July 18, 2005


RNC Raised $59.4M in First Half of Year (AP, Jul 18, 2005)

The Republican National Committee collected nearly $60 million through the first half of the year, giving the GOP a solid financial footing for the midterm congressional elections in 2006.

The committee received $59.4 million in contributions, record fundraising in a non-presidential election year, the RNC said. The Republican organization had more than $34 million cash on hand at the end of June after raising more than $6.5 million last month.

By comparison, the Democratic National Committee said last week that it had raised more than $28 million through the first half of 2005, and had about $9 million in the bank.

Is there such a thing as a white donkey?

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 18, 2005 7:15 PM

It would be nice to see a breakdown of the contributions. My hunch is that the GOP has thousands of $1k, $2K donors while the Dems have a few large $1MM ones. Soros, MoveOn, and others will work to close the gap but the narrowness of the Dem funding base hints at problems at the voting booth.

Posted by: AWW at July 18, 2005 7:36 PM

AWW: My sardonic side doesn't see any voting-booth problems. The homeless people who voted Democrat in Washington state presumably weren't big donors. Or the dead people, either, unless you count the organ donations. *rimshot*

Posted by: Just John at July 18, 2005 8:03 PM

I think I've mentioned before that I'm always compelled to knock on wood whenever you so enthusiastically foretell doom for the Left. You still aren't doing my desk any favors.

I'd be interested to see your take on this article, which is a bit more pessimistic...

Posted by: Guy T. at July 18, 2005 8:16 PM

Isn't the lesson of the last election that Soros will run his piggy bank through his 527s like move-on, and that the party mechanism was pretty vestigial.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 18, 2005 8:49 PM

While the cash balances do tell a story, remember, the Democrats also benefit from "free" media outlets like the major networks, major big city newspapers and the weekly magazines far more than Republicans do. You can also add Hollywood into that mix, though I think much of the recent stuff is so heavy-handed it merely preaches to the choir, and does little to sway anyone, except maybe European filmgoers.

I've yet to see any study that does a qualitative analysis of how much in terms of dollars the more favorable Democratic/less favorable Republican translates into for the Democrats, but it's certainly a substantial number.

Posted by: John at July 18, 2005 10:06 PM

Rowland Evans I think it was who said that positive media coverage was worth at least 15 percentage points for Democrats. He declined to estimate how much voter fraud added to the mix.

Posted by: erp at July 18, 2005 10:13 PM


The Left has owned the media all through the shift back to the Right.

Posted by: oj at July 18, 2005 10:24 PM

Hmm, true enough... I'll have to think about that.

Posted by: Guy T. at July 18, 2005 11:27 PM


Fifteen points is crazy talk.

Since about 1/3 of the electorate is unaffiliated, or not strongly so, that would mean that positive media coverage of liberal causes/candidates delivers 40% of the swing vote.

Clearly, that rarely happens.

A 5% "media edge" seems much more reasonable.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 19, 2005 12:26 AM

It was Evan Thomas (of Newsweek), and he later amended his remarks (on the percentage) from 15% to 5%. But he probably wasn't boasting - he was trying to be solemn.

I heard on the radio today that Howard Dean won't appear on TV unless he is the only guest on the show. I guess that is as good a way as any to keep him off the air. The surreptitious recordings will get him in the end, anyway.

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 19, 2005 1:10 AM

Michael: we have an exact measure of the MSM/fraud gap between the parties. IIRC: by the Fair Model Bush should have won about 57.5% of the two party vote and actually won something like 51.5%. Accepting your hypothesis that only 20% of the vote is in play, this means that the MSM moved 5% of the vote to Kerry.

That is quite an accomplishment.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 19, 2005 5:25 PM

Maybe I should have said ^ but you get the point. We have an objective measure of the MSM's power. And it is ugly.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 19, 2005 5:27 PM

Can't type or subtract. I meant 6.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 19, 2005 5:49 PM

And yet by '08 we'll have had 28 years of moderately conservative Presidents.

The media clearly has potentially awesome power, but it doesn't seem to have been used to any real effect in Presidential elections.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 20, 2005 3:46 AM