Display:


The Proof's in the Pudding (none / 0)

The controversy around Howard Dean seem to be less about his ideology than about his tactics.  We are not goping to loose members of the Democratic Party because of Dean's stance on issues.  

The question is: can he deliver?  It hink the answers is going to be yes.  Expanding the small doner base is both the right thing to do and the only practical strategy for revitalizing and  expanding the Democratic party because:

1) We will never have access to large corporate doners again.  Corporate America responds to two things:  Bribery and Blackmail.  When the Democrats were in the majoreity, they were able to threaten Corporate America into supporting them because they controlled all investigation, regulation and tax matters.  They don't have that option now.

The Republicans have taken a different approach and bribed their supporters with promises of deregulation, and tax breaks, and, worst of all,  tort deform (it reforms nothing).  Again, this option is unavailable to Democrats, becuse they can't offer better bribes, and shouldn't even try.

  1. The new campaign finance laws make small donors the best place to go for now support.  In addtion, the activist base of the democratic party  has now become a major source of funding, and alienating it would guarantee defeat.

  2. The goal end goal is commitment;  money is a tool. When you rely on small donors, you get  commitment by accepting money; when you rely on large doners, you get ist by spending money.

A thousand small donors are likely to turn out to volunteer and vote just by virtue of having invested in the campaign.  Ten huge donors will vote for their candidate anyway; their money has to be spent to attract other voters.  

4) Finally, and most importantly, developing a large small donor base makes Democratic claims to be alternative to the Republicans legitimate.  Democrates are about expanded prosperity and real justice; they should court those who need these things.

by Mudshark on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 11:21:43 AM EST

Re: The Proof's in the Pudding (none / 0)

Your logic is short-sighted.  It is a major mistake to think we have "lost" corporate America -- particularly for ever.  For one, Democrats have more than 90% of lawyers (trial lawyers) in their pocket.  Regularly, we can appear at a firm for a fundraiser and walk away with more than $100K.  

And I for one will take 10 huge donors over 1000 small donors any day.  10 huge donors are for more likely to raise you 1000's more even out of your district, in another state, etc.  And the ONLY way to win these days is with TV early and often, and direct mail.  And the only way to get that is with big donors.  

by artvandelay on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 11:59:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

10 huge donors over 1000 small donors (none / 0)

If the total amount collected is the same in both cases, 1000 small donors is infinitely better than 10 huge ones.  For one thing, having 10 huge donors increases the likelyhood that you have to give in to thier random whims.  For another thing, having 1000 small donors means many or most of them are willing to volunteer or otherwise do the some of the gruntwork of the campaign.  It also shows true support amoungst the voting populous, as well.  Also, campaign finance reform (McCain/Feingold) means that you can't simply give unlimited funds to the party any more.
by Geotpf on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:30:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 10 huge donors over 1000 small donors (none / 0)

In the end it is the votes that count... I'd rather have 1000 "invested" voters than 10.
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 10 huge donors over 1000 small donors (none / 0)

You all apparently did not read what I wrote.  For instance, a fundraiser last September (I beleive), to be a "host" one had to raise $50K on top of their maximum $2k (yes I am aware of McCain Feingold despite what you claim -- and this is legal as long as the money does not come from one person's checks).  Small donors cannot raise that kind of money.  This also takes a huge burden off the campaign's finance staff.  

This is the only way to but network primetime TV ads and bulk direct mail which are the only ways to reach a sizable portion of your voting block.  You can have all the foot soldiers you want, but you'll never get the same results as TV and direct mail.  

And, to qualify, I am not saying ignore the small donors.  I am merely saying I would prefer 10 big donors over 1000 small ones.

by artvandelay on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 05:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mmmmm... (none / 0)

...pudding.
McCain sucks!
by teknofyl on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mmmmm... (none / 0)

Yes... pudding.
by Hannula on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 01:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Proof's in the Pudding (none / 0)

Can i just say

I don't give a fuck about what corporate america wants.

And they can keep their fucking money.

</rant>

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics
by pacified on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 03:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]