Gephardt falls far short of fund-raising goal

[sbp]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0716gephardt16.html

Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt fell short of his fund-raising goal by more than $1 million, raising questions Tuesday about his ability to excite Democratic donors and remain a top-tier candidate.

The former House Minority leader, who hoped to raise $5 million from April to June, collected just $3.87 million, apparently placing him in a distant fifth place among the nine Democratic contenders.

----------
PsychoSy's guy Lieberman ain't doing so well either. :p

[vampireuk]

I think it's kind of sad that to stand for presidency you have to have millions:(

[PsychoSy]

When it comes to campaign fund-raising *****dom, Republicans have Democrats beat! It's no contest - whenever a Republican candidate spreads their legs or butt-checks, people walk away with the impression that they are the best, more experianced, tastyiest hooker on the block. Their only real competition in history came from Clinton (must've been the make-up! :p) and they still blame him for that to this very day! :D

OMG! Clinton's a better looking skank that I am! Who's his pimp?!?" :rofl

This is actually good news for Democrats. First, Gephardt sucks as a Presidential hopeful. Not a bad congressman but he'd be a horrid President. And any time Liberman fails at anything in life is excellent news. Thin that freakin' herd!! Personally, my money is on John Kerry, Howard Dean, or Dennis Kucinich to be Bush's biggest threats.

But if that idiot Lieberman get the DNC's nomination, I'm not voting in 2004 as I don't subscribe to the "lesser of the two evils" jargon when it comes to voting. I'd rather stay home on election day and complain about the mess everyone else will create that I - not wanting to vote evil people in office - had nothing to do with!

Then again, I could go to the polls and do one of them write-in votes! I can just see the look of bemused puzzlement on the face of the person that counts my vote!

"Yo, Marvin! Lookit this Sizemore idiot from Michigan. He's 30 years old and voted for himself!! I've seen it all now!!

Hey, if you want something done right, eh? And if it wasn't for our Governments ungoing age discrimination when it comes to running for President, I'd be in the race right now and kicking all their asses. It'd be historic - not only would I become the youngest person to ever run for office but I would become the only presidential candidate that makes NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX executives thankful they have censors an inch from the "bleep" button. :cool:

[1stFlight]

New Headline - Bush using taxpayer dollars gets campaign money from the weathly while cutting their taxes...

If this was Fark, that'd be an "Obvious" tag from the get go.

I guess if all my best friends were CEO's who made in the millions while the rest of us Americans barely made ends meet, I wouldn't be surprised at my ability to raise funds either.

:rolleyes:

Anyone voting Bush next year is either wealthy or a fool.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
New Headline - Bush using taxpayer dollars gets campaign money from the weathly while cutting their taxes...

If this was Fark, that'd be an "Obvious" tag from the get go.

I guess if all my best friends were CEO's who made in the millions while the rest of us Americans barely made ends meet, I wouldn't be surprised at my ability to raise funds either.

:rolleyes:

Anyone voting Bush next year is either wealthy or a fool.

You need to look who is doing the donating. Republicans average donation is very small compared to Democrats. Dems usually get huge donations from wealthy doners. Republicans traditionaly get donations from middle income and lower doners. This is not to say that republicans do not get money from rich doners. This is well documented and even the dems don't dispute this.

[1stFlight]

*just looks baffled* I think you've got that reversed... Or in the very least you need to cite some source on that.

Originally posted by UDawg
You need to look who is doing the donating. Republicans average donation is very small compared to Democrats. Dems usually get huge donations from wealthy doners. Republicans traditionaly get donations from middle income and lower doners. This is not to say that republicans do not get money from rich doners. This is well documented and even the dems don't dispute this.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
*just looks baffled* I think you've got that reversed... Or in the very least you need to cite some source on that.

I'm not trying to be a jerk but you don't anything about political fund raising then. This well known. Why do you think Republicans always have more hard money available? Can we first establish that is it a fact that Republicans raise much more hard money? With the limit being $200 (AFAIK) this means that small donations have to be made. Republicans are famous for their grassroots donations. Democrats know this very whell they even admit it.

Democrats rely big donatioins from special intrest groups like lawyers, advocacy groups, celebrities corporations. This is where their strength lies. Republicans also get money from these places but they get much more from small donations. Every election you will notice Republicans spend much much more in hard money, while democrats have other groups spending money like the unions and such. I am not saying one is good or one is bad but rather this is just the way it has been for a very long time.

The public image is that Republicans only get money from corporations while this is true it is not where they get the hard money from because of the limits on hard money donations. Sorry to break it to you but it is the Republican that get more money from the little guy.

Go look at the group affiliations. Look where the money comes from. Do you think the NRA has big money from corporations? LOL no. The NRA is made up of little people. Unions, Lawyers union, Hollywood producers celebrities all have big money.

Above is a explenation. I will have to find the sources but the proof lies in individual contributions this is hard to get the numbers on this. Again I am not slaming Democrats on this. I think how ever you get your mone as long as it is legal is fine by me.

[UDawg]

Some insight (http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/bigpicture2000/overview/donations.ihtml)

This is from 1998. It is about what I thought.

Notice how much a bigger percentage of large donations dems have compared to republicans. Of course we all know republicans usually raise more money and in this instance it is no difference.


HEY KIDS I DID IT!!! I ACTUALLY GAVE A SOURCE! :D


More info but from the 2002 elections. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/DonorDemog.asp)

OHHH a pretty graph. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/donordems-chart03.asp) I point you to the last bar on the far right. There are a lot of links on that page. Check out who gave what percentage to whom towards the bottom. LAWYERS rule the dems.

Disclaimer: I am fully aware that any and all sources can be flamed, laughed at or out right dismissed. ;)

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/img/table04.gif

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/img/table03.gif

[1stFlight]

Given events like this, Somebody's fudging your numbers...

http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=180&xlc=1027684

5Million per event doesn't add up to 25,000 people per event...

And according to this, it's up to 2K per person

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0714-05.htm

Do a little more research before you attempt to slam me next time.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Given events like this, Somebody's fudging your numbers...

http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=180&xlc=1027684

5Million per event doesn't add up to 25,000 people per event...

And according to this, it's up to 2K per person

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0714-05.htm

Do a little more research before you attempt to slam me next time.

You lost the debate. Face it. You post aunt Tilda stories and your proof. Anecdotal is not proof. You asked for proof and I gave it now you act like a jerk because you lost? I can handle losing a debate because I accept the truth easy. It seems you don't. PFFFFT typical liberal.

Nothing you put refutes what I posted. I said republicans generaly raise more money. This no big news here. You also posted current fund raisers. Big whoop. I posted totals from the last election. This is how you figure it all out. Duhhhh! I also showed a trend. You did not. You just took a couple of current fund raisers that is fine. None of this refutes my original statement that more small doners give to the Republican party. You have actually said nothing in defense of your opposite claim. Here is a final thought for you. It would make no sense to fudge these numbers. Thes numbers do not sway public opinion. Further more you want as close to actual numbers as possible so you know what group to target and how to target them for fund raising. Fudging numbers makes no sense at all.

I was actually not going to comment on this any more because the case is closed but you had to keep it going.

[1stFlight]

I just proved your sources and you incorrect with current info, not something dated 4 years ago.

Additionally, it's common knowledge the wealthy give more to the Republian party. Who else do you think Bush's donors are? There aren't that many Americans who can afford to part with large sums of money on a monthly basis.

Especially in this economy.

Oh btw, from your own sources this...


While the biggest number of contributions always comes from small donors, the biggest proportion of dollars comes from donors with deeper pockets. In 1997-98, federal candidates and parties raised nearly $464 million from donors giving $200 or more. A slight majority — 54 percent — went to Republican candidates and committees.

Don't make me beat you over the head with your own sources... :rofl

Originally posted by UDawg


Snips the whining...

I was actually not going to comment on this any more because the case is closed but you had to keep it going.

[UDawg]

While the biggest number of contributions always comes from small donors, the biggest proportion of dollars comes from donors with deeper pockets. In 1997-98, federal candidates and parties raised nearly $464 million from donors giving $200 or more. A slight majority — 54 percent — went to Republican candidates and committees.

I never said anything different. I said more smaller doners give to the republican party than do to the democrat party. I acknowledged raise more money. Also of course more money is going to be given by big doners because of the deep pockets. This only makes sense. The numbers I gave in my source also back up what I said. You are taking what I said and saying the same thing but leaving out my main point that more small doners give to republicans than to democrats. You also ignore that the largest donations are given to democrats.

I never said that democrats get more money from bigger doners than republicans. I said a bigger percentage of democrat money is from big doners. Republicans will get more money from big doners because they raise more total money. It was a comparison with in democrat fund raising. Not a comparison between dems and repubs.

You need to look who is doing the donating. Republicans average donation is very small compared to Democrats. Dems usually get huge donations from wealthy doners. Republicans traditionaly get donations from middle income and lower doners. This is not to say that republicans do not get money from rich doners. This is well documented and even the dems don't dispute this.

This is a previous post of mine to prove I am on the same issue and you are not. You are just comparing large donations between the two groups and I was not. I was talking about donation percentages with in the parties. You will also not I allowed for the idea that repubs get money from large doners. Something I never ignored.

Again my main point is that republicans get more small donations than dems. This debunks the idea that republicans are only the party of the rich and the dems are the party of the little buy. You alos did not refute or prove the numbers wrong.

[sbp]

Democrats and Fat Cats (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030707-090426-8917r.htm)

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Who else do you think Bush's donors are?http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/waveyhello.gif

Here's to the Dems screwing themselves with McCain-Feingold. :beer:

[sbp]

Presidential rivals target Gephardt's strengths: Labor support in Iowa (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/18/national1430EDT0622.DTL)

Presidential contender Dick Gephardt, who stumbled in the money chase, now has to worry about Democratic rivals using his fund-raising woes to siphon off labor support.

On Friday, Kerry and Dean reached out to labor in Iowa, site of the first precinct caucuses Jan. 19. Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, had a series of stops at union halls in eastern Iowa; Dean, the former Vermont governor, stopped by a Des Moines picket line to cheer on striking construction workers.

[sbp]

Uh oh, Opie Gephardt be in the house, trying to raise some money. Hey Sy, he's looking for your hefty contribution. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/aningrin.gif

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/1690679.jpg