We're in the money, we're in the money....

[Thomas Veil]

...we've got a lot of what it takes to get along! :D

GOP Worries Over Dems' Fundraising Prowess
By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted 4/5/07

What most concerns senior Republican strategists as they assess the latest reports on presidential fundraising is the big collective advantage enjoyed by the Democratic candidates versus the Republicans.

"It shows that the Democrats' enthusiasm at the grass roots is much more intense than ours," says a GOP insider who is a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan. "That's very worrisome."

The Democrats have raised nearly $80 million in the first quarter of this year, which ended on Saturday, compared with $51 million for the GOP hopefuls. Seen in terms of the front-runners, the picture isn't any better for the Republicans.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton reported collecting $26 million, Sen. Barack Obama $25 million, and John Edwards $14 million–for a grand total of $65 million for the Democratic leaders. By contrast, Mitt Romney raised $21 million, Rudy Giuliani $15 million, and John McCain $12.5 million–for a total of only $48.5 million. All this is seen as further evidence that many GOP voters aren't as happy with their choices in the presidential race as the Democrats are and also that President George W. Bush's unpopularity is hurting the party's image and its candidates' ability to raise funds.

On the Democratic side, Obama's near parity with Clinton on fundraising has activists buzzing. But even more impressive, according to political professionals of both parties, is that Obama reported more than 100,000 individual contributors, including 50,000 donors on the Internet who gave him $6.9 million.US News & World Report (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070405/5campaign.htm)

Of course, it's still absolutely appalling that that kind of money is being spent on campaigns, especially since 95% of these people won't be in the running 15 months from now.

Nevertheless, it's good (and rather amusing) to see the Dems greatly outpacing the Republicans. Never thought I'd see that in my lifetime...but then again I've seen a lot of things the last six years that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.

[princealfie]

Yeah but I don't trust either side when the corporations own both political parties. Amen. :mad:

[Lord Blackadder]

It's ridiculous that the estimated total campaign cost for the winning candidate in 2008 will be somewhere around $150 million (according to the 6 o'clock BBC news last night). Still, if it keeps another $500 billion from going to the Iraq war it doesn't sound quite as ludicrous...

[Swarmlord]

<snip>Of course, it's still absolutely appalling that that kind of money is being spent on campaigns, especially since 95% of these people won't be in the running 15 months from now.


Why? It goes to pay salaries of people working in the advertising, broadcasting and consulting services industries, Americans all.

[princealfie]

Why? It goes to pay salaries of people working in the advertising, broadcasting and consulting services industries, Americans all.

Hmm... sounds like the people in the 8th and 9th circles of Dante's inferno get paid a lot.

[IJ Reilly]

Why? It goes to pay salaries of people working in the advertising, broadcasting and consulting services industries, Americans all.

Because in the end, nothing is produced, so no economic benefit results.

[princealfie]

Because in the end, nothing is produced, so no economic benefit results.

Yeah advertising doesn't produce a visible product that I know of. And billboards don't count.

[obeygiant]

Because in the end, nothing is produced, so no economic benefit results.

Nothing tangible. But an image of a presidential candidate emerges.

[atszyman]

Nothing tangible. But an image of a presidential candidate emerges.

But wouldn't it be an even better image if you could force all the candidates to run their campaign on the same amount of money? How do they handle limited funds, can they be effective on a shoestring or are they only effective because they can throw money around like candy?

A good system that put candidates on equal financial footing would show us more about how well they can run an operation than the schmoozing free-for-all we have now where the most money can pull ahead regardless of competence.

[johnee]

Why? It goes to pay salaries of people working in the advertising, broadcasting and consulting services industries, Americans all.

With the monetary bar so high, you have to either sell your soul to corp america or have a serendipitous moment (like obama at the DNC) to be a player.

This is how we determine our president?

[zimv20]

With the monetary bar so high, you have to either sell your soul to corp america or have a serendipitous moment (like obama at the DNC) to be a player.

i'm not so sure. i'm finding obama's grassroots fundraising efforts (and let's give some props to howard dean here) refreshing. and i bet a decent sized chunk of it can also be attributed to the bush administration: everyday people are mad, and they've found their guy who they think can change the tone in washington.

from what i understand, it's ms clinton who's going after the big money contributors. i'm holding out hope this will be a different kind of race.

[princealfie]

Nothing tangible. But an image of a presidential candidate emerges.

Yeah, well I can do it a lot cheaper using Class III lasers to produce a hologram of a presidential candidate. No need to spend $150 million on that.

[IJ Reilly]

Nothing tangible. But an image of a presidential candidate emerges.

The point being, moving money from one pocket to another is not an economically productive activity. Spending $1 billion on a presidential campaign is a lot like paying farmers $1 billion to grow crops that will be plowed under. A lot of money changes hands, but nothing is produced.

[Swarmlord]

The point being, moving money from one pocket to another is not an economically productive activity. <snip>

Sounds like we're talking about the IRS and the millions involved in supporting the current tax code. If only the same thinking were used to move to the Fair Tax and eliminate these nonproductive jobs.

[IJ Reilly]

Sounds like we're talking about the IRS and the millions involved in supporting the current tax code. If only the same thinking were used to move to the Fair Tax and eliminate these nonproductive jobs.

Not really (and the "fair tax," isn't). What I'm describing is sort of a variation on the classic "guns and butter" model. No matter how much we spend on a presidential campaign, the product is still the same: one president. It can't be argued that spending more and more to produce the same one president is an economically productive activity. Some people make money, sure. Even in the scenario where billions are spent to pay farmers to grow crops that nobody will ever eat, some people make money. The bottom line is that, in the end, nothing is produced, consequently little or no economic growth results.

[Thomas Veil]

No, nothing is produced. The constantly rising amounts of money are nothing more than an arms race by both sides.

[it5five]

i'm not so sure. i'm finding obama's grassroots fundraising efforts (and let's give some props to howard dean here) refreshing. and i bet a decent sized chunk of it can also be attributed to the bush administration: everyday people are mad, and they've found their guy who they think can change the tone in washington.

from what i understand, it's ms clinton who's going after the big money contributors. i'm holding out hope this will be a different kind of race.

I had heard on NPR (and I don't have the exact figure) that Obama had twice as many donors as Clinton. Most of Hillary's money comes from big donors, most of Obamas from small online donations.

[MongoTheGeek]

Not really (and the "fair tax," isn't). What I'm describing is sort of a variation on the classic "guns and butter" model. No matter how much we spend on a presidential campaign, the product is still the same: one president. It can't be argued that spending more and more to produce the same one president is an economically productive activity. Some people make money, sure. Even in the scenario where billions are spent to pay farmers to grow crops that nobody will ever eat, some people make money. The bottom line is that, in the end, nothing is produced, consequently little or no economic growth results.

What is produced is Television shows. The $150 million dollars pays for such things as Lost or Battlestar Galactica.

[Thomas Veil]

Omigod.... :rolleyes:

[Ugg]

Why? It goes to pay salaries of people working in the advertising, broadcasting and consulting services industries, Americans all.

And in order for the corporations to donate, they need to increase their prices even more and gouge the American consumer.

What's needed is a reversal of corporate personhood.

[IJ Reilly]

What is produced is Television shows. The $150 million dollars pays for such things as Lost or Battlestar Galactica.

Omigod.... :rolleyes:

I second that emotion.

[solvs]

Yeah but I don't trust either side when the corporations own both political parties. Amen. :mad:
It's not so much that we like the Dems. We just really, really, really hate the neocons. Really. Like, a lot. Can you blame us? Took the liberals decades to get all fat and lazy and corrupt, and they still didn't come anywhere close to as bad as the other side has been the last few years. New lows not seen since Nixon. Nixon!

Best exchange during the '06 elections while I was getting my oil changed after voting:

Mechanic: Did you vote?
Customer: Oh yeah.
Mechanic: Who for?
Customer: Dems, all the way.
Mechanic: I didn't know you were a Democrat.
Customer: I'm not.

[Lord Blackadder]

Because in the end, nothing is produced, so no economic benefit results.

That sounds like the response I get when I write grant proposals to fund archaeological work. :rolleyes: ;)

It's not so much that we like the Dems. We just really, really, really hate the neocons. Really. Like, a lot. Can you blame us? Took the liberals decades to get all fat and lazy and corrupt, and they still didn't come anywhere close to as bad as the other side has been the last few years. New lows not seen since Nixon. Nixon!

I don't like the Democrats much, but they are the lesser of two evils at the moment. I was just reading about Newt Gingrich's academic background yesterday - what a complete and utter tool. He turned out to be a very sloppy historian, but since history scholars didn't buy his BS, he ran for Congress instead and foisted his revisionism on the nation.

[obeygiant]

If money is all it takes then Bill Gates or George Soros or Saudi Princes should have no problem putting someone in office.

[MongoTheGeek]

If money is all it takes then Bill Gates or George Soros or Saudi Princes should have no problem putting someone in office.

For anyone who only thinks it takes money I have two words. Ross Perot.

Then again he did manage to get Bush 41 out of office, (His goal)

[princealfie]

If money is all it takes then Bill Gates or George Soros or Saudi Princes should have no problem putting someone in office.

OMG. Bill Gates for Prez... wonder whether VIsta will take over. :eek:

[Lord Blackadder]

For anyone who only thinks it takes money I have two words. Ross Perot.

I think money had something to do with getting him as far as he got though.

This thread title has me humming that damned song now...

OMG. Bill Gates for Prez... wonder whether VIsta will take over.

He'd make sure that Iran suffered innumerable Blue Screens of Death until they capitulated, or foce them to upgrade until they went bankrupt. Treaties would be negotiated by Tech Support. Ballmer would be Vice President, and we'd actually get nostalgic about Cheney...

[atszyman]

If money is all it takes then Bill Gates or George Soros or Saudi Princes should have no problem putting someone in office.

Aren't there all kinds of fun finance and donation rules to keep people and corporations from effectively "buying" a candidate? Wouldn't it violate almost every one if Gates were to take $1 billion and donate it all to one candidate?

Now if Gates were to run himself that might be a different story.

Money is not all it takes but it definitely helps. Especially if you have money and a party behind you. Perot didn't have party backing but it was amazing what he managed to pull off without it, and the reason he could was $$$$.

I'd love to see how all the candidates would do on a limited budget. Let them all have $10,000,000 and see how they do. I'd have a lot more confidence in the system if we managed to elect someone who ran the best campaign on the same limited budget that everyone else had at least it would show some ability to manage limited resources effectively.

[IJ Reilly]

For anyone who only thinks it takes money I have two words. Ross Perot.

True. Money is no guarantee of success in politics, but a lack of it is a pretty certain guarantee of failure.

It also helps not to be too obviously out of your flipping gourd.

[Thomas Veil]

Aren't there all kinds of fun finance and donation rules to keep people and corporations from effectively "buying" a candidate?There are ways around it. Clever CEOs quickly figured that though they couldn't donate huge amounts to campaigns, they could bundle smaller amounts from all their like-minded friends and company executives, and deliver those large amounts.

I do agree that it would be interesting (and quite informative) to give every candidate the exact same amount and see how they do.

OMG. Bill Gates for Prez... wonder whether VIsta will take over. :eek:I'm all for separation of state and operating system.

[princealfie]

There are ways around it. Clever CEOs quickly figured that though they couldn't donate huge amounts to campaigns, they could bundle smaller amounts from all their like-minded friends and company executives, and deliver those large amounts.

I do agree that it would be interesting (and quite informative) to give every candidate the exact same amount and see how they do.

I'm all for separation of state and operating system.

Yeah most state govts won't touch Vista with a 10 mile pole.

[atszyman]

There are ways around it. Clever CEOs quickly figured that though they couldn't donate huge amounts to campaigns, they could bundle smaller amounts from all their like-minded friends and company executives, and deliver those large amounts.

I do agree that it would be interesting (and quite informative) to give every candidate the exact same amount and see how they do.

I'm all for separation of state and operating system.

I figured that collectively a bunch of people could max out their donations and effectively "buy" a candidate but the sums involved (I believe) would require so many people that coming to a consensus on a particular issue might prove difficult. Could you imagine what it would be like if Soros could put $1 billion behind a Dem and have a similar situation with the Republicans? You think spending and campaigns are out of hand now? We'd have them building lasers to carve their names on the moon.