Out-fund-raising only means they are being bet on by the investors buying policy think they are going to win and will be able to direct policy via their investments. Campaign cash tells you only one thing our democracy is run by legalized corruption. Get the money out of politics with a Constitutional amendment through the article five section of the Constitution. The politicians won't do it they're already bought and paid for. It must be done by grass root pressure on the local state politicians.
6
I hope they use the money well. It's face to face contact, talking with, and more importantly, LISTENING to people that matters.
2
Democrats are out fund-raising Republicans despite enormous checks from rich Republican donors such as Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, who donated $10 million to the (Republican) Congressional Leadership fund. Clearly, the ridiculously wealthy want more Republican rule.
Meanwhile, Democratic fund raising “much of which was fueled by donors giving small sums on line” (NYT) show clearly that the majority of Americans have had enough Republican mis-rule and looting of our country and democracy.
Read also https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/16/us/politics/campaign-fina... for the nuts and bolts about funding sources. Democrats have taken in $45 million in small donations; Republicans $15 million, clear indication of the will of the people.
“We the super-rich” have had their day. We the people are about to speak.
Don't forget to help Lisa Brown (D) who is running against a 15 year do-nothing in Washington State, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
https://lisabrownforcongress.com/
1
Sadly we learned in 2016 simply having more cash doesn’t win elections
GOP voters have a massively charismatic leader in Trump. Simply put the white male and female GOP voters hold him beloved.
The Democratic party currently has no equivalent. Democratic voters are educated white males and females and minority voters - and increasingly younger voters
Standard-bearers comprised solely of old white folks isn’t going to cut it.
Biden, Sanders, Warren - they need to get out and let the party look forward, not back.
2
The Democratic party is the party of white wealthier people with more money (see David Brooks piece yesterday citing research that Wealthy White Progressives are now more prevalent than White Wealthy Conservatives).
Working class Trump and Republican voters of all races raising a family simply do not have the funds to donate, though they are doing much better now than when Obama was in office. Political donation money is a reverse indicator to how popular a party is with the working class. When Dems were popular within the working class, they also had poorer fund raising than Republicans.
2
@Dan Well, I don't know how many Democrats you know, but among my friends of all races, all are hard working, certainly not wealthy, but definitely donating our widow's mites to the Democratic candidates.
I guess your Republican voters of all races (!) just don't care enough to donate.
1
Shameful! Money doesn’t equal democracy nor fair representation since the same people fund both parties.
Senator Schumer, an avid fundraiser, for instance, lacks the credibility to advance financial industry, or student loan regulations, for instance.
3
What Democrats (and Republicans) don't get that is that small donor dollars are worth many times more than big donor dollars.
There's a candidate in Wisconsin, Randy Bryce, who, unlike other Democrats, has raised $4.52 million from small donors, more than DOUBLE of any other Democrat running for the House--61%.
I'll bet, even in Wisconsin, he'll have one of the great blowouts in 3 weeks.
Why? Because I can guarantee you that EVERY small donor is going to get to the polls and vote. They don't need to be phoned and begged for more money and reminded to vote. They don't need advertising to convince them to vote for Mr. Bryce. A big donor maybe has one vote.
Would you rather have $741,000 in donations from 10 rich donors, or $74.10 from 100,000 donors? Same $7.41 million but...you already have 100,000 votes guaranteed!
Ask Jeb Bush how many votes having a zillion dollars got him in the last cycle.
Yet in your list of which Dems raised the most, most of the money is coming from big donors. Only 4 have gotten more than 1/4 of their money from small donors.
In my own district, NJ 11, Mikie Sherrill has raised over $7 million, but only 1/7th of that has come from small donors. Hopefully, it will be enough to get her a comfortable win.
But I'm betting Bryce has the most impressive win in a competitive race.
1
Many small donations are out-raising the GOP. And what does that tell us about the will of We the People? (As opposed to We the Super Wealthy?)
4
It won't be enough. With the likes of Elizabeth Warren poisoning the well with her idiocy just 3 weeks before the election.
5
Democratic enthusiasm is through the roof! The Adelsons are in their mid-80s and the Koch Brothers are getting up in age. The super donors may pretend the death of the Republican party in its ability to fund raise.
The death of a super donor from Chicago left his less conservative children in charge of the money, drying up a key source of money.
It shows, despite the Electoral College and even small states getting two senators, that the people believe in Democratic policies.
I was amazed at the investments in infrastructure when I have traveled in Europe and Asia recently. I came home to crumbling roads, pitiful train service, and aging, old airports.
7
You do your readers a disservice by failing to mention the money -- titanic amounts of it -- being spent by independent groups on so-called issue ads that attack candidates they oppose. That money is not considered campaign cash and is not included in the FEC reports upon which this article is based. Paul Ryan's super PAC, for example, the Congressional Leadership Fund, said months ago that it planned to spend $100 million on such ads, fortified by $30 million that Sheldon Adelson and his wife gave it in May. As long as the ads don't mention the candidates who CLF supports, the ads are not a campaign contributions. This pool of cash, unrestricted by donor limits has become at least as important as the "official" tally, if not more so.
4
All the money in the world will not put us in control of the House or Senate. Instead, put that money to use by getting people qualified to the new voter suppression rules, get those closed precincts opened, and get a message to believe in; stop running against trump.
4
Money, money, money...there is a deafening silence from the TRUE beneficiaries of all this money - THE MEDIA. Think about it for a second. A very large portion of this money will go to advertising/propaganda.
We need to get money out of politics. I know I am in the minority. But that is the only way we can get corruption out. Lobbying is nothing more than legalized bribery. I often laugh when a politician says campaign contributions has no influence on their decision making process. Perhaps a child would believe that screed.
If we the people are serious about free and fair elections we need to subsidize campaigns through tax dollars and limit the campaigns to 90 days. We had the longest presidential campaign season in 2016. Look at what we got out of it. The mess we are in is the gift that keeps on giving.
THE MEDIA of course will not relinquish this cash cow anytime soon. In fact I would be very surprised if this post gets published.
6
Isn't it interesting that the majority of funding fueling the Democratic campaign coffers is coming from small individual contributions, while the Republicans rely on big PAC donors originating primarily from wealthy old white guys. Paints a stark contrast between the 2 parties.
12
Interesting to watch the well funded Democrats carefully spinning their advantage so as to maintain their every-man allusion. The truth is, the right has created more jobs and fed more of the poor than the left, just as Sam Walton fed more of the least amongst us than Marx Lenin and Castro combined
4
@TJ Sam Walton and his children rely of tax-payer funded financial support for their army of low paid workers. The financial success of his distribution company decimated small town America and changed business owners into retail clerks, proving yet again that the ends never justify the means.
@BigDaddy86 Well said my friend. DW
The money will help push people to the polls, but the laziness factor and the fallacy that “my one vote doesn’t matter” may still dominate. But can anyone imagine two more years of a crook with the emotional maturity of a 10-year-old in the White House? That should be reason enough to vote out anyone from the GOP who supports Trump.
12
But will they vote???
6
Turnout is key and luckily SuperPACs and Corporations can't make it to a voting booth. Fundraising is a better indicator of enthusiasm and voting numbers, so see you in November!
3
The Times was pretty sure HRC was gonna win, too.
5
@SD Polls the day before the election showed it as the dead heat that it was, well within the margin of error. People seemingly forget this.
NYT, remind me again how much Funding Hillary Clinton had before she was trounced by President Trump in the most recent Presidential Election. People, save your money.
6
@RCS The POTUS election of 2008 was the thinnest electoral college victory in modern history, which is hardly the definition of "trounced". The margin was 70k votes in three counties in three states, all heavily attacked online by ProRump and ProRussian interests.
People, give till it hurts, lest we say goodbye to our struggling democracy.
2
Along with my good pal Sheldon Adelson, I was (and am) opposed to the Iran deal, was in favor of moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem and make frequent contributions to charities in Israel, albeit somewhat smaller in amounts than his.
Now, I regret to say, I find myself -- temporarily I hope -- on the other side of the fence than he is.
Although some gains have been made, the delusional Trump and his Republican Party and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia are no longer safe bets for securing the future of Israel.
If you are in any doubt about this Sheldon, go ask Mr. Khashoggi
I hope Sheldon, that you will be changing horses very soon.
Let’s you and Miriam and I have lunch to discuss this.
I’m paying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/us/politics/adelsons-political-donati...
3
@A. Stanton
You realize Kashoggi was an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. If a Muslim Brotherhood dominated Government ever takes hold in Saudi Arabia you think they will tolerate journalists critical of them like Kashoggi was critical of the Kingdom? You don't think any such journalist critical of a Muslim Brotherhood Government would be in danger? I suspect they would be.
3
What they need is to surge ahead in the votes on election day. Money doesn't always work a fair exchange with votes. Every Democrat has to act like they are one vote down and get that vote to come to the polls. The difference between Democrats and Republicans has never been clearer. The Republicans are trying to deny fellow Americans access to the polls and the Democrats are encouraging people to register and vote.
7
You need to vote AGAINST this "well know" personality...
Basically insecure, bogus, and cowardly; venomous dominance and cruelty is counter-phobic; weakness counteracted by group support; public swaggering; selects powerless scapegoats.
Relishes menacing and brutalizing others, forcing them to cower and submit; verbally cutting and scathing, accusatory and destructive; intentionally surly, abusive, inhumane, unmerciful.
Hostility sublimated in the "public interest," cops, "bossy" supervisors, deans, judges; possesses the "right" to be pitiless, merciless, coarse, and barbarous; task is to control and punish, to search out rule breakers.
Unpredictably precipitous outbursts and fury; uncontrollable rage and fearsome attacks; feelings of humiliation are pent-up and discharged; subsequently contrite.
1
Neither money numbers nor poll numbers (or issues) will be decisive. Turnout, turnout, turnout. Why do you all ignore turnout? Your finance models and your polling numbers are not based on, and do not predict, turnout. If 19-29s, minorities and women turn out in numbers 5-10% greater than 2008, Ds will sweep House and Senate, by 25-30 seats in the House and 2 Senate seats. The only things that will depress turnout are weather and Pelosi/Clinton/Perez, who are pulling their punches (and spending their money) with 2020 in mind. If Clinton is breathing, Clinton is running.
3
I get to vote in a gerrymandered congressional district, where the Republican incumbent is the son of the father who occupied the seat before him, so the seat is effectively his inheritance, his birthright. Both father and son are used to running virtually unopposed. The district was briefly more competitive several years ago, but was swiftly redrawn to ensure the desired result. This is democracy American-style.
Many prospective voters canvassed in our district are entirely disengaged, and subjected to a barrage of negative commercials, almost all of which are entirely interchangable. They don't see their vote as mattering. Either way, you get someone ambitious and ready and willing to do the bidding of rich donors and entrenched interests.
Rick Scott, our climate-change denying governor running for the senate, who ensured the state remains dependent on almost exclusively carbon based energy (and profits personally from investments tied to oil and gas), a man who refused to allow references to warming or sea level rising in official state papers, is currently running ads proudly highlighting his handling of hurricane Michael, while homeless Panhandle residents wait in line for hours for food and water. Kafkaesque doesn't even begin to describe it.
11
If I had my way, I would put spouses and children of sitting members of Congress in a 2-year timeout before they could seek congressional office. That would help clear the houses of legacy admits.
2
"“You don’t buy your way into office, but this kind of money makes victory possible in scenarios where it otherwise might not have been,” said Bob Biersack, a campaign finance..."
That's what you call "fake news". From real experts on money and politics:
"Money doesn't always equal victory -- but it usually does. Sometimes contributions flow to the candidate who is already viewed as being much stronger than his or her opponent. Sometimes the money goes to the less well-known candidate and results in a surge in popularity. Still, at the end of the day, the candidate who wins despite having spent less money is an outlier."
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/bigspenders.php
5
They may be fundraising at a faster pace, but the POLLS show they are dragging behind there GOP opponents. ???? PRINT that instead.
5
@Franklin Noblet I think they have printed that, but I agree it bears repeating.
2
Their not there.
@Franklin Noblet That's not actually the case if you look at the numbers. Some Dems up, Some Repubs. Regardless, who cares? NYT predicted HRC would beat Trump. Look what happened there. As many others here have said, it's all about turnout. That happens when you talk to your neighbors, canvass, and phone bank.
But will all that money get the voters to show up and vote Democrat?
1
But will money somehow get young people and minorities to put down their phones and go to their polling places on election day? They turned out for Obama but Hillary's inability to get them to turn out for her was a key factor in her loss.
5
All I can attest to is that Dems are beating the heck out of the GOP on the ground. I have had over a DOZEN pro Dem interest groups send someone to my door to make sure I'm voting, while the lazy GOP can't be bothered to take my phone number out of their data base. I have told them for ten years I am not the Republican in the house, but they continue to call me anyway. Not my job to tell their party member they have the wrong phone number on her. I've told them dozens of times, they always lie and say they will remove it, but they still bother me fruitlessly for money.
I now share my sexual abuse story when they call, too. Big surprise, they hang up.
11
"I am not the Republican in the house."
But you might as well be if you're still calling them a Grand Old Party. Because that's what "GOP" stands for.
Don't build their brand.
Don't sandbag Democrats.
Watch. Your. Language.
@Lorem Ipsum
Does that reprimand come with a buggy whip? I do not understand your commandment. Is this what some mean by the Dems blowing the wave thingy? Or is this that no naming thing Whoopie and others are standing with?
1
I have given to multiple campaigns in many states. Countering the Adelsons and the Kochs is really difficult. Money is not everything, however. Unless Democrats are motivated to vote, it will mean nothing.
And then there is the cheating, voter suppression and gerrymandering that tilts the elections in favor of Republicans. The voter suppression of American Indians in North Dakota is the most blatant example--and it has been supported by the conservative SCOTUS!
Democrats have to adopt the sad reality that minorities face--they have to work twice as hard to achieve half of what Republicans achieve by cheating, lying, and flooding the election with oligarch-interest dollars.
17
But they'll still lose......
Case in point: Warren.
Dems are simply loose cannons
4
@There
Where? In Massachusetts?
Warren will win by more than ten points. The rest of the nation doesn't get to vote for her, YET.
3
Let me make sure I get this right. Republicans raising money = BAD. Democrats raising money = GOOD. Republicans win elections = stolen/hacked/bought. Democrat win elections = the voice of the People and democracy in action. Am I missing anything?
5
Yes. You're missing climate change.
Republicans raising money -- BAD for the future health and prosperity of your grandchildren because they're going to be stuck with the consequences of refusing to fight climate change
Democrats raising money -- GOOD for your grandchildren's futures because they may have a shot at reducing or mitigating climate change
7
@Dave
Its the top one percent against the bottom 99 percent. Simple.
2
Fortunately, we still go by votes, not money.
10
Fortunately, money helps.
@Dave So right Dave Hillary outspent trump and still lost.
3
@Dave Sorry, Dave. We go by turnout, not money or votes. Republican voter suppression is turnout suppression: Republicans who are trying to keep Democrats from voting are keeping or at least discouraging a few of their own voters from voting. I wonder how much D money is going into turnout and how much is going into TV.
1
2016, Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion (per Bloomberg), got trounced.
2018 DEMS are out raising GOP, with special mention of Paddy O’Rourke’s 38 million, highest amount for a senate race? And double Cruz. Uncle Bob is 10 point behind Cruz with double the money.
So … repeat?
If the numbers hold right, then blue will be crying foul as they get trounced yet again.
The NYT keep saying race dynamic have changed, but keeps measuring the races with the same standards.
Be ready to post your speedometer at 100% blue wave and spend the day asking ‘what happened?’ as it turns red as the day progresses, just like in 2016
4
@AutumLeaff Trump lost the popular election by 3m votes, and won the electoral college by a razor-thin margin of 70k votes, in 3 counties, in 3 states.
That was not a "trouncing" by any definition of the term.
May Beto O'Rourke surge ahead to be able to provide the best government for Americans both in Texas and the rest of the country. He is really a most impressive and mindful man.
22
Won't matter. It costs money to sell hope, but fear sells itself for free.
Predictions:
R's pick up 6 House seats and keep the Senate.
And nobody in DNC, DSCC or DCCC loses any sleep over the outcome, much less a job.
6
That's a bold claim about the House that's completely unsupported by any evidence on the ground
1
The one thing that encourages me about this story is that the donations to Democrats are coming from small donors. I translate this as voters putting their money where their mouths are. Perhaps a "wave" is in the works, but that remains to be seen on election day.
9
@RMward11: see my reply to Jim re: small donors. Bottom line is that they are important because they don't question how their donations are spent. Big money demands quid pro quo upfront.
Much of the donations was from small donors? That is a total play on words. How much? If most of the donations was from small donors that would mean something. Much could mean anything. Tell us how much.
5
@Jim: so-called "small" donors are important because they customarily do not question how their donation is spent, which thrills politicians and unscrupulous nonprofits to no end. If you don't believe that, just look at how Eric Trump's wife was looking to hire/bribe an anti-Trump malcontent ex-employee (I think it was Amorosa, but there were so many malcontents, I lost count) by telling her that her salary would come mostly from "small donors" - meaning, an aggregate of small-ball people with little to no power to question how their donation is spent.
3
What I want to know is, how did fundraising compare during the post-Kavanaugh-Ford hearings period, including the two weeks of October NOT included in this report.
4
Headlines that begin "Democrats Surge Ahead " produce a sense of complacency in the mostly democratic readers of the NY Times. Complacent people don't vote. Angry people vote.
11
Not to worry. There’s an army of red hot young adults no one’s talking to. They don’t appear in any polls but will vote in November. And they will be the deciding factor to push Democratic candidates over the top across the country.
6
@John Murray. Why does it always have to be anger? Anger is a poisonous emotion. Better to vote for what you believe in and want.
1
@Nedro if 2016 was the year voters not picked up by the pollsters rose up to elect Trump, 2018 will be the year a different set of undetected voters rise up against him . . .
Meeting adjourned, we will reconvene on Nov., 7th.
1
1% elite backing the Republicans vs PEOPLE donating five bucks to Democrats. We the People will take back our country. Ray Sipe
9
It's a sad day when Sheldon Adelsons, Koch bros, Trump PACs, Super Pacs, etc, buy and sell our elections.
Citizens United must be overturned, but ain't gonna happen with this right wing Supreme Court.
Democratic Nat'l Com (the folks who brought us Hillary) are worthless. More important than fundraising, spending on get out the vote efforts, frequently suppressed in black neighborhoods.
Example: Georgia, where Stacy Adams (D) is running neck and neck w/ Rep candidate. After the hurricane, the gov (also running for Senate--how is this even possible?) suppressed **53,000** votes on some phony charge--most from black voters.
8
I thought liberal demos were against politicians getting campaign money from interest groups?
The leftist liberal party left me a long time ago... sad.
7
@obummer
Money wins elections in case you forgot. You can't campaign on air. If there is another way let us all know.
1
Oh come on, your name gives you away.
I've been donating so much as a way to relieve my PTSD which is being constantly triggered by that orange monster in the Oval Office who has some abusive rant going on against a woman almost every single day.
You put a big provocative trauma-triggerer in the White House, you can bet he'll be triggering the other side into donating money to their party.
10
@obummer
You must be trolling the wrong form.
The Liberal Party form is over at the Guardian. They're British.
3
History shows that fundraising is not the same thing as winning. That the Democratic party still thinks that one automatically leads to the other shows that they have not yet learned from the past.
12
@AB
You may be right. Snake oil salesmen may have edge over fund raising but even they like money.
Funding doesn't matter in a hacked election.
21
@SW
Someone has to pay the plumbers, and the hackers. FBI seems to know how to find that dough, even if the whole building comes down around them.
For a long time, I have always found it ironic that so many "democrat" types criticize recent Court decisions involving campaign finance for favoring the "evil filthy rich knee jerk ultra conservative republicans"....but it always seems like the DNC raises far more money and funds many SuperPACs.
6
@Wherever Hugo - "but it always seems like the DNC raises far more money"
Are the article said: "Democratic campaign fund-raising, much of which was fueled by donors giving small sums online" which I can personally attest since I receive requests constantly from the DCCC and you might be shocked to learn that with each request it says: Suggested Support: $1 The request ends with "Will you step up and pitch in $1 right now?"
They will be happy to take more - but they don't as for a lot. They just ask a lot. :-)
4
@Wherever Hugo
lf you would read the article you would realize that small donors give to the democratic campaign. Your whole post is completely beside the point.
6
@Wherever Hugo The Dems have their own ""evil filthy rich" campaign donors.
1
Fundraising has nothing to do with voting. I will not get excited about Beto's fortune or anyone's war chest. If they don't get the votes, they are rich losers.
16
@Tom J, You took the words right out of my mouth. There is only one poll that matters.
@Tom J-If they don't get the votes it may be due to other reasons. Vote suppression is alive and well in this country.
1
Sounds a lot like Clinton to me
7
@Mike Livingston, Yes, but let's hope the Russians don't give the Repubs another victory... The President sure has been working to give them the edge with his Russian friend, Putin.
3
Tax campaign funds....50%. Problem Solved.
4
Fund raising is obviously associated with electoral success. However, campaign spending is actually a more candid number. If there's more than a twenty percent spending gap between candidates, the race is almost never competitive. But be wary, the relationship is very chicken and egg.
Is a losing candidate losing because they don't have the money to spend? Or is a losing candidate not spending because they know they're going to lose? Analysts would be wise to tease out the difference for each race specifically.
Moreover, spending per vote increases as the gap between candidates narrows. A candidate might have a lot of money. However, is there enough money to buy the required votes in a specific race? Democrats have money but do they have enough money in the right places? We can't say with figures like these.
Fundraising is a positive indicator but by no means determinant. We should be looking to see how much who is spending and where. That would give us a better idea of where we stand right now.
@Andy Another interesting question is where the money is coming from and how much weight it has on success. For example, Beto has raised a lot of money but some of that comes from out of state - people that can't vote for him. The money has an impact on ad spend and campaigning, but if a candidate gets 100,000 people from out of state to donate, those are 100,000 votes he/she will never get.
1
The amounts cited in this article are heartbreaking. If only citizens/corporations were so enthusiastic about helping people instead of electing them.
3
It is important to keep two very important facts in mind when reporting about Democratic versus Republican campaign financing. First is that Democratic candidates are largely being funded by small donations from actual voters, whereas Republicans receive huge donations from the one percenters whose interests they will protect. Second, not taken into account are expenditures by wealthy Republican super-pacs and the free advertising Republican candidates receive in the form of "news" stories supporting them and excoriating their Democratic rivals on Fox and other right-wing media outlets. Taken all together, the right-wing candidates' effective campaign funding no doubt vastly outstrips that of Democrats.
23
@Renee Margolin
Paddy O'Rourke, 30 million, most of that from people who do not live in Texas and cannot vote there.
Thus, most of his money comes from non actual voters.
Read up.
4
@Renee Margolin
I guess you never heard of Soros, Bloomberg, CNN and MSNBC huh? How about Madam Secretary? Entire mainstream media is in the tank for the Dems and you think Fox News all by itself is swinging it to the right?
2
@AutumLeaff Actually "most" of his money DOES come from "actual voters", just not voters in the State of Texas. And why not? The balance of power in the Senate and the House is crucial and effects everyone.
A problem with this horse-race political journalism is that the dark horse is left out. It's probably worthy of at least mentioning the reality of dark money in our politics makes it extremely difficult to tell who is ahead in the money race.
7
@William Lazarus: both Dems and Reps would die if it weren't for Dark Money.
1
Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri raised $30.1 millions for her campaign. And her opponent raised $8.5 millions. The population of the State of Missouri is 6,113,532 (Census of 2010).
Lets compare to Canada. The country population was 33,476,658 (Census of 2011). In USA it was 308,745,538. California had more people than Canada with 37,253956. Here in Canada the maximum that a party running in the 338 federal ridings was allow to spend in the 2015 federal election. $54,936,320.15. By riding the maximum allowed was $218,837.62 on average. The amount is based on the number of voters in the riding.
In the USA, a district in New Jersey the Democratic candidate (Malinowski) is spending$5.5 millions, the Republican (Lane) $2.1 millions. In a Pennsylvania district the figures are: Kelly (R) $2.3, DiNicola (D) $1.1. And the Canadian dollar is weaker than the US one: $1.00 CND = $0.77 US.
I will conclude by saying that the elections in the US looks like a good economic stimulus.
I donated to the Democrats-it was the first time that I ever made a donation to a political party and it felt great doing it !
17
"The breakneck Democratic campaign fund-raising, much of which was fueled by donors giving small sums online,..
Small donations are so important, it provides a great indicator of how important the election is to an individual. These are not folks who can afford the discretionary money to contribute, they'll have to go without some necessity. This is called, a sacrifice for the greater good.
And thank you donors for that sacrifice.
9
The California 1st District race won't make or break the state's results, but it is an amazing race deserving of some coverage. Audrey is a Democratic newcomer who has raised nearly $1 million in small dollar contributions since last December, when she decided, rather late, to enter the race against Doug LaMalfa, the GOP incumbent and Trump stalwart. She was a standout in the only two debates that LaMalfa would agree to. LaMalfa's war chest has been reported at $1.3 million and that from PACs and wealthy backers. (LaMalfa is already a millionaire.) Why is this notable? Audrey is running in a deeply red district that includes small towns with no major metropolitan districts. It's big city is Chico (pop. 97,000). She has a real chance to add a Democratic House seat. She may not win, but her success so far suggests the times are a-changin'.
While I'm heartened that the dem funding advantage seems to be coming from small donors, if all that money turns into the pathetic, misleading, doom and gloom advertising both sides do on TV, then I'll be disappointed. From a campaigning perspective, I think the repubs have the right idea (at least as its stated in this article)--put your money into mobilization.
Money doesn't equal success as HRC can attest to.
The article didn't mention if the money was local vs national - in house races. A lot of local donations would indicate very strong support vs. a well oiled Democratic machine raising money online. Bernie Sanders raised a lot of small donations online but they weren't local and he wasn't able to win in the ways he needed to in the local primaries (I know other forces were at work too).
My point is don't start celebrating before the votes are counted...
5
it still comes down to voter turnout. Unfortunately many of the Democratic constituencies do not have a solid history of turning out, especially for mid term elections. I think it is highly likely the GOP will actually expand their Senate majority. Whether the Democrats can squeak out a majority in the house remains to be seen. There is always a lot of hype, but the Democrats seem to come up short. I don't think this year will be any different.
6
This is democracy in action, Ladies and Gentlemen.
"The breakneck Democratic campaign fund-raising, much of which was fueled by donors giving small sums online, has boosted the confidence of party leaders."
Party leaders should not take much credit for the fact that
WE THE PEOPLE are stepping up, speaking out about what WE care about and putting our small dollars behind candidates that support OUR desires.
Republicans have come to stand for just one thing - further enriching the top 1/10th of 1% inherited/stolen wealth Robber Barons and destroying democratic-governed countries around the world.
Democrats stand for Social Good.
Very simple. What will YOU vote for?
35
@njglea so its ok to flood politics with money, as long as the money flows to democrats?
5
Did I say that, Wherever Hugo? Don't remember doing so.
By the way - are you Russian?
@njglea
Are you Roy Cohn?
Wouldn’t all the money raised be better spent on the infrastructure where the working class benefits instead of the television and radio ads where the money stays at the top.
Not sure which is the better bang for the buck but what is sure the money seems to stay with people that need it the least.
5
I never understood why someone would give money to someone else to do nothing except talk and then are supposedly beholden to the money rather than principles.
2
Please democrats, don't try to refute lies propogated by the republicans. Please keep focused on issues, learn that to win the moderates, republican and democrats, you need to stay focused on issues. That is something the republicans did, they may not have told the truth, their measures are outrageous BUT in the eyes of their constituents they are talking about what is important to them. Please learn to tell the truth however outrageous it is and foolish you look, the latter endears you to voters and makes you look human. Hillary lost the race and Warren looks foolish because they try to be polished and never seem to say what is in their heart however bumbling. Simple, uncomplicated, human, mistake filled, apologetic, that will win voting hearts. Lets leave the loud lies and accusations to the republicans.Good luck and power to the democrats.
7
It's easy to donate from the comfort of your home. It's another thing to get up, take time off out of your busy schedule, waiting in line for hours, and vote. Hopefully, those who are donating are planning to and will actually vote.
30
@Oguz K. Saltik
I vote from the comfort of my home. Utah has universal mail-in ballots. You might want to ask your representatives about them. It's a very convenient feature for most citizens.
1
Actually, Mr. Saltik, it is NOT easy for an individual who has not been politically active to donate online or at all.
What has changed is that because of the ease of online donating more people who have finally realized it is their vote and their few dollars that can make a difference in how OUR country/world is run are taking action.
Great News!
1
@Oguz K. Saltik-Agreed, but we also need to hold elected officials accountable and verify our voter registration info. Texas Republicans have worked tirelessly to keep citizens from voting: Voting Rights Act violations, discriminatory voter ID laws, redistricting, gerrymandering, voter intimidation, misleading voters about polling locations, language access barriers, and other outright voter suppression tactics. Plus the additional insult: Texans have no way to validate their vote was counted.
https://www.aclutx.org/en/news/sorry-state-voting-rights-texas
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/04/27/appeals-court-uphold...
Fundraising is one part of winning American elections.
The more important part is voter turnout, helping poor people and elderly citizens get their ID in order and head to the Jim Crow polls and get their votes cast AND counted and NOT siphoned off in black-box-vote-counting machine by a Republican operative.
America needs international election monitors like any 3rd world country run by authoritarian jackboots.
American democracy is at grave risk.
The Republican political criminal class that systematically violates the 1st and 15th Amendments must be thrown out of elected office and into prison where they belong.
It's past time that the Grand Old Putinistas move to Russia where they can enjoy fake elections with their Kremlin criminal cousins.
November 6 2018.
Give the Republicans democracy good and hard.
VOTE.
58
@Socrates do you honestly think that the DNC Trilliion Dollar War Chest is funded by grass roots donations from "the little people"....1 dollar at a time? I got some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in.
1
@Wherever Hugo "....1 dollar at a time?
I can attest to the fact that that is exactly what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee asks for. They won't turn down more of course, but the latest request carries a "Suggested Amount $1" and asks "Will you step up and pitch in $1 right now?"
@Socrates-Agreed. It's beyond criminal to see how GOP-controlled legislatures have suppressed the vote. Georgia's Kemp removed 1.2 million voters from the rolls; Kansas Kolbach threw away votes at a 3-to-1 rate in the ’16 elections. KS unfair district map gave Republicans a 20% edge+ 1 extra House seat; ditto for WV, AL. In Michigan, claims of lost & uncounted votes numbered in the thousands in 2016; no paper trail. PA, SC, NC, TX, WI, AL, MI--aggressively gerrymandered to ensure red supermajorities. ND and AZ legalized roadblocks to Native American voters. FL purging minority voters. Supreme's OH ruling legalizes voter purging. Across the country 10% of provisional ballots rejected in 2016. Voters need to verify they are registered to vote, check which ID is required, and bring multiple sources of IDs as backup. Also carpool with neighbors. We need to show up.
6
Before 2018 I had never once given money to a politician or political campaign. This year I have given to Georgia, Tennessee, Texas Democrats and it looks like I’ll also be donating to Missouri, New Jersey and Florida Democrats. It doesn’t matter that I’m a liberal democrat in California, what matters is that we elect dems in the South and in every dark corner republicans have gerrymandered the votes and stripped this country of democracy along the way. We’re coming for you all, Republicans.
88
@Huxan
Thank you .
I as well have done the same .NM is a blue state and I have spent money and time giving to candidates in other states.
Don't forget Rosen in NV, Sinema In AZ, and Beto in TX.
6
@Huxan yes, I also donated to the Democratic Party overall and in specific swing states. It felt great being able to make a difference where it is needed.
1
@PK You wouldnt vote for Gary Johnson though....would ya?
Can't harness an enthusiasm gap that isn't there. Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 and still lost. No amount of spending will make the voters forget about the push for Open Borders and the clamor of Guilty until proven Innocent around Kavanaugh.
10
But apparently you think that yapping will cover up the fact that nobody called for open borders, and we don’t really know how much Trump spent or where he got it from.
19
Don’t you know that on the Democratic side people are furious over the attacks On the abuse of migrant children and the elevating to the SC of a proven liar and likely sexual abuser? Why do you think the Dems are doing so much better with small donors? Get out of your bubble once in awhile.
12
@GregP
Whats pathetic is that all the enthusiasm on the right is vitriol and violence. Wow! was Charlottesville ever enthusiastic and how about The "Lock her up"mob mentality.Etc Etc... This kind of enthusiasm we don't need.
28
It's disappointing that our elections are essentially bought by the highest bidder. Whoever raises the most money to spend on ads to denigrate their opponent ends up winning. You would think we could develop a system where politicians were elected on merit and not money.
24
Jrpslm
You can thank the Supreme Court for that when they allowed corporations to donate unlimited funds under the guise of being “ people”and freedom of speech.
What would be ideal is the system they have in other countries like France where the government gives each opponent a certain modicum amount of funds so then it’s all equal and comes down to the most appealing candidate, not the one who raised the most money .
15
Win power first and then you can develop that system. Right now, this is how it is.
@JrpSLm
"It's disappointing that our elections are essentially bought by the highest bidder."
Except for the 2016 Presidential one, apparently.
" Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, donated $10 million each last month to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC dedicated to helping Republicans in House races, That brings their total giving to the group to $50 million this year — nearly half of its total $115 million haul."
What do the Adelsons get for $50,000,000 ?
Some of the worst politicians in office?
Or a unconstitutional purchase of American foreign policy in the Middle East.?
This is the way oligarchy functions.
69
@Mr. Louche
YUp,For 50 M they got the embassy moved to Jerusalem.
14
@Mr. Louche Talk all you want about how much the GOP donors give....you're missing the point. The DNC raises(extorts) an obscenely LARGER amount of money. Open yer eyes.
1
@PK
First of 4 Presidents to promise to move it keeping his promise is the reason the Embassy moved. Had nothing to do with Adelson.
Raising money is great, but if Democrats don’t start winning elections and fighting as dirty as the GOP, why should anyone continue to fund them? Pelosi, Schumer, Steny...they all need to step aside and let a new generation of Democrats take over.
18
lf they're so dirty, why do you persists in calling them Grand?
If you can't quit perfuming them, maybe you are the one who needs to step aside.
@Lorem Ipsum
Oh, I see, Lorem, this Grand extraction is your one lady crusade!
Go for it, but don't expect us to forget those elephants and how they made such a mess of the room.
Just "Old Party?" Reminds me of Cross and Odenkirks' "Old Baby" skit in which Bob ends up kissing a pacaderm's butt. Then Maria Bramford picked it up after some kids dropped it on her.
The Old Party with the Old Baby making a potty of it all.
The Dems stand as one in their principled opposition to the power of money in politics, and in their support for overturning Citizens United, while spending tens of millions to secure a job paying less than $200K.
Funny, isn't it, how easily a reporter can twist a "news" story to reflect his/her partisanship? The sentence "much of it raised from leftists billionaires, like George Soros, Mike Bloomberg, and Tom Steyer" would have been ever bit as accurate as that the authors employed, but wouldn't fit The Narrative: Democrats rely on "small dollar donations" while Republicans rely on "wealthy partisans".
Just think what $252 MILLION could do if leftists used that money to pay for things they say they care about, like charities helping the poor? But they prefer to "invest" in politics. And that's typical. Leftists happily shower their money on politics; helping the poor? Not so much. When it comes to charity, leftists are skinflints.
Conservatives are different. It's a bear to get them to spend on politics, because they don't expect anything back from government, and don't believe they should have to pay protection money for freedom. Leftists expect a big return from their $$$, with massive taxpayer handouts flowing in return. So, conservatives give to charity; leftists spend on politics.
Put simply, those with their hands in the taxpayers' pockets are willing to spend heavily to keep the boodle flowing.
3
Michael...to suggest that the Democrats unilaterally disarm is simply ludicrous.
The 'money is speech' and 'corporations are people' nonsense were codified by Republican-appointed Supreme Court stooges as part of the long-running right-wing effort to stamp out democracy and representative government.
The left fought Citizens United and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission; the right validated it.
Buckley v. Valeo began the 0.1% trashing of political campaigns in 1976 and it's downhill billionaire corruption ever since.
The right can't stand voter turnout and works hard every day to purge central voter files and suppress the vote; the left likes democracy; the right can't stand it.
The bamboozled masses may fall for your false equivalence, but it is the radical right that has worked tirelessly to shatter campaign finance decency for decades.
It's about representative government and a decency society, not handouts.
90
@Michael
Wow what a unilateral bunch of generalizations you make there.
As if "liberals don't give to charities" and republicans don't spend on politics. Ever heard of Sheldon Anderson or Robert Mercer???
23
It’s hilarious that you say that conservatives don’t expect anything back from the government. All the data shows that conservatives are more dependent on government programs, whether disability, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies, corporate welfare. Blue states are subsidizing red states with our federal tax dollars.
50
This article has somewhat renewed my confidence in a "blue wave" this November. I do think the number of on-line donors demonstrates commitment to electing Democrats. I've donated to Democrats in States I've never been to... because I recognize that every bit helps. What matters most though is getting out the vote. Especially in our rural areas. Sign up to drive people to the polls. Organize bus caravans to pick up voters. Make voting a shared activity.
48
@Tom
Did the HuffPo article stating Hillary had a 98.4% chance of winning renew your confidence in 2016? How about Brian Fallon proclaiming she would win with a 100% 'probability' two months before voting began? There will be No Blue Wave. It disappeared when the Ford letter came out days before a Confirmation vote.
@GregP,
Where did you get that crystal ball? I would love to have one.
@GregP
Is that your feeling or do you have a dog in that fight? I find those who find for Kavanaugh think they owe the Patriarchy everything.