Howard Deans legacy as DNC chairman...

[MobBoss]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012101057_pf.html

One of the things that is going to be a major factor in 2008 elections. Dean's antics and outrageous statements have driven off many of the DNCs stauch donors.

Definitly going to be a huge hurdle for the DNC to overcome.

 

[Irish Caesar]

True, but where is all that Republican money coming from?

...

 

[The Yankee]

All that money is paid back in favors.

 

[downtown]

well, its not like folks in the ghetto can afford to donate much anyways

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

That sounds about right Matt.

 

[Cuivienen]

If Hillary Clinton runs, as looks likely, she'll get so many personal donations the Democrats won't need many business donations. Seriously. I have heard directly from the mouth of the Chairman of the FEC that Hillary Clinton would be able to raise $250 million for her campaign without government matching, way over the cap of (IIRC) $87 million that can be raised and then matched by the government. (No previous candidate has felt confident enough of breaking the cap as to not receive matching government funds.)

Maybe that's what Dean is counting on. I wouldn't be surprised if he knows whether Hillary plans to run or not.

 

[The Yankee]

Or if those 527 groups are catching much of the money that would otherwise go to the Party's coffers.

 

[bhsup]

(No previous candidate has felt confident enough of breaking the cap as to not receive matching government funds.)

I'll around 98% sure that Bush blew off matching funds in 2000, and maybe 2004 as well but not sure about that, because he was going to rake in something like $200 million through donations. I'll look for a source.

 

[jameson]

Where in the article does it say that the Democrats raised less money than they normally do ? And if people gave less money, where does it say that it's on account of Dean's [unspecified] 'antics' ?

Oh right, they actually raised more money.

 

[bhsup]

Mid 1999 report about Bush refusing matching funds.

 

[MobBoss]

Where in the article does it say that the Democrats raised less money than they normally do ? And if people gave less money, where does it say that it's on account of Dean's [unspecified] 'antics' ?

Oh right, they actually raised more money.

Uhm....actually they are doing far worse compared to their competition. This from the pre-Howard Dean era: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/parties/dnc05facts.html

FUNDRAISING HIGHLIGHTS: For the first time in 30 years, the DNC out-raised the RNC. The DNC raised approximately $404 million for the 2004 election cycle. From Feb.2001-Feb.2005, the DNC raised approximately $535 million, shattering all previous DNC records. Just in 2004, the DNC raised $360 million to the RNC's $284 million and nearly doubled the 2000 totals with only hard money.

Now they are lagging quite far behind the Republicans. What changed? Howard Dean took charge. You figure it out.

 

[MobBoss]

well, its not like folks in the ghetto can afford to donate much anyways

I didnt know George Soros was from the ghetto. Or Ted Turner. Or that Hollywood was located there. Wow. Learn something new every day on this forum.

 

[Conqueror '91]

The real problem here is that the Democratic Party continuously lacks leadership figures. Howard Dean is remembered by many Americans only for his supposed "outburst" in '04. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have been inconsistent on the issues, and their pandering to the Republicans is not fooling anyone. Thusly, many donors who may have donated to a Democratic candidate instead gave their money to the stronger Republican party, knowing that the GOP is more likely to win an election.

The Democrats cannot expect support, in money or in votes, until they put forth viable, consistent candidates.

 

[MobBoss]

The real problem here is that the Democratic Party continuously lacks leadership figures. Howard Dean is remembered by many Americans only for his supposed "outburst" in '04. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have been inconsistent on the issues, and their pandering to the Republicans is not fooling anyone. Thusly, many donors who may have donated to a Democratic candidate instead gave their money to the stronger Republican party, knowing that the GOP is more likely to win an election.

The Democrats cannot expect support, in money or in votes, until they put forth viable, consistent candidates.

You mean like Al Sharpton?

 

[jameson]

Uhm....actually they are doing far worse compared to their competition.

Comparing the money raised during a presidential election year with an off-year is hardly fair though, is it ? The money raised in 2005 was, according to the link I posted earlier, a record amount for years in which no election was held.
Democrats lagging behind Republicans in fundraising is a fact of life in American politics as far as I can tell; 2004 was the outlier here.

I'm also curious whether Dean really said anything that's objectively more outrageous than, for instance, this gem from the other side:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

 

[taper]

I believe the Dem's biggest problem is identity. The only real platform they ran on in 2004 was that they weren't Bush, and it didn't work. They won't have that in 08, and I predict that support for Hillary will quickly vanish once she starts a national campaign. There's a chance she'll lose her Senate seat this year anyway, which would kill any shot at the White House.

If Barak Obama doesn't end up in a scandal, he could be a leading candidate in 2016, after he completes two Senate terms. I honestly think the Dems should worry about not destroying the party before that, and build an image, rather than trying (and failing!) to win elections with no overall plan.

 

[The Yankee]

A chance she will lose her seat in the Senate? Hardly, the only current candidate, former Yonkers mayor John Spencer, is running 30 points behind and the state GOP is focusing on the Governor and other state races.

 

[Conqueror '91]

You mean like Al Sharpton?

He's a great example. A person whose political views might make sense, but is taken seriously by absolutely noone. Why? He's a BUMBLING IDIOT!

 

[taper]

A chance she will lose her seat in the Senate? Hardly, the only current candidate, former Yonkers mayor John Spencer, is running 30 points behind and the state GOP is focusing on the Governor and other state races.

I missed the news that Jeanine Pirro had dropped out of the race. She probably wouldn't have won, but that would have been a very ugly campaign. I've heard that a growing chunk of Democrats are supporting other candidates, feeling that she's not representing their interests. We'll just have to see how that turns out.

 

[The Yankee]

Pirro went back to running for Attorney General. Ed Cox is being told to stay away from the Senate race by the NY GOP for some reason. So it's just Spencer.

A few Democrats may be looking elsewhere only because there isn't tough competition for Clinton this year. It would be a chance to bolster things like the Working Families Party.