Skip to main content

View Diary: Q1 fundraising, more numbers (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Could someone enlighten me? (0+ / 0-)

    Are people really donating money to primary candidates that can only be spent in the general? What happens to that money if the candidate never makes it to the general? I would be reluctant to contribute money for a general election to second tier candidates.

    Would it be fair to conclude that candidates who have higher percentages of donations targeted for the general are considered by the "market" to be more likely to prevail in the primary?

    • Blog This: News Corpse
    • The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay.

    by KingOneEye on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:13:01 AM PDT

    •  It must be returned (0+ / 0-)

      to donors, I am quite sure.

      We have only just begun and none too soon.

      by global citizen on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:15:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well . . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingOneEye, eartha, meowmissy

      ... the "general" money only comes after you've maxed out for the primary.  In other words, you're only getting such funds from people who've already given their first $2300.

      A candidate who ends up with unusable money can transfer it to the party or various party committees, federal and state.

      •  Can they keep it, or at least pay it to campaign (0+ / 0-)

        workers who happen to be their wife?

        Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:17:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But if they've maxed out for the primary... (0+ / 0-)

        ...why not wait to see if their candidate makes it to the general before donating more?

        If it's because they want to help inflate the candidate's fundraising this quarter, won't it also have the effect of deflating it in the quarter following the candidate's primary victory (assuming they've maxed out for the general as well)? Presumably they can donate for the general anytime between now and Nov 2008. Is it really strategically advantageous to blow the whole wad now?

        Maybe it's because they're so rich they don't care what happens to their donation if their candidate loses.

        If I were running, I'd want to manage donations from wealthy contributors to apply them to periods where they do the most good. I don't know if that's legal. Good thing I'm not a candidate (there are other good reasons for that too, but it's best not to go into it).

        • Blog This: News Corpse
        • The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay.

        by KingOneEye on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:26:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you always want the money. period. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And candidates can condition access on double-maxing, if they like.  But a campaign assumes it can take the early money and turn it into more donors later on, but in the case of Sen. Clinton, I really believe that people have already decided whether or not to "buy in" to her candidacy.

          The other thing that a warchest does is that it scares people away from donating to other campaigns.  Worked for GWB in 1999.

          •  And it's more efficient ... (0+ / 0-)

            You'd rather have Bill Clinton schmooze a bunch of Uppereastsiders once and bilk 'em of four grand apiece than have to send him over again later.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site