Why Don't Republicans Consistently Out raise Democrats?

[KevinWestern]

Your premise is flawed to begin with, though. The Republican Party doesn't "represent the group of people with more money". Both parties represent the rich - the only difference is that the Republican party doesn't even bother pretending to represent the poor.

Doctor- Maybe you missed it but that is exactly the point I'm trying to drive home here. I hear a lot of folks accuse ONLY the Republicans of representing the rich, and this question is designed to make them think.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your premise is flawed to begin with, though. The Republican Party doesn't "represent the group of people with more money". Both parties represent the rich - the only difference is that the Republican party doesn't even bother pretending to represent the poor.

Doctor- Maybe you missed it but that is exactly the point I'm trying to drive home here. I hear a lot of folks accuse ONLY the Republicans of representing the rich, and this question is designed to make them think.

Well, then we're agreed.

But what I was saying before still stands - it really is nearly impossible to accurately measure how much money is flowing to each "side", what with the various 527s and 501cs and IE campaigns, money in primaries, etc, etc, etc.

For example, right now there's a whole lot more money flowing into Republican primary races than into Democratic ones.

 

[KevinWestern]

Simple. Contrary to liberal belief, Democrats have more big and rich donors than Republicans do. They ostracize Republicans for favoring the rich and the affluent, but consistently out raise them during election season, to varying effect. Quite the double standard, wouldn't you agree?

Sorta my point with the thread.

 

[Edgetho]

Democrats "out raise" Republicans in direct contributions, but that doesn't take into account the myriad ways that money flows into elections without ever going into either campaign's coffers.

Independent Expenditures, "Issue" campaigns, and all the PACs, SuperPACs and 501s aren't counted in those totals.

Either way, wouldn't the party representing the group of people with more money (obviously) be able to raise more money - consistently?

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

Direct party contributions are also not a great way to measure the money that flows in, or on which "side" it goes to. Party contributions will vary based on many factors. The GOP is fractured right now, with hundreds of millions of dollars going to primary fights against "RINO"s, rather than ending up at the RNC.

Your premise is flawed to begin with, though. The Republican Party doesn't "represent the group of people with more money". Both parties represent the rich - the only difference is that the Republican party doesn't even bother pretending to represent the poor.

That is a completely dishonest statement on your part.

We care about the poor more than you want to give us credit for.

Who helped the poor more, Reagan when he created MILLIONS of jobs or obama who has lost a net million jobs since he dirtied the office of president?

You call 'representing the poor' giving them food stamps and telling them to go away except on election day?

What we want is for them to have a job, raise their kids with some dignity and respect, including self respect, and to have a future.

I see people, grown men and women, moving into their parents homes. I see them work a job for a few weeks and lose it only to try and try again.

I see them start drinking too much out of despair. I see the wives or husbands being uncomfortable in their In-Laws' house, I see their kids running loose because they really aren't welcomed in the house in which they live.

I see divorces, fights, break ups, husbands leaving town to go to places (invariably Red States) to look for work.....

And you think dimocraps care more than Republicans do?

Because dimocraps steal money from people who work for it and throw it around like candy at Halloween, that tells you they care more?

There's something wrong with your world view. Seriously wrong.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Your premise is flawed to begin with, though. The Republican Party doesn't "represent the group of people with more money". Both parties represent the rich - the only difference is that the Republican party doesn't even bother pretending to represent the poor.

Doctor- Maybe you missed it but that is exactly the point I'm trying to drive home here. I hear a lot of folks accuse ONLY the Republicans of representing the rich, and this question is designed to make them think.

Then you are not really listening.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Either way, wouldn't the party representing the group of people with more money (obviously) be able to raise more money - consistently?

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

Direct party contributions are also not a great way to measure the money that flows in, or on which "side" it goes to. Party contributions will vary based on many factors. The GOP is fractured right now, with hundreds of millions of dollars going to primary fights against "RINO"s, rather than ending up at the RNC.

Your premise is flawed to begin with, though. The Republican Party doesn't "represent the group of people with more money". Both parties represent the rich - the only difference is that the Republican party doesn't even bother pretending to represent the poor.

That is a completely dishonest statement on your part.

We care about the poor more than you want to give us credit for.

Who helped the poor more, Reagan when he created MILLIONS of jobs or obama who has lost a net million jobs since he dirtied the office of president?

You call 'representing the poor' giving them food stamps and telling them to go away except on election day?

What we want is for them to have a job, raise their kids with some dignity and respect, including self respect, and to have a future.

I see people, grown men and women, moving into their parents homes. I see them work a job for a few weeks and lose it only to try and try again.

I see them start drinking too much out of despair. I see the wives or husbands being uncomfortable in their In-Laws' house, I see their kids running loose because they really aren't welcomed in the house in which they live.

I see divorces, fights, break ups, husbands leaving town to go to places (invariably Red States) to look for work.....

And you think dimocraps care more than Republicans do?

Because dimocraps steal money from people who work for it and throw it around like candy at Halloween, that tells you they care more?

There's something wrong with your world view. Seriously wrong.

You misunderstand.

I said nothing about "Republicans". I spoke only of the Republican Party.

Not the people who make it up, but the organization itself.

 

[Edgetho]

Simple. Contrary to liberal belief, Democrats have more big and rich donors than Republicans do. They ostracize Republicans for favoring the rich and the affluent, but consistently out raise them during election season, to varying effect. Quite the double standard, wouldn't you agree?

Sorta my point with the thread.

Actually not, guys.

dimocraps bring in a TON more small donations directly to the party.

Which is a double-whammy advantage.

First, they collect more donations than we do and

More importantly, there is a law on the books that says that Networks MUST charge the Political Parties THEMSELVES far less for commercials than they charge PACs and other outside groups.

It's about half, IIRC.

So dimocraps can collect less than us but because much more of their money goes directly to the PARTY, they can buy a lot more ads with it.

Not to mention the 24/7/365 free campaigning the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM does for them at no charge

 

[theDoctorisIn]

TV ads are a waste of money anyway.

 

[Edgetho]

Direct party contributions are also not a great way to measure the money that flows in, or on which "side" it goes to. Party contributions will vary based on many factors. The GOP is fractured right now, with hundreds of millions of dollars going to primary fights against "RINO"s, rather than ending up at the RNC.

Your premise is flawed to begin with, though. The Republican Party doesn't "represent the group of people with more money". Both parties represent the rich - the only difference is that the Republican party doesn't even bother pretending to represent the poor.

That is a completely dishonest statement on your part.

We care about the poor more than you want to give us credit for.

Who helped the poor more, Reagan when he created MILLIONS of jobs or obama who has lost a net million jobs since he dirtied the office of president?

You call 'representing the poor' giving them food stamps and telling them to go away except on election day?

What we want is for them to have a job, raise their kids with some dignity and respect, including self respect, and to have a future.

I see people, grown men and women, moving into their parents homes. I see them work a job for a few weeks and lose it only to try and try again.

I see them start drinking too much out of despair. I see the wives or husbands being uncomfortable in their In-Laws' house, I see their kids running loose because they really aren't welcomed in the house in which they live.

I see divorces, fights, break ups, husbands leaving town to go to places (invariably Red States) to look for work.....

And you think dimocraps care more than Republicans do?

Because dimocraps steal money from people who work for it and throw it around like candy at Halloween, that tells you they care more?

There's something wrong with your world view. Seriously wrong.

You misunderstand.

I said nothing about "Republicans". I spoke only of the Republican Party.

Not the people who make it up, but the organization itself.

My apologies if I misunderstood you.

But I always thought that the Republican Party was made up mostly of Republicans?

Maybe not

 

[Edgetho]

TV ads are a waste of money anyway.

dewd....

TV ads are THE most effective form of advertising there is. Not even close.

Ask ANY businessman.

Been there, done that, sold the T-Shirt (on TV)

 

[TemplarKormac]

Simple. Contrary to liberal belief, Democrats have more big and rich donors than Republicans do. They ostracize Republicans for favoring the rich and the affluent, but consistently out raise them during election season, to varying effect. Quite the double standard, wouldn't you agree?

Sorta my point with the thread.

So, there it is. Quite hypocritical for the Democrats or the Republicans to say they pity the poor, yet raise billions of dollars during campaigns, or live lavish luxurious lifestyles apart from their profession. Moreover, the Democrats in particular, when they accuse the rich of preying on the poor, yet are consistently richer and more powerful than their Republican counterparts. How exactly do they know what its like to be poor?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That is a completely dishonest statement on your part.

We care about the poor more than you want to give us credit for.

Who helped the poor more, Reagan when he created MILLIONS of jobs or obama who has lost a net million jobs since he dirtied the office of president?

You call 'representing the poor' giving them food stamps and telling them to go away except on election day?

What we want is for them to have a job, raise their kids with some dignity and respect, including self respect, and to have a future.

I see people, grown men and women, moving into their parents homes. I see them work a job for a few weeks and lose it only to try and try again.

I see them start drinking too much out of despair. I see the wives or husbands being uncomfortable in their In-Laws' house, I see their kids running loose because they really aren't welcomed in the house in which they live.

I see divorces, fights, break ups, husbands leaving town to go to places (invariably Red States) to look for work.....

And you think dimocraps care more than Republicans do?

Because dimocraps steal money from people who work for it and throw it around like candy at Halloween, that tells you they care more?

There's something wrong with your world view. Seriously wrong.

You misunderstand.

I said nothing about "Republicans". I spoke only of the Republican Party.

Not the people who make it up, but the organization itself.

My apologies if I misunderstood you.

But I always thought that the Republican Party was made up mostly of Republicans?

Maybe not

It's really not that complicated.

The Republican Party is a 527 organization (actually, three of them - the RNC, the NRCC and the NRSC). They craft the strategy that the party will follow - and that party line rarely pretends to "care about the poor".

Republicans themselves are people - and I'm sure that many of them do in fact care very much about the poor.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

TV ads are a waste of money anyway.

dewd....

TV ads are THE most effective form of advertising there is. Not even close.

Ask ANY businessman.

Been there, done that, sold the T-Shirt (on TV)

Political ads? Not so much.

There are countless cheaper and more effective election tools than TV ads.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Simple. Contrary to liberal belief, Democrats have more big and rich donors than Republicans do. They ostracize Republicans for favoring the rich and the affluent, but consistently out raise them during election season, to varying effect. Quite the double standard, wouldn't you agree?

Sorta my point with the thread.

So, there it is. Quite hypocritical for the Democrats or the Republicans to say they pity the poor, yet raise billions of dollars during campaigns, or live lavish luxurious lifestyles apart from their profession. Moreover, the Democrats in particular, when they accuse the rich of preying on the poor, yet are consistently richer and more powerful than their Republican counterparts. How exactly do they know what it's like to be poor?

They don't. No Democrats are poor. You nailed it.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You misunderstand.

I said nothing about "Republicans". I spoke only of the Republican Party.

Not the people who make it up, but the organization itself.

My apologies if I misunderstood you.

But I always thought that the Republican Party was made up mostly of Republicans?

Maybe not

It's really not that complicated.

The Republican Party is a 527 organization (actually, three of them - the RNC, the NRCC and the NRSC). They craft the strategy that the party will follow - and that party line rarely pretends to "care about the poor".

Republicans themselves are people - and I'm sure that many of them do in fact care very much about the poor.

And that is a damned lie.

There are other ways of caring about the poor, besides supporting a massive bureaucratic welfare state apparatus.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sorta my point with the thread.

So, there it is. Quite hypocritical for the Democrats or the Republicans to say they pity the poor, yet raise billions of dollars during campaigns, or live lavish luxurious lifestyles apart from their profession. Moreover, the Democrats in particular, when they accuse the rich of preying on the poor, yet are consistently richer and more powerful than their Republican counterparts. How exactly do they know what it's like to be poor?

We don't. No Democrats are poor. You nailed it.

And you made my point. Thank you. Rich Democrats bashing rich people in general for being rich and hating the poor. Yes, you are a hypocrite.

Talk about a conundrum.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Simple. Contrary to liberal belief, Democrats have more big and rich donors than Republicans do. They ostracize Republicans for favoring the rich and the affluent, but consistently out raise them during election season, to varying effect. Quite the double standard, wouldn't you agree?

Sorta my point with the thread.

So, there it is. Quite hypocritical for the Democrats or the Republicans to say they pity the poor, yet raise billions of dollars during campaigns, or live lavish luxurious lifestyles apart from their profession. Moreover, the Democrats in particular, when they accuse the rich of preying on the poor, yet are consistently richer and more powerful than their Republican counterparts. How exactly do they know what it's like to be poor?

How is that hypocritical?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, there it is. Quite hypocritical for the Democrats or the Republicans to say they pity the poor, yet raise billions of dollars during campaigns, or live lavish luxurious lifestyles apart from their profession. Moreover, the Democrats in particular, when they accuse the rich of preying on the poor, yet are consistently richer and more powerful than their Republican counterparts. How exactly do they know what it's like to be poor?

We don't. No Democrats are poor. You nailed it.

And you made my point. Thank you. Rich Democrats bashing rich people in general for being rich.

Talk about a conundrum.

The idea that Democrats "bash rich people in general for being rich" is a fantasy that exists only in your head. It has no basis in reality.

 

[KevinWestern]

Political ads? Not so much.

There are countless cheaper and more effective election tools than TV ads.

I work in advertising and by far TV is the most effective tool to effectively reach a large audience.

 

[Edgetho]

TV ads are a waste of money anyway.

dewd....

TV ads are THE most effective form of advertising there is. Not even close.

Ask ANY businessman.

Been there, done that, sold the T-Shirt (on TV)

Political ads? Not so much.

There are countless cheaper and more effective election tools than TV ads.

Yes, the best is the 'ground game' -- in which dimocraps excel.

2nd best is a triumvirate.... Print, Radio and TV. Not in that order.

But the best single outlet? TV. Not even close.

But you can't just throw shit at the screen and hope it sticks. You have to have a plan.

Print is going out of business every day because they can't get the advertising bucks. The New Yawk Slimes just lost over $1 BILLION on the Boston Globe sale. Time Mag-Rag is gone, the Seattle Post Intelligencer is gonzo, I think the Trib or the LA Times is in trouble. USA Today and Gannet are treading water. Barely

Radio isn't doing much better.

But TV?

Growing by leaps and bounds.

Not even close, dewd