Julien Sorel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 06:50 PM
Original message |
WP: Democrats outspent Republicans in '04 for first time in decades. |
|
Total spending on the presidential campaign from all sources seeking to influence the outcome exceeded $1.7 billion, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. At least $925 million was spent in support of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and $822 million in support of President Bush. In the 2000 presidential contest, total spending was just under $1 billion.
One of the major reasons for the sharp increase in overall spending was the decision by the campaigns of Bush and Kerry to reject public financing for their primary campaigns, which would have imposed spending limits. Without those limitations, Bush and Kerry together boosted spending by more than $300 million.
...
Both major parties defied predictions that the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law would severely weaken them. Instead, each broke fundraising records in the 2003-2004 cycle. In addition, both the DNC and the RNC have vastly improved the resources available to future candidates, arming themselves with high-tech voter lists and building donor bases that should provide reliable financial support in the future.
RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie acknowledged the accomplishment of the rival DNC. "The parties adapted to the law, and frankly the DNC had a bigger adaptation to go through," he said. "But they broadened their net and were able to get to small donors."
DNC Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe declared: "Even though the pundits called the DNC 'dead' after McCain-Feingold, the American people said otherwise. Thanks to our strong grass-roots support, the Democratic Party surpassed every fundraising goal by a factor of three." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29739-2004Dec2.html
|
Leilani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 06:54 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Grass Roots, take a Bow! |
|
Unfortunately, I believe the Republicans got a lot more "Bang for their Buck."
|
Julien Sorel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Unfortunately, it's hard to smear an incumbent and make it stick. |
|
The Republicans spent 8 years viciously attacking Clinton; he left office with the highest approval ratings of a departing president in history.
|
Leilani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Edited on Fri Dec-03-04 07:03 PM by Leilani
But Bush's record is a disaster; to criticise it, is not smearing.
|
blm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. YEP. The media TALKED about Swift ads while they ignored MoveOn ads. |
|
All the facts against Bush that MoveOn and Dem ads had and the media never examined the facts presented, yet, the Swift vet lies were talked about as if they were true for over 2 months straight.
The media bending over for Bush for 4 years is PRICELESS. The Post didn't factor that into their equation, did they?
|
Leilani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
& the people who made obscene profits from all this spending?
The corporate media!
|
Mike Niendorff
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. The "Swift Boat" guys spent over **$11.8 million**, too. |
JohnKleeb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
8. whats even more funny is how the media talks about the "liberal media" |
|
while promoting republican propaganda.
|
JohnKleeb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 07:41 PM
Response to Original message |
7. why is that people tell me that the party is doomed then |
|
BTW thats good to know, we still gotta come back though and make gains in the midterms though.
|
Julien Sorel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-03-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Because we're reaching the bottom of a long |
|
realignment. The South has been moving more and more into the R column, as the old school conservative Democrats die off, retire, and are beaten at the ballot box. The problem was made way worse by 9/11, which seems to have given a huge boost to reactionaries of every stripe. But looking at the electoral map, there really aren't that many more seats we can lose to this. Right now, I think it's possible we will lose 1 or 2 net Senate seats in 2006, and that's pretty much going to leave us with a floor of about 42 senators. Bad, but not catastrophic, especially considering the '08 presidential race looks promising.
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-04-04 02:46 AM
Response to Original message |
10. it will get a lot worse next time |
|
when the Republicans join the 527 battle in earnest.
This year they got caught flat-footed and their 527's got seriously outspent by Move On and America Coming Together. Don't expect that to ever happen again.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:17 AM
Response to Original message |