• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Following the Money Race

A

Anonymous

Guest
The Presidential candidates have filed their third quarter financial reports as reported by OpenSecrets.org -- http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008 What is striking is how the Democrats dominate the money race. The net worth of Hillary Clinton's campaign is $48 million, more than twice as much as the net worth of all the Republican campaigns combined. Even Barack Obama's campaign has 1.5 times as much as all the Republican campaigns combined. Not bad for a guy only 3 years removed from the Illinois state Senate.

However, the net worth figures are a bit misleading. Mitt Romney is last because he has a debt of $17 million, but that debt is entirely to himself. Sometime next year, Mitt the banker could say to Mitt the candidate: "You did a great job. Tell you what. You don't have to pay me back." It is harder to do that (not to mention, illegal) if the creditor is an arline or hotel chain Thus while Romney has raised $63 million, only $45 million came from other folks, which puts him on par with Rudy Giuliani, who hasn't invested his own money in his campaign.

The Ron Paul phenomenon is also noteworthy. His campaign's net worth exceeds that of McCain, Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, Keyes, Tancredo, and Romney. And with a bit of luck, he could pass Fred Thompson for the #2 slot by the end of the year. We're talking about a fringe candidate here, after all; it is as if Mike Gravel were coming in just behind Obama on the Democratic side. Paul is clearly tapping into the mother lode of unhappiness among Republicans with their "top-tier" candidates. Paul is also the only Republican to oppose the war in Iraq and call for the troops to come home. On one of the debates he had to nerve to suggest that maybe our stationing troops in Saudi Arabia might just have something to do with "why they hate us." All the other candidates, led by Rudy Giuliani, began frothing at the mouth when he said this, but it is likely some Republicans watching the debate reacted by reaching for their credit cards. While Paul is not registering in the polls at all, things could change. Remember Harold Wilson's dictum: In politics, a week is a long time.

To anyone who has followed the money trail for a long time, these numbers are nothing short of astounding. Historically, the GOP outraised the Democrats by a huge margin. This year the Democratic presidential candidates are far outstripping the Republican candidates. And the picture is just as gloomy for the GOP in terms of Senate and House fundraising where the Democrats hold huge leads.


One can't but have the feeling that major Republican donors are holding back because they see the handwriting on the wall. When you give money to the eventual winner, you are buying access to the people in power. Politicians are the last bargain left in America. For $100,000 you can have lunch with a senator whenever you want to. You can't even buy a parking space in Manhattan for that. For $1 million, you get the President's personal cell phone number and for $10 million they'll change the colors in the American flag for you. If you bet on the loser, it is money down the toilet. This is why following the money race is important--it shows you what the big guys are thinking. Yes, small donations via the Internet are becoming more important, but the big bundlers are still where the real action is.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Interesting, too, that a major Republican blog has banned new Ron Paul supporters. If they've been posting there for a while, they can continue to post. But any new members are not allowed to promote Ron Paul on the site. Can the Republican establishment really be afraid of Ron Paul? He's not polling well, even though he's raking in lots of money. If he's forced out will his supporters switch to a Dem candidate?


www.redstate.com
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yeah-- I'm having a hard time understanding this new neocon Republican party or folks that call themselves Republicans...They keep saying they have to get more supporters and be an all inclusive party--but they keep running folks away unless they follow the exact goose step beat...

Best example now is-- anyone that even questions the Iraq war or anything about the war, is immediately dubbed a nonpatriot or traitor or whatever!!!! They could follow every other article of the Repub Platform (whatever that is anymore :roll: )-- but let them question GW's war- and you're chastised and out the door...

Newt was right-- When the Democrat party totally rules D.C. in 09--it won't be because the Dems won---it will be because the Republicans flat outright just gave it to them.... :shock:

I hope Paul takes his warchest and runs as an Independent if the Repubs don't want him....Be interesting to see the number of votes he gets-- and it would give me someone to vote for... :wink: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Silver said:
I didn't notice Steven Colbert's totals listed anywhere. Oversight? :wink:

Colbert does particularly well with the younger voters most likely to be watching his show and therefore most aware of his myriad presidential-like qualities. In the match-up with Giuliani and Clinton, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29. He draws 31% of that cohort when his foes are Thompson and Clinton. In both match-ups, Colbert has more support with young voters than the GOP candidate.Rasmussen polling

Republicans have lost an entire generation, which also happens to be the largest generation in American history. Now, a satire of Republicans is more popular among young voters than Republicans themselves, even when a Democrat is included in the polling. It is difficult to think of a stronger repudiation of Republicans than that.
 
Top