Can We Gloat a Little? Howard Dean was Right...
Okay, those who hate the kind of insider analyses Michael and I sometimes engage in can just skip this diary. But really it is more than about how Democrats are setting themselves up for more victories. It is also about how Howard Dean really has changed the face of politics by creating a much bigger role for small donors, internet bloggers and regular schlubs who want to fight for their favorite issue. Some may see it as business as usual, but I see it as a shift in how politics is functioning. Not a fundamental shift, but still a significant one.
Well, the demise of the Democratic Party has been predicted for some time...and when Howard Dean became head of the DNC more people than ever predicted it would spell doom and destruction for the party of the Donkey.
Since then, we did unexpectedly well in 2005 elections (NYC aside). Then in 2006 we kicked ass. Now it is too early to say what 2008 will bring, but my gut feelings about our candidates vs. their candidates may be playing out in the most important arena there is: fundraising.
From Politico:
According to preliminary fundraising numbers released by the campaigns this week, the combined Democratic field raised about $80 million, compared with roughly $50 million collected by their GOP adversaries.
This is huge. I mean really huge. At this point in time before a major election, Republicans have ALWAYS been substantially ahead. I mean, we always have a registration advantage and are generally more in line with the voters on most issues, according to polls. But...we always lose the fundraising game, and that is their secret to success. Only now things have turned around. We haven't just caught up with them...we have SURPASSED them.
And a big chunk of what has changed is all us small donors and small fundraisers here on the internet inspired by Howard Dean's "people powered" revolution. Still from Politico:
The first-quarter figures illustrate two important trends: the coming of age of Internet techniques pioneered by Democrats since Howard Dean used a vast online small-donor base to elbow his way into the first tier of the 2004 presidential primary race and the differing moods among the party activists.
Since Dean’s 2003 breakthrough, the percentage of people with access to broadband has nearly doubled. The anti-war campaign since that election, led by MoveOn.org and other Web-based groups, has schooled activists in organizing and donating on the Internet.
Democrat Barack Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he had raised $25 million – $6.9 million of it in Internet donations – emphasizes the point...
“The energy and enthusiasm is on the Democrats’ side, because they’ve just won and they are hungry to win the White House. Our side just lost and we don’t have a candidate that has ignited our troops,†the Republican insider said.
Come on...I think we can gloat a little. This is why the big boys invite us to their fancy dinners: they know we have become a big piece of the puzzle.
Oh...and for those who really want to participate in this new small-donor fundraising thing, here are three of my Act Blue Sites:
President (whichever Dem wins the primary)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2008 Elections | Fundraising | Democratic Party | Republic Party
The gratuitous Edwards-bashing
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 5 April 2007 - 9:28pm.
...just shows you're scared of him, WallBot.
Obama-mania
What is really amazing is what Barack Obama's campaign has done. He has all but matched Hillary Clinton's record fundraising (Hillary $26 million, Obama $25 million+), and he has done it with TWICE the number of donors (100,000 total donors for Obama in the first quarter to 50,000 for Hillary) This tells you that Obama is building a huge donor base built on small donations, whereas Hillary's donor base is built on a smaller donor base with much larger donations. Obama's campaign looks VERY similar to Howard Dean's in the way it is operating, particularly in fundraising and building its base.
In particular, in the way Obama is raising larger and larger percentages of his overrall numbers online. The online numbers for the first quarter really tell the story about where the netroots are this time, they are starting to strongly lean Obama:
Funds raised online first quarter 2007
(source: http://www.betanews.com/article/Obama_Raises_69m_Online_in_1st_Quarter/1...)
Barack Obama $6.9 million
Hillary Clinton $4.2 million
John Edwards $3.3 million
For months I have heard people say the netroots was solidly behind John Edwards. The numbers show more than twice as many people online contributed to Obama. He is the netroots candidate this year, just like Dean was four years ago.
But what is really mind boggling about Obama's numbers is that he wasn't running at all, officially or unofficially, until shortly before this fiscal quarter began. Hillary Clinton has been running unofficially for years, and the Clintons have the largest and most well developed fundraising network in the party. You expected her to set a fundraising record. Her numbers were years in the planning stages. John Edwards has never stopped running from four years ago and has not only his old donor lists, but the kerry/edwards donor lists, and he has been relentlessly working his lists for years. Barack Obama started pretty much from scratch outside of Illinois. He has never run a national campaign before like Hillary and Edwards. He didn't have the luxury of having already identified supporters in all these other states, which makes success almost entirely grassroots oriented, something that was built from the ground up and built in a hurry.
What we are seeing in Barack Obama's campaign is something special, something building on what Howard Dean's campaign did and doing it better. Not just the fundraising but the social networking and the use of the netroots. It is quite something. Check out his site, www.barackobama.com, and the blogosphere on it.