anybody notice how the supposed "liberal" press basically chewed on dean like a shark feed frenzy on bloody chum?

what passes for polital discourse here is pretty pathetic.

nothing but horserace issues, who "gaffed" today, etc.

Sure the press chewed on Dean. Even Dean admits that this is a prerequisite for getting to the White House. Front-runners always get the most attention, both positive and negative, and Dean has enjoyed a great deal of positive press as well.

Now that Kerry is the front-runner coming out of Iowa, he will very likely get more of the negative press, along with increasing amounts of negative ads from other presidential hopefuls. The bad news for Dean is that Gephardt is expected to drop out today, which means that one of the people who could most effectively critique Kerry is gone.

Obviously I'm not psychic, but I haven't held out much hope that Dean is going to be the nominee. Ultimately, I think Kerry and Edwards are the best candidates and I know that Republican strategists are worried more about Edwards than Kerry because of what they call, "the Clinton Factor."

From what I've heard coming out of Iowa, the two issues that really swayed voters were the "likeability," and "electability." Dean has the passion, no doubt, but many of Dean's supposed base wound up voting for Kerry yesterday, which does not bode well for NH.

Those are just my thoughts on this issue.

David Flanagan

Lord! This is ridiculous. The GOP raises much more money than the Democrats, most of it from large corporations. Even large givers to Democrats, such as labor unions, are small givers in comparison to the corporate giants who give to the GOP in numerous ways, including in kind gifts. That is what matters.

The Open Secrets report is on individual donors, not the corporate givers that really make a difference.

The figures studied represent hard and soft money contributions from individuals made available Dec. 2 by the FEC. Contributions from PACs to candidates and parties, and soft money contributions from organizations, were not included in this study. The total amount given in non-itemized contributions, as well as other statistics for the entire 2001-2002 election cycle (which ends Dec. 31), won't be known until next spring.

A definite give-away is that the report discusses less than one percent of the population. Obviously, most privately raised monies are coming from elsewhere.

Nor is there any evidence Dean or anyone else is relying on the Internet other than as an another form of communication. In fact the two supposed topics here, campaign funds and Flanagan's claim Dean is losing momentum because of reliance on the Internet are hardly related at all. Dean relied on the Internet to reach people, not to raise funds.

Even for someone who hails from Free Republic, this is sorry reasoning and lousy, misleading reportage.

Well, the press coverage of Dean was indifferent to fawning to "Can He?" in whispered excited tones to Front Runner to "Well . . . what about?" to (I assume for the next week until NH) "What happened?"

His soundbite from last night ain't gonna help.

Ummm . . . I googled "Dean Internet Fundraising" and this is just one piece of evidence that Dean, more so than other candidates, relies(ed) on the Net for a significant portion of his fundraising. Well, ok, here is another one.

I think its pretty cool that he was able to raise a large amount of money online. Having dealt with professional political fundraisers in the past, who generally take anywhere from 15-30 percent of what they raise, online fundraising is healthy for the candidate because the costs associated with it are low and more money can be spent on message. And, it lessens dependence on inside Washington types.

But, where will the overwhelming majority of privately raised campaign funds come from, pray tell?

Go on, say it.

For the time being I will assume that when you use the phrase privately raised campaign funds you mean for an actual campaign. So, they will come from the same place all privately raised campaign funds come from: Individuals and PACS. Corps and Unions cannot give directly to individual campaigns, and there are dollar limits and everything is disclosed quarterly.

Party fundraising is a different issue. Traditionally, the Democratic Party was able to compete with the Republican Party in GOTV efforts, issue ads, etc due to large amounts of soft money. Historically, the Republican party is better at raising smaller amounts of money due to the systematic buildup of individual donors. The R party is a direct mail machine. They were also pretty good at the soft money game.

Now, with the Soft Money curtailed, the D Party is having a hard time keeping up due to lack of a good direct mail infrastructure. That stuff takes time and in a couple of years the D Party will be better at it, mainly because they have to be to survive.

A lot of the so called "soft" money is flowing into the 527 committees, in which Democratic interests have a wide lead.

Lord! This is ridiculous. The GOP raises much more money than the Democrats.

Mac,

First of all, that statement is what I consider a "Duhhh!" Of course Republicans raise more money than the Democrats, which is exactly what everyone already knows.

With that said, if you would please READ what I've written instead of having a spasm, my comments were directed to what we know now, which is what individual donors are giving. On top of THAT, the data above is meant to debunk the myth that Democrats LOVE to propogate regarding the GOP being the party that has no popular support but instead gets its funds only from corporations.

The fact is, the data shows both directly and indirectly that Democrats are more beholden to special interests as well as the wealthy elite than Republicans. Further evidence of Democrats' servitude to special interests came a few months ago from the internal Democrat email messages that were leaked to the press showing how the abortion lobby has been setting the agenda for Dems for several years.

The fact is, the Internet is a new way of effectively raising campaign funds, as Howard Dean has shown, but its not the ONLY way, which is a point I've made several times, both in my commentary above as well as my original commentary on the topic of Internet fundraising.

Finally, my claim is that Dean is faltering, not because he relied on the Internet to raise funds and reach people, but because he OVER-relied on the Internet to raise funds and reach people. The fact is, Dean should NEVER have allowed some of the Internet activities that we have been seeing from his campaign. Read my original article and THEN make your broad, sweeping, and biased generalizations please.

Thanks.

David Flanagan

I think its pretty cool that he was able to raise a large amount of money online.

Chris,

I'm with you on this. If nothing else, Dean's campaign has added a more innovative spirit to the campaign process, and hopefully encouraged greater participation in the electoral process to boot.

I'm a geek. I buy products and services online all the time using Paypal or ePay services and the ability to just log onto georgewbush.com and donate with my paypal account, for example, would be a significant enhancement in my opinion.

Dean's willingness to pioneer some of these strategies for his campaign makes it far more likely that others will follow in his footsteps when it comes to offering these kinds of conveniences. At the very least, Republicans will need to do this just to keep in step with Democrats.

Thanks.

David Flanagan

"A large amount of money on the Internet." (Chuckling.) I suspect it will turn out to be peanuts, both for Dean's campaign and for candidate fundraising in general. Internet appeals are just another form of seeking contributions from the little people. In addition, many a person who responds through an Internet link would have responded by phone or mail previously, so they are not new donors. Last, but not least, to try to make such a claim this early in the season is very disingenuous.

the interesting thing about the internet fundraising approach is that it made people feel like they were a part of something.

so much of modern compaigning comes off as completely scripted and devoid of, uhhmmm...something.....blood maybe. i dunno.

I agree, Mark. I got a real kick out of reading about new people attracted to the Iowa caucuses by outreach, often via the Internet. It was gratifying to see how happy it made them that candidates care about their votes.

My gripe with Flanagan is he has done it again: Look at information and draw almost exactly the conclusion it doesn't support.

My gripe with Flanagan is he has done it again: Look at information and draw almost exactly the conclusion it doesn't support.

Mac,

I think what is most interesting in this comment of yours is that you accuse me of making broad generalizations not supported by any data by making broad generalizations of your own, not supported by any data.

At least I have SOME data to back up my position, which has been, very simply, that Democrats actively propogate the myth that THEY are the party of the people while Republicans are the party of special interests and corporations. At this point, the data we DO have, shows exactly the opposite.

On top of the data I cited, we also have the leaked files from Democrat computers. I read every letter, memo, and email discussing how they were to handle judicial nominees. What I found fascinating was that the Democrats' most elder statesman, Ted Kennedy, did whatever he was told to do by the abortion lobby. He kissed up to those folks in a manner I would never have believed.

Want to know the great irony of that whole scandal? Its likely that it was a Democratic staffer, fed up with his party's obeisance to special interests, who leaked the documents.

Politics is endlessly fascinating.

David Flanagan