Joe Trippi's (Dean) Faith-Based Campaign Finance System

[mouse7]

Joe Trippi seems just as convinced right now that there is some uncharted, never-before-tapped pool of campaign cash ready to flow from the midst of the progressive movement as many Evangelical Christians believe that LeHaye "Rapture" series is really a docu-drama. Progressives are worse off financially than ever before. Neo-cons have a hammer-lock on political media discourse like never before. The GOP has raised more money than ever conceived of before for a Presidential Campaign. Yet Trippi thinks the best course is to remove the restrictions of campaign finance reform and use some El Dorado of Democratic campaign money to "even" the playing field between the haves and the have-nots.

How?

I don't want to hear a raa-raa speech that indicates if more Dean supporters give more, Dean will have more money. Let's go back to algebra class here. One of the first things you learn in the most basic lessons in solving for variables is this... if you perform a calculation on one side of an equation, you must perform the identical calculation to the other side of the equation. Otherwise, you cannot solve the equation.

Therefore...

If Joe Trippi says that more Dean supporters could give more money to increase funds to the Dean campaign, you must also say it's likely that more Bush supporters will be be asked to give more to the Bush campaign as well.

What's Dean's current total (it's been a while since I checked)... let's just say $30 mil knowing it's probably wrong, but it's a round number. The total for all candidates is probably about.. (probably incorrectly) $90 mil? Lets say Dean wins the nomination. He'd then have all the candidate's fundraising at his disposal.

Now... Bush is at.. what... $200 mil? Bush hasn't even started hard-core fundraising yet. He's uncontested.

No matter what fiddling around you do with the math, a best case scenario doesn't get a Dean candidacy even half of the money the Bush campaign will get.

So... we are throwing the entire concept of campaign finance reform completely out the window permanently so that if Dean is lucky he just gets outspent more than 2 to 1?

Don't show Dean supporters math right now. They don't like it too much.

[jeter]

1. No it's so Dean has cash on hand at the end of the primaries

And if necessary, he can raise more. He's raising about $15 million per quarter. He'll be able to raise another $30 million, not including the money he'll raise from other Dems giving to the other candidates once he is the nominee.

This decision has nothing to do with Kerry, Lieberman, Clark or any other Democrat.

The nomination will be over by mid-March. I bet most candidates will still have cash on hand at that time. So the point is moot. It's about fighting Bush when the nomination is over.

But that won't persuade you from attacking Dean. Since that's what this nomination is about now. Those who support Dean. Those who attack Dean.

[mouse7]

4. Beg to differ... I'm here to attack those who withdraw from CFR

Jeter... you may see the whole world as Dean and non-Dean. However, there are other viewpoints. Lots of them.

Don't worry, I have just as much to say about Kerry screaming about Dean withdrawing on one-hand while preparing the paperwork to do the same "because Dean made him."

I see retreat on campaign finance reform by a Democratic/Progressive candidate as a deal-breaker. Period.

[joeybee12]

5. Yeah, right, then go and attack Kerry, because he's about to do the same

thing--now change your tune, won't you?

[mouse7]

8. Joeybee, do you even read the posts in a thread?

Read post 4 again. That what I said.

[ima_sinnic]

11. oh BS

so we Dems should go down like wimps on our glorious "principles"? There is no "retreat" here, and there is no virtue in coming up short of cash because of a corrupted system. Of course you know that Dean has spoken loudly about the need for campaign finance reform, and that it will be a priority after he is president. We the people, who are his campaign, were asked what he should do and we told him in no uncertain terms. We don't want to be fighting with our hands tied behind our back, any more than BushCo will be.

[mouse7]

13. but... Clinton won, and didn't sacrifice CFR. Forgot that, huh?

[ima_sinnic]

16. that was then. this is now.

Sorry, I was out of the country during that whole election. I know that is a sorry excuse but I just did not witness what went on. Great that Clinton won but he is now the EX president. We want to fight BushCo's fire with fire.

[mouse7]

18. Read a little more, then comment

You just admitted you really don't know the history of issues involved in this discussion. Why did you feel so compelled to share your ignorance with us?

What Trippi is suggesting is simply allowing rich people to spend as much money as they want to influence elections and, oh.. yeah... you poor people can do the same thing, too. Good luck keeping up.

[tsipple]

31. Neither Did Clinton's Opponents

Both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole stayed within the federal matching funds system. Had either one of them left the system, I'm sure Bill Clinton would have done so, too, if it had been in his interest.

George W. Bush in 2000 did not, and he's also not doing so in 2004. Bush was the first to leave the system this cycle.

By the way, I asked a poll question earlier, "Do you think a candidate who stays within the federal matching funds system against Bush is unelectable?" The overwhelming majority of votes said "yes."

[HFishbine]

24. "I'm here to attack those who withdraw from CFR"

Funny. Because your "attack" excluded one against the first candidate to opt out of CFR. Who was that now? Let's see... who could that have been? Hmmm?

[mouse7]

37. You mean the chimp?

That's a given. The question is just how close are we willing to get to being like him?

I'm sick of watching all progressive beliefs and values sold down the toilet.

[sendero]

58. yes...

... and I'm tired of being the only side in the fight hobbled by sticking to 'principle'. If Bush* stayed in, you might have a slight case. As it is, your position is ludicrous.

Go into a gunfight with a peashooter if you want, and then wonder why you always lose. Not me.

[mouse7]

62. In other words, YOU never had principles to begin with

Those who know what having principles means they don't throw those principles in the sewer at the first opportunity presented.

I'll take my peashooters and my principles into the gunfight, thanks. People without principles never stick around for the fight no matter what cannon their armed with, anyway. They run away at the first sign of trouble.

[JNelson6563]

44. so you want Dems to lose?

There is no way a Dem can win with the limitation of accepting matching funds.

What is your solution then?

Julie

[mouse7]

48. White House can be won with about $10 mil total (done right)

Now who's the doom and gloomers, huh?

You can win the White house with no ad buys. Just budget for unlimited print runs of issues materials, promo items, and internet bandwidth.

You would need a big army of people. You would move the meetup.com people out to be precinct leaders. They would be in charge of ensuring every neighborhood is constatnly plastered with posters and flyers with the web address. There would be massive amounts of pounding on doors.

You would completely change the focus of the voter interaction from media buys to peer-to-peer. Every neighboorhood would be covered regularly, and ever voter would get the chance to talk to supporters of the candidate when the supporters are out knocking on doors.

Peer-to-peer is by far the most effective method of promotion. TV is way down the list. It's "bang for the buck" is very poor. Personal interaction is far better to sway voters.

What would I do if I were Dean between April and July? Hold back 2-3 mil at the end of the primaries, as at that point, the issue is pretty much decided, and most ad buys toward the end are a waste. Use the money help back to do what I mnentioned I would do in an entire campaign season.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

51. You are living in lala land

if you think the WH can be won with $10M against $200M.

[mouse7]

56. You're too unimaginative Campaigns more than media buys.

The only thing that costs money in a Democratic Party campaign is TV buys and high-priced consultants (GOP has MUCH higher staffing costs... mercenaries are never cheap).

If you can't envision a political campaign without TV commercials, you are creatively-challenged.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

59. I am part of a revolutionary campaign

One that is changing the way campaigning will be in the future. If you are too wrapped up in your opinions to see the facts before you, that's cool. It's laughable to me that you could in any way say that you don't see the Dean campaign, which has been nothing short of defining and innovative, as "unimaginitive."

[CWebster]

2. It will not limit him though

Add that up.

"Don't show Dean supporters math right now. They don't like it too much."

Bullshit thread intended to attack Dean supporters. Flamebait and spoilsport most likely.

[mouse7]

6. I told you Dean supporters don't like math right now.

Note the Dean supporter named webster acting as if the previous paragraphs of non-stop facts/truth don't exist.

Tell me Webster... where is Joe Trippi's progressive ElDorado campaign cashflow gonna come from?

[ima_sinnic]

14. watch and find out

. . . and furthermore, matching BushCo dollar for dollar is not necessary. Dean is a thrifty individual who is mobilizing We The People to take our government back. At every turn he comes up with innovations that carry a big bang for the buck. BushCo could spend millions but in the long run it won't amount to s**t against the Truth.

[Eloriel]

34. Non-stop facts/truth? Not from you.

You apparently don't understand a damn thing about it.

Oh, yeah, there's one fact I'll give you: Bush probably can raise virtually unlimited funds. BFD.

What you're missing (on purpose?) is that the overwhelming bulk of Dean's campaign contributions have come from The People, in small dribs and drabs like mine.

Most of us who have been contributing aren't anywhere near the max, and there are millions more Americans who will able to "afford" contributing to an unbought Presidential candidate who makes exquisite good sense and isn't afraid to take on Bush or anyone else. So far, the average contribution (average per person, not per contribution) is just $75. His Sept. 30 FEC filing was stacks and stacks and stacks of paper that had to be transported by handtruck.

It's said that only 10% of Americans are politically aware -- follow politics with interest. And not all of them are Democrats (or other lefties). So for any candidate to have nearly 500,000 SUPPORTERS signed on, as Dean does, at this stage of the primary season is frankly phenomenal.

Trippi did the math well enough to have told the "suits" quite some months ago that Dean would have 450,000 supporters by the end of September, and he did. When Trippi says he thinks he can get 2 million Americans to donate an average of $100, I wouldn't doubt him.

But YOU can, if you want.

This is a people-powered campaign. That's one of its major attractions. And given the fact that there are millions of Americans who do not feel that typical politicians are hearing them or represent them, Dean can only go higher from here.

Eloriel

[mouse7]

38. You disagreeing with my opinions doesn't disprove my facts.

I posted facts and opinions. You decided to answer the opinions, and then claim that meant you disproven the facts.

Wrong.

The richest 10% of the people have 90% of the money. Fact. The GOP has always had more large and small dollar individual contributors. Fact.

Therefore, if the GOP has BOTH more contributors, and the contributors have 9-10 times more money, there is NO WAY Dean can come close to closingt the campaign cash gap.

I don't care how much Trippi's faith-based-math you present, it's rubbish. Trippi's math does not include the increases that will happen in GOP fundraising when the election is at the top of the news cycle more regularly.

The ONLY way to control the effect that neo-con money has in the political process is by limiting it's effects in CFR legislation that the GOP cannot opt out of.

[Eloriel]

45. Here's the difference

You're basing your whole argument on a mistaken premise. Several, probably.

One of your mistaken premises is that who raises the most money is ALWAYS the winner, and that's demonstrably not true. Democrats are almost always outspent by their GOP opponents in all sorts of races. If your premise held, there'd be no Dems in office anywhere in the land.

The richest 10% of the people have 90% of the money. Fact.

And totally irrelevent. It's not like that richest 10% can give unlimited amounts to Bush. They can't. The max is $2K per individual and $5K per PAC.

The whole point of what Dean is doing is that the other 90% have ENOUGH money to fund a Democratic people-financed campaign at an average of $75 a contributor if there's a powerful enough candidate. I've even seen unemployed people contributing to Dean. Most Dean contributors have never given to ANY campaign before. They think he's worth the investment and so do I. And so will potentially a million or two more. Dean is the biggest fundraiser so far among Dems, and yet he's only had 200,000 different contributors. There's a LOT of room there for growth, and Dean is going nowhere but up.

The GOP has always had more large and small dollar individual contributors. Fact.

I don't know that it is a fact, but even if it is -- it means what? That we're outnumbered? Not currently among actual contributors to both Dean and Bush.

Therefore, if the GOP has BOTH more contributors, and the contributors have 9-10 times more money, there is NO WAY Dean can come close to closingt the campaign cash gap.

Here's what you're ignoring. ALREADY Dean has more contributors than Bush, and a large percentage are people who have NEVER contributed to ANY candidate before. This is NEW in the political history of the U.S.

Further, as I've already pointed out, it's not absolutely necessary that any Dem candidate match Bush dollar-for-dollar. It never is.

I don't care how much Trippi's faith-based-math you present, it's rubbish. Trippi's math does not include the increases that will happen in GOP fundraising when the election is at the top of the news cycle more regularly.

And the same phenomenon will operate just as well if not better for Dean, and Dean has already demonstrated his ability to not just energize the base but bring in new voters and, as I said, new contributors. By contrast, people are turning away from Bush.

The ONLY way to control the effect that neo-con money has in the political process is by limiting it's effects in CFR legislation that the GOP cannot opt out of.

No disagreement there. And your plan for implementing it for this election cycle is .... ???

Dean has already pledged to support public financing of campaigns. In the meantime, his campaign IS campaign finance reform.

Eloriel

[mouse7]

54. Here's the... um.. excuse me... what is it?

It's a mess.

Elorial, you sound like a freeper disregarding evidence based on your FAITH in your Dean religion.

There's real world facts all over this thread. If you don't believe it, go do some reading. Now, you don't get to pick and choose what reality you want by choosing to accept and not accept some facts and not others. Facts are facts. Either accept them. or find better ones to disprove them with.

Now, if you think it's irrelevant that the GOP had more individual contributors, that those contribitors have on average massive amountrs more expendable income, that GOP contributors on average donate three times more, you are living in a fantasy world. I keep on hearing Dean supporters dangling the $2000 max donation figure. However, the total percentage of contributors that actually donate the max amount is a fairly low percentage. Nothing approaching 25%. So pointing to all those Dean donors that haven't maxed is pretty goofy, as the vast majority of all conributors to both parties don't give the max amount anyway.

Is it possible to win a campaign in which you are massively outspent? Of course. I pointed to a real cheap method here in the thread. Unfortunately, Joe Trippi's stated primary concern is keeping up with the Bush ad buys, which is an exercise in complete foolishness.

[virtualobserver]

3. It doesn't matter if he can't match Bush....

If he can raise $75 million, he is still better off than if he went with a cap in the 40 + million.

[mouse7]

12. Once CFR ditched by Dems, it's gone for good.

We are the good guys trying to REMOVE the influence of money on politics. The ONLY way to do that is to only move forward on CFR. NEVER BACKWARD.

I don't care if Dean is inconvenienced for a few weeks. Clinton dealt with that same delay and still crushed Bush Sr. and Dole.

[ima_sinnic]

17. the only way CFR really will be instituted is to get a Dem into office

I do believe Dean when he says he will make it a priority. And for what it's worth, CFR is needed to protect against the buying of elections by moneyed special interests, not against ORDINARY CITIZEN VOTERS.

[mouse7]

19. and just who do you think will be giving that money to Trippi?

Like you said earlier in the thread... you were out of the country and really don't know what you're talking about on this subject.

[ima_sinnic]

27. I was out of the country for 14 months

. . . not long enough to be as "ignorant" as you'd like to think, but long enough to miss Clinton's campaign and election. I returned to the U.S. in June 93, 6 months after he came into office. I understand the subject just fine, thank you. By mobilizing masses of small-money voters, who recruit more and more, Dean will have a very effective source of funding. And like someone points out elsewhere in this thread, there ARE wealthy Democrats too--some of whom I know detest Bush. Not to mention moderate Republicans who are growing ever more sick of him.

[mouse7]

42. The GOP has MORE small dollar contributors than all Dems.

The GOP always has had more individual contributions of all monetary amounts.

If Dean gets more contributions, you can be sure that Rush, Falwell, and co. will be pounding the table for more GOP contribitions, and they GOP party base will open a vein to the neo-cons campaign accounts like they always do.

The olnly solution is MORE CFR, not less.

[Eloriel]

46. The same people giving NOW, and more like them

What about that notion do you not freakin' understand?

THIS IS A PUBLICLY FINANCED CAMPAIGN -- primarily from individual contributors giving in small amounts. There ARE no special interests on which Dean is or will be beholden.

Get it? Yet?

Eloriel

[alcuno]

21. You've forgotten something. Many "moneyed" folks give to both.

They like to cover their bases. Besides, Dean's current average contribution is $76. How much government influence can be bought for $76? I don't even know that influence can be bought for $2000. What * has done is get people to get other people to give $2000. They call those people pioneers or rangers or something.

So he wants 2,000,000 people to give $100. You think $100 buys influence? I think the idea is brilliant and as a former union leader in my school district, I KNOW I can get a lot of the 600 teachers I know to write checks for whatever amount they want.

I also don't buy the argument that Democrats don't have any money. The area I live in voted 80% for Gore and their are tens of thousands of people here living in half million dollar homes.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcuno]

33. Where are your facts? What evidence are YOU talking about?

I said that I didn't buy the argument that Democrats don't have money. Do Republicans have more? I don't know, but you have no facts for your assertions other than to say it's "proven consistently over and over again." Sure, whatever.

By the way, "special interest" groups who support Democrats are expected to raise over 200 million to defeat *. They'll be using money just like Republicans.

A freeper? Hardly. They're just too poor and stupid to know better. We're worth big bucks; we're Democrats!

[mouse7]

36. Here's Facts... "America, What Went Wrong"

Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles that ran in the Philadelphia Enquirer that the writers made into a NY Times Bestseller. Shows how 90% of the wealth in America has been redistributed to 10% of the population beginning in the Reagan era.

Don't damn people who read a little because they possess a few facts. Try reading a little about the subject you rant about BEFORE you start ranting next time. You'll make yourself look better, and waste fewer people's time.

Jeez... I found the whole text online... lucky you.

http://www.politicalindex.com/wrong1.htm

[alcuno]

47. Don't say "damn" to me. How about if you have facts that fit?

Your original contention, with which I still disagree, was that Democrats don't have money and thus are unable to raise money. I don't see where you've proven it and since you said it, it's up to YOU to do so.

The fact that 10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth comes as no surprise. Are those ALL Republicans? No. Furthermore, a chunk of the 90% still have a few bucks on them even though they aren't in the 10%. However, you seem to be asserting that Dean cannot get 2,000,000 people to give 100 dollars each. I don't see why not as I haven't seen any PROOF to the contrary.

[virtualobserver]

22. Bush Sr. and Dole didn't opt out like Bush did

The only way to stop them is to make Bush's corporate sponsorship a major issue in the campaign.

You need to be competitive in the money game in order to do that.

[farmbo]

7. Er...sorry...But hasn't Bush already made CFR irrevelant?

So why are you going out of your way to attack Dean? Must he (or any Democratic nominee) unilaterally disarm in the name of intellectual purity?

No f*uckin' way.

And your "math" --if that's what it is-- is goofy.

This is not a "zero sum" game where we can only re-allocate existing levels of fundraising. When the nomination is secured, Dean (or whomever) will experience a synergy of new giving as the "fence sitters" come down off their perches, and the unions and PACs weigh in.

[mouse7]

9. "synergy" works for both sides

The same synergy that a Dem nominee would feel in their fundraising efforts post-convention would obviously be felt by the GOP at their post-convention period.

[farmbo]

15. Au contraire...Repugs may suffer a contraction...as Bush's numbers drop

They'll have big dollars, of course, but how excited can they really get about Bush?

Methinks they'll start hedging their bets.

[mouse7]

25. Does it look like Freeperville has suffered a contraction?

That's Bush's base. They ain't bright, but they know how to right a personal check reeeeeal good. When they aren't trying to swindle each other, freeperville keeps chugging along it's merry path of self-inflicted ignorance without skipping a beat.

Rush and Frankiln Graham tell those freaks to open a vein, and out the money will flow.

[Eloriel]

50. And so since the Repugs can raise unlimited funds,

according to you, you think Dean should limit himself to a spending cap of $45 million til the end of July, and bring his current fundraising to a screeching halt in the very near future.

I get it. Makes perfect sense to me.

Eloriel

[katusha]

10. bush has raised 85 million

or so to date while all democrats comined have raised 90 million so far. not bad for the dems if you ask me.

[alcuno]

28. Welcome to DU, katusha

One reason that Bush says he needs all that money is because organizations that will support the Democrat may raise over 200,000,000. Dems can certainly raise money when they have a reason to do so.

[HFishbine]

20. The "algebraic" operand you miss

The one that shoots your theory all to hell, is the individual legal limit on campaign contributions.

To suggest that more money from Dean supporters will be met with additional contributions from Bush supporters overlooks the fact that Bush supporters blow their wad when they pay for a $2,000 corn dog. With the average contribution from Dean supporters currently at $77, the Dean supporters have much more to give while the Bush supporters max out with one lunch.

Nice try. Next...

(Oh yeah, let's not forget the after the primaries, there will be no additional Bush supporters. For the dems, on the other hand, no matter who the nominee is, he or she will be able to tap the pool of support from eight other candidates.)

[mouse7]

30. Doh!, before you scream next...

The GOP has always had far more individual contribitors than the Democratic Party, in both big and small dollar categories

Whoops.

The Democratic Party made up for that differece with Organizational PACs. (A few pennies from each union member's dues head toward Union PACs a few cents from Sierra Club memberships go to Sierra Club PAC, for example.)

[HFishbine]

39. The Winds of Change

Don't let a few facts get in your way.

So far, Bush has received contributions from 52,857 contributors. Average contribution: $1,567

Dean has received contributions from 45,557 contributors. Average contribution: $546.

Dean clearly has an advantage. His contributors have three times as much to give as Bush contributors before legally maxing out, and Dean, if he's the nominee, will have a flood of new contributors from those who are currently supporting other dems.

Spin it as you will, but dems de facts.

As for that PAC money, once again you are misinformed. Bush received $1.96M in PAC money during that last selection. Gore? Care to take a guess? Zero.

(source: http://www.fec.gov/finance/precm8.htm)

How much PAC money has Bush accepted for the 2004 election so far? $1.58M. Dean? Care to take a guess? $15,500.

(source: http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/pml1_sql_PRESIDENTIAL.exe?DoFn=2004)

Things have changed in how campaigns are financed. You may not recognize it yet, but you will soon enough.

(Who's screaming, BTW?)

[mouse7]

40. Now don't let some math get in your way.

Bush has more contributors. Bush's contribitor's have donated an average of 3 times more than Dean's.

That means... Bush has a hell of a lot more money than Dean.

IF... IF... you had some statistic that 75% or greater political contributors in previous elections eventually donated the maximum amount allowed by law, you might have a significant point, and then you could figure out what the expected amount of contibutions that Dean will eventually generate from said contributors.

But... you don't have that, do you?

What do you have? You have proof that Bush gets more and bigger contributions. You are helping prove MY point that rejecting CFR is a really bad idea for Dean and other progressives.

[HFishbine]

41. Tell you what Mouse

You get back to me in a year, and we'll see whether the vote by Dean supporters to opt out of public funding was a good idea or not.

[HFishbine]

49. IF...IF...

Thanks for setting the bar for me to have a "significant point."

The criteria was "some statistic that 75% or greater political contributors in previous elections eventually donated the maximum amount allowed by law."

Remembering that in the 2000 election cycle, the maximum contribution was $1,000, Bush raised $64,680,000, or 80% of his total from individual contributors from contributors who have the max.

Gore raised $25,456,000, or 79% of his total from individual contributors from contributors who gave the max.


http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/lookup/AllCands.htm

[Eloriel]

53. Nothing about previous elections applies

This campaign (Dean's) is quite different. He's broken EVERY record -- number of supporters, number of contributors, money raised, crowds at functions and the earliness of crowds at functions.

This isn't your average Dem campaign. And it won't be.

If you apply the metrics from any other campaign to this one, you're automatically starting out with flawed data because "the old rules" simply don't apply.

That's what people are trying to tell you, and what you insist on not getting.

And I think I know why.

Eloriel

[dsc]

23. Some answers

from a holder of a Bachelors in Math, and a Masters in Secondary Education in Math.

Matching funds only limit those who take them. Bush is not limited by matching funds at all. He can raise as much as he likes and spend as much as he likes. No matter what Dean or anyother candidate does that is true. Thus it is specuation at best to state that Bush will increase his fundraising due to Dean not taking matching funds.

Dean has already raised more than the limits would allow him to spend in the primaries. It is this limit which is the major problem. Assuming that this primary season lasts to March, our nominee will be unable to spend one red, blue, green, or purple cent, between April and August. Bush will be unlimited of course. We don't need to spend an equal amount of money but we do need to spend some. We are much better of spending $20 million to Bush's $80 million than being outspent $60 million to $0.

The total limit is also a problem but not to the same extent. Gore didn't run out of money over all but he did have the very same Primary problem that we will have this time. But the DNC was able to use soft money to help ameliate it and won't be able to this time. Under McCain Feingold not only won't we be able to spend money from April to August under matching funds neither can the DNC nor other interest groups until after June 6th. No group can use soft money on any ads within 30 days of any primary or election. We will be slaughtered.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

52. Check mate

Good job (as usual) dsc. :toast:

[mouse7]

61. Answers to wrong answers

1)Progressives have worked too hard in the decades since the Nixon administration to generate reforms to the campaign finance process. I know the Chimp opted out. Yes he's an asshole for it. However, we know the neo-cons are assholes. Acting just like neo-cons on CFR is a complete over-reaction. Progressive have to stop throwing our most cherished beliefs in the sewer trying to keep up with the neo-cons every time figure out a new way to cheat.

2) Nothing is stopping Dean (or other nominee) from holding back an operating budget for the slwer months. Dean is NOT FORCED TO SPEND EVERY SINGLE DIME AVAILABLE TO HIM for the primaries by the end of March.

I consider this a whole thing a valid test of future leadership abilities, by the way. Figuring out how to make CFR work is hard. Throwing out the CFR baby with the bathwater is easy. What other babies might a Dean team throw out the window when forced to make tough decisions?

3) I know for a fact part of that time period quoted by Trippi/Dean is rubbish. Look at when the Alaska primary is scheduled. July. Oregon. May. So... is Trippi claiming CFR won't allow Democrats candidates to compete in Alaska and Oregon? Whoops.

- Looks like that math degree you're waiving at people doesn't do much good if the holder of the degree plugs in the wrongs values to the variables, huh?

[Vikingking66]

29. number's aren't right there

Dean has about 25 million total. The total for all the candidates is about 80 million, Bush has about 90 million. The idea is that since Dean is the only one whose fundraising numbers are appreciably rising (7.5 in the second quarter to 14.8 in the third) that he would have the best chance of competing with Bush.

This is a pretty sensible idea, given the fact that 54 million people voted for either Gore or Nader: if we can get a even a tenth of them to give 100 dollars, we can match Bush. Keep in mind Bush's fundraising has always been unconstested, and that 200 million is the projected total he will be able to raise, only 40 million more than he raised in 2000, when he lost by 500,000 votes. Gore raised 100 million in 2000, so we know at least that much money is out there. However, Gore couldn't tap into the same kind of hard money that Dean could potentially, if his campaign is expanded onto a party-wade basis.

[tsipple]

32. Anyone Who Wants to Put in a Down Payment...

...To rebut the person who started this thread, be my guest. :-) You know what to do. See my signature below, and thanks.

[NashVegas]

35. So What's Your Point?

Seriously, what reponse, exactly are you trying to provoke, here?

The vote for Dean's people was over two days ago, so it's kind of late to play Chicken Little now.

Are you posting this in hopes Kerry backers will see it and try to persuade his campaign to stick to public financing?

I don't want to hear a raa-raa speech that indicates if more Dean supporters give more, Dean will have more money

Okay, so what DO you want?

As long as one candidate (in this case, Bush) has the option to forego public financing - and does so to the tune of $400,000,000.00 - what, pray tell, do you propose to effectively counter it?

[mouse7]

43. Hoping the rest stay with public financing

I can't support a candidate that will toss CFR in a dumpster. I don't care what Dean says, CFR is done if a Dem wins after throwing CFR aside. One of those slippery slope things. To be honest, CFR is probably done if a Dem clinches the nomination after putting it aside.

So... here's to hoping the other candidates see the wisdom of continuing the forward momentum of CFR.

[Eloriel]

55. Oh, I get it. You're in favor of

campaign finance suicide.

So, don't vote for him.

Eloriel

[Jacobin]

60. LOL.

These Dean bashing threads are a hoot. Hopefully, once Dean gets the nomination, these folks will spend their time on republican websites or decide the join the party.

Dean is an unstoppable force.

[Adjoran]

57. Before you go about lecturing others

you should at least know your subject.

NOBODY can "withdraw from CFR." "CFR" is Campaign Finance Reform Act, which is the law. No one is exempt from it.

Dean is declining public financing for his campaign. Any candidate may do this. The Supreme Court ruled years ago that a mandatory public financing system violates the 1st Amendment because in political campaigns, money = speech.

Public financing matches primary contributions up to $250, and then gives the nominee of qualified parties (of course, only the Democrats and repubs qualify, no other party received 5% of the popular vote in the last general election) roughly $50 million for the general election. However, accepting this means you cannot raise any money through private donations after the last primary.

With the foreshortened schedule we have next year (thanks again, Terry McAuliffe :p )there would be a period of three months in which our nominee likely would not be able to run a major television campaign, because the federal money doesn't kick in until the convention officially nominates the candidate in July.

Bush is going to have the advantage anyway, since he has no primary opponent and can squirrel away all the "primary" donations, then go back to the same people for another "primary" donation next year (the individual limits are per year, so donors can give $2k in 2003 for the primaries, $2k in 2004 for the primaries, and another $2k in 2004 for the general election). He's got a pile of cash, and will dominate the airwaves.

Dean's tactic is risky: as he said in response to how much he expected to raise, "We are giving up about $30 million in matching funds, so we need to raise that before talking about how much more we need to raise." But it could give him a fighting chance to stay on the airwaves between the last primary and the convention. That is important - go ask Bob Dole about it.

The public financing system is broken. We have to admit that. So few people use the checkoff on their taxes anymore that the funds are not sufficient. It's too late to change the system for this election cycle.

I don't fault Dean at all for taking the chance.

[mouse7]

63. Then take your own advice, for pete's sake

CFR has become accepted as an all encompasing abbreviation for the concept of campaign finance reform in general. CFR NEVER was accepted as McCain/Feingold only because there we multiple versions of CFR on the hill other than McCain/Feingold.

In other words, go look up CFR in a your favorite press organization's stylebook, then proceed to the "Shut-The-Hell-Up Expressway" outta here. There's only one thing worse than someone who pollutes a serious discussion with whiney nitpicking. That's polluting a thread with whiney nitpicking that's wrong.

Shortened schedule wrong again... Alaska in July, Oregon in May.

[Skinner]

64. I'm locking this thread.

It is inflammatory.

Skinner
DU Admin

[Clark Can WIN]

65. If Dean ends up with the nomination

The biggest effin warchest in the world won't even matter because we will lose the election in a humiliating landslide. It'll look like RayGun all over again. That is my honest opinion. The list of Democrats we have running with a snowballs chance in hell of beating Bush is very short.

1. Clark
2. Kerry
3. maybe....... outside chance Gep

Lieberman can't because........ please, it's Lieberman.
Edwards can't because he is the victim of his own good health. He looks too young
CMB can't becasue she doesn't come off as being forcefull, strong or serious enough to be a president
Sharpton can't because of the TB incident and a bunch of other skeletons
Kucinich can't because he is percieved as being at the far left of the Democratic party in a society of centrists with a touch of liberalphobia. Especially in war.
Dean cannot win the GE because of his overwhelmingly nightmarish tendency to engage his mouth before his brain. The GOP will make the election a referendum on cultural conservatism. And the military and defense? They'll have a field day there. He'll be buried. If Dean gets the nomination, start preparing for 4 more years of the Bush administration and start making plans to get your young sons out of the country.