Why Don't Republicans Consistently Out raise Democrats?

[Edgetho]

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.

You're at Happy Hour, right?

Or is this really Doc's girlfriend spoofing on him?

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Of course I made your point. You are incapable of making your own.

Your grade school level contribution to this thread is noted. The OP had higher hopes, I believe.

To the OP......

The meme that Democrats decry the rich is false. Liberals, in general, are in favor of REDUCING the cost of getting elected. Liberals, in general, want to reduce the impact that paid lobbyists have on our legislation.

Rich people are cool. But there needs to be more people raised up. Liberals will vote for those who WANT to raise more people up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I work on political campaigns, and that in itself is part of the issue - the trend (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is leaning away from reaching a "large audience" with an impersonal ad towards smaller audiences with more in depth contact.

The old school way of thinking about politics is that a person needed to be "touched" 7-10 times before someone's name would stick in their head (seeing an ad on TV, getting a mailer, seeing a lawn sign, etc are all "touches"). So that's where you get the piles of junk mail and ridiculous amounts of TV ads.

But there's a significantly increasing trend towards actual voter contact, rather than "touches". Instead of putting all that money into TV ads, campaigns are paying canvassers to knock on doors and have conversations, or phone bank. These contacts are much more effective (and in the end, cheaper) than the old-school "touches".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Not to say that visibility isn't important - but there are plenty of ways to get free (or at least cheaper) vis than TV ads.

 

[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.

I work on political campaigns, and that in itself is part of the issue - the trend (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is leaning away from reaching a "large audience" with an impersonal ad towards smaller audiences with more in depth contact.

The old school way of thinking about politics is that a person needed to be "touched" 7-10 times before someone's name would stick in their head (seeing an ad on TV, getting a mailer, seeing a lawn sign, etc are all "touches"). So that's where you get the piles of junk mail and ridiculous amounts of TV ads.

But there's a significantly increasing trend towards actual voter contact, rather than "touches". Instead of putting all that money into TV ads, campaigns are paying canvassers to knock on doors and have conversations, or phone bank. These contacts are much more effective (and in the end, cheaper) than the old-school "touches".

Perhaps to selling a product is different than selling a candidate. I admit I've never worked on a campaign.

But regarding your door-to-door comment, sending people to talk to 1 million residents in person is going to be ridiculously more expensive than reaching 1 million people via a local TV ad. Even if the "conversion rate" (or whatever you call it in campaigning) is higher on the door-to-door program, I can't see this being a cheaper option.

Perhaps though, in the campaign world you have the element of volunteers. That might change things.

I don't know, though.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

I work on political campaigns, and that in itself is part of the issue - the trend (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is leaning away from reaching a "large audience" with an impersonal ad towards smaller audiences with more in depth contact.

The old school way of thinking about politics is that a person needed to be "touched" 7-10 times before someone's name would stick in their head (seeing an ad on TV, getting a mailer, seeing a lawn sign, etc are all "touches"). So that's where you get the piles of junk mail and ridiculous amounts of TV ads.

But there's a significantly increasing trend towards actual voter contact, rather than "touches". Instead of putting all that money into TV ads, campaigns are paying canvassers to knock on doors and have conversations, or phone bank. These contacts are much more effective (and in the end, cheaper) than the old-school "touches".

Perhaps to selling a product is different than selling a candidate. I admit I've never worked on a campaign.

But regarding your door-to-door comment, sending people to talk to 1 million residents in person is going to be ridiculously more expensive than reaching 1 million people via a local TV ad. Even if the "conversion rate" (or whatever you call it in campaigning) is higher on the door-to-door program, I can't see this being a cheaper option.

Perhaps though, in the campaign world you have the element of volunteers. That might change things.

I don't know, though.

Volunteers do contribute to what I'm talking about, but paid staff are significantly better than vols.

A paid canvasser can knock on 70-100 doors in a shift, speaking at minimum to 15-20 people - at a cost of around $60 a shift to the campaign, with all of the "not homes" getting lit dropped ("touched") anyway. With 10 canvassers, that's 200 actual conversations with voters a night.

It's cheaper because with TV ads, you have to buy a lot of them for them to work. Someone has to see ads over the course of weeks in order for it to make the same sort of impact that a conversation with a real live person at their door does.

Admittedly, this strategy is significantly less effective in rural areas.

 

[KevinWestern]

Volunteers do contribute to what I'm talking about, but paid staff are significantly better than vols.

A paid canvasser can knock on 70-100 doors in a shift, speaking at minimum to 15-20 people - at a cost of around $60 a shift to the campaign, with all of the "not homes" getting lit dropped ("touched") anyway. With 10 canvassers, that's 200 actual conversations with voters a night.

It's cheaper because with TV ads, you have to buy a lot of them for them to work. Someone has to see ads over the course of weeks in order for it to make the same sort of impact that a conversation with a real live person at their door does.

Admittedly, this strategy is significantly less effective in rural areas.

That makes sense.

But in the general business (non-campaign) world, I would still say that TV is the most effective means to reach a large group of people. There's a reason you don't see people going door to door selling Nike T-shirts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Volunteers do contribute to what I'm talking about, but paid staff are significantly better than vols.

A paid canvasser can knock on 70-100 doors in a shift, speaking at minimum to 15-20 people - at a cost of around $60 a shift to the campaign, with all of the "not homes" getting lit dropped ("touched") anyway. With 10 canvassers, that's 200 actual conversations with voters a night.

It's cheaper because with TV ads, you have to buy a lot of them for them to work. Someone has to see ads over the course of weeks in order for it to make the same sort of impact that a conversation with a real live person at their door does.

Admittedly, this strategy is significantly less effective in rural areas.

That makes sense.

But in the general business (non-campaign) world, I would still say that TV is the most effective means to reach a large group of people. There's a reason you don't see people going door to door selling Nike T-shirts.

I'm sure. I'm speaking from the perspective of political campaigns, nothing else.

 

[Locke11_21]

It is a combination of several things. Both parties have their rich donors, but the Democrat party has far more rich donors. Many of these rich donors to the Democrat party scream of how they are for increasing taxes on the rich, but these same rich pay less in taxes than their secretaries do. They sound real good, and they protect their wealth by making the poor feel like they are with them, these rich are darlings of the media and they get special treatment for donating Democrat.

With the harassments by the IRS, even fewer rich will be likely to donate to the Republican Party. Then of course you have the Democrat-union money laundering scheme which raises big money for the Democrats.

Then of course, it doesn't help that you have idiots like Karl Rove and the establishment types ruining the Republican Party. They offer no ideas, and have turned the Republican Party into the party of surrender, whose motto is: "surrender before the battle has begun." The Karl Rove types have made the Republican Party to be nothing more than the Democrat Party's rubber stamp.

Then look at how the Karl Rove establishment wing treats any candidates outside of the establishment, it's hard to decide who is their worse enemy: the Democrat or the establishment wing of the Republican Party. At least Democrats are unified, and there is a lot to be said for that. Then of course, the establishment wing of the Republican Party runs candidates like John McCain, Mitt Romney and types like that who are less appealing to American voters than hemorrhoids are to a frog!

 

[Lumpy 1]

It is a combination of several things. Both parties have their rich donors, but the Democrat party has far more rich donors. Many of these rich donors to the Democrat party scream of how they are for increasing taxes on the rich, but these same rich pay less in taxes than their secretaries do. They sound real good, and they protect their wealth by making the poor feel like they are with them, these rich are darlings of the media and they get special treatment for donating Democrat.

With the harassments by the IRS, even fewer rich will be likely to donate to the Republican Party. Then of course you have the Democrat-union money laundering scheme which raises big money for the Democrats.

Then of course, it doesn't help that you have idiots like Karl Rove and the establishment types ruining the Republican Party. They offer no ideas, and have turned the Republican Party into the party of surrender, whose motto is: "surrender before the battle has begun." The Karl Rove types have made the Republican Party to be nothing more than the Democrat Party's rubber stamp.

Then look at how the Karl Rove establishment wing treats any candidates outside of the establishment, it's hard to decide who is their worse enemy: the Democrat or the establishment wing of the Republican Party. At least Democrats are unified, and there is a lot to be said for that. Then of course, the establishment wing of the Republican Party runs candidates like John McCain, Mitt Romney and types like that who are less appealing to American voters than hemorrhoids are to a frog!

 

[Edgetho]

Volunteers do contribute to what I'm talking about, but paid staff are significantly better than vols.

A paid canvasser can knock on 70-100 doors in a shift, speaking at minimum to 15-20 people - at a cost of around $60 a shift to the campaign, with all of the "not homes" getting lit dropped ("touched") anyway. With 10 canvassers, that's 200 actual conversations with voters a night.

It's cheaper because with TV ads, you have to buy a lot of them for them to work. Someone has to see ads over the course of weeks in order for it to make the same sort of impact that a conversation with a real live person at their door does.

Admittedly, this strategy is significantly less effective in rural areas.

That makes sense.

But in the general business (non-campaign) world, I would still say that TV is the most effective means to reach a large group of people. There's a reason you don't see people going door to door selling Nike T-shirts.

It's because most localities have laws against solicitation without a permit. But politics is usually exempted.

Just like, the 'no-call' option for your land line. Nobody can call for solicitations -- Well, except for politics, the LSM and charities.

Funny how that works.

If the pol is smart, they'll also do a demographic background on a neighborhood before hand.

If you're a dimocrap, you don't want to be sending your people into a neighborhood where they won't be very well received. They'll stick to neighborhoods where their canvassers are more effective. You send a dimocrap canvasser into some neighborhoods and they'll be lucky to get out without getting their asses beat.

Also, when you're working for a candidate who's running for City Council from a District that takes in half of a Zip Code, it doesn't make any sense to pay big bucks for TV advertising that reaches people that can't even vote for your candidate. Well... Legally. dimocraps seldom let little things like borders get in the way of them voting.

dimocraps have a much easier time of it. Not being snarky, but their constituents are usually looking for something from the government. Virtually all of them want the gubmint to do something for them. Rich, poor and in between.

Most Conservatives just want the government out of their lives. We want them to do their jobs, we want them to pay their debts and obligations... including, and especially, to Veterans who need it and we want them to be responsible.

Other than that.... We don't really want government in our lives.

dimocraps want government telling everybody when to eat and when to shit

 

[Lumpy 1]

I've heard my Democratic friends claim that it is only the Republicans who are protecting the interests of the “ultra-rich”.

My simple question is, if this was actually true, and Republicans are the only party protecting the interests of the “ultra-rich”, then why do they often fall short of beating Democrats in campaign contributions (especially when you take into consideration the recent Citizens United ruling)?

Isn't that a paradox?

Personally, I believe both parties are "representers" of the ultra-rich. The Dems just do so more covertly.



.

I don't think it's covertly, it's just that the media is in on the game.

Although Obama and the Democratic Party using the FBI, CIA, NSA , Attorney General and the Justice Department, et all .. like arms of the Democratic party to crucify their opposition seems like an abuse of power and probably unconstitutional, alas, rank and file Democrats like the unfair and illegal advantage.

 

[Jughead]

It is a combination of several things. Both parties have their rich donors, but the Democrat party has far more rich donors. Many of these rich donors to the Democrat party scream of how they are for increasing taxes on the rich, but these same rich pay less in taxes than their secretaries do. They sound real good, and they protect their wealth by making the poor feel like they are with them, these rich are darlings of the media and they get special treatment for donating Democrat.

With the harassments by the IRS, even fewer rich will be likely to donate to the Republican Party. Then of course you have the Democrat-union money laundering scheme which raises big money for the Democrats.

Then of course, it doesn't help that you have idiots like Karl Rove and the establishment types ruining the Republican Party. They offer no ideas, and have turned the Republican Party into the party of surrender, whose motto is: "surrender before the battle has begun." The Karl Rove types have made the Republican Party to be nothing more than the Democrat Party's rubber stamp.

Then look at how the Karl Rove establishment wing treats any candidates outside of the establishment, it's hard to decide who is their worse enemy: the Democrat or the establishment wing of the Republican Party. At least Democrats are unified, and there is a lot to be said for that. Then of course, the establishment wing of the Republican Party runs candidates like John McCain, Mitt Romney and types like that who are less appealing to American voters than hemorrhoids are to a frog!

Although Republicans may not consistently donate more to their party than Democrats do, they do consistently donate more to charities than Democrats do.

Rich Democrats can keep stating how they are in favor of increasing taxes for the rich, but bottom line if they have an option of paying lower taxes, they will take it. They don't practice what they preach.

As for running candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney, these are both fine candidates ... for the Democrat party.