According to Novak RNC has a 32 million dollar edge over DNC

[bigdarryl]

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12800 I say so what they have more money it doesn't mean there going to win more elections than the DNC, because i think the american people are sick and tired of this republican strangle hold on power. They will loose house seats this November.

[C_U_L8R]

1. From what I've heard...

historically the candidate with the most money wins.
I'm not sure if that holds true for political parties... but it seems logical.

Anyone know for sure?

[RazzleDazzle]

10. Money won't ensure that you WIN an election, but lack of it

could ensure that you lose one. It's hard to come up with a definitive rule about this. We've seen millionaires and other heavy overspenders lose -- Arianna Huffington's former husband, for example -- but if you have so little money you can't get your name and message out at all, you're could be in deep trouble.

[MrModerate]

2. The rich bitches are getting worried . . .

And Dean is spending money to build grassroots supports. Hard to be sure, but it seems like things are trending OK.

It may be that those of us who can stomach giving money to politicians will be asked for more.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. Novac is an asshat...

and that's a conservative rag. I wonder if a more centrist pundit would come to a different conclusion. hmmmmm?

On edit: found this comment refering to another Dean hit-piece in WAPO
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2005/11/dnc_fundraising_at_issue.html

Dear Mr. Cillizza,
Several points:
1. Did you research how fundraising is going compared to previous comparable years, for example, following the last presidential cycle in 2000?
2. Did you research how fundraising is going at other Dem. institutions like the DCCC and DSCC? You should be looking at total Democratic donations.
3. On that same line, did you research how fundraising is going for the state parties? Gov. Dean has visited many if not all of the 50 states and helped with their fundraising at various appearances.
4. Major question: how is the DNC now spending its money? In the past, from my perspective as a grassroots activist, most of it went for endless bulk mail and TV ads for presidential elections.
5. Major question: can you generalize about your anonymous sources? DC has a fair number of failed Democratic strategists, Mr. Bob Schrum (not sure I spelled that right), for example, who I hope are now out of favor with people like Howard Dean. They surely have grudges.
6. I know your article focused just on fundraising but you should be talking about the overall effectiveness of the Democratic party nationwide, under DNC guidance. The DNC under Dean is like day after a long night under previous leadership. State parties are getting financial help, fieldworkers from the DNC that they never got before. The party is working 24/7 now instead of just gearing up before elections, usually presidential. They are gearing up everywhere instead of just in the so-called battleground electoral states every 4 years. They are looking at elected offices way-down ticket, not just at the top.
7. Dean inspired a lot of people like me to be committed activists. I do major political work every week if not every day. And I give money as much as possible.
8. Dean has his enemies, people who don't like that grassroots action, people who have thrown their money around and had influence for years. I don't mind having their money if I can get it without all their influence.
9. So, some "fair and balanced" follow up would be in order. You left a lot out of your article.

Posted by: Elly in Maryland | November 13, 2005 09:18 AM


Lots of other good comments there about this current spin

[Texacrat]

4. The RNC's money advantage does give them a slight edge

At least historically. And the RNC has been able to fundraise more than the DNC has, at least marginally. But make no mistake, donors contribute to incumbents, and the district I'm from, TX-17, Chet Edwards has a 2-1 money lead over his opponents. And money cannot always buy elections either. I can show you some races where the Republican outspends the Democrat 2-1 and loses or the Democrat outspends the Republican and loses.

Money is one factor out of many (including incumbency, name recognition, party popularity, district demographics, and the effectivness of the campaign to name a few) which determines the outcome of an election.

[bigdarryl]

7. history is NOT on the republicans side despite money

Read this Lichtman has called every election right using his keys system. http://www.allanlichtman.com/keys/2008

[FSogol]

5. Who would believe anything Novak said? n/t

[rocktivity]

6. Not if a million of us fork over thirty-two dollars

and there's at least as many of us as there are of them.

:headbang:
rocknation

[madfloridian]

8. Republicans faithfully fund their party...Democrats demand perfection.

of every candidate, the chairman, and the congressional members. Dean had a dream that a million of us would give 20 a month...operating capital of 20 million a month.

That is his version of changing the financing of the party. Instead too many say they will not donate because everything does not suit them.

BTW look at how much the DSCC has and how much DCCC has. People are donating to their choice for prez in 08, and not funding the building of the party. Hillary as 15 million, Kerry has 9 million or close to that...not sure about the others.

In WA last week in one night the local Democrats drew in over 70,000 dollars at the event he attended. A lot of money he earns like that stays in the state for rebuilding.

Eventually what it boils down to is whether we pull ourselves out of the 04 mire, stop considering ourselves just one issue people...if can do both we win in 06 and 08....if we can't we don't.

[movonne]

9. Remember corporations have lots more money than we do..and

bush has even giving them more, and taking away money from the poor..If money is going to direct the elections then we lose...

[sheelz]

11. This will only promote us to donate more!

FYI AFL-CIO is putting out $40 million. I'm sure that isn't in his figures.