Political donations thus far, by Wisconsin republicans to republican candidates, in the 2008 presidential campaign. (Roughly $ 95K more than Wisconsin democrats have raised to date.
Source: Federal Election Commission)
Interesting ... now will it translate to votes?
I've always felt it is a real shame that the person who can raise the most money usually wins, because more often than not, the person with the most money is not always the best candidate.
Sandra - I can't argue with you - Jim Doyle & Hillary Clinton are iron-clad proof that the candidate with the most money is not necessarily the best candidate!
Now you simply can not argue that as a whole Dems are doing a better job of raising money nationally.
This would be true except for one pesky stat: • Democratic ($185480452) • Republican ($122641325)
That makes it look to me like the Democrats are doing about a $63m better job raising money nationally. 9 of the top 10 states gave more to Democrats (the exception being Utah--I wonder why?).
You might also want to note the numbers for the national committees:
NRCC: $37.2m • DCCC: $52.6m
NRSC: $23.4m • DSCC: $42.0m
RNC: $63.1m • DNC: $40.5m
That leaves the Dems with about an $11.5m fundraising advantage--or about $75m when you add in the presidential numbers, too. (The numbers look even worse when you subtract debts--the Republican committees are in greater debt than the Dem ones--and the Dems currently have a 2-1 cash on hand lead among the committees.)
While I don't think that fundraising numbers are the be-all and end-all, if you're trying to make the point that "you simply can not argue that as a whole Dems are doing a better job of raising money nationally," then you'd better have accurate numbers to back it up, rather than one cherry-picked stat.
Jay I suggest you re-read what you are having a fit about. What I said is Democrats are clearly raising more money across the country and you see the need to restate that and provide emphasis??? I agree with you, that was the point....
However, here in Wisconsin that is not the case.
Why has that not been a story?
In Wisconsin Republican Presidential candidates are out raising Democrats.
If you would let go of your stupid gotcha games for one minute you might have figured that out.
The above comment was mine, not Mrs RDW.
MSM? Wow, the jargon is getting overwhelming (or is that OVRWHLMING?)
sheesh.
can we speak English? should we?
Media, Deb, again would you speak to the question instead of your same old tired schtick of complaining about how it was asked.
Fred, I'm responding you what you wrote. I'm sorry that I didn't respond to what you meant to say.
If you had said, "you simply can not argue that as a whole Dems are doing a better job of raising money in every state," it would have been true--but a bit of a "duh" since no one expects Idaho to contribute more to Dems than Reps. If you had said, "It very surprising that Wisconsin, which hasn't voted for a Republican since 1984, is giving more to Republican candidates," that would have been true as well.
But, no; you wrote, "you simply can not argue that as a whole Dems are doing a better job of raising money nationally." In fact, I can argue it, and I did.
Badly Jay, I clearly said Dems were doing better across the country and somehow you need to correct me for saying exactly the same thing?
Somehow you find a need to be critical even when we agree.
Were you not loved as a child or something?
Gee Fred, you're awful contentious lately, aren't you?
Here's me speaking to your question:
The proof is in the pudding -- how many voters come out in November 2008 and how do they vote. The rest of this is just so much noise.
There -- happy now?
Commenting by HaloScan
