[briansmith]

I created a chart of the fundraising estimate totals for the 2004 Presidential campaign so far through some AP wire reports, Opensecrets.org, and the FEC database.

Copy and paste the URL below into a new window to view the graph. Brinkster doesn't appreciate hotlinking, it appears.

http://www15.brinkster.com/tsaler/June% ... imates.png

What do you folks think? I think a particularly revealing statistic is the box I put on there about what percentage of the total funds are being contributed to Republicans vs. Democrats. Even though Bush is tearing up the individual Democrats so far, they have raised more together.

Also, take note how high the fundraising numbers are for someone such as Howard Dean vs. their nationwide poll numbers. The discrepancy between their pocketbooks and their supporters is staggering.

What are your thoughts?

[Adrien]

Well, i know this subject is not my "cup of tea" but i wanted to salute you for this graphic, it's very seriously done, and we can say: "respect".

Call me dumb, and i apologize for this question if it is dumb, but why are there so much "Democrat" opponents in front of Bush alone?

[Demosthenes]

Becasue no Republicans will serioulsy challenge Bush which means all party money goes to his re-election campaign alone, while the Democratic party's nominations are wide open at this point forcing supporters to divide those precious dollars. Call it the Privledge of Incumbancy...or something.

[briansmith]

Well Adrien, the reason why there are so many Democrats running against Bush is that there is no nominee yet for the Democratic Party. Each election year around late July-August-early September, the parties all have a convention. At the convention, be it through our primary system for the Democrats & Republicans (there are primary elections leading up to the convention in states, and whoever wins the primaries gets a certain number of delegates guaranteed to them at the convention. A certain number of delegates is required to gain the nomination, and it's possible to clinch the nomination through the primaries themselves if they're not very competitive.) or be it through an actual battle at the convention to see who can convince enough delegates to go to their side to get the nomination, one person is nominated by the party as their candidate for President.

So far, no one has announced their candidacy against Bush in the Republican primaries. That's why he's got all the money from Republican donors so far. Since the Democrats have no incumbent President, the nomination is as wide open as it's going to get. So these candidates are running to see who can raise the most money to spend, first, in the states where important primaries are being held (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina specifically). Once one candidate clinches the nomination, the other candidates (usually) endorse that candidate, but they can't give him (or her) their money. After the nomination is secured, donations to the party itself start being funneled to the candidate, and kinda vice-versa.

So, basically the reason why Bush is the only Republican is because no one's running against him for the Republican nomination. That's also the reason why there's about 2x the amount of money being donated to Democrats right now than Republicans. Bush is already building up his war chest (no pun intended) for the November 2004 elections.

Hopefully that explains it well enough. If you have other questions, please ask, and I'll be happy to answer.

[CasX]

Democracy...yes. Democracy for the rich!

How can there possibly be a fair go for all politicians when you obviously have to create vast amounts of wealth, from both business and private donations? How exactly is a working class party or person supposed to raise anywhere near the amount of funds required for a real campaign?
Is this really democracy?

[briansmith]

Nope, it's a democratic republic, and we like it just fine.

[Demosthenes]

Tsaler-

You don't hate America do you? See I can at least respect liberals, or left leaners who don't hate America. Maybe I misinterrepeted you on some other issues.

[Boondock Saint]

Democracy...yes. Democracy for the rich!

How can there possibly be a fair go for all politicians when you obviously have to create vast amounts of wealth, from both business and private donations? How exactly is a working class party or person supposed to raise anywhere near the amount of funds required for a real campaign?
Is this really democracy?

FUCK!

DAMNIT

I agree with CasX AGAIN!

Its my opinion that the nation would be better off if elections and candidates all had a cap on spending. All debates would be nationalised on television, fair and include all candidates. No need for donations, no need for 'warchests' no need for fundraising.

It should be equal across the board.

[briansmith]

You don't hate America do you? See I can at least respect liberals, or left leaners who don't hate America. Maybe I misinterrepeted you on some other issues.

Of course I don't hate America! I love the United States, and there's only one other country in this world I wish I was born in instead of this country, and that's Russia/Soviet Union. No, it's not because I'm a raging Communist, I just have a sick obsession with all things Russian. Don't ask, it's not worth hearing the answer. :P

But no, I don't hate America at all. I love this place, and the reason why I support some liberal foreign policy measures, such as opposing the war in Iraq, is because I think dissent is one of the key factors that has made America great through all, what, 227 years of its existence. Coming up on Independence Day now, we should not only celebrate our victories, but remember our losses. We should remember the things that made and make our country great, and remember to protect them against those who are using their power to usurp our rights (John Ashcroft).

I am a moderate, Demosthenes. I go with the RLC sometimes, and I go with the DNC/DLC sometimes. I just happen to think that there's more room for things to be done in the center than there is at either extreme.

Depending on the issue, I'm accused of being a racist flaming homophobe fascist Nazi conservative, and on other issues I'm accused of being a flaming Commie fag-loving pinko "librul," as Ann Coulter would say. I'm neither of those things, and it's better to ask someone what they truly are rather than take from certain posts what they may hint at or what you may think they are.

In many ways, I am a liberal, and I outline this in an article I wrote for an online magazine called The Liberal Slant. I don't know where to find the article archived on their site, so I'll just point you to it on my own web space here. You might be enlightened a little by it.

(Edits: Grr, I hate typoes. I also noticed the cute trick that's on there now that changes every spelling of C E N T E R to C E N T R E. Clever, filth Brits! -- They've got it going now on D E F E N S E as D E F E N C E too!)

[Khenlein]

Democracy...yes. Democracy for the rich!

How can there possibly be a fair go for all politicians when you obviously have to create vast amounts of wealth, from both business and private donations? How exactly is a working class party or person supposed to raise anywhere near the amount of funds required for a real campaign?
Is this really democracy?

A working class person doesn't start off running for the Presidency (if you want to be taken seriously).

A working class person can (and have in the past) been elected to become Mayors of Cities, Governers of States, Representatives in the house, and in rarer occasions to the Senate.

Basically you need to work your way up the political ladder, and in actuality you don't have to be rich to do this, you just need to be an able charismatic politician with a talent for fundraising.

See: William Jefferson Clinton

[Adrien]

Thanks for the answer and the informations TSaler, the American electoral system is very unclear for me, who is used to a very simple one.

I guess that's the advantage of being one unified state as opposed to a federal one, in which this division doesn't allow single national candidates and direct national elections.

But don't you think that the US could one day adopt a more intelligent electoral system, with one national candidate by party and simple direct elections in each state, which would be added at the end to have the final score?

[briansmith]

Not unless we're going to get rid of the Constitutional principle of proportional representation. When our Constitution was being ratified by the original states, one of the most important aspects of whether or not some states would go for it was if there was a clause permitting proportional representation, since the big states like Virginia didn't want to get outvoted by a tiny state like Rhode Island.

So, there was a compromise -- our lower house, the House of Representatives, would be proportional representation (53 Representatives for the state of California, the most of all, for example). Our upper house, the Senate, is equal representation (2 Senators from all states). That's where the balance comes in.

For our electoral college, the winner of the popular vote in each state receives that state's electoral votes. A state's electoral votes are determined by the number of representatives in the government that the state has; for example, California has 55 electoral votes. South Dakota only has 3: one Representative for the entire state, we call this a Representative-at-large, and two Senators. Washington D.C. doesn't have any Senators, but it does have a Delegate in the House of Representatives. We give them three electoral votes anyway.

In order to win the election, a candidate must get 50%+1 of the electoral votes. Right now, barring a population decrease of pretty huge proportions, we're going to have a total of 538 votes for some time. This means 50% of that is 269 votes, so 270 or more means you've won the Presidency. If you recall, last election here, George W. Bush received 271 electoral votes, and Al Gore received 266 (a technicality: some states don't lock their electors so they MUST vote for the person who won their state. One D.C. elector voted with an empty ballot but should've voted for Gore. As a result, Gore got 266 total instead of 267 like he should've had. Other states make it a felony to not vote with your state, which makes it more and more rare).

The biggest blowout recently was Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984 where he got 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondale's 13. Blowout is actually an understatement. In 1972, Richard Nixon was re-elected 520 to 17, but again, he should've had 521... a Virginia elector, if I recall, voted for John Hospers, the Libertarian candidate. It didn't really matter anyway.

So what? I've been explaining the entire system, and in a way, it's reinforcing your point that we have a highly complex system for how stupid Americans are perceived worldwide. Then again, us people who actually understand the damn system aren't exactly the ones being criticized by the rest of the world for being cowboys. ;)

I think the point is that, even though our system is complex, it's pretty fair, and regardless of whether or not American liberals like to say that it's outdated, unfair, and was developed because the Founding Fathers didn't trust people to elect a President on their own, well, I think that's pretty much bull, considering the people still do elect the President on their own.

Besides, the electoral college makes for fun numbers, calculations, and the election night colorful maps on television are awesome. I love those. Love love love.

Don't worry though, I've done Bush's "best case scenario," as far as I can predict at this point, and he won't be setting any electoral college records. In fact, he shouldn't even break 500 electoral votes, but we'll see as the election gets closer whether or not that's truly accurate. ;)

[Demosthenes]

So what? I've been explaining the entire system, and in a way, it's reinforcing your point that we have a highly complex system for how stupid Americans are perceived worldwide. Then again, us people who actually understand the damn system aren't exactly the ones being criticized by the rest of the world for being cowboys.

hmmmm....I seemed to have garnered that perception. I think its more just a way of stereotyping Americans in general. I understand the electoral college very well to boot so....

it's pretty fair, and regardless of whether or not American liberals like to say that it's outdated, unfair, and was developed because the Founding Fathers didn't trust people to elect a President on their own, well, I think that's pretty much bull, considering the people still do elect the President on their own.

Agreed. Living in a mid-size to smaller state, I'm glad to have this system. Without it cantidates would have no real incentives to campaign here. I mean just go win over California, New York, and Florida and presto, you're the president.

Don't worry though, I've done Bush's "best case scenario," as far as I can predict at this point, and he won't be setting any electoral college records. In fact, he shouldn't even break 500 electoral votes

, I think it'll be another close election, hopefully not as close as the last one, though...

[briansmith]

Right now I have one situation where Gephardt beats Bush 272-266. I have Dean/Clark ticket losing 276-262 in another map.

Right now I think it's going to require either a Dean/Clark ticket that really energizes the youth and Clark gets some Southern support, or it's going to have to be a Kerry ticket with a Southerner or Westerner that's picking up both the left votes and the moderate votes, OR Gephardt and and a coastal person (I think this one has a good shot, because Gephardt is out ahead in Iowa, Michigan, and other midwestern primaries because of his union support). The unions will go behind whoever the (D) nominee is anyway, so.

I've liked Gephardt for a while, but I think Kerry has the best chance to win if he can capture Dean's youth base somehow. Dean scares me because he reminds me of McGovern. Liberal candidate who's charged by an excited youth movement and then gets positively whipped in the general election.

But, if Dean is McGovern, then hopefully Bush is Nixon so we'll get a nice resignation of Cheney in 2005 or thereabouts, and then Bush's resignation in 2006... we'll get a moderate nobody President for a few months that will lose to a Democrat. Then we'd just have to avoid the disaster zone known as 1977-1981. ;)