazing campaigns for his pres runs.
For the record Susan Sarandon gave $2,000 to Obama this year. You'd think she'd have contributed more this year given her high political profile.
http://www.politicalbase.com/money/search/&name=Susan+Sarandon
For some reason this election especially the Democrats seem to have the "name" candidates. Hillary has the built in recognition from Bill's days as Pres, Edwards run in 2004 has his name out as well. Barack has been trumpeted since he gave the democratic national convention speech before the 2004 election. Who do the Republicans have?
Usually you can count on the VP of the sitting president to be the leading candidate for their party in the next election, but Dick Cheney has NO CHANCE of getting the Republican nomination. There just is not a Republican out there that people are in a hurry to support. I do not think it is the Anti-War vote or the Hollywood-diva donations, I think it is simply a matter of there is not a Republican candidate that anyone can get excited about.
Yeah, the celeb factor is pretty funny. We actually had a really hard time finding celebs that contributed to GOP candidates. The vast majority of them contribute to either Obama or Hillary.
I'm looking forward to when we can plug in the governor info so we can see how many of them supported Arnold.
I agree that the Dems are going to benefit the most, fundraisingwise, from people voting their heart and wallets. I think it's a combination of anti-war sentiments, anti-Bush sentiments, and a general feeling that it's time for a change from 8 years of Repubs in office. As the old Roman saying goes, after a fat pope, you get a skinny pope.
Plain old people do NOT give to candidates, by and large. The internet-based contributions are changing that, and over time, we'll see more of a democratization of the giving process. Till then, I'd have to say the PIONEERS are giving, but those pioneers, I would surmise, have a significantly DIFFERENT profile than the people who will actually vote.
People are speaking with their wallets and their votes. I'm not sure why Rob seems to think that only Democratic candidates benefit from large contributors...
Any which way, individuals are giving more and more, and I think the shift will continue (thankfully) and the race is the Democrat's to lose.
Jesus says:
"Rob, by public, he does mean regular everyday Americans. In fact, the democrats have shown that thousands of everyday Americans donating small amounts is more effective than a few big oil and drug companies giving the maximum of $1000."
The max is actually $2300. Which can be given twice, once for the primaries, and once for the general elections. Often donors give $4600 all at once in an effort to pad contribution totals, which are thought to sway the general public as to the success of a candidacy.
rob says:
"By "the public" do you mean average, everyday, random Americans? Or do you mean elites, hollywood-types, and leftist special interest groups who can individually or collectively fund the maximum contributions that result in the most effective donations?"
Care to back that up with some facts? Numbers? Stats? I'd love to see which party receives more small donations and which party receives more corporate donations.
