The Wallet-to-Wallet Chasm
- Thread starter jlmadyson
- Start date
No surprise that the Republicans are ahead. They have their filthy rich benefactors that compose the top .00001% of our country and the poor trailer trash who donate $5, thinking their cigarette money will make a difference.
And its sad that running for office and being a politician is a fundraising contest.
And its sad that running for office and being a politician is a fundraising contest.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Last time I checked the Dems take more donations of $100k or more than the Reps do. So who has all the filthy rich donors?
I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs have more total $$$ from over the over $100k donors than the Dems.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,472
- 7,996
- 136
is that figure with or without all the cash that's credited (or discredited) to abramoff and co.? 
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
The implication I got from your post was that the Reps had an exclusive lock on the big money donors. As it turns out... they don't.
In reality it looks like you can blame Dean for the money gap. Once he took over and started flapping his gums the money seemed to dry up for the Dems.
Don't fret though... If it comes down to it, Soros and Co. will fire up a battery of 527 groups and pump MILLIONS into them. (Just like last time...)
Actually, they did quite well, Rove's front group, the Swiftboat Liars, successfully derailed Kerry's admittedly pathetic campaign and convinced many Americans that a cheerleader was more courageous than a war veteran.
They did well? They couldn't defeat a weak Bush, and they managed to lose seats in both the House and Senate...thats quite well? You need to set your standards a bit higher, don't you think?
Actually, I was refferring to the Soros and Co. 527s. When I saw the swift boater ads come out I knew at that point it was over. The Cambodia ad was just killer though.
The sad thing is that it shouldn't have been over. Kerry's campaign team should not have allowed Rove to reframe the debate like that. An election with an incumbent, like in 2004, should be a referendum on the incumbent, but Kerry's team forgot that. Idiots.
Now would be a good time to install some tougher campaign finance laws. Not because it would help the dems, but because election spending is just ludicrous and it smacks of influence peddling and lots of quid pro quo all around.
Actually not sure they could have done much of anything about it. The blitz of ads they put out was constant. Kerry was having a hell of a time keeping up. I remember thinking at the time this is changing the whole dynamic of the election and there wasn?t whole lot in my mind that could counterweight that force. I also can remember telling a former colleague when the ads initially started to air that it was a cooked bird at that point. They were just so devastating from my point of view.
What Kerry needed to do was step away from the whole Vietnam thing, including the Bush draft dodging thing, and bring the election into the year 2004, instead of 1970. He should have kept hammering home what he perceived as failures in Bush's first term and talked about his ideas to fix them. His speeches should have laid out those plans. If Rove had tried to divert back to 1970, he should have said, "Bush doesn't want to talk about the last 4 years because he knows they were miserable failures!!"
If Kerry had rose above the BS, from the beginning, gone on the offensive, I think he would have done better. I was very disappointed in his campaign.
Uh...link/source/validity? Remember AmeriCorp is going to be mostly >$100K.
Personally, i agree that its disgusting that political races are all about $$$$. Maybe thats why its all about mud/lies/bs/etc.
because the dems money is so clean.
/sarcasm
dems are just as crooked and corrupt as the republicans.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Campaign donations from corporations, special interests or private donors should be against the law...period...each party should either be allocated a set amount, or limited to the amount they can spend on the campaign trail...or more specifically, restrict the use of campaign money for the misinformation campaigns that both parties are guilty of.
The Bush/Rove machine launched a successful media campaign against Kerry, but imagine what the election year would have been like if each candidate was forced to stand on the merits of their respective platforms...Democrat special interests did a similar hatchet job on Arnold during the special election last year.
Both parties are guilty of it...the Republicans have become increasingly effective in recent years, but they do not hold a monopoly on dirty politics.
The Bush/Rove machine launched a successful media campaign against Kerry, but imagine what the election year would have been like if each candidate was forced to stand on the merits of their respective platforms...Democrat special interests did a similar hatchet job on Arnold during the special election last year.
Both parties are guilty of it...the Republicans have become increasingly effective in recent years, but they do not hold a monopoly on dirty politics.
Doubt it. He raised a record amount of cash in 2005 for the DNC during a non-election year. Plus "RollCall" is headed by a former GOP operative.
He's been spreading it around in almost every state to build year-round offices and hire fulltime grassroots organizers.
Edit: But I don't pretend to know what the DNC's bank statements say...
Edit #2: This is part of his 50-state strategy of not conceding any state in any race.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter