Full Version: Demo Fundraising Beats Repubs
This is of interest:
Kerry's Fundraising Beats Bush's Pace
As many of you know, I've been following this phenomenon since Dean invented it. (Mr. Gore, please sit down. Thank you
) Back then I had a distinct sense that Dean's use of meetups and the Internet for fundraising and gaining the grassroots support of liberal America would change politics as we know them (or it?).
So what's going on here? Question for debate:
Is the success of the Demos with fundraising this election season an indicator of a major political shift in the United States?
Kerry's Fundraising Beats Bush's Pace
As many of you know, I've been following this phenomenon since Dean invented it. (Mr. Gore, please sit down. Thank you
) Back then I had a distinct sense that Dean's use of meetups and the Internet for fundraising and gaining the grassroots support of liberal America would change politics as we know them (or it?).So what's going on here? Question for debate:
Is the success of the Demos with fundraising this election season an indicator of a major political shift in the United States?
Is the success of the Demos with fundraising this election season an indicator of a major political shift in the United States?
Nope. It's more of an indicator of three things:
(1) The Bush Money Team has slowed down their efforts after clearing the $200 million mark. From the article:
And part of the recent slow-down was some backlash that after spending nearly $130 million on ads, the polling numbers for Bush haven't gone the way that investors/contributors have desired.
(2) If you matched the entire Democrat field vs. Bush, the field was doing remarkably well. It was just divided amongst numerous candidates. Now, it's not so divided.
(3) The past two election cycles, Democrats have not been so energized to contribute. Now they are. And so are Republicans, it seems. So more money is flowing into this campaign than ever before.
Kerry is just starting to catch up to Bush's pace, but once we get to the conventions, that war chest won't matter, since both candidates have said they will take public funds instead.
Nope. It's more of an indicator of three things:
(1) The Bush Money Team has slowed down their efforts after clearing the $200 million mark. From the article:
QUOTE
Throughout the campaign, however, Bush has outraised Kerry by an estimated $214 million to $145 million, according to FEC records and data released by the Kerry campaign.
And part of the recent slow-down was some backlash that after spending nearly $130 million on ads, the polling numbers for Bush haven't gone the way that investors/contributors have desired.
(2) If you matched the entire Democrat field vs. Bush, the field was doing remarkably well. It was just divided amongst numerous candidates. Now, it's not so divided.
(3) The past two election cycles, Democrats have not been so energized to contribute. Now they are. And so are Republicans, it seems. So more money is flowing into this campaign than ever before.
Kerry is just starting to catch up to Bush's pace, but once we get to the conventions, that war chest won't matter, since both candidates have said they will take public funds instead.
A quote from the article:
The "axiom" is wrong.
There are trends, of course. Internet contributions are up, which is predictable. The Republicans have a more solid network of mass mailings, however, making their reliance on the internet less pressing.
The article also glosses over the fact that Bush is sitting on a huge "war chest" of previous campaign contributions, which he has not started to seriously tap.
As far as contributors go, though, I wanted to point out that the party which receives large private citizen donations is the Democrats, not the Republicans. The Republicans are far stronger when it comes to smaller contributors.
BIG-TIME DONORS SMALL IN NUMBER
The Democrats are trailing in the small to medium donor demographic, which is counter to the prevailing logic that I think most people have.
QUOTE
Kerry's success has turned on its head what had been an almost universally accepted political axiom: that a Democratic presidential candidate cannot compete with a Republican in the race for cash.
The "axiom" is wrong.
There are trends, of course. Internet contributions are up, which is predictable. The Republicans have a more solid network of mass mailings, however, making their reliance on the internet less pressing.
The article also glosses over the fact that Bush is sitting on a huge "war chest" of previous campaign contributions, which he has not started to seriously tap.
As far as contributors go, though, I wanted to point out that the party which receives large private citizen donations is the Democrats, not the Republicans. The Republicans are far stronger when it comes to smaller contributors.
BIG-TIME DONORS SMALL IN NUMBER
QUOTE
The study also found that Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle, but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers.
Republican candidates and parties topped their Democratic counterparts, $68 million to $44 million, in fundraising from individuals who contributed under $1,000 in itemized contributions for the 2002 elections. Among donors giving $1,000 or more, Republicans again beat out Democrats, $317 million to $307 million.
But the trend was reversed among individuals at higher giving levels, from whom Democrats raised far more money than Republicans. Among donors of $10,000 or more, Democrats out-raised Republicans, $140 million to $111 million. Among donors of $100,000 or more, Democrats raised $72 million to the Republicans' $34 million. And among the most generous givers - those contributing $1 million or more - Democrats far outdistanced Republicans, $36 million to just over $3 million.
Contributions from ideological donors - individuals who contributed exclusively to one party or the other - favored Republicans, but more so in the number of donors than in the amount they gave. Some 277,380 individuals gave exclusively to Republican candidates, party committees and leadership PACs, 42 percent more than the 195,715 who gave exclusively to Democrats. But the GOP's ideological donors contributed $322 million to the party's candidates, party committees and leadership PACs, as compared to the Democrats' $290 million, an 11 percent advantage.
Republican candidates and parties topped their Democratic counterparts, $68 million to $44 million, in fundraising from individuals who contributed under $1,000 in itemized contributions for the 2002 elections. Among donors giving $1,000 or more, Republicans again beat out Democrats, $317 million to $307 million.
But the trend was reversed among individuals at higher giving levels, from whom Democrats raised far more money than Republicans. Among donors of $10,000 or more, Democrats out-raised Republicans, $140 million to $111 million. Among donors of $100,000 or more, Democrats raised $72 million to the Republicans' $34 million. And among the most generous givers - those contributing $1 million or more - Democrats far outdistanced Republicans, $36 million to just over $3 million.
Contributions from ideological donors - individuals who contributed exclusively to one party or the other - favored Republicans, but more so in the number of donors than in the amount they gave. Some 277,380 individuals gave exclusively to Republican candidates, party committees and leadership PACs, 42 percent more than the 195,715 who gave exclusively to Democrats. But the GOP's ideological donors contributed $322 million to the party's candidates, party committees and leadership PACs, as compared to the Democrats' $290 million, an 11 percent advantage.
The Democrats are trailing in the small to medium donor demographic, which is counter to the prevailing logic that I think most people have.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 17 2004, 11:21 AM)
The Democrats are trailing in the small to medium donor demographic, which is counter to the prevailing logic that I think most people have.
This conclusion is not quite right. You took statistics from 2002 and are extrapolating it to present tense. In 2002, as witnessed by who got elected and who did not, many Democrat-leaners didn't participate as fully as they are this cycle. The D-base was rightly demoralized in 2002 over how out of step they were feeling; now it's not quite that way, so they're more active in trying to get back into the fight. I would expect the numbers to change for the Democrats... and I'd credit Gov. Dean with much of that change, both in fundraising tactics and in fighting spirit.
Now if Kerry can only stop throwing wet blankets on it with his own speech delivery....
amf, look again:
So Kerry is not "just starting to catch up to Bush's pace," he has "broken all presidential campaign records, including those set by President Bush."
He could not have done this without a newly energized liberal America putting many small contributions together. Think this does indicate a sustainable trend because people like the meetups and Internet donation system. The meetups are positive social events, and we all need more of that. The donation system allows the small contributor to easily add a few bucks now and then to the cause, as the finances allow.
The silenced grassroots liberal now has a voice.
QUOTE
Since locking up the Democratic nomination on March 2, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has raised more than $100 million, or over $1 million a day -- a pace breaking all presidential campaign records, including those set by President Bush.
So Kerry is not "just starting to catch up to Bush's pace," he has "broken all presidential campaign records, including those set by President Bush."
He could not have done this without a newly energized liberal America putting many small contributions together. Think this does indicate a sustainable trend because people like the meetups and Internet donation system. The meetups are positive social events, and we all need more of that. The donation system allows the small contributor to easily add a few bucks now and then to the cause, as the finances allow.
The silenced grassroots liberal now has a voice.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 17 2004, 11:28 AM)
amf, look again:
So Kerry is not "just starting to catch up to Bush's pace," he has "broken all presidential campaign records, including those set by President Bush."
QUOTE
Since locking up the Democratic nomination on March 2, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has raised more than $100 million, or over $1 million a day -- a pace breaking all presidential campaign records, including those set by President Bush.
So Kerry is not "just starting to catch up to Bush's pace," he has "broken all presidential campaign records, including those set by President Bush."
I agree with what you're saying about the base (see my post above), but I also think that a short burst of $100 million in 3 months still not catching up to the $215 million that Bush has raised. And I pointed out why Bush's pace may be intentionally slowing (people can only give so much and many already clearly have given to Bush). Kerry still has a way to go before he catches up, but then again, he won't need to after he accepts the nomination at the Convention, because he'll be locked into a predefined spending amount of $75 million by accepting public funds.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 17 2004, 08:28 AM)
He could not have done this without a newly energized liberal America putting many small contributions together. Think this does indicate a sustainable trend because people like the meetups and Internet donation system.
The internet donation system is key here, mostly because people that have never before donated to a politician are doing so because it is easy to do so. This is especially true of those in the 18 to 30 demographic otherwise known as the internet generation.
It is far less hassel to go onto a website and donate $20 via paypal than to request a contribution form and mail it in.
The Democrats (and especially Dean during the primaries) also paid attention to a demographic virtually ignored in the past by both parties, the 18 to 24 age group, which will pay off in November if they come out to the polls.
amf, we're talking two different numbers: You're going with totals while the article is going with rates. Nobody is saying that the Repub total money isn't more than the Demo. However, the significant rate at which Kerry's campaign attracted money is, well, significant. This has never happened before, not for either party and not for third parties.
A million bucks in donations per day over 100 days. Yup, a short three-month burst, eh?
Heh, I think the people are speaking!
Meanwhile, the GOP ad blitz against Kerry over the same time fell flat. Kerry made money while the GOP lost money. How ironic is that?
And how significant? Did the US's polarity change? Is it just GOP flubbing or something else, something more positive for the whole nation?
I think very positive, and it not only includes the disenfranchised, it crosses age/race/sex/status demographics rather easily.
A million bucks in donations per day over 100 days. Yup, a short three-month burst, eh?
Heh, I think the people are speaking!
Meanwhile, the GOP ad blitz against Kerry over the same time fell flat. Kerry made money while the GOP lost money. How ironic is that?
And how significant? Did the US's polarity change? Is it just GOP flubbing or something else, something more positive for the whole nation?
I think very positive, and it not only includes the disenfranchised, it crosses age/race/sex/status demographics rather easily.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.