Does it mean that the Dem Candidate with MOST MONEY automatically WINS in '08?

[KoKo]

The Media keeps focusing on Money$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s...and the "HORCE RACE" "Team Race".......$$$$$$$$$$$$'s...but do folks here think that the MOST $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s automatically WINS in '08?

And...since many of us have been telling Dem Senate and House Congressional Committee Fundraisers to "Go Fly a Kite" until you "HOLD BUSH/CHENEY/GONZO ACCOUNTABLE!" ...then I wonder WHERE IS ALL THAT MONEY COMING FROM? :shrug: How much is little $$'s and HOW MUCH is BIG $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s?

:-(

[Double T]

1. Hope NOT. Don't need the MOST FILTHY RICH corporatist continuing to run the same show in d.c.

[Bluzmann57]

2. We really need to get away from the money chase

There are some candidates who have good ideas who are forced to quit because of money woes. Campaign reform should be an issue.

[pwb]

3. Maybe the same place Joe Liebermans money came from?

Republican neocons using money to influence the perception of candidates.

[ripple]

24. You are implying something pretty sinister

Do you have any evidence to support your suspicions?

Obama doesn't take PAC money and another DU-er just made the point that his corporate donations were only about 11% of the total sum he has collected so far.

As one of Obama's many small, but enthusiastic donors, I find it insulting for anyone to imply that we are somehow part of a republican agenda. If you have facts, I'd be happy to look at them, but otherwise, your speculation seems pretty agenda-driven.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. the money is a snapshot like the polls. chill. take a deep breath.

[iamjoy]

10. Right On, Illinois Progressive

At least, this early in the game. The money is one indication of popularity - at least for the time being.

Of course, as time goes on, we start seeing other influences in the money race separate from a candidate's popularity.

Money is one factor, though, but at least for now, I think you hit the nail on the head.

[TwilightGardener]

5. What happens if/when Bloomberg runs then? He could outspend

the D's AND the R's combined. But he's not considered likely to win...so, no--money isn't everything.

[liberal N proud]

6. Not if the system still works

As long as there is no tampering with the primary process, who ever gets the most votes is supposed to win.

[PATRICK]

7. What the money buys

It is naive to think it is just campaign checks and media ads. Filthy money buys filthy politics, mouths and tools, the underpinnings of raw power not common persuasion of the ever more insignificant and disenfranchised, disinformed American public. Money buys corruption as an engineer of its own self-fulfilling circle of influence.

The rich campaign will usually win out. that is the math of endgame experience, but a significant part of that money must still be- for now- part of the still influential, actual voting public. In the past the voters have not minded so long as they had the final say and recognition, but that could shrink drastically with one more fraudulent RW fascist theft. Today, a rich person who could finance his own campaign totally would blanche without corporate support, would withdraw when abandoned by the little donations.

As bad as they are, things can change very much for the worst. Genuine candidates for genuine public service can only want foremost total campaign reform. Insofar they don't, we can't expect much except horror.

[Cant trust em]

8. Looking more and more that way

I read this article about what each candidate is doing to court the business and financial leaders of the country. Essentially, who can suck up the most to big business and sell out to them.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm

[jillan]

16. It's pretty sickening, isn't it?

Businesses investing in our candidates? This is how the corporations get what they want in DC.

We NEED public financing of campaigns.

[BobRossi]

9. No..

It means the candidate with the most media appeal wins.

[maximusveritas]

11. No one is saying that.

I hear supporters of the candidates not raising much money asking this question a bunch, but I've never heard anyone else suggest it.
As far as how much is little $ vs big $, Obama has been getting the most small donors, while Hillary has been getting the most big donors.

[Catchawave]

12. Dean corrected the myth about money....

If it were true, he'd be giving interviews from the Oval Office now :rofl:

[KoKo]

13. True...yet the M$Media seems to Focus on HOW MUCH is being raised...

Every day...24/7 it seems to ALL BE about the MONEY. :shrug:

[Progressive Friend]

14. I'm voting for Kucinich, but...

I think the 2008 ticket will be: Hillary for President, Obama for VP.

[KoKo]

15. then...would you say...you think the Big Dem Money will win....?

Even though you would vote for Kucinich you think the Power Money will decide?

I worked and donated to John Kerry because I had to last time...but I also donated to Kucinich and went to hear him speak. I had to do the Anybody but Bush in 04...but I feel free to support the Dem Candidate I want to THIS TIME...even if I have to write their name in on the ballot. :shrug: I think it's gotten to "Principles" over money and inclusive Big Tent...for many DU'ers who have been here toooolong...and seen tooooomuch.

[Progressive Friend]

21. Yeah I think it is decided by money for the most part

Unless we have some massive crisis that effects people personally, like a 1929 style economic collapse. Then Kucinich could win the primary with very little money.

[emilyg]

18. From your mouth to God's ears please.

I would be very happy.

[Progressive Friend]

22. Well I really think that it will happen

Just look how much money Obama has raised. He only needs to come in, say second place in the popular vote and all that money will basically buy him the VP slot. I wonder who actually is giving him so much.

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

17. I think it's a combo

If a Candidate has a very large warchest it's going to get attention. But if a candidate has a very large warchest with a few donors while another candidate also has a very large warchest but with more donors. The candidate with more donors will get more attention.

[AndyTiedye]

19. Only Applies to the Primary

In the general election, the Repiglickins effectively have a bottomless war chest
with unlimited 527 contributions and every network stumping for them.

[madrchsod]

20. yes

[jenmito]

23. It's the number of donors...

If that equates to the most money, so be it. If someone has fewer donors but more money from large donations then it's not right that the one with the most money should win.

[Alexander]

25. No. None of the current candidates will win the nomination, in either party.

Money doesn't mean nearly as much as votes do.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. Dean nets $15 million in fourth quarter, trouncing rivals in fund-raising

How about a trip down memory lane?

Dean nets $15 million in fourth quarter

==BURLINGTON, Vermont (CNN) -- Democratic presidential hopeful and front-runner Howard Dean raised more than $15 million in the fourth quarter of 2003, his campaign has announced, breaking his previous quarter's total of $14.8 million.

That puts the Dean campaign's total fund raising for 2003 at more than $40 million, as the former governor of Vermont continues his grassroots push, hoping to win the party's nomination for its presidential candidate. (Dean holds nationwide house parties) ==

==Last week, the Wesley Clark campaign told CNN it expected to raise $10 million in the quarter.

Sen. John Edwards anticipated raising $5 million.==

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/elec04.prez.dean.fundraising/index.html

Kerry fund-raising to see worst quarter
Aides blame candidate, competition for donors

==By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff | December 31, 2003

HUMBOLDT, Iowa -- After a powerful fund-raising start this year that conferred fleeting front-runner status on his candidacy, Senator John F. Kerry is due to end 2003 with his worst three months of fund-raising, and the blame inside his campaign is falling on both the candidate and the competition for money among the nine Democratic presidential contenders, according to Kerry fund-raisers and campaign aides.==

==One of the two top fund-raisers, a longtime Kerry ally, compared the senator to Edmund S. Muskie -- the former Maine senator who lost the 1972 Democratic nomination despite high expectations -- in noting that Kerry's campaign raised $7 million during the first three months of 2003, yet is expected to net only $2 million to $3 million in the final quarter.

"I'm dying out there," said this Kerry fund-raiser, a veteran Democratic moneyman who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "There was so much excitement about John Kerry early on, and now there's none."

Other fund-raisers say the mood among donors is better than that, and point to the crowded Democratic field as the main reason for Kerry's fall in fund-raising behind Dean. The former Vermont governor is expected to raise more than $14 million in the fourth quarter, his advisers said Monday. The Kerry campaign declined yesterday to estimate its fourth-quarter total; top fund-raisers said they began this last quarter, on Oct. 1, with a $4 million goal, but said it was incrementally reduced over the last three months.==

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/31/kerry_fund_raising_to_see_worst_quarter/

wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul-09-07 09:52 AM
Original message
Putting Q2 Fundraising into perspective

Q2 2003-2004

Howard Dean - $7.6 million
John Kerry - $5.9 million
John Edwards - $4.5 million

THIRD Quarter - 2003 (three months before the actual delegate selection process in Iowa)

Howard Dean - $14.8 million
John Kerry - $4 million
Edwards - $2.1 million

FOURTH Quarter - 2003 (days before Iowa)

Howard Dean - $14 million
John Kerry - $2.1 million

Clearly, "excitement" over Howard Dean, as is being defined by many as money raised and amount of donors, did not translate into votes, nor does it ever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3364853

Kerry wins Iowa; Gephardt to bow out
Edwards in second place; Dean vows to fight on

==DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Iowa Democrats upended the race for their party's presidential nomination Monday night, giving Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts a strong victory and dealing an apparently fatal blow to Rep. Dick Gephardt's run for the White House.

John Edwards, a first-term senator from North Carolina, managed a second-place finish, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, an early favorite in the polls, was left in third place. Gephardt finished a distant fourth.==

==Dean's third-place position in Iowa after being widely viewed as the national front-runner going into the caucuses will likely sap his momentum going into next week's New Hampshire primary. (Full story)==

==Kerry's strong showing could call into question Dean's front-runner status -- as determined by various national polls, fund raising and endorsements -- and it likely elevates the importance of the primary in New Hampshire next Tuesday. (Analysts examine Iowa fallout)==

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.main/index.html

[last_texas_dem]

27. Having the most money won't guarantee victory in the primary, but

it is definitely one of the most important factors, and maybe the primary factor, to consider when attempting to predict the Democrat most likely to secure the party's nomination. The nominee is almost guaranteed to be a candidate who raised an enormous amount of money, whether or not it's the candidate who raised THE very largest amount. Without some monumental changes in the American political system, that is the way it is and looks likely to remain.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. no

but it's a safe bet the candidate with the least money will lose.