Dean has raised more than any DNC Chair in history

It's a good start, but clearly the RNC has taken things to another level. Even when we break records, they are still way ahead--Chris

A quick look at actual FEC reports shows that Dean has raised more money in an off 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.

Don't believe the hype:

One hundred days into his tenure as the high-energy, higher-decibel chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean is in trouble with party moneybags.

I guess the Moonie Times didn't get the memo...
Dean's 'red state' plan praised

Text interviews with party chairmen whose states Mr. Dean picked for increased financial aid are singing his praises. Some even are criticizing previous party leaders for routinely writing off the red states before the election.

    "The Republicans have been beating our brains out for too many years because of their greater ability in grass-roots organizing and a willingness to put more resources into that," said Mr. Achelpohl, party chairman of one of eight red states that Mr. Dean has targeted for additional funding.

    The first states Mr. Dean targeted were West Virginia, North Dakota, North Carolina and Missouri. He later added Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming and Nebraska.

    "Dean is committed to a restructuring of the Democratic Party. I don't want to disparage [former DNC Chairman] Terry McAuliffe, but last year the DNC raised $400 million, and Nebraska's share of that was $12,000," Mr. Achelpohl said.

    Soon after his election Feb. 12 to run the party, Mr. Dean, the former Vermont governor and failed presidential candidate, asked all of the state parties to submit plans on how they would rebuild their organizations.

    "We're very pleased with the DNC and Howard Dean's commitment to the grass roots in West Virginia with their financial efforts," said West Virginia Democratic Party Chairman Nick Casey. "They've committed $174,600 a year through the 2008 election."

    The money, which varies from state to state, will be used to hire state party organizers, conduct field training and build voter lists. In a recent fundraising plea for an additional $250,000 to add more states to the list, Mr. Dean said the plan is "to beef up infrastructure and ... connect people with the local party."

Not to mention that there is no reason for corporation donor to even hedge their bets with Democrats since the GOP controls everything.

Tags: (all tags)



Conratulations to Chairman Dean
Wanted to post my three cheers for Chairman Dean's fundraising abilities.  He is on a pace to raise in six months what took the Republicans two months.
by shadow1 2005-06-02 11:24AM | 0 recs
go away troll
It's a little harder to raise money when you have morals and actually care where the money is coming from.

Why don't you quit trolling and go back to LGF or wherever you're from?

by hotshotxi 2005-06-02 02:03PM | 0 recs
You left out Schiavo deathwatch fundraising
You completely left out the fact that the GOP possibly sunk to their lowest and slimiest point in their history in order to raise that particular sum of cash. The Schiavo deathwatch. The GOP parked a mobile ATM machine outside the Schiavo hospice, and shook donors down nonstop for money the whole way. Utterly disgusting. Also... no possibility the GOP will ever get away with something like that again.

So... shadow... what exactly are you condemning Dean for? Not sinking to the new sick lows the GOP did in the last several months?

by afs 2005-06-02 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Conratulations to Chairman Dean
Well we dont have a collectable coin money laundering operation going thats something.
by Pounder 2005-06-02 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Conratulations to Chairman Dean
Congratulations should be handed out based on results (elections), not fund-raising totals.

That was the standard that Terry McCaulife was judged by, and it should be the same for Howard Dean.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-03 10:01PM | 0 recs
Troll Fund Time!
Remember how we used to give a little extra contribution on the Dean blog when a troll showed up?  Well congratulations "shadow1", you just inspired me to give another $25 to the DNC. Keep up the good work!
by Jim in Chicago 2005-06-02 08:17PM | 0 recs
The Red States Love Howard Dean!
I hope Barney Frank and Marshall Wittman approve.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-02 11:32AM | 0 recs
It's also about power
Dean isn't funnelling money into their overpaid pockets. Instead, he is moving the money-and some of the influence to the states where a lot of non-Beltway Democrats can exercise influence. He's also talking to the red-staters they secretly despise as well, and not to their pet blue-state politicians.

But what they most dislike is that loss of control. Before they could get disaffected DNC members to vote the pre-chosen chairman. Now the members got someone who would listen to their needs instead, and they resent the loss of control there. He's also saying things that are annoying their close upper-crust Republican friends instead of being sufficiently docile.

by CarolDuhart 2005-06-02 11:33AM | 0 recs
Dean Fund Raising Record
Dr. Deans commitment to rebuilding the grassroots of the party got a small contribution from me.  My first to the national party.  Keep up the good work ladies and gentlemen, 2006 is almost upon us.
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-06-02 03:41PM | 0 recs
He needs to keep going
Great that he's beat other DNC head in first 1/4.
Not great at all, that GOP has tripled him.

He can beat Terry Mac all he wants, but Terry Mac aint the one creaming him right now.
It's Ken Mehlman.

by Sam Loomis 2005-06-02 03:57PM | 0 recs
vs. Republicans
Yeah, but if there's one thing Republicans know how to do, it's waste money.  One Democratic dollar is worth at least two Republican dollar, especially on the ground.

To put it another way -- have you seen a Republican campaign office?  Note the new carpets, expensive office chairs, corporate art . . .

by Kimmitt 2005-06-02 05:00PM | 0 recs
I like Howard Dean, but congratulations are in order only if we win in 2006 or 2008.

McCauliffe outraised his predecesors, but results are what people look at.

That's why Terry gets so much grief.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-02 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Congratulations?
Sure, but McAuliffe was bagman for the Clintons. He won the seat in 2001 ostensibly because the Clintons suddenly threw their support behind him (and not some black guy who's name escapes me from Atlanta). There is a school of thought that says McAuliffe had no problem raising money with the Clintons...but that they only really wanted to make sure Hillary got a shot at the White House. That left most of the Party in the lurch, without a bigger vision.

So suddenly in comes Dean with a vision to match even guys like Karl Rove, and Hillary is still crying about her entitled run in 2004, '08, '12 etc.

McAuliffe is a nice guy, and that was his problem. He made friends with the wrong set of values.

by risenmessiah 2005-06-04 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Congratulations?
Well, I'm a Clinton guy and I don't buy the school of thought that you mentioned, though I have heard it.  The Kerry campaign was flagging under Strum and Cahill.  Clinton guys like Joe Lockhart came in and gave the campaign a much-needed boost

I know that McAuliffe was basically handpicked by Bill.

I haven't heard Hillary cry about her entitled run.  And she didn't run 2004.  In theory, it would have been easier with McAuliffe there.

The party vision has to come from candidates.  The DNC chair is responsible for organization, fund-raising, and infrastructure.  He is a spokesman as well, of course.

My main point is that fair or not, you are judged by winning.  McAuliffe did a lot of good things as DNC Chair.  He increased the small donor base from 400,000 to 2.7 million.  And he got the DNC out of debt.  The DNC itself was not in great shape prior to McAuliffe's arrival.

But you're only remembered by results.
Just ask the Buffalo Bills.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-04 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Congratulations?
Right, but I think the fact is Hillary originally thought she might run in 2004 with McAuliffe able to clear the field for her. The thing is, pulling a trick out of the Nixon handbook, she decided to hold off after a national tragedy to run, figuring that Bush was unbeatable.

Had Hillary been smashmouth, she might have found her logic to fail her. Had HRC been the voice of the anti-war movement in 2003, she might be President now. But her own political calculus got the better of her.

The DNC Chairman inside the Party always was judged too much on the winning campaign yes, but outside the Party McAuliffe and Dean are the two most famous people to ever hold the position. In other words, McAuliffe was his legacy's own undoing. And it could be the same for Dean. The irony is that by Hillary equivocating about 2004, she left the field open for Howard, who is now arguably more important to the future of the Democrats than the Clintons.

I tend to think that the Iraq war vote will haunt nearly every "Enabler" Dem so long as Bush is in office. The Presidency and Senate will be hard to wrest back, though State races, and House of Representative races are more suspectible to hitting the GOP on issues like Social Security and we might make some gains there before too long.

by risenmessiah 2005-06-04 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Congratulations?
I don't think that Hillary was ever serious about 2004.  She was just getting to know the Senate.  And it would have looked bad to run for President having completed only 2/3 of your 1st term in any public office.

Also, I don't think that the Iraq vote will matter too much, personally, to the chances of those Democrats who voted for the resolution, particularly by 2008.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-04 11:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Congratulations?
But if Hillary runs (in '08) it would be 1/6 of the way into her second term. I think either would look equally as bad personally.

Secondly, Hillary already seems to be adopting pet domestic issues like immigration and abortion in part, I think, to counterstrike against the Republican desire to remind people daily of her position on Iraq.

by risenmessiah 2005-06-05 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Congratulations?
At least then, she will have served 1 full term.
This would be a major difference
by v2aggie2 2005-06-05 04:34PM | 0 recs
Business Week Article.
I think the guy who supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 is useless.  We can do without his money.

That being said, getting 20,000 new donors while the RNC got 68,200 is extremely alarming.

If we are going to rely on small donors, we had better have A LOT MORE OF THEM than the Republicans.

Otherwise, we had better look for some larger donors.

At the end of the day, larger donors are fine as long as they don't think that they run the party.  This is easier said than done sometimes, but it can and should be done.

The trick is to have a large small donor base, a dependable large donor base, and an ensurance that everybody's voice counts in the party.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-02 10:36PM | 0 recs
At the end of the day
Large Donors do NOT give to parties that are completely out of power... why would they? They donate large ammounts to "influence" policy...their money doesn't do a lot of influencing in the hands of a party that has been shut out of every branch of government.
by Parker 2005-06-03 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: At the end of the day
Perhaps, but on the small donors, 20000 vs 68200 is troubling.
by v2aggie2 2005-06-03 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: At the end of the day
by Parker 2005-06-04 12:54AM | 0 recs
Best quote
from that BusinessWeek piece:
Why the yawning gap? For starters, Dean is not a natural fit for the "stroke and joke" style that traditional party chiefs use to extract cash from well-heeled contributors. "It appears that the chairman has come to the conclusion that he doesn't need major donors," sniffs one fat cat. "He hasn't made any effort to reach out."

Amen to that.
by catastrophile 2005-06-03 01:37AM | 0 recs
I have given more than this idiot
how come Businessweek didn't interview me.

William W. Batoff, a Philadelphia real estate developer and longtime Democratic fund-raiser who backed President Bush in 2000 and 2004, is less diplomatic. "Howard Dean is the wrong person to be chair," says Batoff, who claims he will help fund the Dems' congressional efforts but will boycott the national committee while Dean reigns.

 Kennedy, Patrick J

 Dodd, Chris

 Kennedy, Patrick J


by Parker 2005-06-03 02:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I have given more than this idiot

I have given more this year than that jerk.  Why isn't Business week calling me up?

by nanorich 2005-06-03 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I have given more than this idiot
Me too. I don't like "me too" comments but I think it is important to say that I never contributed to any political cause or candidate before I got involved with Dean's presidential campaign. I emptied my account in November to various candidates out of sheer desperation. I even got off my lazy you-know-what to canvass for the first time. There are lots of people like me who are now involved in local and national politics. You can't put a dollar figure on that.
by misscee 2005-06-03 09:02AM | 0 recs
I am not trying to toot my own horn

And unlike a lot of people here I got into making political donations, as well as donations to progressive charities in the 70's.  

However, last year was the first time I maxed out on a candidate...and I went from being a medium donor to my shock...someone who rates a call from a candidate or two.

It is a good habit to get into...unfortunately, one of the side effects is getting calls in the evening, which I have asked, sometimes NOT politely to have ended.

The bottomline, that once someone cares enough to write that first check, they have an investment in an idea.  They take the step of taking responsibility to inform themselves.  They see themselves as part of the process and a participant who is committed to the success of an idea.  

While some here might threaten to withhold funds because they are too lazy to do the research...or think their small donations entitle them to set policy, I perfer to take the old Deaniac approach that once you commit to do something beyond voting, you are now committed to take a larger responsibility for changing this country.

When Howard said "You have the power..." that was as much a challenge as a promise...he was saying, if you want to make change happen, you are going to have to change your life.

And for hundreds of thousands of people, that is exactly what they did.

by nanorich 2005-06-03 09:55AM | 0 recs
amen to that
took the words right out of my mouth.
by annatopia 2005-06-04 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I have given more than this idiot
Singling out one contributor is unfair and irresponsible.  

How much did he give in 2002, or 2000, or in the past 20 years?

He may be involved with a PAC, generating large amounts of $$ for the DNC. Who knows?

Demonizing one person who simply stated an opinion about Dean is wrong, especially when you go on the attack.

I am beginning to conclude that any negative comment about Dean will assure your (and others at MyDD) action of a petty and immature wrath.  

So, you treat contributors who dispute Dean as the enemy.  Great.  Keep it up, and the Dean critics will be right: Dean really won't get all the money we need.

Of course, you could contribute.  

Since you are critical of William Batoff, then how much have you contributed?  If you are going to that level, then you also must disclose.  

If you are such a big supporter of Dean and the cause, how much have you contributed since Dean became Chairman?  

And while we are at it, what is your name and occupation?

If you are going to single someone out just for his opinion, then your opportunity for anonymity is over -- or do you get that?

Probably not.  You are reckless with the words you post because you are allowed to hide behind "Parker".  Shame on you.

There is nothing wrong with anonymity -- I chose this path to listen, comment, and learn without fear of a family member losing his job.  But it is morally wrong to falsely accuse and attack another person on his opinion when there is no true opportunity for that person to face his accuser.  

Even worse, you do not even have a complete picture of William Batoff.  Who do you think your are??

by Bill70 2005-06-03 09:38AM | 0 recs
Business week
singled out this donor...and quoted him.

And if you are interested in his history as a donor, then YOU do the work, and use the tools that Parker did to prove your point, rather engage in the kind of conjecture we are used to in dealing with individuals who feel free to attack Dean without doing the research to back up their assertions.

by nanorich 2005-06-03 09:58AM | 0 recs
one of the pieces of conventional wisdom with regard to big ticket donors is that they are unhappy with Dean.  This man was used as an example of a fat cat unhappy with Dean as Chair.  

Anyone who is at all familiar with the number of new donors brought on board by the Dean campaign knows that the big sell was that these people were all small donors...

And while this may have been true at the beginning, many, many Dean supporters had maxed out the limit way before there was a first primary.  These people also had a history of being generous to the Dean Dozen candidates, as well as to the Kerry campaign.  I know I maxed out for Kerry and Dean...and gave thousands of dollars to both the DNC as well as candidates in targetted races.

If business week is going to single out a small donor such as this guy as an example of a lost high roller, maybe the bigger story is that he is utterly replacable by the people who out gave him without a thought of it being a way of leveraging on policy, or demanding access.

In other words, Dean has been getting people to give to DNC and have now made it a habit...and what's more, these people instead of demanding a quid pro quo for their cash, are actually giving their well as their bodies to promote the election of Democrats...for something alien to big donors: the greater good.

by nanorich 2005-06-03 10:12AM | 0 recs
By the way
I checked out BATOFF, WILLIAM's donations over the years since 1990.

It would seem that at one point he fancied himself both an insurance saleman, a lobbyist, as well as a political operative.

But with regard to being a Democratic papa moneybags, his donations over the years comes to about 30K. (about what someone like David Geffin gives a quarter.)

But interestingly enough, around 2000, his generosity came to dead stop, with his biggest donation going to Arlen Specter.  

With a little insight, especially with regard to his changing professions, it would seem that Mr. Batoff is less a fat cat, than a blow hard.  Whose drop in Daddy Moneybags status has less to do with his disgust with Dean than failure in the realm of politics.  

Terry Mac was a money machine, according to legend.  But it seems that that Batoff donations to the DNC, even during his fat cat years came to a rather average four grand.

And not a dime in the last five years.

by nanorich 2005-06-03 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: By the way
You are missing the point!

Your rant reminds me of Hannity --
"Stop at nothing to accuse and abuse."

Funny, if this Batoff was pro-Dean and anti-anything else, would you and Parker inflict such attention.

Your double standards are boring me.


by Bill70 2005-06-03 01:42PM | 0 recs
No, you sir are missing the point....
The guy represented himself a big deal donor.  A player. A guy who wasn't going to give money to the Dems as long as Dean was chair.

Well, by the magic of public finance reporting, it turns out that the guy hasn't given a dime to the DNC since Terry Mac turned the DNC into a money machine.  He also has given over the years a modest amount in compared to other major donors.  The man, in the overall scheme of things is NO GREAT LOSS, especially in light of the kind of quid pro quos which big donors sometimes expect.

>Your rant reminds me of Hannity --
<>"Stop at nothing to accuse and abuse."

Your rant reminds of me of people who don't particularly want the truth to come out, and can't understand why people use information available to them to expose frauds and liars.

>Funny, if this Batoff was pro-Dean and anti-anything else, would you and Parker inflict such attention

If this guy had been pro-Dean, he wouldn't have merited a mention in a story which was based on a false premise.

The trouble with the anti-Dean people is that they don't have a rhetorical leg to stand on and get very whiny when their arguments are cut to ribbons.

You aren't bored, you are complaining about a fraud being exposed for the phony he is...

by nanorich 2005-06-03 02:06PM | 0 recs
speaking of double standards...
Your troll rating of my post, just because you disagreed with it is considered really bad form on these forums.

Ad to that your personalization and characterizing of other posters here in the most obnoxious ad hom is also considered not arguing in good faith.

Your arguments are without merit and are content free except as attacks other posters.

I suggest you might want not to toss around troll ratings, least you find yourself in an untenable position.

by nanorich 2005-06-03 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: speaking of double standards...
I trolled you because you keep missing the point.

I do not believe I have ever used a troll rating until today.  If I had, it was a long time ago.

"I suggest you might want not to toss around troll ratings, least you find yourself in an untenable position."

There you go...threatening instead of making a clear arguement.  Shame on you.  

Another troll rating deserved.

by Bill70 2005-06-03 02:19PM | 0 recs
Troll abuse
Disagreeing with a point doesn't mean one misses one's point.

It means that one has made an invalid point, and one is a poor communicator with poor reasoning skills, and unable to make a decent argument.

And again, troll rating me because "I missed your point" is both pathetic and childish.  

And you inflate your self importance by reading advice as a threat.

I am not going to get into troll rating games with you.  But you are not doing your much good by exercising such short sighted judgement.

by nanorich 2005-06-03 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Troll abuse

Print these comments out.  Put them in an envelope.  Wait 10 years.  And read them.

Maybe you will then find the point: compassion for others, even when they are wrong, is not a sin.

And in 10 years, will you have contributed over $30k to the DNC cause?

by Bill70 2005-06-03 02:40PM | 0 recs
You really shouldn't make
foolish assumptions about people you don't know.

Because my donations in the last election cycle go like this:

Howard Dean 2K
John Kerry 2K
The DNC 1+K
Barbara Boxer 500

Stephanie Herself 250
Obama 200
Dr. Daniel Mongiardo 500
Richard Morrison 225

Misc. Dean Dozen candidates 1K+
MoveOn 1K+
DFA 500

That adds up to close to 10K I have given in the last election cycle, and doesn't include the money I have given so far this year.

As a senior citizen on a fixed income, and someone who doesn't cast myself as a major donor, I don't particularly have to put myself down as major donor, but please spare me this nonsense about compassion for fat cats.

You are the one out of line, and you owe a number of people here an apology.

by nanorich 2005-06-03 02:59PM | 0 recs
Troll ratings are for abusive posts only
If anyone can define what posts deserve troll rating and what don't, it's me. I've certainly made my share of troll posts ;-)

If a post contains any discussion of the political topic raised by the lead post, as long as something appears in the post other than parroted right wing talking points, it's a valid post.

If a post contains political discussion you don't agree with, giving a 2 rating is legit. Giving a troll rating just because you don't agree with the opinion of the person posting is an abuse of the rating system, Bill70.

You did abuse the rating system on this thread, Bill70.

by afs 2005-06-04 07:41AM | 0 recs
Nanorich didn't call Business Week to whine
This Batoff guy made himself a target of discussion because he's the one who called in a reporter from the media to assert his cause. Neither Parker nor Nanorich called Business Week to make Batoff a central figure in this discussion. Batoff did. That makes comments anyone want to make about Batoff in regards to fundraising fair game.

That said... 30K in donations over 10 years is a lot of money. No... it's not David Geffin money, but it's a big enough stack of cash that it goes "clunk" when it hits the floor. I know a lot of very dedicated Democratic party activists that give every dime they have to spare, and don't come close to that amount in donations.

As Democrats, I think we need to be careful regarding comparing dollar amounts and making that a measure of comparable worth of various Democrats.

by afs 2005-06-04 07:32AM | 0 recs
just after Howard was elected chair
Novak did a column which suggested that there was a movement afoot among big ticket donors to steer clear of the DNC as long as Howard was chair.  He used an unnamed source who sounded a lot like Batoff.  And he has done a couple of columns since which repeat this line, even though Dean is running ahead of Terry in similar circumstances.

The irony is Batoff hasn't given to the DNC since 2000.  And while, in fundraising terms, he is what they would call a middle catagory, it is clear he has been out the picture as a player for at least five years.  

In the meantime, the expectation that Dean can have a fully operational fundraising team in place after a hundred days is a joke.  That he has been able to bring in a million a week without a major campaign, is damn good.  Also, it should be noted that Dean has been fund raising for local parties, doing a major even every week, all of which were sellouts makes me question the changing of venues for the New York of event mentioned in the story.  If there is any place a Dean event can be guaranteed to sell out, that would be NY.

I don't know how many people are professions in political fundraising, but my experience is limited, but I do try to find out as much as I can, and the general consensus from Democratic fundraisers I know is that Dean is considered a rainmaker, who is only rivaled by the Clintons as name to get an on event to make sure you have sold out a room.

Fundraising is a part of politics most us in the grassroots have little to do with.  But let's just say, that once you set up a field operation, the first person to be actually be paid staff is the fundraiser.  

by nanorich 2005-06-04 07:59AM | 0 recs
I smell Martin Frost quotes (also small $$s)
Has there been a more marginal candidate for Democratic Party chair that has thrown more of a tantrum and stomped out after losing the election of the chair in more of a huff than Martin Frost? What was Frost's first move after losing to Dean? Signing up to rant against Dems at Fox News.

Of all the Democrats out there to take cues from, Frost seems to think Zell Miller is the best example for him to emulate.


To make points, I prefer where you point to the non-involvement of Batoff since 2000 to the earlier discussion of dollar figures. There's a lot of Democrats out there that giving their $5 or $10 is the best they can do, and we need to be thankful they gave that. There's a whole lot of Democrats out there that have to make real sacrifices to send in $5 and $10. We need to recognize that. Seeing a 30K pile of cash being looked at critically has the potential of making a lot of Democrats feel their small sacrifices aren't worth making. That's not true.

by afs 2005-06-04 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I smell Martin Frost quotes (also small $$s)
>Seeing a 30K pile of cash being looked at critically has the potential of making a lot of Democrats feel their small sacrifices aren't worth making. That's not true.

Of course it isn't true, and I often forget I am many decades older than most of the participants on this board.

However, I do think it behooves us to educate ourselves with regard to what other people give, and what these donations buy.  For many donors a political contribution is a bribe.  A guarantee of access.  It is a flat out quid pro quo, where one is demanding at least input into legislative and executive decisions....which is why political financing always has the wiff of corruption.  The limits of contribution has been gotten around from by the practice of bundling donations.  

There is a subculture in big political money where individual fundraisers, in both parties, are outside the normal political experience for most of us.  If you remember the "Buddhist Temple" scandal which Gore ran into, that is typical of the slightly shady aspect of fundraising, where fundraisers are paid on a commission basis....and because a lot of these people are freelance, there is little oversight.

(you haven't lived until you have stayed up all night for three nights straight preparing just one office's quarterly reporting requirements for the FEC, another reason the various campaigns welcomed internet giving, donations were programmed to hit several bookkeeping programs just for reporting requirements.)

With regard to small donations achieving importance, it makes only good sense to welcome a large pool of small donations over the fundraising costs which go into big donations.

  1. Small donors generally are invested in the campaign succeeding for reasons of conviction, rather than for getting payback via access beyond saying hi at a fundraiser.

  2. The only middleman you are paying are the credit card companies.

  3.  Bookkeeping costs are saved.  Reporting is simplified.  Cash comes immediately into your accounts, and there is no danger of a check bouncing. (this happens more than one would think)

  4. Your fundraising overhead is cut more than in halls to rent, no food to buy, no hotel personnel to pay.

  5.  If you saw the postal bill alone for direct mail, you would see why email is a gazillion times more cost effective than direct mail.  Still a considerable amount of funds come from direct mail.

Yes, small donations are the key to our future success, and we still lead the Republicans with regard to cost effective fundraising.   The figures in the Businessweek piece, by the way do not reflect the overhead involved in Republican fundraising.
by nanorich 2005-06-04 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I have given more than this idiot
You are an ass.

He was quoted in the Business week article...hence my question... why wasn't I interviewed.

by Parker 2005-06-03 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I have given more than this idiot
You were not interviewed because the best you can sum up potty mouth remarks.

"What an ass"??

Is that the best you can do?

Petty, immature, and vacuous.

It is hard to take you seriously when you find no regret in trashing someone's opinion and name only because he is quoted in an article.

Oh, I forgot -- he doesn't like Dean, so he must be destroyed!!!

Give me a break.

by Bill70 2005-06-03 01:52PM | 0 recs
Is it just me or...
trashing someone's opinion and name only because he is quoted in an article.

is this the stupidest thing ever written

by Parker 2005-06-03 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Is it just me or...
Oh, please.

This is still the best you can do?

You are still missing the point.  Behaving like Ken Mehlman will do us no good.  Why?  Because Mehlman is really good at it; you are not.

Rant, Rant, Rant, Rant.  That is boring.  

Respect, argue, demonstrate, convince.  That is the point!  We must have a balance between these four actions in order to succeed.

by Bill70 2005-06-03 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I have given more than this idiot
And BW noted that Batoff backed BUSH in 2000 and 2004.

Some "Democrat" he is!

by Phoenix Woman 2005-06-06 10:48AM | 0 recs
this is a damned good start.

ahhhh i cannot wait for democracyfest - can't wait to congratulate chairman dean in person.

by annatopia 2005-06-03 07:01AM | 0 recs
How much fundraising is really needed?
Both parties are raising significantly more money than they did even a few years ago. Democrats today are raising far more than what the Republicans raised about 6-8 years ago.

The question becomes: what are they going to do with all the money? At some point diminishing returns kicks in: after all, only so much money is needed to pay for TV commercial ad time. We actually saw this in 1998 when the Republicans raised more than they needed to and decided to spend some of their excess money on an advertising campaign pushing for Clinton's impeachment. The result was a backlash that nearly cost Republicans their control of Congress.

So, the issue for Dean isn't "can he raise as much as the Republican Party does", the issue is "can he raise as much as is needed for the Democratic Party to run an election campaign that effectively competes with the Republicans?"

by Adam T 2005-06-03 09:20AM | 0 recs
Still, where are these 68,000
NEW DONORS coming from for the GOP?

WTF mate.

by MNPundit 2005-06-03 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Still, where are these 68,000
What happens if you add all of the small donors to Move On, ACT, Blog Pac and Frontier Pac to the Democratic totals? I think the small donor Democrats may be spread thinner and be more diversified than Republican small donors.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-03 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Still, where are these 68,000
I think the Republicans have their share of these groups as well, though I think that this point has some validity.

But even then, there is a problem due to a lack of coordintation (due to campaign finance laws).

This isn't a knock on any of these groups by any stretch.  They do a lot of good work.  And folks should give to them if they feel it is the best way to go.

But from the coordinated point of view, I think that we have to close the 20000 vs 68000 gap.

The key is to see the trends in this area.
One quarter may be OK.  But we can't have this trend continue.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-04 08:25AM | 0 recs
great motivation
After seeing the RNC v.DNC money story and the slam at Dean, I sent the DNC $20. Thanks to Business Week and the WT for the fundraising alert.
by history prof 2005-06-03 10:19AM | 0 recs
Dean might be great at raising money
Now he's got to raise his voice, (and not say something utterly stupid), and get the Democrats back into the White House.
by liebermanlives 2005-06-03 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean might be great at raising money
Why doesn't anybody in the media care about all of the stupid things Bush says? Has a single one of them mentioned Bush's "catapult propaganda" statement? It's all over the web, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere in the M$M.

For some reason Howard Dean is the only politician who isn't allowed to be human.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-03 10:17PM | 0 recs
I think Dean has been very smart
with regard to his media approach in the first hundred days.

You will note that he studiously avoided talking to the press when he was campaigning for chair, knowing that lobbying DNC voting members personally(I know several people who received calls from him) and meeting with the various caucus groups.  Additionally he would travel around the states, do small meetings with supporters, while keeping the press out.

I get the feeling that this strategy was deliberate, which was less about concern over the "mouth" problems, which is a red herring, than recognition that by limiting press access, Dean could lay down ground rules for access.

Meanwhile, the last three months have been devoted to organizational stuff, traveling around the states, making sure they were friendly to local media, and cementing relationships with Reid and Pelosi.  The most important thing was to get the state party thing working, because that was the basis of him getting elected chair in the first place.  Because they were patterning the infrastructure on something class to DFA, I assume that was in place fairly quickly.

In the meantime, I think Dean's low profile in the national media was deliberate, and has been a frustration to the Republicans who assumed Dean would be a convenient lightning rod.

A lot of Dean people might have been frustrated because they assumed Dean would be appearing a lot on cable, but upon reflection, I think by limiting supply, Dean is raising demand.  He did a great job during the election doing the talking head thing, but this is something which still hasn't made it into the conventional wisdom, as you still see the "gaffe" meme repeated as if it were true.

The media blackout ended with Russert, and generally he has gotten a lot good feedback on that appearance, which ironically is the first time most of the Democratic Dean critics had any extended unfiltered exposure to Dean.

Unlike your average Deaniac, who still knows the 2003 stump speech by heart (Costa Rica!), I am a little surprised that how little the DLC folk know about Dean.

I think he is handling everything perfectly, and this "fundraising" concern belies a concern that Dean is changing to culture to be results oriented, rather than schmoozing at Milanos oriented.  Dean's braintrust is the same as with the campaign, and when approaching donors I think he wants to show them something concrete, rather than offer them promises of VIP treatment and access.  

Dean can sit down with corporate donors and talk to them about why supporting Democrats is a good business decision.  He can talk to the state parties and make it clear that changes must be made, and that he will facillitate them.  

Dean is the first chair ever to be in a position to rebuild and make changes which have been twenty years postponed,  because we were always cash poor at this juncture.   And we are in good shape, and we are not competing with pubbies because our campaigns have always been more cost effective.

I am pleased, but not particularly surprised at Dean's first hundred days as chair.  And I am looking forward to the next year, because so far he is doing exactly what I expected him to do, because it is exactly what he said he would do.

by nanorich 2005-06-04 06:26AM | 0 recs
The Neverending War
Is this diary and NevadaDan's going to be on the recommend list forever?

Maybe we need an "Unrecommend" button so we can remove our recommend from stale diaries like they have over at dkos.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-04 10:15AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads