Democrats' early money haul stuns GOP

[DonViejo]

Last edited Mon Oct 23, 2017, 08:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: Politico



A historic number of well-funded candidates have flooded Republican House districts ahead of 2018.

By ELENA SCHNEIDER 10/23/2017 05:07 AM EDT

Democratic candidates are reporting historic early fundraising totals, alarming GOP strategists and raising the prospect that 2018 could feature the most expansive House battlefield in years.

Animated by opposition to President Donald Trump and the Republican congressional majorities, at least 162 Democratic candidates in 82 GOP-held districts have raised over $100,000 so far this year, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest FEC data. That’s about four times as many candidates as House Democrats had at this point before the 2016 or 2014 elections, and it’s more than twice as many as Republicans had running at this point eight years ago, on the eve of capturing the House in the 2010 wave election.

Nearly three dozen Republican incumbents were outraised by Democratic challengers in the third quarter of this year – a stunning figure. Nine GOP incumbents already trail a Democratic opponent in cash on hand, increasing the likelihood that many veteran incumbents will face tough opposition for the first time in years.

The Democrats’ fundraising success, especially from a glut of candidates who have never run for office before, is unsettling to those charged with protecting the GOP majority.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/23/2018-fundraising-democrats-house-races-244044

[SunSeeker]

1. Good. nt

[beachbum bob]

2. fight for every senate seat, every House seat, every legislature seat

democrats can win and we can take back our country. Afterall, thats how conservatives got control in the first place.

[dalton99a]

6. +1

[NewJeffCT]

10. Definitely need to fight

at the state level - the GOP has flipped too many state legislatures the past 10 years or increased their margins. Heck, even in blue Connecticut, Democrats have lost a ton of ground - 10 years ago, the Democrats had veto proof majorities in both state houses. Now, the state senate is tied 18-18 and the Dems only have a 69-62 margin the state house.

[beachbum bob]

18. democratic apathy is a real problem and with fake news now driving dissention

. Time to stop the nonsense and have all democrats vote, no matter what it takes to do so

[NewJeffCT]

20. not sure it's all apathy

in a bunch of states, it's a lot harder for some people to vote, and those people typically skew heavily Democratic.

ACORN also did a lot of work registering people in cities to vote and then getting them to the polls. They were destroyed by the doctored James O'Keefe video and the rush to give them the axe where Congress voted overwhelmingly to defund them (something like 89-6 in the Senate...) No coincidence that the demise of ACORN has been followed by declining Democratic fortunes at every level.

[beachbum bob]

33. other groups are stepping up to GOTV, but voters gotta start caring

apathy isn't the entire part of the equation but its significantly more on the democratic side than on the conservative side who continue to win elections with a minority of total number of registered voters.

I know in Illinois, the local county democratic parties are working their tales off to help unseat several conservative Congresspeople who do not represent the view of the majority of their constituents.

[Hortensis]

39. Apathy and complacency are enemies. This means

people like those in the Koch alliance will have to ante up more money. And they will. Officially, the Kochs announced it'd be in the neighborhood of 400 million, but if they need more, it will be provided.

On the plus side, some very senior Repubs are being outraised by donations from the left. Not a good sign for them.

Gonna go increase our auto-donations to the DNC.

[Mr.Bill]

11. And immediately after the election

start movements to recall every single republican sitting in Congress. Make them spend money fighting to keep their jobs. Every year, every month they are in office.

[NewJeffCT]

21. I don't think there is a recall mechanism

for federal representatives - I think it's more a state thing - governors in California and Arizona come to mind.

[Mr.Bill]

23. Thank you, I was not aware of that. n/t

[Sunlei]

22. "We" only need to win a few positions, not many about 10? and hold on to others.

Republicans are such an anti-American party- they pander to Corporations, extremely wealthy persons & private interests ONLY.

The D party can do this if they can manage to not be divisive with our huge umbrella of decent people in America.

[jmowreader]

41. Here's the real breakdown

The current balance of power in the House is:
R: 239 seats
D: 194 seats
Empty: 2 seats

Let's assume both the empty seats will be filled by Republicans, and the balance is:
R: 241 seats
D: 194 seats

Separation: 47 seats. It's easier to work with even numbers, so we'll change that to 48.

If 24 seats flip to the Democratic Party, the new BOP is:
D: 218 seats
R: 217 seats

Just to make it easier for us - remember, we ARE Democrats and you can't get Democrats to agree on what they want on a pizza, much less on legislation - we need 35 to 40 Republican House seats and about five Republican Senate seats to go blue to ensure we can consistently back Trump down.

[crazycatlady]

31. start lower than the legislature

Start with school boards, dog catchers, city council seats (using the term generically as they're sometimes called different names), mayor's offices, county legislative seats, etc.

Every race at all levels should be contested. In many of these local offices, the GOP runs unopposed.

[IronLionZion]

35. All politics is local

every little local office helps liberal candidates get to know their local constituents and issues and build support for higher offices.

It does seem a bit odd that way too many local governments are controlled by the party that believes government is bad for us.

[Clarity2]

3. I'm

really happy to hear that. Good news is few and far between these days. Good sign, and I think a lot of people are reaching into their pockets to support out of state candidates. We need to dig deep till 2018 and *beyond* & give what we can. This is the future of our country at stake & our childrens future.

Russia can keep playing their propaganda game, but too many people are onto them. Go suck it Putin. Let's take back **OUR** country.

[Sunlei]

24. agree " Go suck it Putin." Republicans for some reason REFUSE/IGNORE new sanctions on Russia FOR

attacks against America. That country ATTACKS USA and Republican Party LETS RUSSIA ATTACK AMERICA.

[WhiteTara]

4. This one is really going to cost the Kochs.

[FakeNoose]

7. And the Mercers

[WhiteTara]

8. and we can't forget the DeVos

to you

[Sunlei]

26. KOCKS have enough money they can give Republicans billions more & not even feel it.

Heck Kocks can afford to pay EVERY American 100k a year, a nice house, and couple ponies and even I'd shut up a little

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Note how this is in direct conflict to the spin from the article Politico had yesterday

that suggested that the DNC was all but dead - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141895388

I.e., one can NOW see where the $$$ IS going... and it is going where it NEEDS to go - directly to support the individual candidates across the country.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. This is apparently about contributions to individual Dem candidates, not DNC

While it's good to hear there are more challenger to GOP incumbents, and that some Dems have out raised GOP opponents, $100,000 doesn't seem like that much mo eye divided among 162 candidates...

[BumRushDaShow]

37. It's all going towards people running under the party banner

IMHO, they have split up the fundraising drives to the point where they are cannibalizing each of their entities, and the electorate gets donor fatigue.

Regarding the issue you bring up about how much was raised "locally" - I didn't interpret it as $100,000 divided by 162. It sounded like they are saying that each of the "at least 162" number raised $100,000 (or more)... and that assumption was based on the fact that many more would most likely be running (and in some cases, multiples in 1 district) who probably raised less.

[elleng]

12. 'Democratic candidates are reporting historic early fundraising totals,'

NOT DNC.

[Sunlei]

15. DNC NEEDS to support every single D/I 2018 directly! No more fighting over positions,GET TO WORK.

DNC can 'charge' offices & whatever infrastructure needed and fund raise AFTER 2018 midterms.

Way to important to spend ANY TIME on anything else except removing Republicans and having Ds and Is in Congress and Senate!!

For Gods sake, We ONLY NEED about 10ish positions!!

[elleng]

16. Right.

Fat chance, imo.

[Sunlei]

17. I know what you mean- I'm not wealthy and only donate directly. AFTER 2018 if DNC needs $ to pay bil

AFTER 2018 if DNC needs $ to pay bills- I'll donate IF THEY DID A GOOD JOB ON MIDTERMS.

I'm not yellin' at you, tired of DNC begging for donations and acting like a highschool homeroom.

[NewJeffCT]

25. They need to pick up around 25 seats

They currently have 194 seats in Congress and need 218 for a majority. That's 24 seats, plus you'd want a few more just in case of things like death, incapacity, resigning, etc.

[Sunlei]

28. That isn't many at all and every Republican running or holding a seat is corrupt, has troubles-

troubles if not at the federal level, at the state level or county level.

Ds need to learn to go after local corruption of Congress/Senate Rs in RED states or half red states. Even local corruption costs local people, a heck of a lot of money.

[NewJeffCT]

32. it's not a huge amount of seats to pick up

Democrats picked up over 30 seats in the anti-bush wave of 2006.

Republicans picked up over 50 seats in the anti-Clinton wave of 1994 and 63 seats in 2010 in the tea party wave.

[crazycatlady]

13. As I said in the other thread

Money given to candidates is great for the short term. Afterall most campaign operations wrap up typically a week after the election when the office is cleaned out (staff are on payroll through the 15th).

Giving to the DNC, committees (DCCC, DSCC, DLCC), state parties, etc is where the long-term spending is. Things like hosting candidate, staff and volunteer trainings, paying rent/utilities at headquarters, maintaining the voter file (so walk and call lists for volunteers are a little more accurate), providing rapid response for laws passed at all levels, and having an existing network of activists in place. The spending is not as sexy as it is on a campaign, but this structure that the DNC builds is essential for winning elections.

[Sunlei]

19. They have to use credit so 'lack of donations' is no longer an 'excuse for a bad job'

Rapid response for laws IS CRITICAL. Once Republican party crams a law, its almost impossible to change back. Republicans are very good at cramming in laws.

[Sunlei]

29. yes & DNC should use credit cards, charge everything so begging for donations isn't main 2018 focus.

for DNC.

[murielm99]

34. Thank you for repeating this.

We need the infrastructure that the DNC provides. It is great to give to individual campaigns, but we need the DNC.

People here whine about building a bench of young Democrats to carry our message forward. It is not possible to do this without structure like that provided by the DNC and the other organizations you mentioned.

[Bradical79]

38. I think this would be individuals and DCCC, not DNC

Everyone forgets about the DCCC, which I think has been doing extremely well when it comes to raising money.

[Sunlei]

14. empty your pockets Republicans,start more 'pretend charities' to collect 'donation' from deplorables

perhaps Republicans can 'cut' salaries of RW rabid troll businesses like your Breibart 'news', your troll army twitter bots Kellyanne , your washingtonDC lobbyist party animals and your HATE Radio propaganda 'shows' .

[Achilleaze]

27. Americans don't want to donate to traitors

get a frikken clue KGOP.

[Gothmog]

30. This is good news

[newblewtoo]

36. Before breaking out

the bubbly a few other voices need to be heard such as this one:

For years, Democrats were thought of as the standard-bearers of grass-roots fundraising, especially in the digital era. During the 2004 primaries, Howard Dean’s campaign pioneered presidential campaigns’ potential to both raise and rely on small-dollar online donations by focusing on a people-powered message and grass-roots campaign operation. In 2008, Barack Obama improved on that model, setting records for small contributions—which he broke and reset time and again throughout his presidency. Even as recently as the 2016 primaries, Bernie Sanders led all opponents in both major parties in small-dollar fundraising, outpacing any other primary candidate in history.

Then came Donald Trump.

In 2016, his campaign raised more than $281 million from grass-roots donors—an amount surpassed only by President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, which pulled in $329 million from small donations. But whereas donors who gave $200 or less comprised roughly 30 percent of the overall amount raised for Obama’s campaigns, small donors provided more than 53 percent of Trump’s campaign money, compared with just 21 percent for Hillary Clinton. Trump’s success here is even more impressive than it might seem at first glance: He didn’t start actively fundraising from grass-roots supporters until June 2016, giving him just five months to establish a small-dollar fundraising machine that went toe-to-toe with those that Obama, Clinton, and Sanders each took at least a year to build.

Door by door, block by block. That is how you win local elections. If you don't put boots on the ground for those you might as well forget the rest.

ETA: Full article here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/10/the-democratic-partys-looming-fundraising-crisis-215474

[Duppers]

40. Wow.

There are too many idiots, if that is true.

I'm shocked and thought none topped Bernie's record for smaller donations. But apparently I'm wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-fundraising/471648/