Dems catch up to GOP in contested races

[Judi Lynn]

Dems catch up to GOP in contested races
Aug 20, 2006, 14:41 GMT

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Financial statements filed with the Federal Election Commission show that Republican congressional incumbents do not have their usual fundraising edge.

The Cook Political Report lists 27 Republicans as vulnerable. Their Democratic opponents have raised 60 percent as much money as the incumbents, the Washington Post reports.

In 2004, the report listed nine Republicans as vulnerable and their challengers had raised 42 percent of their collective war chest.

The Post said the Democrats also appear to be riding a trend, with contributions increasing even more when their candidates start to look like winners. For example, former U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Joe Sestak, running in Pennsylvania`s 7th District in the Philadelphia suburbs, has raised more money in the last quarter than the man he hopes to beat, 10-term Republican Curt Weldon.
(snip/...)

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1192360.php/Dems_catch_up_to_GOP_in_contested_races

[Eric J in MN]

1. 60% of the money of the Republican incumbents...

...doesn't sound all that great.

The incumbent has more name recognition to begin with.

A challenger would need to outspend the incubment to get almost as much name recognition.

[Kolesar]

2. Remember, this means the corporate types are hedging their bets

They see the Democratic candidate as a "rising stock" that they ought to push some money to, else they get shut out in January 2007. In Ohio, the coal industry is giving money to Blackwell and to the Democrat Strickland

[rzemanfl]

3. Hopefully (D) will be all the name recognition required. eom

[peacebird]

4. but incumbent Repugs are easily tied to the "culture of corruption"

which makes "vote the bums out" a viable and tasty looking alternative to "stay the course"!

:toast:

[AX10]

5. Democrats had more money in 1994, and they lost.

[Zynx]

6. Exactly. Also, Barry Goldwater had three times the money of LBJ in

1964 and it did him no good.

[w4rma]

7. Well, the DLCers used their power to do what Repugs had failed to

do for years and years: Pass NAFTA. The "free" traders deserved to lose in 1994.

Democrats finally take control of all three branches of government and they stab their base right in the back.

No amount of money was going to save them after that failure of judgment.

People switched parties right then and there because they no longer trusted Democrats to help them economically so without economics to hold them back they went with the Repukes for their social issues.

[WCGreen]

8. Well put....

Ohio lost a "safe" Incumbant because of his support for NAFTA.....

[AX10]

9. And the GOP supported NAFTA too.