There are a number of problems with the cited Washington Post pseudo analysis.

First, they compare figures for a Presidential election cycle, which mobilizes people outside the normal party political activists, to a Congressional/Gubernatorial cycle which mobilizes people who follow politics more closely or are tightly focused on local issues. To get a better view, the (inflation adjusted) figures for 2001 would have to be included.

Second, they distort the figures they do provide, as demonstrated by the table below:

Year
Party / Difference
Funds Raised
Cash on Hand

2001
Democrats
na
na

Republicans
na
na

Demo as % of Repu
na
na

2003
Democrats $31 million
$9.9 million

Republicans $80 million
$27 million

Demo as % of Repu 38%
37%

2005
Democrats $42 million $6.8 million

Republicans $81 million
$34 million

Demo as % of Repu 51%
20%
Change
(in basis points)
+11
-17

Sure, it would be nice to have more money in the bank. But without knowing the balances at the beginning of January, or the specific amounts and purposes of expenditures in the intervening nine months (such as $5 million dedicated to defeating the Repus in Virginia), I cannot say that the decline in the DNC balance indicates any problem at all, let alone a significant one. In fact, the increased effectiveness of fundraising under Chairman Dean's leadership is responsible for the DNC's ability to fund both the 50 state strategy and individual efforts such as that in Virginia.

The most glaring failure of the WaPo article is that the significant improvement in fund raising effectiveness of the DNC over the nine month period runs directly against the implication of the Washington Post headline and the tenor of its pseudo reportage in this article. In other words, the Chris Cillizza "Special to The Washington Post" report is a carefully crafted lie, calculated to attack Chairman Dean's effectiveness, and based only on the thinnest thread of twisted fact.

Who is this "Chris Cillizza", anyway?
Jim Pivonka | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 8:07 pm | #

Other than a writer and their political blogger, I don't know his history. Thanks for this info though.
Daniel | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 8:31 pm | #