DSCC and DCCC now lead NRSC and NRCC in Cash on Hand

[TheresNoMoney]

DSCC   $33.5 million
NRSC   $21.9 million

DCCC   $24.5 million
NRCC   $21.9 million

The DSCC has been kicking the NRSC's butt for the last year, but this is the first time the DCCC has led the NRCC in cash on hand. The change can be attributed to the huge amount of money the NRCC had to spend to defend Duke Cunningham's seat. 

[MAS117]

Like I said in a different thread, the CA-50 was a somewhat win for D's becuase of the 3.5 million needed to hold the seat.

Historically however, the DSCC has always raised more money then the NRSC, iirc.

[The Duke]

Given that the RNC has like $45 million and the DNC only has about $10 million, I'd say this statistic is, shall we say, misleading.

I can't find the link to the thing that had this info, but I saw it a few days ago.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The DNC is spending their money on the 50 state strategy, and so isn't keeping massive stockpiles of cash around.

[socaldem]

The DNC is spending their money on the 50 state strategy, and so isn't keeping massive stockpiles of cash around.

There really is no excuse for the DNC's fund shortage.  The DNC is being clobbered when they should be competitive given the GOP's problems.  I'd much rather have a corparate-friendly Dem who knows how to take money from rich people than a grassroots-friendly DNC chair who's leaving us without the funds necessary to win back the government.

I'm tired of Deaniac defenders of this so-called "strategy."  Is it not possible to do both--raise enough to win this year and improve state parties.  Because the problem isn't only Dean's outrageous burn rate...its that he's not bringing anything in.

[TheresNoMoney]

[quote author=jfern link=topic=41446.msg918320#msg918320} Because the problem isn't only Dean's outrageous burn rate...its that he's not bringing anything in.

Wrong. He's brought in more money than Terry McAuliffe ever did. The DNC set a record for fundraising in an off-election year in 2005.

[Akno21]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't complain that he's been a good fundraiser so far, but he's spending the money too fast and in places that do not matter in terms of the 2006 elections. Our primary goal needs to be taking back the House, but Dean's strategy of spending so much money so quickly is not the best way to accomplish that goal.

[The Duke]

He's spending it on consultants, which just wastes lots and lots of dough.  They aren't doing anything to build the party in the long run.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The DNC is spending their money on the 50 state strategy, and so isn't keeping massive stockpiles of cash around.

There really is no excuse for the DNC's fund shortage.  The DNC is being clobbered when they should be competitive given the GOP's problems.  I'd much rather have a corparate-friendly Dem who knows how to take money from rich people than a grassroots-friendly DNC chair who's leaving us without the funds necessary to win back the government.

I'm tired of Deaniac defenders of this so-called "strategy."  Is it not possible to do both--raise enough to win this year and improve state parties.  Because the problem isn't only Dean's outrageous burn rate...its that he's not bringing anything in.

Well the same old strategy sure hasn't been working. We need to think long term, since we have almost no chance of taking back the Senate this year, we really need the Presidency in 2008. The House can't stop the next Alitos.

In the mean time, might as well help the state parties, and give America 2 more years to get the slightest clue.

[socaldem]

The DNC is spending their money on the 50 state strategy, and so isn't keeping massive stockpiles of cash around.

There really is no excuse for the DNC's fund shortage.  The DNC is being clobbered when they should be competitive given the GOP's problems.  I'd much rather have a corparate-friendly Dem who knows how to take money from rich people than a grassroots-friendly DNC chair who's leaving us without the funds necessary to win back the government.

I'm tired of Deaniac defenders of this so-called "strategy."  Is it not possible to do both--raise enough to win this year and improve state parties.  Because the problem isn't only Dean's outrageous burn rate...its that he's not bringing anything in.

Well the same old strategy sure hasn't been working. We need to think long term, since we have almost no chance of taking back the Senate this year, we really need the Presidency in 2008. The House can't stop the next Alitos.

In the mean time, might as well help the state parties, and give America 2 more years to get the slightest clue.

Uh, if Dems don't take the House this year, we're going to have to wait a long time... I can't imagine McCain will be a more unpopular President than Bush!

Moreover, the reason Dems hadn't made any gains in the house in the past few cycles is that they weren't really trying.  This year we actually have some promising  recruits.  All we need is money...

Consider that in 2000, the House went to the GOP by 6 seats.  A swing of only a couple thousand votes in the deciding districts would have swung the House.  Why did the GOP come out on top in the House when Gore's coattails delivered a Democratic senate?  MONEY.   Dems always seem to fund their senate candidates better...

And why?  Because all that matters for the rich, whiney trust baby liberals who control the allocation of the parties resources seems to be the courts!

What fools! Do you not know that the most powerful branch of our government is the legislature and that, in that branch, controlling the House is far more important for a party than the senate because the controlling party in the House has absolute control... whereas even minority party senators have certain priviledges.

Some democrats obviously dont care about the most pressing issues our country faces--its abysmal economic management!!  The House controls the purse strings...

[The Duke]

The DNC is spending their money on the 50 state strategy, and so isn't keeping massive stockpiles of cash around.

There really is no excuse for the DNC's fund shortage.  The DNC is being clobbered when they should be competitive given the GOP's problems.  I'd much rather have a corparate-friendly Dem who knows how to take money from rich people than a grassroots-friendly DNC chair who's leaving us without the funds necessary to win back the government.

I'm tired of Deaniac defenders of this so-called "strategy."  Is it not possible to do both--raise enough to win this year and improve state parties.  Because the problem isn't only Dean's outrageous burn rate...its that he's not bringing anything in.

Well the same old strategy sure hasn't been working. We need to think long term, since we have almost no chance of taking back the Senate this year, we really need the Presidency in 2008. The House can't stop the next Alitos.

In the mean time, might as well help the state parties, and give America 2 more years to get the slightest clue.

Uh, if Dems don't take the House this year, we're going to have to wait a long time... I can't imagine McCain will be a more unpopular President than Bush!

Moreover, the reason Dems hadn't made any gains in the house in the past few cycles is that they weren't really trying.  This year we actually have some promising  recruits.  All we need is money...

Consider that in 2000, the House went to the GOP by 6 seats.  A swing of only a couple thousand votes in the deciding districts would have swung the House.  Why did the GOP come out on top in the House when Gore's coattails delivered a Democratic senate?  MONEY.   Dems always seem to fund their senate candidates better...

And why?  Because all that matters for the rich, whiney trust baby liberals who control the allocation of the parties resources seems to be the courts!

What fools! Do you not know that the most powerful branch of our government is the legislature and that, in that branch, controlling the House is far more important for a party than the senate because the controlling party in the House has absolute control... whereas even minority party senators have certain priviledges.

Some democrats obviously dont care about the most pressing issues our country faces--its abysmal economic management!!  The House controls the purse strings...

As a Republican, I am sort of glad that people like SoCalDem don't control the Democratic Party.  Those kind of people would actually make things an even fight!

[opebo]

The DNC is spending their money on the 50 state strategy, and so isn't keeping massive stockpiles of cash around.

There really is no excuse for the DNC's fund shortage.  The DNC is being clobbered when they should be competitive given the GOP's problems.  I'd much rather have a corparate-friendly Dem who knows how to take money from rich people than a grassroots-friendly DNC chair who's leaving us without the funds necessary to win back the government.

I'm tired of Deaniac defenders of this so-called "strategy."  Is it not possible to do both--raise enough to win this year and improve state parties.  Because the problem isn't only Dean's outrageous burn rate...its that he's not bringing anything in.

Well the same old strategy sure hasn't been working. We need to think long term, since we have almost no chance of taking back the Senate this year, we really need the Presidency in 2008. The House can't stop the next Alitos.

In the mean time, might as well help the state parties, and give America 2 more years to get the slightest clue.

Uh, if Dems don't take the House this year, we're going to have to wait a long time... I can't imagine McCain will be a more unpopular President than Bush!

Moreover, the reason Dems hadn't made any gains in the house in the past few cycles is that they weren't really trying.  This year we actually have some promising  recruits.  All we need is money...

Consider that in 2000, the House went to the GOP by 6 seats.  A swing of only a couple thousand votes in the deciding districts would have swung the House.  Why did the GOP come out on top in the House when Gore's coattails delivered a Democratic senate?  MONEY.   Dems always seem to fund their senate candidates better...

And why?  Because all that matters for the rich, whiney trust baby liberals who control the allocation of the parties resources seems to be the courts!

What fools! Do you not know that the most powerful branch of our government is the legislature and that, in that branch, controlling the House is far more important for a party than the senate because the controlling party in the House has absolute control... whereas even minority party senators have certain priviledges.

Some democrats obviously dont care about the most pressing issues our country faces--its abysmal economic management!!  The House controls the purse strings...

As a Republican, I am sort of glad that people like SoCalDem don't control the Democratic Party.  Those kind of people would actually make things an even fight!

Not really, Ford.  He appears to be some sort of social conservative, or a liberal who doesn't care about social issues.  This type really is out of place iin the Democratic Party.  In any case he offers no novel solutions.

No, an 'even fight' is not possible in the current system because of the huge structural money advantage of the GOP.   The only way to change this would be things like full public financing of elections or a re-unionization of the american working class.

[socaldem]

The DNC is spending their money on the 50 state strategy, and so isn't keeping massive stockpiles of cash around.

There really is no excuse for the DNC's fund shortage.  The DNC is being clobbered when they should be competitive given the GOP's problems.  I'd much rather have a corparate-friendly Dem who knows how to take money from rich people than a grassroots-friendly DNC chair who's leaving us without the funds necessary to win back the government.

I'm tired of Deaniac defenders of this so-called "strategy."  Is it not possible to do both--raise enough to win this year and improve state parties.  Because the problem isn't only Dean's outrageous burn rate...its that he's not bringing anything in.

Well the same old strategy sure hasn't been working. We need to think long term, since we have almost no chance of taking back the Senate this year, we really need the Presidency in 2008. The House can't stop the next Alitos.

In the mean time, might as well help the state parties, and give America 2 more years to get the slightest clue.

Uh, if Dems don't take the House this year, we're going to have to wait a long time... I can't imagine McCain will be a more unpopular President than Bush!

Moreover, the reason Dems hadn't made any gains in the house in the past few cycles is that they weren't really trying.  This year we actually have some promising  recruits.  All we need is money...

Consider that in 2000, the House went to the GOP by 6 seats.  A swing of only a couple thousand votes in the deciding districts would have swung the House.  Why did the GOP come out on top in the House when Gore's coattails delivered a Democratic senate?  MONEY.   Dems always seem to fund their senate candidates better...

And why?  Because all that matters for the rich, whiney trust baby liberals who control the allocation of the parties resources seems to be the courts!

What fools! Do you not know that the most powerful branch of our government is the legislature and that, in that branch, controlling the House is far more important for a party than the senate because the controlling party in the House has absolute control... whereas even minority party senators have certain priviledges.

Some democrats obviously dont care about the most pressing issues our country faces--its abysmal economic management!!  The House controls the purse strings...

As a Republican, I am sort of glad that people like SoCalDem don't control the Democratic Party.  Those kind of people would actually make things an even fight!

Not really, Ford.  He appears to be some sort of social conservative, or a liberal who doesn't care about social issues.  This type really is out of place iin the Democratic Party.  In any case he offers no novel solutions.

No, an 'even fight' is not possible in the current system because of the huge structural money advantage of the GOP.   The only way to change this would be things like full public financing of elections or a re-unionization of the american working class.

Uh, look at my ideological score!  All I'm saying is Dems need to be a little Machiavellian and, imo, that entails playing up social issues ONLY when it comes to fundraising and using that money to win elections which, imo, can only be done through liberal populism. 

I do care about social issues.  But essentially, on all the big social issues--gay rights, womens rights, etc--the main thing that needs to be done is to stop the GOP from implementing their agenda of regulations and constitutional amendments, etc.  That can only be done by winning control of congress.  Once in control I'd be happy to see the federal dems have a do-nothing laissez-faire attitude on social issues.

On economic issues, though, the dems need a vigorous agenda with active policymaking and aggressive efforts to help working class Americans.  That requires takin back the House.

I may not offer novel solutions, but I'm certainly not going to be a member of the pro-Dean chorus when, imo, the DNC is underperforming...

[socaldem]

The DNC is spending their money on the 50 state strategy, and so isn't keeping massive stockpiles of cash around.

There really is no excuse for the DNC's fund shortage.  The DNC is being clobbered when they should be competitive given the GOP's problems.  I'd much rather have a corparate-friendly Dem who knows how to take money from rich people than a grassroots-friendly DNC chair who's leaving us without the funds necessary to win back the government.

I'm tired of Deaniac defenders of this so-called "strategy."  Is it not possible to do both--raise enough to win this year and improve state parties.  Because the problem isn't only Dean's outrageous burn rate...its that he's not bringing anything in.

Well the same old strategy sure hasn't been working. We need to think long term, since we have almost no chance of taking back the Senate this year, we really need the Presidency in 2008. The House can't stop the next Alitos.

In the mean time, might as well help the state parties, and give America 2 more years to get the slightest clue.

Uh, if Dems don't take the House this year, we're going to have to wait a long time... I can't imagine McCain will be a more unpopular President than Bush!

Moreover, the reason Dems hadn't made any gains in the house in the past few cycles is that they weren't really trying.  This year we actually have some promising  recruits.  All we need is money...

Consider that in 2000, the House went to the GOP by 6 seats.  A swing of only a couple thousand votes in the deciding districts would have swung the House.  Why did the GOP come out on top in the House when Gore's coattails delivered a Democratic senate?  MONEY.   Dems always seem to fund their senate candidates better...

And why?  Because all that matters for the rich, whiney trust baby liberals who control the allocation of the parties resources seems to be the courts!

What fools! Do you not know that the most powerful branch of our government is the legislature and that, in that branch, controlling the House is far more important for a party than the senate because the controlling party in the House has absolute control... whereas even minority party senators have certain priviledges.

Some democrats obviously dont care about the most pressing issues our country faces--its abysmal economic management!!  The House controls the purse strings...

As a Republican, I am sort of glad that people like SoCalDem don't control the Democratic Party.  Those kind of people would actually make things an even fight!

Thanks. :-)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The DNC is spending their money on the 50 state strategy, and so isn't keeping massive stockpiles of cash around.

There really is no excuse for the DNC's fund shortage.  The DNC is being clobbered when they should be competitive given the GOP's problems.  I'd much rather have a corparate-friendly Dem who knows how to take money from rich people than a grassroots-friendly DNC chair who's leaving us without the funds necessary to win back the government.

I'm tired of Deaniac defenders of this so-called "strategy."  Is it not possible to do both--raise enough to win this year and improve state parties.  Because the problem isn't only Dean's outrageous burn rate...its that he's not bringing anything in.

Well the same old strategy sure hasn't been working. We need to think long term, since we have almost no chance of taking back the Senate this year, we really need the Presidency in 2008. The House can't stop the next Alitos.

In the mean time, might as well help the state parties, and give America 2 more years to get the slightest clue.

Uh, if Dems don't take the House this year, we're going to have to wait a long time... I can't imagine McCain will be a more unpopular President than Bush!

McCain is an extremist, and people will learn that quicker this time than with Mr. "I'm a uniter, not a divider".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not rich, and activist conservative justices who ignore the Constitution and support allowing the Bush adminstration to do whatever I want scare me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem to think I place a higher priority on taking the Senate than the House. I don't, just look at all the good it did us in 2001 and 2002. What I was implying was the the Presidency was more important than either. When we have the Presidency, there won't be fascists who want to destroy the bill of rights and the New Deal being appointed to the court. You really don' t seem to understand the danger of the activist "originalists". A lot of good a Democratic Congress will do if everyone is disappearing and the New Deal has been stricken down.

[Virginian87]

This is a great sign.  Let's hope the DSCC and DCCC continue to lead in fundraising!

[socaldem]

[/quote]

Well the same old strategy sure hasn't been working. We need to think long term, since we have almost no chance of taking back the Senate this year, we really need the Presidency in 2008. The House can't stop the next Alitos.
[/quote]

Does this not indicate that you place higher priority on the senate?  Even if you don't, if you look at how poorly Dems have financed their house campaigns over the past several cycles, it seems obvious that Dems aren't putting enough money there given the closeness of the chamber and the importance of having control of it...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well the same old strategy sure hasn't been working. We need to think long term, since we have almost no chance of taking back the Senate this year, we really need the Presidency in 2008. The House can't stop the next Alitos.
[/quote]

Does this not indicate that you place higher priority on the senate?  Even if you don't, if you look at how poorly Dems have financed their house campaigns over the past several cycles, it seems obvious that Dems aren't putting enough money there given the closeness of the chamber and the importance of having control of it...
[/quote]

The DCCC outraised the DSCC for the 2003-2004 cycle.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/20050302party/Party2004final.html

Normally, I'd agree the House is more important, but look at what's happened recently. The Bush vs. Gore ruling. The NSA wiretap scandal. The Bush adminstration is trying to fill the court up with partisan hacks who let the Bush administration do whatever they want. Alito is the worst, but Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts have little respect for the bill of rights, and Kennedy will often side with them.

If we have the Presidency, this becomes somewhat less important, but if Bush gets another total wingnut on the court, the court will do its best to hinder the governing of a Democratic President.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'm suprised that nobody has commented on several aspects surrounding the data:

First, the NRSC is being boycotted by a large number of contributors because it is supporting renegades like Lincoln Chafee.

Second, Republican incumbents are generally well funded, with challengers getting less in direct contributions, so the congressional committee contributions tell only part of the story.

Third, Bush has really messed up big time.  A major role of an  incumbent President is to raise money for his party.  Clinton did this for the Democrats, while Bush has not been doing it much for Republicans.