Who has more money?
Democrats are bucking trends lately, and actually raising more money in some cases than Republicans.
In the first 18 days of October, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised 9.1 million dollars, almost three times the RSCC's sum of 3.6 million. The DSCC now has more cash on hand than the RSCC: at 9.7 to 8.9 million.
IN the race for the House, the Dem's are only slightly behind the Repub's. The DCCC has 17 million cash on hand, compared to the RCCC's 18.3 million.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=462
The RNC does have more cash-on-hand than the DNC, but the discrepancy is not as great as in previous years. THis is what Charlie Cook has to say on the matter:
"Do Republicans have a financial advantage over Democrats in terms of national party spending? Yes, but that advantage is the narrowest its been in 20 years. The Sept. 30 cash-on-hand figures for the Republican National Committee and the GOP Senate and House campaign committees were just $10 million more than the Democratic National Committee and its Senate and House committees, $77 million to $67 million. The GOP spending advantage is there, but it's nothing like the 50- to 125-percent advantages that we have seen in previous elections."
And it's not that the DNC can't raise the money - they've just been spending it pretty quickly. THis is all part of Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, which has the Democratic Leadership Conference types in a fankle. But it's a smart investment - having permanent staff on the ground in places like Mississippi and Idaho makes sense, and a lot of the Dem's best chances are in 'red states'. All the top positions in the state of Arkansas, for example, are highly likely to flip to the Democrats this year. This strategy will also help combat the Republicans' much-lauded get-out-the-vote operation, and will pay off in two and four years time. So a wise investment.
But it may mean that some races are still a bit cash-poor for the Democrats this year. There is a big push in the netroots to get ultra-safe candidates with plenty of cash on hand to donate to people in competitive districts. Sens. Kennedy and Kerry have already made a good example by giving half a million each. Let's hope that others follow their example!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501728.html
So, all in all, the Dem's are in a much better position than at any time in the last twenty or thirty years, in terms of money.
In the first 18 days of October, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised 9.1 million dollars, almost three times the RSCC's sum of 3.6 million. The DSCC now has more cash on hand than the RSCC: at 9.7 to 8.9 million.
IN the race for the House, the Dem's are only slightly behind the Repub's. The DCCC has 17 million cash on hand, compared to the RCCC's 18.3 million.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=462
The RNC does have more cash-on-hand than the DNC, but the discrepancy is not as great as in previous years. THis is what Charlie Cook has to say on the matter:
"Do Republicans have a financial advantage over Democrats in terms of national party spending? Yes, but that advantage is the narrowest its been in 20 years. The Sept. 30 cash-on-hand figures for the Republican National Committee and the GOP Senate and House campaign committees were just $10 million more than the Democratic National Committee and its Senate and House committees, $77 million to $67 million. The GOP spending advantage is there, but it's nothing like the 50- to 125-percent advantages that we have seen in previous elections."
And it's not that the DNC can't raise the money - they've just been spending it pretty quickly. THis is all part of Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, which has the Democratic Leadership Conference types in a fankle. But it's a smart investment - having permanent staff on the ground in places like Mississippi and Idaho makes sense, and a lot of the Dem's best chances are in 'red states'. All the top positions in the state of Arkansas, for example, are highly likely to flip to the Democrats this year. This strategy will also help combat the Republicans' much-lauded get-out-the-vote operation, and will pay off in two and four years time. So a wise investment.
But it may mean that some races are still a bit cash-poor for the Democrats this year. There is a big push in the netroots to get ultra-safe candidates with plenty of cash on hand to donate to people in competitive districts. Sens. Kennedy and Kerry have already made a good example by giving half a million each. Let's hope that others follow their example!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501728.html
So, all in all, the Dem's are in a much better position than at any time in the last twenty or thirty years, in terms of money.
posted by Matthew at 10:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home