Dean failing to raise DNC funds

[Blue Rectangle]

Dean's tenure so far has shown a lot of the outrageous rhetoric that Terry McAuliffe was famous for.  As much as Republicans loved Terry's overboard statements that seemed to alienate swing voters, Democrats loved his fundraising capabilities.  It's still early, but it looks like Dean has failed to emulate that part of Terry's legacy.

Article at Business Week

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do the small, internet-based contributions that made Dean famous in the primaries work for the DNC?  Looks like no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Terry was an ardent Clintonite and had enough of a pro-business rep to get the big bucks.  Was choosing a true liberal for DNC chair a mistake?

[Moooooo]

Actually, Dean has raised more money in an non-presidential election year than any DNC Chair in history.

First Quarter of 2005 - $16.7 million
Q1/2004 - $28.7 million
Q1/2003 - $8.7 million
Q1/2002 - $11.8

And Dean is on pace to break the midyear fundraising of $23.7 in the first six months of 2001.

[TheresNoMoney]

I don't want the big corporations to control the Democrats like they do the Republicans. Democrats need to be the party of the people, and not the corporations.

Dean is doing just fine.

[Blue Rectangle]

I don't want the big corporations to control the Democrats like they do the Republicans. Democrats need to be the party of the people, and not the corporations.

Dean is doing just fine.

Democrats are losing the union vote, which itself isn't as strong as it used to be.  The Party can long longer be anti-business and expect to raise money and win elections.  Just being pro-union won't cut it.

The last paragraph of the story:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, Terry's failings at the polls do not translate to success for Dean.  The Democrats are not playing to beat their personal best, they're trying to beat the Republicans (or at least they're supposed to be).

Second, it sounds like Dean is stuck in the Democratic strategy that failed in 2004: fire up your base and boost voter turn out, and you'll win.  That's not good enough any more.  Dean's message, which is supposedly intended to "take the fight to the Republicans", has backfired.  His message was not aimed at swing voters, but at the faithful.  Did you see his "Meet the Press" performance?  He spent most of the time explaining his past statements--that's defense, not offense.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Latest CNN/USA Today / Gallup poll has
Bush with a 46-50 approval rating
Dean with a 35-33 approval rating

Dean has 6 points better net favorables than Bush.

[TheresNoMoney]

Democrats are losing the union vote, which itself isn't as strong as it used to be.

They're not losing the union vote.

  The Party can no longer be anti-business and expect to raise money and win elections.  Just being pro-union won't cut it.

The big business crowd already votes Republican and that's not going to change. There's no need to pander to the wealthy corporate types, it hurts our message and our credibility. Democrats need to be an alternative to the Republicans, not Republican-lite.

Second, it sounds like Dean is stuck in the Democratic strategy that failed in 2004: fire up your base and boost voter turn out, and you'll win.  That's not good enough any more.

Dean IS reaching out. He's working to regain the trust of the working class vote and change the Democratic agenda to truly benefit the average American. The Republican agenda only benefits the large corporations and the Christian fundamentalists, the Deomcratic agenda will benefit the American people.

[Blue Rectangle]

Latest CNN/USA Today / Gallup poll has
Bush with a 46-50 approval rating
Dean with a 35-33 approval rating

Dean has 6 points better net favorables than Bush.

The country is about 33/33/33% Dem/Rep/Ind.
Almost all Republicans approve of Bush, almost all Democrats disapprove and the independents are split.  Net result: 50/50 approve/disapprove (this is the poll result, within the MOE).
Almost all Democrats approve of Dean, almost all Republicans disapprove, and the independents don't know who he is.  This produces a 33/33 split.

This poll tells us nothing.

[Blue Rectangle]

Democrats are losing the union vote, which itself isn't as strong as it used to be.

They're not losing the union vote.

I should have said "losing ground".  I know Kerry won a majority of union voters in 2004, but it was a small majority when you at historical numbers for the Democrats.  Republicans have been eating away at the Democrats' union vote since 1980 and the the number of union members has been falling for decades.  The populist, pro-union/anti-business message is a big time loser for Democrats.  The average American is a middle-class suburbanite who is not a union member.  Populism is a tough sell to these people.

[TeePee4Prez]

Actually, Dean has raised more money in an non-presidential election year than any DNC Chair in history.

First Quarter of 2005 - $16.7 million
Q1/2004 - $28.7 million
Q1/2003 - $8.7 million
Q1/2002 - $11.8

And Dean is on pace to break the midyear fundraising of $23.7 in the first six months of 2001.

Dean is doing just fine.  He WILL do better among union voters.  The problem is union voters think the Dems have abandoned them in favor of elite social liberalism enitrely.  Case and point- 1992 DNC Convention when Bob Casey Sr. was denied a slot, but 6 pro-choice REPUBLICAN women were given slots.  I feel this damaged the Democratic party in many ways.

[Alcon]

Call me crazy, but I could have sworn I saw several polls where Dean has a purely dismal approval rating.

[Cubby]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Second, it sounds like Dean is stuck in the Democratic strategy that failed in 2004: fire up your base and boost voter turn out, and you'll win.  That's not good enough any more.  Dean's message, which is supposedly intended to "take the fight to the Republicans", has backfired.  His message was not aimed at swing voters, but at the faithful.  Did you see his "Meet the Press" performance?  He spent most of the time explaining his past statements--that's defense, not offense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with some of your points. But isn't " "fire up your base and boost voter turnout" exactly what Bush did ? Remember those famous 4 million evangelimentalists or whatever baptists call themselves that Karl Rove tried to "reach" last year? Since that strategy worked for Bush, it should (in theory) work for the Dems as well.

[Alcon]

I agree with some of your points. But isn't " "fire up your base and boost voter turnout" exactly what Bush did ? Remember those famous 4 million evangelimentalists or whatever baptists call themselves that Karl Rove tried to "reach" last year? Since that strategy worked for Bush, it should (in theory) work for the Dems as well.

When it comes to voter turnout, Jesus always trumps trees.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Second, it sounds like Dean is stuck in the Democratic strategy that failed in 2004: fire up your base and boost voter turn out, and you'll win.  That's not good enough any more.  Dean's message, which is supposedly intended to "take the fight to the Republicans", has backfired.  His message was not aimed at swing voters, but at the faithful.  Did you see his "Meet the Press" performance?  He spent most of the time explaining his past statements--that's defense, not offense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with some of your points. But isn't " "fire up your base and boost voter turnout" exactly what Bush did ? Remember those famous 4 million evangelimentalists or whatever baptists call themselves that Karl Rove tried to "reach" last year? Since that strategy worked for Bush, it should (in theory) work for the Dems as well.

Another thing, this isn't an election year. It's true that Bush tried to appeal to the middle during his initial run, when he pretended to be a "compassionate conservative" and made all the right "centrist" noises. But if he put on a moderate face in 2000, that was because he had spent 1999 shoring up and sewing up the base-- and even then nearly lost because not enough of Rove's evangelicals showed up.

Simply put, you've got to have a place to stand on before you can "reach out" to anyone.

[Sam Spade]

I agree with some of your points. But isn't " "fire up your base and boost voter turnout" exactly what Bush did ? Remember those famous 4 million evangelimentalists or whatever baptists call themselves that Karl Rove tried to "reach" last year? Since that strategy worked for Bush, it should (in theory) work for the Dems as well.

When it comes to voter turnout, Jesus always trumps trees.

How true.  I don't necessarily think Dean's done a terrible job, though his mouth is often a problem.

The issue is that the GOP right now are making the Dems fundraising efforts look terrible, though it is early (but early fundraising can be important) 

We'll see if Dean can do better in the second quarter to close the gap and to convince the moneyed types of the Dem party to start contributing again.

First quarter number comparisons look something like this, according to Business Week:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_23/c3936057_mz013.htm

DNC: Raised $14.1 million dollars
RNC: Raised $32.3 million dollars

DNC: Drew 20,000 new donors
RNC: Drew 68,200 new donors

DNC: Cash in bank: $7.6 million dollars
RNC: Cash in bank: $26.2 million dollars

[A18]

Is that after-tax or pre-tax? It's ridiculous that this kind of 'income' is taxed.

[Blue Rectangle]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with some of your points. But isn't " "fire up your base and boost voter turnout" exactly what Bush did ? Remember those famous 4 million evangelimentalists or whatever baptists call themselves that Karl Rove tried to "reach" last year? Since that strategy worked for Bush, it should (in theory) work for the Dems as well.

Another thing, this isn't an election year. It's true that Bush tried to appeal to the middle during his initial run, when he pretended to be a "compassionate conservative" and made all the right "centrist" noises. But if he put on a moderate face in 2000, that was because he had spent 1999 shoring up and sewing up the base-- and even then nearly lost because not enough of Rove's evangelicals showed up.

Simply put, you've got to have a place to stand on before you can "reach out" to anyone.

On the GOTV issue:
Democrats have historically had a big advantage in party affliation numbers, so logically they would win if they simply got all those registered Democrats to show up.  That's the old strategy, though, and it doesn't appear to work anymore.

The Republicans didn't win solely on successful GOTV efforts.  The idea that evangelicals won the race for Bush is a myth that some Democrats use to convince themselves that they are right: "the majority disagrees with me because the majority is a bunch of loons."  Bush won because the major issue in the election, Iraq, was a winner for Bush.  Kerry couldn't get a majority of voters on the question "whom do you trust more on the issue of Iraq?"  Bush always had a strong lead on the Terrorism issue and was able to play to a near-draw on economic issues (thanks to efforts like NCLB and Medicare drug coverage).

[Rob]

I should have said "losing ground".  I know Kerry won a majority of union voters in 2004, but it was a small majority when you at historical numbers for the Democrats.  Republicans have been eating away at the Democrats' union vote since 1980 and the the number of union members has been falling for decades.  The populist, pro-union/anti-business message is a big time loser for Democrats.  The average American is a middle-class suburbanite who is not a union member.  Populism is a tough sell to these people.

^^^ Populism is dead. This isn't the Thirties- hell, it isn't even the Sixties, when an old fashioned, pro-union Democrat like Hubert Humphrey could come within seven-tenths of a percentage point of winning.

The Democrats need to ditch the far left, swing right economically and stand up for individual freedom.

[TheresNoMoney]

The Democrats need to ditch the far left, swing right economically

No, they don't. The far right of the Republican party is hurting them more than the far left of the Democratic party.

And they DEFINITELY don't need to move right on economic issues. The majority of Americans agree with Democrats when it comes to economic issues.

[FerrisBueller86]

Ah, the debate between the populists and the libertarians of the Democratic Party.  As I see it, relying on corporate donations undermines the populist appeal, reinforces the "latte liberal" stereotype, and encourages Democrats in office to be Republican-lite.  Howard Dean is right.  While money is important in politics, it's not everything, and not relying on corporate donations makes it easier for everyone to see that the Democratic Party really is an alternative to the Republicans.

It would be one thing if the DNC strategies of 2000-2004 had actually worked.  But the record shows this hasn't worked, so changes are critical.  Howard Dean is making these changes.

[PBrunsel]

Give Howard some time there, he's only been DNC Chair for a few months. But on the fli[ side, he's been more effective in brining up moral in his few monthsthen McAufile did durring his entire tenure.

[jokerman]

Hell, I'd rather we stick to our principles and say to hell with the corporates, even if it means campaign financing losses.  As much as the Republicans get in corporate campaign contributions and aid (ie. lobby careers and such), it is maddening we Democrats still hold a decent proportion to it.

[Cubby]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the GOTV issue:
Democrats have historically had a big advantage in party affliation numbers, so logically they would win if they simply got all those registered Democrats to show up.  That's the old strategy, though, and it doesn't appear to work anymore.

The Republicans didn't win solely on successful GOTV efforts.  The idea that evangelicals won the race for Bush is a myth that some Democrats use to convince themselves that they are right: "the majority disagrees with me because the majority is a bunch of loons."  Bush won because the major issue in the election, Iraq, was a winner for Bush.  Kerry couldn't get a majority of voters on the question "whom do you trust more on the issue of Iraq?"  Bush always had a strong lead on the Terrorism issue and was able to play to a near-draw on economic issues (thanks to efforts like NCLB and Medicare drug coverage).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your explanation sounds better than the idea of the christian right vote. Thinking back to November I would have been less freaked out by losing on Iraq than losing on "moral values" and to the christian right. Its all because of that misleading question on the exit poll! Some liberals said that was their main reason for voting because they are morally opposed to the entire Bush Administration.

[AuH2O]

The problem for the Democrats is that the GOP wins the middle class. Kind of kills their whole argument there.

And Dean is a horrible, horrible, horrible chair. I love it.

[The Duke]

It doesn't matter if he broke the fundraising record, since those records are basically broken all over again each time around.  What matters i that the Dems had caught up to the Reps in fundraising and have now fallen far behind.

The difference between Dean and Mehlman as the two Party Chairs is a microchosm of why Republicans are winning and Democrats are losing.  An ideologue celebrity-pol elected with great fanfare and speculation who has no idea how to do his job or Mehlman, a professional politi-nerd whose election was barely noticed and hardly talked speculated about who rakes in the dough and knows how to run an organization.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It doesn't matter if he broke the fundraising record, since those records are basically broken all over again each time around.  What matters i that the Dems had caught up to the Reps in fundraising and have now fallen far behind.

The difference between Dean and Mehlman as the two Party Chairs is a microchosm of why Republicans are winning and Democrats are losing.  An ideologue celebrity-pol elected with great fanfare and speculation who has no idea how to do his job or Mehlman, a professional politi-nerd whose election was barely noticed and hardly talked speculated about who rakes in the dough and knows how to run an organization.

The Republicans have the fat cats with tax cuts, and Kerry promising to raise taxes on those who made over $200k a year. You can thank Bush for all of that Democratic money raised last year, but he's not on the ballot again, so it'll be harder for the Democrats to fundraise. I don't think this is Dean's fault at all.