DNC midyear fundraising up 50% over 2003.....RNC only up 2%.

[madfloridian]

Now which one shows more confidence in their party and their leader? Hmm....m..hard to say. :evilgrin: This is the Democratic party that lost the House, the Senate, and the White House. I think this is amazing. Go Howard.

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/nation/12190793.htm

Parties report fundraising

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Democrats raised $86.3 million in the first half of this year, beating their total for the same period in 2003 by more than 50 percent. Republican fundraising was about even when comparing the same six-month periods with the last nonelection year.

Overall, the GOP still held a sizable edge in fundraising.

The party took in $142.7 million from January to June of this year, according to Federal Election Commission figures released Thursday.

That total was 2 percent more than the party raised in the first half of 2003.

"DNC spokesman Josh Earnest said his party's increased fundraising represented an endorsement of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the new chairman."

[whistle]

1. Two percent of a hundred million dollars is still a lot of money.....

....$102,000,000.00 in fact!

[NorCalDem]

3. All we have to do is raise 10% of one million

which by our calculations is... fucking impossible man :D

Name the movie, anyone, anyone, Bueller?

[madfloridian]

4. That is the party that won everything. I think 50% up is good for us .

I really mean that. We did not win a damn thing last year, so it shows there is still enthusiasm.

[Larkspur]

6. 50% increase in a non-national election year is SUPERB for us

Considering that we are the minority party in Washington and there are only a couple of national elections going on this year, this is terrific news.

The RNC's 2% increase shows they are starting to stall.

What will be interesting will be the 2nd half of the year. The DNC's funds are from small donors who can keep on giving and the RNC's are from large donors who have already maxed out their annual contributions. The number of donors and the average amount given would be interesting stats to have at this point.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. This is very good news and a good sign

It shows that people are believing in the party and getting tired of the republicans. If people believed more in the republicans they would be getting more money but they aren't. This can go towards canidates who need help and whatnot. I think it's great, especially in a non-election year like others have pointed out.

[whistle]

8. But 50% of what number....how much had DNC raised by mid-year

....2003? Didn't Bush have over $100 million in the war chest by then? Democrats wree scattered like buckshot with what 11 candidates at that point? They had much less as a party, and even if all of the candidates had consolidated their contributions they were far short of what BushCo was raising. Does anyone have actual dollar numbers to compare?

[Larkspur]

12. I think it was $23,7 million in 2003

Bush's 2003 money does not count towards the RNC's contributions, just as those contributions that Kerry and the other 2004 Dem Prez candidates received did not count towards the DNC.

Remember, a donor can donate the max $ to the DNC/RNC and the max to each individual candidate he/she wants because the DNC/RNC money is seperate from the candidate's funds.

[whistle]

27. So the thread topic is about what each party has raised and...

....not what the candidates raise? Then what did the Democratic candidates all do with the money they got? Did their war chests got to backing John Kerry? As for the republican party, it was always about Bush running, so every dollar contributed whether to RNC or Bush CREEP was really to get Bush elected.

[Larkspur]

30. Dean used his campaign money to pay off his campaign debts and so

did the others, though some are probably still in debt.

Candidates can keep the remainder of the campaign contributions or dispense them at their will. They do not have to give any to the DNC.

The DNC under Dean is not just a subordinate campaign chest to the Dem Prez nominee. The DNC contributions are to support the Democratic Party infrastructure throughout the nation. Dean is specifically using those funds to hire aides for every state. Those aides will be chosen by the states but paid by the DNC. That is part of Dean's rebuilding the Dem Party from the grassroots strategy.

The DNC is there to help all state Dem Parties elect Democrats from the local to the national level.

[madfloridian]

13. Search at the FEC or do the math on it. I don't know.

I will take the word of the reporter for now, since I heard it might be that much more.

Why do you want to compare us to the RNC? We were the big losers, they were the winners. For us to be up 50% is amazing.

If Democrats were not organized, they should have been, don't you think? With the "most important election of our lifetime" coming up in the next year?

Give Dean credit for the enthusiasm. You don't have to like him, just give credit where due.

[madfloridian]

5. Oh, and their % should have gone sky high showing confidence.

Maybe they don't have any confidence now?

[madfloridian]

19. Don't get the point, but my calculations...

show 2,000,000. Not that it matters.

[Larkspur]

2. Great News!!! Way to go Howard!!!!!

I feel more confident about Dems returning to power. I think we have a better chance at retaking the Senate than the House, but I'd love for Dems to make significant advances in the House and in governorships.

Arnie is going down. Hope Phil Angiledes wins in CA.

[bemildred]

7. DLC? Helloooooo? DLC?

Do we get an attaboy for Howard out of the DLC?

[Larkspur]

10. No, because Dean didn't attract corporate donors

They are the only ones who count per DLC. If the Dem Party is beholden to small donors who expect Dem candidates to advocate core Democratic principles, then that is considered a big failure by the DLC.

[Larkspur]

9. Madfloridian, send this to Ed Shultz so he can eat crow.

[madfloridian]

11. Big Eddie never eats crow, and he never apologizes.

His staff told me. Two of them. They got research and info from us, and I heard back that he just never apologizes.

Big Eddie is a tough guy. Oh, well, at least I heard back from them.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. He's tough?

I don't think so. Sounds like a jerk to me who likes to hog things. Doesn't give credit to where credit is due.

[dolstein]

14. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics

The fact that the Democratic Party raised more money than it did during the first have ot 2003 could mean that the Democratic Party is having a good year, or it could mean that 2003 was a particularly bad year. Or it could mean nothing.

The only thing I care about is whether the Democratic Party is raising the money it needs to compete effectively against the GOP. Comparing current totals against fund raising totals from 2003 doesn't tell you anything about that.

It's true that the GOP has traditionally raised more money that the Democratic Party. But in the past, the Democrats could rely on unions and on the power of incumbency. We don't have that luxury anymore. I would hope that the Democratic Party has some kind of plan that would ultimately allow us to achieve financial parity with the GOP.

[madfloridian]

15. Why do we need financial parity with them?

And I do care how the party gets its money. Now the corporate money is betting on the GOP, you know. So the plan is for the people to donate. I think for a time when we are weary and battered and discouraged, we did pretty darn good.

The only reason I care about the percentage is the snide remarks from some radio hosts and some elements of the party about how poorly he was doing.

I think for bringing together a pack of beaten down heartbroken Democrats, he deserves kudos.

[dolstein]

17. For the reasons I said in my post

In the past, the GOP's traditional fundraising edge didn't matter, because the Democrats had the advantage of incumbency (which meant that the individual candidates tended to be able to raise more money than their challengers) and because the Democrats got a lot of organizational support from unions (who ran large phone bank operations and could also turn out members to go door to door). Now the Republicans have the advantage of incumbency, which means that on average, the individual Republican candidates are likely to be much better funded than their Democratic challengers. In addition, the unions aren't as strong as they used to be, and many in the union movement want to shift their resources away from political expenditures and towards union organizing.

Like it or not, you can't win elections on ideas alone. You can have a terrific candidate and great ideas. But if they don't have the money needed for advertising and a first class GOTV operation, it won't matter.

[madfloridian]

18. Well, is being up 50% good enough for the first 6 months?

And can we do it his way a little longer? I don't know what else there is for a loser party to do, do you? We don't have any influence to peddle to the corporations, you know. For some reason, we lost the House, the Senate, and the White House.

Dean is getting to know the corporate donors, and is working to gain their trust.

Now, do you have other ideas for now?

[dolstein]

22. All I'm saying is that how the Dems are doing compared to 2003

matters a lot less than how they are doing compared to the Republcians. After all, the Democrats aren't running against their earlier selves, they're running against Republicans. A $50 million plus funding gap is pretty significant. Perhaps the DNC is confident that they can close the gap, or that they'll be able to get a lot more bang for the buck than the GOP will. But comparing current figures to 2003 is just spin, it tells you nothing about how well the Democratic Party is meeting its current funding needs. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not saying the Dems shouldn't try to put as favorable spin on this as possible -- that's showbiz. But Democrats need to be careful about believing their own spin.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Well duh

Of course the democrats won't be doing quite as good as the republicans. We didn't win the government last year due to Bush and his thugs stealing it from us. Duh! Corporations go where they can make money and right now that is through the republican party. :eyes:

[madfloridian]

25. We can't get money like the Republicans can now...we lost big time.

You are talking about apples, and I am talking about oranges.

It would be very nice to get as much money as they, though it looks like they are slowing down a little in their pace.

However, we do not have anything to offer anyone but the people, and we all have to give to them is hope for the future.

You can talk big about it, but we had the big money last year....and we lost. We lost with the big money.

We do not have anything much to offer right now but hope for the grassroots and some change for the future.

Where do you suggest we get the big money? Howard Dean has said he is getting to know the big donors. They don't trust him, and they don't want the funding to be growing from small donors....so they are going to be hard to pull in.

How do you compete with a party that owns the White House, the Senate, and the House? And they won it with less money than we had, by a little, if I remember correctly?

Damned if I know. Why aren't you asking why we lost instead of griping about a good % raise in fundraising.

[Larkspur]

33. If the Big Donors don't want the Dem Party supported mainly by small

donors, then to hell with them. They are "Benedict Arnold" Dems, if they are Dems at all.

[Larkspur]

31. For those who wanted to know the DLC response to Dean's success, just read

dolstein's posts. That's your standard DLC mentality doing it's best whining in the hopes of downgrading Dean's success.

Dean is beating expectations at fundraising and the DLC hate it. And I love it when the DLC groans at Deans success. It's music to my ears.

[WI_DEM]

16. Excellent

Thanks for the great news, MadFloridian.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. Nice

Go Howard!!! And it's all from the people too!!!! Didn't we beat the republicans last year in fundraising? I thought McAullife said for the first time we beat them. :shrug:

[ihelpu2see]

26. But notice that the corp. media reports that the RNC out raised the Dems.

by 50%...

[madfloridian]

29. Here's a decent headline, though.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/21/national/a181201D97.DTL

Democratic Fundraising Up Sharply From '04

Not a bad headline at all.

[Coexist]

28. Give 'em Hell, Howard!

I wonder if the republicans stopped dissing him because they knew we were filling Howard's coffers every time they did!

[Larkspur]

32. The DLC stopped dissing Dean for the same reason

But Dean's momentum is real, not like DLC clown's Joe Momentum Lieber-bush.