Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Hi 9th wave, I hear you waterboy Gore popped off today demanding Rumy’s, and the rest of the administrations resignation. Now please explain to me why anyone would listen to Algore if he was not even good enough to be your nomination after “beating” George Bush last year. Instead you choose Kerry? What is Terry thinking?

Well first of all a delay makes sense given the new campaign reform. As you know it allows him to spend his campaign warchest.

L.Ephant,
Let me see if I can make sense of your question. If Al Gore is not a viable or even an interesting candidate to many democrats, how can he call for impeachment or for Rumsfeld and others to step down?

Answer: Just like you or I can advocate the same for any of our nation’s leaders, because we’re guaranteed the first amendment.

2nd part:Instead we chose Kerry; Well yes he is running for president.

3rd part:What is Terry thinking? McCauliffe I think you are refering to, He’s head of the DNC, sooo he’s thinking how can we win this election when he probably needs to be thinking; WOW, WE REALLY NEED ED RENDELL BACK!!!

Hope that answers things L. Ephant.

The delayed acceptance was a silly idea. I don’t know if it’s a better idea, but the only alternative I can see is to opt out of public financing.

In contrast to the Bush warchest, why wouldn’t we want to take advantage of matching public funds? Bush has raised over 200 million $$$

The republicans, I was almost sure were going to rant on this being a socialized fleecing of our government in Kerry delaying the nom. But I guess they reallized they may need it to at some point(?).

Now I’m actually still in wait of the naming of runningmate/veeper. (Please not Kennedy)

Democrats have actually enjoyed a significant advantage so far with the 527s, a loophole which Republicans haven’t taken advantage of to nearly the degree. Supposedly that’s all going to change now that the FEC has refused to take action for at least 90 days and Republican-interest groups are seriously reving up.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-12-gop-soft-money_x.htm

But I have an idea: why don’t Democrats advocate policies which make their base constituencies richer (instead of poorer) so they’ll have more money to donate to campaigns? It’s such a brilliant and simple idea that I can’t believe they haven’t thought of it yet.

Folks:

The money difference is not as big as is being portrayed. The Democrats have done very well with “outside” financing, such as the 527’s. And before y’all jump down my throat, I’m not saying there is anything wrong with them. Personally, I don’t much care for the idea of rich folks spending huge sums of money to get THEIR candidate elected, but rules is rules. I’m in favor of changing the rules, but not during the game.

Bottom line is that Kerry is trying to act “poor” when in actuality, the money race is an awful lot closer than it appears. Republicans are still in the lead in the money race, but its close.

It is a shrewd move, not only financially, but, psychologically. The more contributors donate to the Kerry campaign (even 5$), the less likely they will be to change their mind. Any who want to debate this point, first look up research on “cognitive dissonance”. It is a fact of human psychology.

If this was such an issue then why didn’t the Democrats move their convention back a few weeks? If it was discussed on the Watchblog a year ago, surely someone at the DNC was aware…

Well folks, ‘tis a moot point now. Had someone not spilled the beans, it might have been a good move. But last I checked, Kerry decided against delaying for fear of it being seen as a pure political move.

Nobody thought the Dem could raise the money Kerry has. The convention was set before the Rep’s convention because we figured the Democratic candidate would have run out of money by then. It was supposed to pump up a campaign that it was assumed would be running out of money by July.

The money difference is not as big as is being portrayed.

That’s just not true.

Bottom line is that Kerry is trying to act “poor” when in actuality, the money race is an awful lot closer than it appears. Republicans are still in the lead in the money race, but its close.

Bottom line is that Republicans are adopting this line because otherwise it sounds like they’re buying the election.

BTW, direct contributions are far more effective (some campaign managers figure about four times more effective) than soft money because there are a lot of restrictions on how soft money can be spent.

the only alternative I can see is to opt out of public financing.

Woody, I don’t think you can do that. The way I understand it, after the conventions, both candidates get $75 million in public funding and can’t raise any private funds. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Nobody thought the Dem could raise the money Kerry has. The convention was set before the Rep’s convention because we figured the Democratic candidate would have run out of money by then. It was supposed to pump up a campaign that it was assumed would be running out of money by July.

The money difference is not as big as is being portrayed.

That’s just not true.

Bottom line is that Kerry is trying to act “poor” when in actuality, the money race is an awful lot closer than it appears. Republicans are still in the lead in the money race, but its close.

Bottom line is that Republicans are adopting this line because otherwise it sounds like they’re buying the election.

BTW, direct contributions are far more effective (some campaign managers figure about four times more effective) than soft money because there are a lot of restrictions on how soft money can be spent.

the only alternative I can see is to opt out of public financing.

Woody, I don’t think you can do that. The way I understand it, after the conventions, both candidates get $75 million in public funding and can’t raise any private funds. Correct me if I’m wrong.

And yep. Kerry decided against the delay.

Pundit:

The statement of mine that you have reposted showing that the money difference is not that large is supportable. REad the following:

“Kerry is now in a position to be competitive with [the president] through the convention,” when both candidates will be limited to $75 million in federal campaign funds, said Anthony Corrado, a campaign finance expert at the Brookings Institution.”

” Sen. John F. Kerry’s fundraising receipts surged strongly ahead of President Bush’s last month, with the presumptive Democratic nominee pulling in almost twice what the president raised.”

“Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and his Democratic allies have raised almost twice as much money as the Bush-Cheney campaign so far this year, according to recent government filings.

The data show that despite the fears of many Democrats, their White House nominee likely will not be significantly hurt by his funding disparity compared to President Bush this election year.”

Pundit: There you have it—the money disparity should not be a major issue. Actually both candidates have exceeded record amounts of fundraising, which goes to show how ineffective campaign finance reform legislation as written truly is.

Pundit,

Candidates can absolutely, positively opt out of public financing. You can look it up.

joe - despite Kerry’s ability to raise money the last few months, he’s still down by about $100 million. Bush has twice as much money as Kerry, and in fact, Bush stopped raising money for himself a couple months ago.

The $75 million limitation after the conventions is interesting. joe uses it as an example of how Bush & Kerry will be even (though Kerry will have to make it last 5 weeks longer than Bush). Woody claims they can both opt out of it.

It looks like Woody is right, I took his advice and looked it up. :)

Under federal law, presidential candidates who choose to receive public funds for the post-convention campaign can’t raise or spend nonpublic funds after accepting their nominations.

So will either or both candidates opt out?

which goes to show how ineffective campaign finance reform legislation as written truly is.

That’s a fact, joe. I recently wrote the President about that. His assistant sent a reply saying, “Thank for your input, shouldn’t you be watching American Idol rather than meddling in politics?”

I sent the same email to my Congressional representitives. Feinstein wrote back that she’s supporting McCain’s latest bill to up the public funding from $45 million to $75 million. As if that’s going to make a difference, since both Kerry and Bush have exceeded even that. But she’s not going to introduce any new initiative herself (I’m serious, David - I’m shopping for a replacement for my Feinstein vote :))

It will be interesting to see Boxer’s reply. When she gets reelected this year (she’s great!), maybe she’ll feel it’s time for some Quixotic legislation.

AP: I did not use the 75 million as “an example of how Bush & Kerry will be even”. That would be Anthony Corrado of the Brookings Institute saying that, which I attributed in my last post.

What I said was that the money is closer than it is being portrayed. Kerry has officially raised 115 million to Bush’s 200 million. But remember that these numbers dont count outside areas, such as 527’s, where Kerry has a large advantage.

So….let me recap….slowly. Bush has more official money, Kerry has more outside 527 money, and the money difference looked at in the media is only the official part. My contention is that its portrayed incorrectly.

If you have facts to provide, please do so.

joe, according to Carville, the guy who put Clinton in the White House, direct contributions are four times more effective than soft money because there are no restrictions on how it can be spent.

Compared to direct funding efforts on both sides, the soft money impact is negligable.

If Bush decides the 2:1 lead in direct money he holds is not enough, he can easily start raising millions for himself again instead of for the RNC. The Bush campaign isn’t worried about the soft money.

Oops! joe, I could be wrong about the Bush campaign, or at least the GOP in general, not caring. It looks like they’re gearing up to outspend the Democrats on the 527’s, too. :)