NRSC fundraising dries up

[coloradodem2005]

At the end of May, just after the filibuster deal, the DSCC reported 7.37M cash on hand. Also at the end of June, the NRSC reported 5.06M cash on hand. That was a 45% advantage for Democrats. However, in just one month, that advantage has ballooned to roughly 100% <...>

The real reason, however, that Democrats were able to destroy Republicans over the past month of Senate fundraising is that the Republican base hates the job the Republican Senate is doing. In particular, they felt completely betrayed and let down by the filibuster deal at the end of May. It shows in what was a very weak June for Republicans in Senate fundraising. Keep in mind that this is the only committee where Democrats even have 30% of what Republicans have in terms of cash on hand, and not only are they not getting beaten, they are doubling Republicans up. Further, most of that lead was built after the still recent filibuster deal. Can any other conclusion be drawn except that the deal seriously damaged the relationship between the Republican leadership and its base?

A lot of people here and elsewhere on the netroots have vehemently argued that the deal was a defeat. The basic reasoning for those who hold this belief is that three of the worst judges ended up being confirmed, we won't be able to use the filibuster in the future anyway (although Bolton tells a very different story), and instead Democrats should have taken a principled stand against all ten judges. They theory here is that even though doing so would have resulted in the elimination of the filibuster and the confirmation of all ten judges, Democrats would have scored significant political points by doing this, and came out looking like a party that stood for something. What this position ignores is that is would have also fired up the Republican base, and no one was really paying attention to the filibuster war anyway, so it wouldn't have improved the national Democratic image at all.

<snip>

http://www.dailykos.com/

[Bouncy Ball]

1. Wow, great news!

We need to take advantage of this, big-time.

[aquart]

2. Lovely.

[Straight Shooter]

3. I'll drink to that

:toast:

[shraby]

4. I would add the insistence of the

Republicans to try to sell the Social Security plan hurt them.

[OneBlueSky]

5. I'm not sure that I agree with his last line at all . . .

"What this position ignores is that is would have also fired up the Republican base, and no one was really paying attention to the filibuster war anyway, so it wouldn't have improved the national Democratic image at all." . . .

and I wouldn't get too excited about a low Republican war chest . . . any time they need money, their corporate sponsors will most certainly find ways to get it to them . . .

[cornermouse]

6. Short term advantage was cash.

Long term loss were the horrible judges. Overall, we lost.