Howard Deans legacy as DNC chairman...

[Odin2006]

Hillary better not run. She's too easy to smear.

 

[downtown]

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.

oh, dont play this stuff with me Mobboss, we're both smarter than this. Yes, there are a few democrats who are crazy mad wealthy. Are they base of democratic party? No.

Who IS the base of the American Left? Think hard Mobboss. It might be...poorer people!

 

[ThePhysicist]

Howard Dean is doing a pretty darn good job in my opinion. He's not soliciting money from the big donors, as has been pointed out, true. But I think that's a good thing. He's outraising comparable years under his predessesor, cutting the republican advantage from 3-1 to 2-1, and while he's at it, he's building a non-corporate money base. This allows democrats to be responsible to the people, rather than corporations, and will help build a less corrupt party.

Also, Dean is raising money for the state parties, where the democrats do surprisingly well. His predecessor would show up, attend an event, and run off to the dnc with the money. Dean gives it to the states (which makes the increase he has precided over even more interesting).

And by the way, your right, dubya did forgo matching funds, for the primaries. Many have done this recently. But I'm fairly sure no one has forgone it in the general election.

 

[Capulet]

Uh... you do realize that 2004 was an election year, right? During non-election years, like 2005, the parties don't raise hundreds of millions of dollars.

But, under Howard Dean, the DNC raised more money then they ever have in a non-election year.

So your idea that the Democrats are losing money under Dean is false.

They're breaking records.

http://www.dnc.org/a/2006/01/record_fundrais.php

A Record Fundraising Year For DNC
Posted by Tim Tagaris on January 4, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Email this Print this Blog this

Was it only less than two months ago? Page A1 of the Washington Post, a piece criticizing the DNC's fundraising efforts since Governor Howard Dean took the helm nearly one year ago. That's what you get when the article includes more anonymous "aides," "critics," "several Washington Democrats," and "sources close to the DNC" than actual people and hard facts. And what a difference those pesky facts can make.

From yesterday's Hotline Blog:

The Democratic National Committee raised more than $51M in 2005, a record for an off-year and twenty percent higher than the comparable period in 2003.

It's a very easy story to tell, and reporters love to tell it: the one about the Governor from Vermont unable to generate the same kind of grassroots support that was the underpinning of his presidential campaign. Unfortunately, the stories that have played themselves out in beltway publications or on page A1 are more fitting of Grimm's fairy tales, or authored by Aesop, not writers like Cilliza (whose blog, The Fix, is a daily read of mine).

But here are the facts:

1.) The DNC raised more than $51 million in 2005 – a record for a non-election year and a 20% increase over the total raised in 2003.

2.) More than 30,000 Americans have invested in the future of the Democratic Party through the Democracy Bonds program. At an average contribution of $20 a month that's roughly $7 million a year in recurring small-dollar contributions.

3.) To date, the DNC has hired talented, experienced, diverse political professionals in 43 states. Thirty of those states have sent their staffers to Washington, DC for several days of training from top Democratic operatives about how to effectively organize Democrats in their communities.

4.) Governor Dean and the DNC invested more than $7 million to elect new Democratic governors Jon Corzine in New Jersey and Tim Kaine in Virginia. Democrats also reaped important ballot box victories at the local level in places like Mobile, Alabama, St. Paul, Minnesota and King County, Washington.

5.) Governor Dean has traveled to 34 states and territories during his first year as chairman to talk about Democratic values and raise money for the local parties. Those states, red, blue, and purple, include:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

So why is there so much misinformation and anonymous discontent out there? The truth is, much of it is not intentional. This is a new way of doing business, re-building the party from the grassroots up, organizing in every state, and asking Americans from Main Street, not K Street, to sustain the party via their small dollar contributions. Unfortunately, there will be the contingent of those who are threatened by the new shift in balance... and those are often the ones cited anonymously on page one of the Washington Post when inaccurate stories about DNC fundraising come out.

 

[MobBoss]

oh, dont play this stuff with me Mobboss, we're both smarter than this. Yes, there are a few democrats who are crazy mad wealthy. Are they base of democratic party? No.

Who IS the base of the American Left? Think hard Mobboss. It might be...poorer people!

So democrats are both more educated and more poor?

Poor people are not the base of the democrat party by any means. Unless of course you want to portray the democrat party as the hand-out party.

Actually, the democrats have so alienated themselves from middle America it could very well be difficult to pinpoint the "base" of the democrat party. Is it the rich snob base of Kerry and Kennedy....or the rich ambulance chaser base of Edwards? Or the flat out obscene billionaire base of Soros? Or the hollywood elite base ala Streisand, Speilberg, and Redford?

To allege that the democrats care anything about the poor is the height of hypocrisy. They want the poor dependent upon Uncle Sugar so they can remain easily controlled. All the democrats truly care about is power, power they dont have at the moment and thus will say and do just about anything to regain it.

You guys are really in denial if you think Dean is doing a good job. Hell, even members of his own party have publicly said he should shut the hell up. They distance themselves with him routinely. The democrats had more money than the republicans in 2004 but now under Dean they are hurting compared to the republicans....yet you guys think Dean is doing a great job. Heh, fine, let him do that "great job" and when we go into 2008 and the republicans have double the money the democrats do we will see how well the election goes for them.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Lol mobboss, if you think Dean's doing a horsehockey job, good for You. Let us dems destroy ourselves. You would think someone who wants democrats to be defeated would shutup while the party destroys itself.

I'm not really worried about the future of the democratic party, but judging from your anger, something seems to be bothering you even though the reps control all three branches of government. Could it be that support for the conservative/reggressive fools on capital hill has plummeted? Lookout in november and 08. The only idiot dem who could possibly lose in 08 with the current trends is hillary.

 

[North King]

So democrats are both more educated and more poor?

Poor people are not the base of the democrat party by any means. Unless of course you want to portray the democrat party as the hand-out party.

Actually, the democrats have so alienated themselves from middle America it could very well be difficult to pinpoint the "base" of the democrat party. Is it the rich snob base of Kerry and Kennedy....or the rich ambulance chaser base of Edwards? Or the flat out obscene billionaire base of Soros? Or the hollywood elite base ala Streisand, Speilberg, and Redford?

To allege that the democrats care anything about the poor is the height of hypocrisy. They want the poor dependent upon Uncle Sugar so they can remain easily controlled. All the democrats truly care about is power, power they dont have at the moment and thus will say and do just about anything to regain it..

If you think Republicans are the party of the poor, you're sticking your head in the sand. Both parties are tools of the corporations, the democrats are only slightly less so.

What we really need is a TR who can bust these capitalist monoliths. I have nothing against capitalism, mind you. I merely think that having people who are out only for profit in charge of the country is a VERY bad idea. Small time capitalism, I like. I don't like the mega corporations, though, and I REALLY don't like their control over the government.

 

[MobBoss]

Lol mobboss, if you think Dean's doing a horsehockey job, good for You. Let us dems destroy ourselves. You would think someone who wants democrats to be defeated would shutup while the party destroys itself.

What good would it do me to shut up when there are news stories about it out there?

Anyway, it seems the republicans also set a record for fundraising. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/...hp/GOP_posts_record-breaking_fundraising_year

I'm not really worried about the future of the democratic party, but judging from your anger, something seems to be bothering you even though the reps control all three branches of government. Could it be that support for the conservative/reggressive fools on capital hill has plummeted? Lookout in november and 08. The only idiot dem who could possibly lose in 08 with the current trends is hillary.

Oh? And here I thought Hillary was the only dem candidate who had a chance? Who do you think will be the dem front runner?

 

[blackheart]

To allege that the democrats care anything about the poor is the height of hypocrisy. They want the poor dependent upon Uncle Sugar so they can remain easily controlled. All the democrats truly care about is power, power they dont have at the moment and thus will say and do just about anything to regain it.

Oh hey, sounds like the Republican party too!

 

[MobBoss]

If you think Republicans are the party of the poor, you're sticking your head in the sand. Both parties are tools of the corporations, the democrats are only slightly less so.

What we really need is a TR who can bust these capitalist monoliths. I have nothing against capitalism, mind you. I merely think that having people who are out only for profit in charge of the country is a VERY bad idea. Small time capitalism, I like. I don't like the mega corporations, though, and I REALLY don't like their control over the government.

I humbly submit that the only way for true change to occur is within those monolithic parties themselves. Not even TR could win as a third party nominee, remember, so basically any serious third party candidate only manages to swing the election one way or another as opposed to making any true change.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Mark Warner or Russ Fiengold

Mark Warner will defeat essentially anyone who runs against him, especially if he takes Evan Bayh as a veep candidate.

Fiengold is more liberal, so he could take the nomination away from Hillary by "representing the democratic wing of the democratic party." He is percieved as a maverick by most, and he has a pretty good chance in a general election as long as he doesn't act like a windbag like Kerry/Gore.

But the candidate doesn't matter as much as many would like to think. As long as he/she is competent overall, they will win against any Republican except McCain as long as the trends of the past 15 years continue.

 

[DBear]

Odin, check out http://dummiefunnies.blogspot.com/ .

Physicist, you certainly seem defensive for someone who likes Howard Dean.

As for me, I'm having a and enjoying the show.

 

[ThePhysicist]

However, I must add: Hillary represents the elite to most and would be a poor candidate, especially for a group who say they are "the party of the people"

So all bets are off if Hillary wins the primary.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Physicist, you certainly seem defensive for someone who likes Howard Dean.

Yeah, your right. Howard Dean was criticized, and I defended him.

 

[Capulet]

Mark Warner or Russ Fiengold

Mark Warner will defeat essentially anyone who runs against him, especially if he takes Evan Bayh as a veep candidate.

Fiengold is more liberal, so he could take the nomination away from Hillary by "representing the democratic wing of the democratic party." He is percieved as a maverick by most, and he has a pretty good chance in a general election as long as he doesn't act like a windbag like Kerry/Gore.

But the candidate doesn't matter as much as many would like to think. As long as he/she is competent overall, they will win against any Republican except McCain as long as the trends of the past 15 years continue.

Sadly, Feingold wouldn't win a general election. He is Jewish, and I don't think the American public will elect a Jewish president yet.

But he is a good guy.

I like Mark Warner though.

 

[MobBoss]

Mark Warner or Russ Fiengold

Mark Warner will defeat essentially anyone who runs against him, especially if he takes Evan Bayh as a veep candidate.

Fiengold is more liberal, so he could take the nomination away from Hillary by "representing the democratic wing of the democratic party." He is percieved as a maverick by most, and he has a pretty good chance in a general election as long as he doesn't act like a windbag like Kerry/Gore.

But the candidate doesn't matter as much as many would like to think. As long as he/she is competent overall, they will win against any Republican except McCain as long as the trends of the past 15 years continue.

Trends of the last 15 years? Who won after Reagan was in office two terms?

 

[ThePhysicist]

Yeah between being a Jew and divorced, he's got his work cut out for him. But Wisconsin's a swing state, and he does fine there. I think he could win, especially with a pro-dem wind at his back.

It would be tougher though.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah between being a Jew and divorced, he's got his work cut out for him. But Wisconsin's a swing state, and he does fine there. I think he could win, especially with a pro-dem wind at his back.

It would be tougher though.

The DNC would never let him get that far. They already had a prime, moderate, DNC jewish guy named Lieberman, but they dont care for him at all.

The guy better stay in Wisconsin...nationally the Dems woudlnt support him.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Trends of the last 15 years? Who won after Reagan was in office two terms?

Errr....the trends I'm talking about are the ones that show the end of the Reagan coalition. It's breaking apart and being replaced by an alliance of independents and Dems. The same processes that turned states like California and Illisnois solid blue are happening elsewhere. The formation of the post-industrial economy is building a more liberal envirement.

States like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and Colorado are moving to the Democrats. Also Southwestern, immigrant heavy states like Nevada and New Mexico are also moving towards the Dems.

Take a look at the outcomes of Election 2004. Colorado and Virginia were as close as was Missouri, traditionally considered a swing state.

The realignment would have happened by now, but 9/11 and Iraq refocussed the public on security, where Reps enjoy an advantage.

 

[ThePhysicist]

The DNC would never let him get that far. They already had a prime, moderate, DNC jewish guy named Lieberman, but they dont care for him at all.

The guy better stay in Wisconsin...nationally the Dems woudlnt support him.

No no no. Lieberman and Fiengold are nothing alike. Fiengold isn't nearly as moderate, and he enjoys support from the same base that supported Dean in 04.