Skip to main content

Numbers are in millions, updated after September reports.

     September  Year-to-date  Cash on Hand  Debts

DSCC    5.3         42.0         22.9         ??
NRSC    2.9         23.4          8.3         0

DCCC    8.6         52.6         28.3        3.0
NRCC    2.6         37.2          1.6        3.85

DNC     3.7         40.5          3.3        2.0
RNC     5.8         63.1         16.5          0

Even with the RNC's big advantage over the DNC, Democrats still lead the cash-on-hand column $54.5 million to $26.4 million -- a more than 2-1 cash advantage over a Republican Party that has traditionally crushed Democrats in the money game.

Meanwhile, look at the hole Republicans find themselves in after the most recent filing period:

HOUSE

          # of       Total     Total
       Candidates    Raised    CoH

Dems    344          98.1        136.5
GOP     260          66.3        100.7


SENATE

          # of       Total     Total
       Candidates    Raised    CoH

Dems     30          40.4         56.5
GOP      26          33.0         46.2


PRESIDENTIAL

          # of       Total     Total
       Candidates    Raised    CoH

Dems      8          244.4       110.9
GOP      10          175.3        42.9

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:25 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Why,,, (6+ / 0-)

    is the DNC so far behind all the other groups?

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 3830+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

    by Miss Blue on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:26:55 AM PDT

    •  People, don't sugarcoat this. (7+ / 0-)

      We've been sugarcoating the DNC's lack of cash for too long.  We need to start donating to them and get the fundraising numbers up.

      The job of one of our heroes (Howard Dean) depends on it.  Also, if we can get the DNC on top, we'll have total fundraising dominance on the national level and will have nothing stopping us (at least as far as money is concerned) in 2008.

      So donate!

      Blogging For Michigan-A blog so good, Republicans had us censored!

      by djtyg on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:35:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've wondered this myself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brittain33

      Is there anyone out there who can explain it? Do the three committees draw from different donors?

      Rudy Giuliani, the hero of $9.11

      by who threw da cat on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:36:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would think so (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miss Blue

        And I'd really like to see the breakdown on donors to the DNC and RNC. I suspect the DNC has more smaller donors.

        But looking at the numbers, I'd say the DNC is only going to have to worry about organizational things, and not media buys. Which would be a huge help.

        The RNC is going to have to hold up the entire party, because the other parts are doing NOTHING to pull their own weight.

        •  You would be surprised that that the GOPers (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Woody, stomv, who threw da cat

          have long had many more small dollar donors - they harnessed direct mail a full decade before Dems. Dems have just recently caught up - and were quicker to adapt the internet and social networking sites, so they've got many more donors on their files than they did at the beginning of the decade.

          Dems (pre-McCain-Feingold) relied more heavilly on huge donations from celebrities and philanthropists. It was a philosophy that it was much easier to turn to Streisand and Speilberg for huge checks than investing in the infrastructure. This also led to a more potent GOTV effort for the GOP in recent cycles.

          "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

          by Chrispy67 on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:13:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting question on the Democratic side: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    The big difference between the two sides is that our two big dogs outraise their big dogs by a HUGE margin.

    Is that disparity due to those two candidates and their appeal, or are they just benefiting from a surge in interest from the party?

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:27:33 AM PDT

  •  Boy, the DNC needs money and (4+ / 0-)

    regular contributors.

    Now ... if only there was a candidate who as the nominee would send a great deal of money the DNC's way....

  •  You forgot this chart... (5+ / 0-)

    NRCC vs. Gillibrand (NY-20)

    NRCC CoH: $1,598,505.61
    Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20) CoH: $1,631,852.36

    "Parlimentary inquiry Mr. Speaker... does whining come out of my time?"

    by Andrew C White on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:28:56 AM PDT

  •  Gee (12+ / 0-)

    Just imagine how much wider that gap might be if our elected Democrats actually opposed the President on something.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:29:22 AM PDT

  •  Senate Candidates (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    What about just those Senators up in 2006 vs the challengers?  Any idea?

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:30:42 AM PDT

  •  What will a trapped animal do? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    it will be interesting to see what a caged GOP animal resorts to. . .  I think the GOP message will get really ugly since it is a cheap cost effective way to get publicity.  The RNC ads were horrible in 'o6 with even the some republican candidates themselves asking that the RNC attack ads be pulled.  

    "The woman's life is misery; for God's sake, people, at least give her a few good songs". NYT review of The Color Purple

    by arogue7 on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:31:13 AM PDT

  •  "hole" (0+ / 0-)

    i'm not sure you can really call the candidate fundraising a hole for republicans given that the average per candidate fundraising seems to be only slightly lower than democratic figures

  •  When Dems spend, they enrich Republicans? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    Esp. when buying ads in the media!

    and using services like banks, telecoms, VeriSign, etc.

    I'm hoping more Progressive and Liberals buy and run media outlets, esp. talk radio like Air America.

    "You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." --Mark Twain

    by LNK on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:32:13 AM PDT

  •  How is Dean's contest every state effort going? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stomv, boofdah, jct

    You never hear about that, or him really, anymore.

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

    by Windowdog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:35:26 AM PDT

    •  It looks like the DNC is raising a fair amount of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE

      cash; it seem that they're spending it as it comes in, on what I hope is their 50 state strategy.
      This is not necessarily bad-- and may pay dividends down the road.

      Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-- Wm.Pitt the Younger

      by JeffSCinNY on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:00:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Question (0+ / 0-)

        It looks like the DNC is raising a fair amount of cash

        By what standard can we call this a "fair amount" of cash, though? It's scary that they're raising significantly less than the RNC, which has big problems of its own and which just lost its chairman.

        As I said above, the 50 state strategy is a great idea, but it's only an idea if we don't also do the dirty work needed to keep it funded.

        •  I'm not sure, but (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brittain33, Jake Nelson, mmacdDE, stomv

          one thing I've heard about Dean's strategy as DNC chair is that when he does fundraising in states, he lets the state parties keep a lot of what used to get siphoned directly to the DNC.  So it may well be that one explanation for the lower DNC numbers is that the money is being raised but used to strengthen state parties.

          That said, I have also seen some concerns that Dean just hadn't done as good a job at fundraising as would have been idea.  I don't know exactly how it all shakes out.

        •  A lot of DNC appeals... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jake Nelson, Woody

          ...direct donations straight to state parties, so the DNC may request the donations but the bank accounts never reflect them because the cash goes to the state parties. Make sense?

          (I asked in a separate comment whether or not we know how the two sets of state parties are faring. That might be a more accurate representation of the DNC vs RNC. In other words, let's look at DNC+50 state Dem Parties vs. RNC+50 State GOP Parties -- if those numbers are available.)

          •  Excellent. And other stealth funds (0+ / 0-)

            So far as I know, this info has never appeared on dKos or MyDD or Swing State. It would be great to know the TOTAL totals.

            Another stealth fund ignored by these leading blogs is the Repub Governors Association, which seems to have raised $7 million more than the Democrats already this year.

            Unlike the NRSC and the NRCC, which trail their Democratic counterparts in fundraising, the Republican Governors Association is outpacing the Democratic Governors Association in fundraising ($12.4 million to $5.3 million through the first six months of the year).
            Source: The Rothenberg Political Report, Tuesday, September 11, 2007, Governors Associations Retooling for the Long Haul, by Nathan L. Gonzales

            Money from the Governors Associations gets pooled with others in the state-level combined campaigns, but we ignore the Repub lead here. At our peril.

            •  Very important... (0+ / 0-)

              Govs can veto the 2012 Congressional and state lege remaps (based on the 2010 census).

              The GOP ramped up efforts in the late 90s to gain state capitol majorities and governorships in order to remap after the 2000 census. (The entire Texas mid-decade remap was because the GOP didn't quite have a statehouse majority at the time of the 2002 map drawing.)

  •  These are the stats that will tell the story (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RW, hyperstation

    I'm a poll junkie like everyone else, but the money race is where the Dems are going to win the White House.

    Any professional you talk to doesn't first ask, what are the polls like? They ask how much money the candidate has, because money moves poll numbers.

    Not saying it's good or bad, just the way it is.

    No matter who the GOP nom is, I cannot imagine the Dem nom, especially if HRC, won't have a significant money advantage for the general.

    In HRC's case the corporate money is already tipping its hand that it will go her way regardless. I know that's considered a negative around here, but personally I think it will be what wins the White House for her.

    It certainly will count for more than the "netroots" is likely to do for her, unfortunately.

  •  Bush infatuation... (0+ / 0-)

    ... might explain the discrepancy for the Presidential elections, but it doesn't look like they are really missing any substantial ammount for their other races. I think once there is a Republican nominee, and Republicans accept that Bush really is leaving, the gap will vanish.

    •  respectfully disagree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RichM, mmacdDE, Pennsylvanian

      Dems will have a huge edge in small donors, and the big corporate money is already going their way, due in no small part to the perception that they're also a virtual lock to hold both houses of Congress as well.

    •  Do some of them think Bush ISN'T leaving? (0+ / 0-)

      Not sure I can get into that argument.  Bush IS leaving and I don't see why the gap would vanish just because they actually pick one ass from their lame-ass field.

      I just don't see the logic in that.

      The K Street Project being dismantled, the gay scandals erupting at every turn and the growing fatigue with war and torture porn would, to me, have a lot more to do with the difference in giving.  Add that to the fact that the fundies thought they were buying some constitutional amendents the last time around and got screwed, and I can see why they aren't giving so much, and probably won't this cycle.

      "When people show you who they really are, believe them." - Maya Angelou

      by Pennsylvanian on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:58:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  DNC burn rate is very very high (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gaspare

    Does anybody know exactly what they are spending their money on?

    Reality has a well known liberal bias.-Stephen Colbert

    by pierredude on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:38:13 AM PDT

    •  50 State Strategy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jake Nelson

      It is great but expensive and DNC is not getting credit for that but instead is saddled with perceptions about Democratic performance in Congress.

      •  Ok, but (0+ / 0-)

        Why aren't those perceptions similarly hurting the DCCC and DSC?

        •  I would be that %90 of the public (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jake Nelson

          has no idea that the DCCC or the DSCC even exist.

        •  Because they don't spend (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jake Nelson

          for infrastructure.

          They don't set up a state HQ. They don't pay for staffers for that office. They don't pay for training materials for the volunteers. They don't pay the utilities, and buy the office equipment, and pay the phone bill. The state party does that. And if they get money from the DNC, they can have a presence in places where they never did before.

          •  I don't understand that reply (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Woody

            We're talking about how public perceptions of Congressional failures are affecting fundraising. That has nothing to do with spending. The DNC isn't getting much money in through the door.

            •  I think the $s bypass the DNC to go to the states (0+ / 0-)

              Part of the Dean/DNC strategy is to make funding appeals but have the money go directly to the state parties, rather than DNC. Hence, it "looks like" the DNC isn't taking in money even as the state parties "appear to be" taking in more money -- on average -- than usual (I think, I don't have the numbers to back it up, but that's the 50 state strategy theory in a nutshell).

        •  Lobbyists & corporate "gifts" (0+ / 0-)

          The corporate "giving" is not going to pay for party organization. It is going into the funds of the DCCC and the DSCC, where sitting Members of Congress will get a report of the donations from the lobbyists and their clients. Not that the corporate givers expect anything in return for their donations, of course -- I know you'd be shocked to imagine such a thing -- but they TRULY don't expect a return on their investment for any donations made to Howard Dean, the DNC, or the state parties.

  •  Behind the good news may lie some bad news. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohwilleke, gaspare, Woody

    I am concerned that the impressive fundraising may lie in part from the corporate powers that be deciding that the Dems will win and making their investments accordingly.  The recent story about Rockefeller and the telecoms is a case in point.  This may not be a free lunch.  It may be a sign of the Dems owing favors to the powerful.  

    •  I see your point but (0+ / 0-)

      would counter that there's no other way in the current environment to soundly beat the Republicans.

      I've always been of the school of thought that you affect change easier from within. By winning the corporate money over and proving they're responsible stewards of that trust, Dems will be able to lose the "loser" stigma and be in a position to make some real, lasting changes.

  •  NRCC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohwilleke, brittain33

    Good to know that the NRCC still has $2.25M more debts than CoH.

    "The NSA offers exciting work for recent graduates in computer science. Pick up the phone, call your mom, and ask for an application."

    by Scipio on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:49:30 AM PDT

  •  Breaking News. . . (12+ / 0-)

    Democrats Apologize For Outraising Republicans

    Washington -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a teary-eyed apology to President Bush today, saying that it was completely inappropriate for her party to outraise the GOP in a time of war.

    "We respect and admire the President," said Pelosi. "And we hope he understands that our fundraising activities were in no way meant to insult our troops our undermine our nation's struggle against an ongoing terrorist threat."

    Sources close to the Speaker say that the Democrats will introduce a censure resolution against themselves tomorrow for raising more money than the GOP -- a measure expected to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking for Senate Democrats, hinted that the party might actually donate several million dollars to the GOP in the name of "reaching across the aisle."

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:50:33 AM PDT

  •  Stop giving money to the Dems. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyScott

    Until they start doing their fucking jobs. Just stop. Dry it up.

  •  See "Send spines to Dems" Diary. (0+ / 0-)

    If we're giving them money, we should (MUST) also make sure they have the spines to deserve it.

    Let's send lots of spines to DC....literally.

    And moohla to Howard Dean.

    VEBO...Vote Every Bum Out

    by ShainZona on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:04:42 PM PDT

  •  K Street knows the Re-thugs cannot deliver (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohwilleke, mmacdDE

    Ergo? NO MONEY FOR THEM

    The Wall Street Journal had an interesting editorial about this.

    Lobbyists are non-ideological. Money will flow to points of leverage. Democrats now hold those points of leverage.

    It is really quite simple.

  •  Wow. The Larger the Constituency, the More (0+ / 0-)

    Republican the donations go.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:08:20 PM PDT

  •  Democrats need to make great ads with the cash (0+ / 0-)

    or otherwise the cash is wasted.  I remember the Dean ads in Iowa - what a waste of money.  

    I suggest that we have an award for top political ad producers from the 2006 election cycle.  Smaller, local campaigns created great ads.  We should highlight and award the ad producers in the hope that the publicity and honor will generate more work for them.

  •  The losing party should give all of their CoH (0+ / 0-)

    for rebuilding New-Orleans.

  •  Hole? (0+ / 0-)

    When you look at how much "spending money" that represents per candidate, the numbers seem to tell this story:

    HOUSE

            # of       Total     Total
          Candidates    Raised    CoH

    Dems    344          98.1        136.5
    GOP     260          66.3        100.7

    That's $396,802.33 per Democratic candidate;
    $387,307.69 per Republican.  Less than $10,000 disparity will make a difference in a congressional race?

    SNEATE

        # of       Total     Total
          Candidates    Raised    CoH

    Dems     30          40.4         56.5
    GOP      26          33.0         46.2

    That's $1,833,333.33 per Democratic candidate;
    $1,776,923.07 per Republican. Less than $100,000.  Again, enough to make a difference in a senatorial race this time?

    And that's not counting the $2,000,000 DNC debt compared to the $0 RNC debt.

    Looks to me like the Democrats need to do much better than they're doing before the amount of money they've raised can mean good news for us.

    I'm no accountant, so, please, somebody, check my math and tell me a better way to view these figures.  I want to be wrong.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:00:54 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, the aggregation doesn't make a lot of sense (0+ / 0-)

      But I don't think you're looking at it the right way, either.

      Rather than dividing by the candidates in each case, we should be dividing by the number of contended seats.  We won't be spending the same amount of money on a seat contested by a Republican as one where they haven't even put up a candidate.

      Or, a different approach: With 344 Democratic candidates, there are 91 seats which the Republicans will win unopposed.  With 260 Republican candidates, there are 175 seats which the Democrats will win unopposed.  (Not counting independent and third-party seats, for the moment.)

      That leaves 435 - (175 + 91) = 169 seats being contended.  If the money tends to determine the race, and the money edge is effectively even in those races, we'll assume those 169 races will be split.  (We'll be generous and give the odd seat to the Republicans.)

      That leaves the House with 176 seats for the Republicans, and 259 seats for the Democrats - a gain of 30 seats or so, and 31 seats away from a two-thirds majority.

      Neither of the above projections has anything to do with reality... except that I think they both illustrate that we're in a better position than you think.

      With Blue skies ahead, yes I'm on my way... And there's nowhere else I'd rather be

      by DarthParadox on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:41:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're Right in re Contested Seats (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Woody

        being the better divisor.

        Currently the House is 233 Dems, 200 Repubs, 2 vacancies, (and 1 pending vacancy -- newly elected LA Gov, Jindal).  Since all seats are up for re-election, the question becomes how many, if any, candidates are unopposed in their races.

        Once that number is subtracted, one can assume all other races are in contention and money will have to be spent in winning them -- more, or less money -- depending on how good the chances are of one's candidate vs. the opponent's.  One assumes more money will be spent in an effort to gain a seat in most cases, than on an effort to retain a seat.  So, incumbents, again in most cases, can expect a smaller share of the Pot than challengers.

        But, since the Dems have more incumbents, one might anticipate they're going to have to spend more than Republicans on the House races, just to maintain the status quo.

        What about going after the seats Democrats don't have, now occupied by Republicans -- the target seats?  Logic implies that's where the big bucks should go.

        Chris Bowers' List of Targets totals 77.  So, that may be a good working divisor.  Now we're looking at Dems having $1,772,727.27 in spending money per candidate, assuming none goes to any Democratic incumbent.   A huge improvement.  Suppose we take out one-third of the Pot for incumbents' races and set aside two-thirds of the Pot for target races?

        In that case, $91M is devoted to target seats and the divisor remains 77.  Now we're talking $1,181,818.18 in spending money per candidate.  Down half a million each.  

        That doesn't seem like a dangerous amount.  Things are looking better than they were looking in my earlier post!

        The Republicans will definitely have to spend money on those same targeted seats, if they think they can hold on to them, but not if they're willing to concede them.  One needs to know what House seats they've targeted to have a better understanding of where the two parties sit in relation to each other when it comes to war chests.

        Does anyone know what the average cost of winning a House seat was for the Dems in '06?  That would be useful in gaging how "well-off" our war chest is.

        Thanks!  I wanted to be wrong.  And I was.

        And I think I feel better.  

        They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

        by Limelite on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:03:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The RePugs only have 260 House candidates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohwilleke, Ramo

    at this point?

    Talk about recruiting failure.

    "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

    by Chrispy67 on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:28:17 PM PDT

  •  I have a bold prediction to make for '08 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cas2

    The Traditional Media will make an unprecedented effort to compensate for the GOP's money disadvantage.

    We will see biased reporting taken to a whole new level.

    The TM denizens will tell themselves that they are only leveling the playing field; they'll never think about all the times that the money race favored the Republicans.

    Once again in '08, Comedy Central will be the only source for evenhanded reporting.

    -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

    by xynz on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:40:30 PM PDT

  •  Doesn't the DNC figure reflect... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Woody

    ...the Dean emphasis on promoting money directly to state parties?

    Are Dem state parties up over GOP state parties? That might be a more true reflection of the DNC numbers.

    Add to that the huge disparity in presidential figures... Wow.

  •  Not surprising (0+ / 0-)

    if Dems are outraising Republicans this cycle.  BushCo has stunk up the joint so utterly, so thoroughly, that the populace is becoming restive.  

    Time to bring on the 'B' team.  A cowed and compliant, proven Security State Dem like Hillary R. Clinton is probably the best shot the right has at consolidating BushCo's advances.  

    They now it.  Don't mind the boos and hisses of the clownish wingnuts either.

    Not Giuliani.  Not Romney.  Not Huckabee.Clinton, and the illusion of real politics and real democracy.

    That'll do nicely.

    Partisanship is not the heart of politics.  Partisanship is the abdication of politics.

  •  As Krugman observed, the CEOs are sick of the GOP (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake Nelson, Woody, cas2

    Even on Wall Street, where the lion's share of the wealth has flowed during the Bush Administration, a good economy matters more than low taxes.  

    For all its tax cuts, BushCo has not delivered a healthy economy, while Clinton did.  And, Wall Street is now being bitten for a subprime mortgage disaster which has a lot to do with weak regulation in the financial sector.

    Similarly, the nation's health care providers have finally woken up to the fact that their mountains of bad debt and massive administrative costs are a bigger problem than their malpractice insurance payments.

    Importers from China have learned that regulatory controls protect their business, not just the public.

    Importers from everywhere have paid the cost of the collapsing dollar.

    The automotive industry is just starting to wake up to the fact that their freedom to make gas guzzling vehicles through CAFE standard delays hasn't helped their market share.

    Senior have discovered that, surprise, surprise, Social Security has not gone bankrupt as BushCo claimed that it would; but that weak investment returns have eaten into their nest eggs.

    Deficit hawks have learned not to trust the GOP.

    Defense Republicans can't take heart in the hollow military created by an unnecessary and failed Iraq War.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

    by ohwilleke on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:52:41 PM PDT

  •  Compare to previous election cycles (0+ / 0-)

    It would be really nice to see the equivalent numbers for some past election cycles. I think this is a novelty, with the Dems up like this, no?

    Priez mes frères
    Condamner la guerre
    Qui brûle aux quatre coins de la terre

    by dconrad on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:54:52 PM PDT

  •  I Just Said "NO!" to the DCCC... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake Nelson, Woody

    ...I'm giving through ActBlue to my preferred candidates all over the country, but wrote "Write me back when Nancy and Steny grow a spine" on the page where I was supposed to check an amount and sent the mass mailing back.

    No thanks, DCCC.  I'll choose who I support myself.

    Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 05:30:20 PM PDT

  •  Totals (0+ / 0-)

    If you look at the total sum to this point, Democrats hold a $142.2M cash on hand advantage. Our coffers keep getting deeper and our candidates are already in great position for another wave year. But more importantly we have public opinion on our side on the most important issue... Iraq. Even the Republicans don't want to mess with this issue anymore, but Bush keeps pushing them along. We lost close to 20 house races last year by less than 2% points in 2006 and a large number of Republican retirees are going to help our cause. Also, the Senate political map looks really favorable as well. I just hope that we stick to our message:

    1. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.
    1. Bush Sucks and so do the Republicans.
    1. Domestic issues: Economy, Health Care, Education and Fiscal Responsibility.  

    2008 can be a far better year than 2006! Go Democrats.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site