Democratic National Convention fundraising lagging severely compared to RNC - Polidicks

[URL]https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/30/democratic-national-committee-fundraising-379360[/URL] [quote] The Democratic National Committee will report raising $5.2 million in December, bringing its total 2017 fundraising to $67 million, according to paperwork that will be filed Wednesday. That figure includes $1.2 million raised by the Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between the national and state parties launched in October, and over $30 million in grass-roots donations —averaging $21 dollars each — overall. The total is slightly ahead of the party's haul in 2013 and 2015, the previous off-years when Democrats had the benefit of a president from their party in the White House. It's far behind the behind the $108 million that the DNC raised in 2011, however. It also badly trails the Republican National Committee, which raised $11.1 million in December for a 2017 total of $132.5 million. [B]The RNC has $38.8 million cash on hand. The DNC will report $6.5 million cash on hand, but its debt is now $6.2 million. [/B] It also comes on the heels of the surprise departure of DNC CEO Jess O’Connell, announced on Monday. She has been a top leader of the DNC, integral to its fundraising and rebuilding efforts. DNC chair Tom Perez will now have to conduct a replacement search amid the pressure of the election year and his ongoing reboot of the organization, which remains riven by lingering divisions from the 2016 presidential primary. [B] “Rebuilding the Democratic Party has been no easy task,” said DNC press secretary Michael Tyler, “but that’s exactly what we’re doing due to the grass-roots enthusiasm of Democratic donors and activists across the country who propelled us to victory in 2017.”[/B] [/quote] Alternate sources: [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/main-democratic-political-committee-lags-gop-in-fundraising/2018/01/31/d309591a-06d8-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?utm_term=.ed20a86e8dd4[/URL] [URL]https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/02/02/the-dnc-is-dead-broke-while-the-rnc-has-nearly-dollar40-million/23351693/[/URL][URL="https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/02/02/the-dnc-is-dead-broke-while-the-rnc-has-nearly-dollar40-million/23351693/"] [/URL]Emphasis mine. There's good reasons why the RNC is flush right now compared to the DNC, but this news is more than a little disconcerting. Democrat candidates may need to find funding for their campaigns by themselves.

[QUOTE]It's far behind the behind the $108 million that the DNC raised in 2011, however.[/QUOTE] Was all that raised on one year? What was so important for that much to be raised? Also if they are shrewd they could play this as a good thing to people tired of big donors' influence in politics. edit: really, why did they only raise 2/3 of the money during a year when Obama was president compared to during the first year of trump

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53125116]Was all that raised on one year? What was so important for that much to be raised? Also if they are shrewd they could play this as a good thing to people tired of big donors' influence in politics.[/QUOTE] That is what they are trying to do. A lot of their donations now come from grassroots sources where the averages are comparatively low. The problem is, more money generally means more victories, so it becomes a question of whether you cede the moral high ground now and make up for it when you have more political capital, or hold on to that high ground and potentially miss out on being able to effect long term political change. Then there is also the fact that the Democrats have an honest Progressive faction who outright rejects special interest funding. The GOP has no such concerns amongst any of their various factions.

while the DNC is lagging, remember they aren't the only democrat organization, the grass roots have been pouring money into individual and state level races across the country, indeed the dlcc is massively outraising the comparable gop agency

Places with no cash and no incumbent candidate are ripe for taking over. If you like everything the Democratic platform has to offer except for their stance on guns, now is the best time to run as an example.

[QUOTE=Sableye;53125194]while the DNC is lagging, remember they aren't the only democrat organization, the grass roots have been pouring money into individual and state level races across the country, indeed the dlcc is massively outraising the comparable gop agency[/QUOTE] also remember that left-leaning vote splitting is something to do during the primaries and not after; don't waste your vote for your pride instead of pushing for the best available outcome for your country you're going to have to work with subversive candidates like bernie sanders masquerading under the democratic banner if you want to implement more representative voting systems voting third party will only hurt you, for now

DNC is in a pretty shitty position. They are still without a reasonable leader, still quiet demoralized, and now are without a good source of money too work with. If they do not play their cards right, it is quiet likely that the chances of a Democrat wave will be minimal at best.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;53125219]Places with no cash and no incumbent candidate are ripe for taking over. If you like everything the Democratic platform has to offer except for their stance on guns, now is the best time to run as an example.[/QUOTE] Are there actually people in America who say "Yknow, I want to vote Dem, but the only thing holding me back is their stance on guns"

[QUOTE=EcksDee;53125381]Are there actually people in America who say "Yknow, I want to vote Dem, but the only thing holding me back is their stance on guns"[/QUOTE] It pushes a good number of pro-gun liberals into voting Libertarian.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;53125381]Are there actually people in America who say "Yknow, I want to vote Dem, but the only thing holding me back is their stance on guns"[/QUOTE] There are people on this very message board who say that.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53125387]There are people on this very message board who say that.[/QUOTE] At least a few of those people I've seen also say in the same breath that they don't care what else happens to America because if they get to keep their guns they can just live in the woods and 'wait out the problems' when things go pear shaped. They think guns are the solution to all their problems - which is why they're single issue voters I imagine.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;53125381]Are there actually people in America who say "Yknow, I want to vote Dem, but the only thing holding me back is their stance on guns"[/QUOTE] I'm pro gun but still vote dem.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53125392]At least a few of those people I've seen also say in the same breath that they don't care what else happens to America because if they get to keep their guns they can just live in the woods and 'wait out the problems' when things go pear shaped. They think guns are the solution to all their problems - which is why they're single issue voters I imagine.[/QUOTE] Like I play video games as a hobby but it's not so important to me that I ignore everything else. I guess right to a video game isn't enshrined in law though.

A few things. First, the percieved strangeness about "gun-voting" democrats isn't that strange if you get down to what guns means to a lot of American citizens. Guns aren't just implements of destruction or flashy bang-bang pop-sticks. For a lot of people they embody the promises of the constitution, and an invaluable method of last-resort. This means that in spite of the fact that the Democrats are a party that promises to promote and enshrine civil rights, historically they've earned a lot of genuine skepticism given that they would evidently rather pander to Anti-Gun lobbyists and pass poorly thought out and implemented gun control legislation, like the famous, "scary weapons ban." That's a real, physical infringement of a person's civil rights in those voter's eyes, one that says, "we don't care what the constitution says, we'll do anything for a vote. We'll even take away your ability to defend yourself and your family." Second, [quote] you're going to have to work with subversive candidates like bernie sanders masquerading under the democratic banner if you want to implement more representative voting systems [/quote] You fucking [I]what[/I]? Bernie Sanders explicitly endorsed Hillary Clinton after he lost the DNC primary to her. His beliefs and attitudes resonate so well with voters across the entire spectrum that he's the reason there's any policy shift in the Democratic party [I]at all[/I] right now. He was, in no way, "a subversive." Unless by subversive you mean that American political parties should operate as monolithic and unimpeachable [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine"]Political Machines,[/URL] something which America is historically [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age"]familiar with[/URL] and would not like to return to.

I mean with the shit they pulled with Bernie and favoring Hillary. I'm not surprised no one wants to donate to them.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53125380]DNC is in a pretty shitty position. They are still without a reasonable leader, still quiet demoralized, and now are without a good source of money too work with. If they do not play their cards right, it is quiet likely that the chances of a Democrat wave will be minimal at best.[/QUOTE] just so everyone knows, the DNC has relatively little to do with midterm funding. you want the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, [URL="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/10/democrats-senate-fundraising-2018-402087"]which [I][B]has[/B][/I] considerably outraised Republicans in a manner consistent with the amount of Democrat victories thus far.[/URL] in addition to various PACs which also outraised Republican counterparts, plus the unusual amount of funding that's gone directly to individual Democrat candidates, i'd say the overall numbers are at least competitive. couldn't find much on the Congressional Campaign Committee's funding but i doubt it's much different.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;53125381]Are there actually people in America who say "Yknow, I want to vote Dem, but the only thing holding me back is their stance on guns"[/QUOTE] There are a metric shit-ton of people who think like that, if they don't outright buy the Republican message hook, line and sinker. Walk into any gun store here in the US, that's almost always how the conversations will run. Don't ask me how it makes sense, I don't understand it either. People just vote for what they think effects them personally over shit that effects other people, I guess. Doesn't help that people on either side of the political spectrum find it increasingly difficult to agree on basic goddamn facts, like that fact that we're slow-cooking ourselves out of existence and not doing a damn thing about it.

Grab your wallets and donate everyone. If you live in a blue district, find a red district that's liable to flip and donate to the dem there. I donated to [url=https://alisonforvirginia.com/]Alison Friedman[/url] to unseat Barbara Comstock

The RNC's getting fuckhuge money from lobbyists as payouts for their tax giveaway. The Koch brothers network has a $400 million budget for the 2018 elections. The DNC will almost certainly be unable to match the funding of the RNC's corporate backers under any event. The Koch brothers could buy George Soros ten times over.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;53126521]idk americans are doin a pretty shitty job of defending their rights with guns so i gotta say that the symbolism of the matter is kinda moot i just feel that its pretty hypocritical to vote for symbolic freedom over actual tangible freedoms like civil rights laws, improvements to worker conditions, the right to not go to debters prison for having had to take an ambulance, not having your words censored online by corporations, etc[/QUOTE] The amount of guns are going up while the amount of gun owners are going down, which supports what I've noticed anecdotally that most people who own guns tend to be fairly well off, meaning they don't rely as much on taxpayer-subsidized entitlements and actually benefit from the sort of tax cuts the Republicans push, as well as being capable of affording their own health coverage. Obviously a lot of working class people own guns as well, but I find the people who are really into collecting, maintaining, and shooting firearms would probably vote Republican anyway.