DCCC outraises NRCC again in November

Josh Kraushaar reported for the Politico on Friday that the "National Republican Congressional Committee is getting clobbered by their Democratic counterparts on the fundraising front":

The DCCC raised $3.65 million for the month, and ended November with $15.35 million cash-on-hand. It still holds $2.66 million in debt from last election cycle.

The NRCC only raised $2.34 million in November, and spent $2.16 million, hardly adding to their overall cash total. The committee now has $4.35 million in its account, while still owing $2 million in debt.

I am feeling rather pessimistic about next year's House races, but if the NRCC can't build up a decent war chest now, with unemployment high and support for health care reform sinking, I don't see them putting together a huge wave. They're talking about targeting dozens of seats, but they're a long way from having the money to fund that many challengers.

On the other hand, they do seem to have a more enthusiastic base.  

The National Republican Senatorial Committee did somewhat better last month, raising $3.3 million while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $3.0 million. The DSCC still has more cash on hand than the NRSC, but not nearly as big an advantage as the House Democrats have over the House Republicans.

I suspect that the repeated Democratic concessions on the health care bill have hurt the DSCC's fundraising this fall.

Update [2009-12-20 18:23:20 by desmoinesdem]: Swing State Project posted a chart with the November numbers, including the RNC and the DNC. The RNC raised more than the DNC last month but spent more than they raised.

Tags: 2010 elections, Congress, dccc, DSCC, House, NRCC, NRSC, Senate (all tags)



Re: DCCC outraises NRCC again in November

I don't think next year will be about money. The race will come down to who ever is most enthusiastic or, in our case, least enthusiastic. Actually, some  part of me is hoping that is the outcome. The reason being that I am now of the view that the biggest problem in politics is the influence of money. I think if the Democrats lose despite having outraised the GOP, it will at least behind closed doors, send a signal that maybe it is not enough to use the Rahm way of driving up the dollars. You actually must deliver a policy that people want.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 10:37AM | 0 recs
I agree with that

and the Democrats are certainly going to have a net loss of seats. But if the DCCC maintains a big money advantage over the NRCC, the Republicans won't be able to convert the enthusiasm gap into as large a wave as they "should" have.

And yes, Congress has been thoroughly corrupted by corporate money.

I would rather lose seats for doing too much to advance the Democratic agenda than for caving too much, which is the way we're headed.

by desmoinesdem 2009-12-20 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with that

The corruption is apparent from the policy making. this weekend they made the mandate stronger I believe, but are leaving out enforcement mechanisms for consumer protection issues like rescission that they claim is the base for including the mandate in the first place. At this point, I find DC itself a corrupt, corrupt place.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with that

It should be noted that the GOP regularly out-raised the Dems in fund-raising - but that didn't stop the 2006 election results, nor the 2000.

by vecky 2009-12-20 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with that

Which is why Rahm's theory of how you run parties is wrong. Money is important, but it is not everything.

When you allow your party to become corrupted by it, you lose. At the end of the day, the American public is lurching left of center on the issue of corporate influence in DC, the Dems and Republicans are only delaying that rather than stopping it.  

Right now, because the GOP is so unsavory  on the issue, the Dems win by being the least of two evils. But how long does that last?

These are delaying tactics at best, but the fact that the party is buying into the corruption is why I can not in good faith be a part of a party with this kind of leadership.  Too many enablers and direct actors in leadership roles contributing to this downward spiral of the party's basic values.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 11:01AM | 0 recs
but they blunted the wave

and held on to at least a few seats they shouldn't have won in 2006 and 2008, which is what we might be able to do next year.

by desmoinesdem 2009-12-20 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: but they blunted the wave

but that's only a short term gain. IF the gop base starts pushing more populist candidates in 2012, 2014 and 2016- what happens then?

by bruh3 2009-12-20 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: but they blunted the wave

I think you are right there, about '10. But it depends on how many seats are on the table. The DCCC will say about 22-26 right now, an independent study I saw had about 75 seats there. I'd probably guess it will wind up in the middle, with the D's or R's having less than a 10 seat advantage, which would make the place even worse than it is currently.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-20 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: but they blunted the wave

And if you and the rest of the lefty blogs are smart, you will be pre-defining 2010 as a referendum on the failures and corruption of conservadems and blue dogs.  That they were too tied to corporate interests like Wall Street, health insurance etc. That they were not as concerned with jobs for Americans.

They are the most likely ones to lose, and that meme can constrain what happens afterward the election if you can push that meme on a consistent basis. BUt, since you all disorganized, I don't see that happening. Too many want to be players in DC rather than shape the debate.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 11:35AM | 0 recs
75 seats?

A loss of 75 seats would basically make it so that the House cant even override Obama's vetoes.  It would be the end of the party.  

by Kent 2009-12-20 12:41PM | 0 recs
I mean sustain vetoes n/t

by Kent 2009-12-20 12:42PM | 0 recs
75 seats in play

doesn't mean every single one goes Republican.

by John DE 2009-12-20 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: DCCC outraises NRCC again in November

If we had the lead in enthusiam, but were getting clobbered in fundraising, you'd say it's all about funds.

You're very predictable.

I'm pretty proud of the DNC and DCCC, and DSCC.  I certainly haven't given any of them a dime.

Wonder how they're doing so well, with the base so disallusioned.

by lojasmo 2009-12-20 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: DCCC outraises NRCC again in November

Yes, you are right. I am all about the funding. That would been the most important thing based on the issues I have discussed in the past to me rather than whether people are enthusiastic or not. The really interesting thing is how so many of you nutjob cheerleaders project who you are onto others. I don't change my arguments to suit the circumstances. That's something you do. But, you assume everyone else thinks like you so you post this crap here.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: DCCC outraises NRCC again in November

It should be fairly obvious that they are getting  lot of money from corporate sponsors.

Also it's not totally unusual that the majority party pulls more in fund-raising. There are quite a few more Dems than GOP, so the funding will be skewed by that.

by vecky 2009-12-20 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: DCCC outraises NRCC again in November

The DCCC raises more money than the NRCC does in November.
Since MyDD is a liberal web site, this should be looked at as good news, right?
The worrywarts start yelping about enthusiasm, or teabagger populism, or some other factor that feeds their "Conservative Republicans are invincible" mindset.

This post will fail, but at least I've got it off my chest.

by spirowasright 2009-12-20 01:07PM | 0 recs
weird comment

Didn't I write in the original post that if the NRCC can't raise money in this environment, they aren't likely to be able to turn conditions into a big wave?

At Bleeding Heartland I added that Leonard Boswell's opponent in IA-03 is likely to be on his own for fundraising, whereas the DCCC will spend on behalf of Boswell if he needs it.

by desmoinesdem 2009-12-20 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: weird comment

They are probably referring to my comment that fundraising is not enough to decide elections if there is major discontent like the democrats are facing. That you did not take out the pom poms and started cheering enough to be criticized.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: weird comment

Ha. Ha. Ha.
It wasn't desmoinesdem's lack of cheering that I was commenting on, it's the quick with the cold water bucket response of Upstate Kent wannabes like you.

Whenver good political news for the Dems is posted, people like you are ready with the preprogrammed responses.
"They;ll cave."
"Obama's a wimp." (love to see you say THAT to the President's face)
Need I go on?
I', not an Obamabot, a Hilbot, or anything else.
I do thnk that the temper of the times is on the left's side and I'm sick and tired of listening to liberalism's Flying Monkey contingent spread their poutrage all over sites like this.

If the Dems have a money edge this time, they'll use it the samw way the GOP did it all those years they controlled the WH: to try and cut their losses.

Kucinich vs.P alin in2012: The Gimmie a Pony Left meets the Flying Monkey Right.

by spirowasright 2009-12-20 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: weird comment

My bias is for what voters think. Yours is for money and DC. If that was not clear before now. It is now. Money is neither good or bad political news. It is a tool.  It tells us nothing of who is sending in the money. Voter enthusiasm is significant if you care about the American  public. If you don't you act like you do.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: weird comment
My bias is for what seems to be the temper of the times. You're right, I'm not a fan of the voting public sometimes because I think they're too fond of dumb decisions in the voting booth. I've never been to DC and I've never had a lot of money.
by spirowasright 2009-12-20 09:22PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads