Democrats Lead By $100 Million In Money Race

[seriousstan]

Source: WSJ

WASHINGTON -- With more than a year to go before the 2008 elections, Democratic candidates have raised $100 million more in campaign contributions than Republicans, putting them on track to win the money race for the White House and Congress for the first time since the government began detailed accounting of campaign fund raising three decades ago.

Democrats have taken the lead by exploiting widespread disapproval of President Bush and the Iraq war to develop a more robust online network of new, small donors, as well as to gain traction with deep-pocketed business contributors.

If their fund-raising advantage continues -- so far, Democrats have been pulling in about 58% of overall donations to federal-office seekers -- they will have more resources for pricey advertising, organization building and voter outreach next November to buttress their edge in the polls. Moreover, Democrats' focus on small donors leaves them room to raise more cash over the next year, since many contributors have yet to hit the legal limit of $2,300 per candidate per election, and could potentially keep giving.

One Democratic presidential candidate, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, says he has a quarter-million contributors, more than the top three Republican candidates combined -- though Mr. Obama's numbers may be inflated by the fact that his campaign counts as "donors" people who buy T-shirts or other campaign merchandise, something other campaigns don't generally do. Only half of Mr. Obama's donors have hit the giving limit for the primaries; about a quarter have given him less than $200, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that analyzes campaign contributions.



Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118515382609874577.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

[msongs]

1. its not who has the $$$, its WHO CONTROLS THE VOTING MACHINES

elected democrats can brag all they want about the cash but until they do something to make elections honest and safe they are wasting their time.

when bushco declares martial law and cancels the election all the cash in the world will not make up for the democrats' part in making that possible.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[AndyTiedye]

2. Could They Really Have Prevented It?

Impeachment is trumped by "emergency powers" and martial law.

If we had filibustered his USSC nominations, they would have done the nuclear option.
Does anybody really doubt this?

[Rene]

4. You are absolutely right.....the Repugs don't need the money -- they'll

have illegal control over voting and vote counting. Was the impact of the switched Ohio computers...to a RNC controlled, Tennesee company's data center, on election night 2004, ever investigated?

[aquart]

6. Try to remember how many states got Dem governors last fall.

Republicans don't have nearly the control that they did. Nonetheless, somebody better be saving pennies to fund exit polling in every state still stupid enough to use electronic voting.

[Placebo]

3. Fantastic.

:patriot:

[xchrom]

5. i hope the news just gets worse and worse for the republick party. n/t

[aquart]

7. There isn't actually any possible way for it to get better.

[blondie58]

8. 100 Million? Unbelievable

I'm thinking that 100 million could have done so much more than to try to get someone elected. What a waste. We need to get publicly funded elections, so that they all have a fair playing field. It shouldn't be whoever has the most money that gets elected.

[here_is_to_hope]

10. Thats the gist, aint it?

100 million ahead...all of that money, for what? More of the same?

[LiberalFighter]

9. Dumb ass story -- Another problem with the story is...

taking the combined contributions of all Republicans against combined contributions of all Democrats.

It should be one on one. Difference between Democrat A vs Republican A or Republican B or Republican C, etc.