Early ’08 Fund-Raising Has Clear Blue Tint

[26 X World Champs]

Here's yet another clear indicator of the decline of the Republican Party. In the first quarter fund raising results released this week one of the most remarkable facts is the gigantic difference in the amount of money raised by Democrats versus Republicans. $78 million versus $51 million! That's 53% more money raised by Democrats. This is completely illogical considering that every Presidential election since 1976 has had a much larger amount of money raised by the GOP.

How do you explain this? I'd like to hear from everyone but especially my radical right wing Forum buddies. What does this mean?

Early ’08 Fund-Raising Has Clear Blue Tint

By ADAM NAGOURNEY - The New York Times
Published: April 5, 2007

DES MOINES, April 4 — For anyone looking for a sign of the health of the Democratic Party going into the 2008 presidential campaign, it came Wednesday with the last of the fund-raising figures reported by the major presidential candidates.

With the $25 million reported by Senator Barack Obama’s campaign, closing in on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s $26 million, the Democratic presidential candidates collectively outperformed the Republicans, and by a substantial amount: Democrats raised a total of about $78 million, compared with just over $51 million by their rivals, according to preliminary first-quarter figures provided by the campaigns.

That is remarkable because Republicans have historically proved better at collecting contributions. In every presidential primary season since 1976, the top fund-raiser was a Republican.

(SNIP)

“The Democrats seem to have a lot more hunger for the White House right now than we do,” said Scott Reed, who managed the presidential campaign of Bob Dole, a Kansas Republican, in 1996. “Part of it on the Republican side may be Bush fatigue. But clearly, the Republicans are going to need to get it together on finances if we are going to compete with the likes of Obama or Hillary Clinton. It’s a concern.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05assess.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

 

[Ikari]

Ron Paul could fix that if the GOP would be willing to go with an actual small government candidate. Though, I do find it sad that we pretty much vote for the candidate whom raised/spent the most money.

 

[PeteEU]

Man they already raised more money than most countries use on a whole election... sad.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Man they already raised more money than most countries use on a whole election... sad.

I don't think raising money is necessarily a bad thing. Obama had more than 100,000 contributors, 90% of which were under $100.

 

[danarhea]

I don't think raising money is necessarily a bad thing. Obama had more than 100,000 contributors, 90% of which were under $100.

So the Presidency is for sale for how much this time?

 

[RightOfCenter]

Here's yet another clear indicator of the decline of the Republican Party. In the first quarter fund raising results released this week one of the most remarkable facts is the gigantic difference in the amount of money raised by Democrats versus Republicans. $78 million versus $51 million! That's 53% more money raised by Democrats. This is completely illogical considering that every Presidential election since 1976 has had a much larger amount of money raised by the GOP.

How do you explain this? I'd like to hear from everyone but especially my radical right wing Forum buddies. What does this mean?


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05assess.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

They're probably getting it from the same corporate contributors that Republicans are, the corporations are just betting on the horse that has the better odds.

 

[Billo_Really]

The answer is obvious. This country is more anti-war than the media will let on. The Reps are more known for pushing this war than the dems, although they have their share of the blame. Everyone that is pro-war is not doing well. Hillary is the only one and she's starting to slip. Obama has no experience on the national level, yet he's doing well. Why? Because he is anti-war and new. People are sick of the old guard politicians.

The Republican purges will continue in '08. And not because the dems are all that hot. It's because the reps are that bad!

 

[RightOfCenter]

The answer is obvious. This country is more anti-war than the media will let on. The Republicans are more known for pushing this war than the Democrats, although they have their share of the blame. Everyone that is pro-war is not doing well. Hillary is the only one and she's starting to slip. Obama has no experience on the national level, yet he's doing well. Why? Because he is anti-war and new. People are sick of the old guard politicians.

The Republican purges will continue in '08. And not because the Democrats are all that hot. It's because the Republicans are that bad!

And people will continue to pick the party that sucks less. Kind of makes you wish there were other options huh?

 

[26 X World Champs]

The answer is obvious. This country is more anti-war than the media will let on. The Republicans are more known for pushing this war than the Democrats, although they have their share of the blame. Everyone that is pro-war is not doing well. Hillary is the only one and she's starting to slip. Obama has no experience on the national level, yet he's doing well. Why? Because he is anti-war and new. People are sick of the old guard politicians.

The Republican purges will continue in '08. And not because the Democrats are all that hot. It's because the Republicans are that bad!

I agree to a point but not completely. The true root cause of the Republican's continuing decline is George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The war is probably the main reason but the root of it all are the failed overall policies of the Bushies.

There are so many reasons beyond the Iraq War that we can all point to that Bush and Cheney have done that has really ticked off the American public and the world that the natural course of events is to flock to their opposition and that is exactly what is happening.

If you remove the crazy and intense partisanship of the Radical Right Wingers in this Forum (Navy Pride, Trajan, Jamesrage, CurrentAffairs, PTSDkid, Aquapub, Stinger, ConservPat et al) I think we'd find that the same trend away from the GOP exists in Debate Politics as it does in the general population.

Our little cabal of Righties will never disagree with anything Bush or Cheney does no matter how many Americans die due to their policies. Hell, they still argue that we found WMDs in Iraq, that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were connected and that Democrats are anti-troop! Talk about being out in LA-LA land!

I think it's the result of only getting their news from FNC and all the other ultra-conservative right wing sites that they always cite. In contrast they discredit anything written in the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times or any story not reported on Fox News as biased and without creditability.

Just imagine if you're only sources of news were FNC and the White House website!