Ruh-roh!

And the debt ain't helping.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

---

by: trowaman @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 04:03:34 AM UTC

Well

You're right - but not, perhaps, in the way I'm guessing you mean it. The Dems paid down a bunch this past month, hurting our cash standing.

Let me try to put this another way. Your deadbeat friend who keeps owing you money but wheedling his way out of paying you... he's doing that because he's better off not paying you! There's more money in his pocket if he can avoid repayment. So it's good to be a debtor, at least in the short term.

Obviously there can be consequences to carrying too much debt, or worse, going into arrears. But as I've said repeatedly in these threads, there's really no danger of that happening. This is not the bad old days of the 1960s and 70s, when the Democrats frequently had serious money problems. At the very least, Obama will still be president for (at a minimum) three more years. Dems will be able to pay their debts for the forseeable future.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 04:39:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seems Remarkably Even, Considering....

I'm not too upset that Republicans raised about 10% more than Democrats given the circumstances. Democrats are supposed to be depressed and Republicans energized, so I'd expect higher Republican numbers. The DNC and RNC numbers for funds raised are practically even. The Dems still have a big cash advantage on the House side that won't be eclipsed even if these numbers are repeated through November.

And Democratic numbers may improve if--if--health care reform passes.

But there are a lot of other money issues to account for: individual candidate fundraising, and the wild cards of 527 organizations and corporate advertising.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 04:04:15 AM UTC

Well said

---

by: rockymmdreamin @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 18:27:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i agree with dsimon

these numnbers look pretty good to me, all things considering. what'll be interesting to see is who benefits most financially from health care reform. my guess is the democrats - i don't think a lot of the republicans will actually donate that much. my guess is they'll just be more energized.

22, male, VA-10

---

by: Bharat @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 04:28:43 AM UTC

We have

59% of the Senate and 59% of the House. For the GOP to not just be at fundraising parity but to actually be eclipsing us means the enthusiasm gap must be monstrous.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 04:41:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

and we also have

...100% of the White House.  Which really ought to be good for fundraising!

Maybe Obama will be able to switch gears and do a couple of big fundraisers after health care passes?  

But perhaps he should avoid New York for a little while longer if the next legislative target is wall street reform.  Maybe a West Coast event? :)

---

by: Joey @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 04:46:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like Clinton, he's welcome to California anytime! B-)

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 05:19:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup, it's not good

Not good at all.

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 06:00:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eh, I dont see how that necessarily translates

It's not like by electing someone we are changing the formula of who our fundraising base is, there is still only 435 districts, 100 senate seats, and roughly 315 million Americans.  Obama was able to radically expand the donating universe while just about all other politicians are getting funds from the same people who've always been the donor base of the Democratic Party.

Also, as we all know, Congresscritters royally suck at helping out their caucus election apparatuses.  Like my college rep, Betty McCollum, she raises 150k a cycle and then after she wins puts up a big billboard congratulating herself.  She should be practically prostituting herself up and down Summit Ave raising money for the DCCC this year.  (In her defense, she has worked on DCCC recruiting before so I dont know how much fundraising she does already, but point made.)

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 21:29:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Number Of Reps Not Determinative Of Support

DavidNYC: "We have 59% of the Senate and 59% of the House. For the GOP to not just be at fundraising parity but to actually be eclipsing us means the enthusiasm gap must be monstrous....

and we also have 100% of the White House..."

But Obama got only 53.6% of the popular vote, and his approval numbers are hovering around 50/50 these days. Plus a fair number of our 59% of the House that helped put us above 50% are in districts that McCain won. So having 59% of the seats doesn't mean that 59% of voters support the agenda, or have 59% of the money to give away.

And some groups do better in opposition than when they are in power. (H.W. Bush calling Dukakis a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" was great for ACLU fundraising.) This effect can be magnified when opposition supporters sense an opportunity for big gains, even a possible return to the majority.

And even though money tends to follow power, when power is in potential danger then money may hedge its bets.

For some perspective, in the 5 cycles from 2000 to 2008 the Republican national committees outraisied the Democratic totals by $150 million, $212 million, $164 million, $119 million, and $41 million; the Democratic committees are ahead in fundraising this cycle by $15.6 million. http://www.opensecrets.org/par... (by adding up the national party committee numbers).

Given the substantial enthusiasm gap (which I believe has been verified in recent polling) and the tough political climate (people may tend to take out their economic frustrations on the party in power, regardless of fault), I don't think parity is too bad right now. Money is important, but it doesn't look like either side will have an overwhelming cash advantage--which maybe is how things should work after all (though who knows what 527s and corporations will do).

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 22:46:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

I'm not really sure I understand this. Either we're not doing so hot at fundraising because we should be doing better at it (my view), or we're not doing so hot at fundraising because the environment really sucks for us out there, and hey, we're doing okay all things considered (what I think is your view). Either of these are bad situations to be in.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:13:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure Michael Steele will

single handedly cost the Repulicans seats in the fall. What the heck is he spending money on? The RNC had zero debt and there weren't any elections in February, it should be a month where you stock pile cash. Steele is like the gift that keeps giving for the Democrats.  

---

by: Jfindl1 @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 05:31:22 AM UTC

that's

what happens when you elect someone based on the color of their skin in order to not sound racist when you attack another person of color. Though Tim Kaine is not the chairman I would have liked either.  

17, Gay Male, Democrat, NJ-8  

---

by: GayTeen4Obama @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 06:06:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If it was for color

They should have gone with Ken Blackwell. He would be a hell of alot better than Steele.  

---

by: GOPVOTER @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 18:16:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was a former Steele supporter having heard him speak

b4, I thought he would know the job of a party chair is to shut up and raise boatloads of money. Steele won 44% for open Senate race in Maryland which was a decent showing considering how blue Maryland is and the nature of the cycle. Black well managed 36.65% for the governor's race in Ohio. Yeah I know Taft had lots of problems and Strickland was an attractive candidate but a 36.65% showing is a joke and a bad one at that.
I really don't think the nomination was solely about race, I think race helped Steele a bit but he was a former state party chair and at one time looked like he could actually do something in the party. Now he is a punchline.  

---

by: Jfindl1 @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 21:18:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But I would call race

the deciding factor.  If had been white, the RNC would have certainly had chosen a different chairman.

Watching Steele is just such a treat.  I loved the unveiling of the new GOP website.  Also love how the top rotates through showing lots and lots of black people from history who were also Republicans.  Well sure, Id be a Republican too back when the Republicans were the liberal party.

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 21:32:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Me too!

And back when California loved Republicans like TR.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 22:24:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RNC and NRCC put out deceptive census mailings

in February--that not only raised a lot of money for them but gave them tons of demographic info that should help their direct mail later in the year.

I am surprised the RNC spent so much in February, though.

As for why the Democrats aren't raising more money, it sucks when you can't govern. For the forseeable future I will give nothing to the DNC, DCCC or DSCC, and I am pretty sure I will never again give at the levels I did in 2004-2006. I'm not a major donor, but I was making contributions that were personally significant for me at that time, because I thought Democrats would deliver if they took control of Congress. Now I am giving only to some individual candidates for Congress and the Iowa legislature.

I guarantee that the party committees would be raising more cash if we hadn't sold out to insurance and drug company interests on the health care bill.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 13:48:15 PM UTC

Pete Sessions

is finally getting his act together at the NRCC. DSCC being outraised by the NRSC is no surprise. Even though Bob Menendez signed up as DSCC chairman because he had connections with Wall Street, he hasn't chased the donors down like Schumer did.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 14:11:10 PM UTC

Cautiously optimistic

That Dems are about to get a serious cash infusion across the board.

---

by: conspiracy @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 16:02:49 PM UTC

I am too

Im hoping that many of us have been so unenthused lately because we've been in healthcare mode for 9 freaking months now.  Now that this will be over with, we'll be onto election mode.  I will be.

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 21:34:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hell, Kos needs to start a fundraising page

That called, "Thank You for Passing HCR (Finally)" and have the money go to whatever.  It would first off start a snowball affect of more money, it would cause great press if it gets big enough and would elicit headlines like "The Democrats are Back" or whatever type of cheesiness.  

And maybe he will.  I've always liked Kos because he is my type of liberal and I know that he has political smarts as well.  Id really like to see the netroots be used this time as a means to lift up the Democratic Party instead of complain about them, which is what it has been since Obama became president for the most part.

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 21:38:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]