Dem Convention $15 Million Short Of Fundraising Goal
The Democratic National Convention's host panel is falling far short of its fundraising goals, one of the few serious weak spots in Dem fundraising along with the DNC as a whole.
The host committee would need to raise $15 million by Monday in order to reach its goal -- an unlikely occurrence, to say the least.
Advertisement
The problem, of course, is that almost everyone who could give did... to their favorite candidate. With all the attention on the exciting primary race, the DNC got left out in the cold. Now that Obama has firmly taken the party reins, perhaps he can take part in this fundraising effort.
June 15, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
OT: Seems McCain agrees w/ Michelle Obama's 'proud' comment. Audio link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhCPIwIyQRY
June 15, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why Monday specifically to reach the goal?
June 15, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
jg1967: Is that really John McCain? I wonder if the question was a plant, since Michelle also happens to have been educated at Princeton & at Harvard. If McCain said it, then I hope this can be weilded like a hammer to beat back anti-Michelle comments.... (She's awesome, btw, I saw her speak before Super Tuesday. :) )
June 15, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The questioner was a fake seeking to ridicule Michelle. Either McCain didn't get it or he refused to take the bait.
June 15, 2008 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks FreeRider! Just found and read jg1967's post and the politico piece.
Haha! Innoculation for Michelle from some moron dittohead who thought his sarcasm would be caught by his slow-witted candidate! Haha!
June 15, 2008 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
McStain was too stupid to recognize the slap at Obama. I guess if earn something against all odds you're supposed to say Thank You, may I have another. It's that "America, love it or leave it" attitude that has run this country into the ground over the past 30 years by the Repukes. I'm quite sure there were many young Repukes who were not proud of their country when Clinton was being serviced in the White House.
June 15, 2008 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will give nothing to them. The last 18 months they have been supine as Bush has continued to destroy the country.
I will give to progressive PACs instead.
June 15, 2008 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with you. I was so disappointed to learn that Pelousy won the Democratic primary. There should have been a nation-wide campaign against her. Unlike Pelousy, Sheehan had the guts to stand up to Bush.
Take Pelosi off the table in 2008.
Drown out Feinstein in 2012.
June 15, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
HAHA, Cindy Sheehan? This isn't 1969 anymore, granola-cruncher. You and your shrill compatriots are an embarrassment to progressive causes.
June 15, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you really proud of no impeachment's just peachy Pelosi?
Obama also opposed impeachment.
June 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see no reason why Obama can't provide the 15 million for the convention AND retire Clinton's debt as well. I know there are probably "laws" against that. But clearly those laws don't matter as McStain has been breaking the law for several months now and nobody seems to care.
June 15, 2008 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"McStain"? "Pelousy"? "Repuke"? Are you a right-wing troll sent to make liberals look like petulant children?
June 15, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The party conventions are ridiculous boondoggles.
Obama has held many, many events in stadium sized venues and I'm certain he did not spend $40.6 million dollars (the budgeted cost of the DNC convention) to do it. Renting a hall for 4 days and showing it on TV shouldn't be such project.
June 15, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would imagine that a lot of the cost is for housing and transportation of the delegates - you're looking at bringing roughly 4,000 people together from all over the country; that's got to take a lot of coin. I'm sure they must offer some type of travel stipend to the ordinary folks who participate as delegates - otherwise, many of them could not afford to come. That having been said, I agree with the poster above who speculated that the reason they're having trouble raising the money is that many people, sickened by the Democrats' go along, get along tactics of the past 8 years, now refuse to fund the party. I know I'm one of them - I've had to tell callers from the DNC several times that the party wasn't getting anything from me since I prefer to target my contributions to individual Democrats who have actually opposed the Bushit of the past 8 years.
June 15, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, the elected delegates have to pay for their own travel and related expenses. Most local committees will help with costs, or help raise money to send the delegates, but these costs are NOT included in the $40 million.
So, again, why so much to throw a party? Couldn't that money be better spent on the campaign itself?
PEACE
June 15, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the DNC has really fell short. No wonder Obama is basically moving the operations to his own headquarters in chicago. just think if hillary was the nominee then no one would have any money to compete.
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
June 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who doesn't think they won't come up with the money to hold the convention is crazy.
I think this post is a bit crazy cause it is such a side issue. They'll get the money - there's no way the Democrats cancel the convention.
This is a tempest in a teapot for real - basically who cares? They'll get the money, Eric - that's guaranteed. Maybe not by Monday, but I know they will because I know the convention will be held.
June 15, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Double negative. *sigh* Anyone who thinks they won't come up with the money...
June 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many Dems may like Obama, but they are not in love with the DNC.
Like me they remember all too well the "change"
that was promised in 2006 and are not going
to be sold the same bill of goods in 2008.
They may and probably will give to individual candidates but they will not reward the Dem. party
for it's betrayal of the 2006 mandate,or the
clusterf--k that was the 2008 primary season.
See (MI & FL), or for that matter the shameful
partisanship it exhibited during those primaries.
Obama has cash to burn, let him pick up the tab.
As for the DNC the less money they have the less of a distraction they will be.
June 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think y'all are short-sided beyond belief.
The DNC elected Democrats all over this country in '06. It will elect Democrats all over the country this time, too. Unless the progessive voters get their huff on and refuse to support the party, which will be one hell of a mistake, IMHO. It will mean Repugs continue to hold office where they shouldn't.
Everyone blames Congress for not impeaching Bush - how could Congress have impeached anyone when the Democrats did not have a clear majority? We did not have the votes. How many times does that have to be said? We did not have the votes.
June 15, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Tena,
I wrote the comment below before I read any of the other comments on this page. I'd like to respectfully disagree with you about the votes for impeachment. I think there were enough disaffected Republicans, genuine conservatives and scared incumbents, on the fence that a groundswell from the population would have pushed them over into the impeachment camp. I'm also of the opinion that the aforementioned groundswell would have occurred with the certainty of a sunrise. I think the old guard Democrats are as scared of this groundswell as the repugnantcons are. It threatens their well oiled money machine. The corporate tit they feed from along with their brethren across the aisle. Do I think this is short sighted of them. Hell yes. The money would still have been there. The corporatocracy wants to back winners. They're not suicidally married to either side. The solution for this is to tear big-money out of the process. What I'm waiting to see is the correct balance of personnel and political will to accomplish this daunting task. We won't recover our representative republic until this minor miracle occurs. An impeachment in 2006, successful or very nearly so would have slowed our headlong rush into Iran and might have provided some additional impetus toward tearing that money out of the process. Sadly, at this point, all I've said is speculative conjecture. While I could be wrong, in my bones I don't think so.
June 15, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you why I haven't sent the Democratic Party a penny so far this election cycle. 2006. They talked a mean impeachment, then they bent me over. I don't want to give Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers a penny. I suppose I'll have to get over it. As soon as I'm sure that Barack has control of their situation I'll loosen up a bit and start to pay the piper. Right now I'm still so pissed off at the old guard (liars) that I don't feel like it at all.
June 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
To impeach, you need a simple majority of House of Reps and two-thirds of the Senate. Assuming all the Democrat senators voted for it, and I'm not sure they all would, you'd still be well short. How many Republicans do you see crossing the aisle to vote for impeachment? Lieberman's not going to do it, either. You don't play a hand like impeachment unless you know you can win.
June 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the math.
June 15, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
From USA Today, 7/2/2007
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney."
The Democrats had the votes for the Hosue to impeach -- once it got to the Senate the votes to convict were not yet there but might have been compelled by the evidence -- further keeping Bush occupied by fighting impeachment rather than promoting further disasters would have been a very good idea.
June 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy Pelosi made it clear coming in - the reality was and is that there weren't the votes. There was so goddamn much that needed attention that without the votes to impeach, it would have been a colossal waste of time, IMO.
I'd like to see all of the war criminals tried for war crimes and there is nothing out there that anyone has said that indicated that was NOT going to happen. It could. Bush cannot pardon himself or anyone else from war crimes until they've been charged and they won't be until he cannot pardon anyone.
All impeaching him would do would be to bring down a censure on him - you can't necessarily get him out office - obviously, since they impeached Bill and his goddamn ratings went up. I don't want to give the Repugs the goddamn ammunition right now - I want them out of my government.
June 15, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of which, they don't even have the votes for a formal censure. Feingold's resolution in 2006 only had three co-sponsors.
Bush has paved the way for a Democratic return to the White House and huge gains in Congress. It's not the "sexiest" revenge but I'll take it.
June 15, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so -- at least about the until they've been charged part. Gerald Ford famously gave Richard Nixon a preemptive pardon.
About pardoning himself -- I don't think that's ever happened, but the case for a presidential self-pardon is much less of a stretch than the John Yoo torture memo. I do expect Dubya to try it, though.
And just to set the record straight -- An impeachment is like an indictment. It requires a simple majority of the House. The Reptors pulled it off in 1999 holding a very slim (10-vote?) majority in the House. Conviction and removal from office, OTOH, does require a 2/3 majority in the Senate. It didn't come close then, and it won't come close to coming close now.
It'd be another symbolic impeachment. Worth it? Dunno. I'd like to see it, but I wonder if it'd rile up the Republican base and increase the turnout for McSame in November.
June 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I despise what the Bush Administration has done to this country as much as the next progressive, but I don't think that impeachment would have been worth it.
Imagine: Democrats make huge gains in Congress in the '06 elections. They immediately put forth Articles of Impeachment against Bush, Cheney, etc. Then, instead of making any gains on Pelosi's First 100 Days agenda, Congress spends the next two years mired in finger-pointing and name-calling, just as they did in the '90s. The Republicans use this to their greatest advantage in '08, and not only take back seats in Congress, but present a hefty challenge to any Democrat trying to win the White House.
Instead, Pelosi & Co. pass the minimum wage bill, as well as others on the 100 Days agenda, and let the Bush Administration's atrocities come to light for even the most dyed-in-the-wool Republican supporters to see. We kick-off the '08 GE with Bush's approval rating at 31% (June 15 Rasmussen), and a mini-Bush running to replace him in November. Fast forward to November, where a solidly organized DNC, along with state party coordinated campaigns and the best field program in campaign history (Obama) combine forces and mop up Republican seats across the nation. Then, we hold the traitors in office accountable after the new administration kicks off, and proceed to mend our broken country.
I prefer scenario B. I want justice, but I recognize that lasting justice only occurs if the Democrats can work in peace for several terms.
June 15, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I gotta say it. The dems would be flush with cash if it weren't for the clintons dragging this out since February and wasting probably near 100 mill in attacking obama and obama having to defend himself. The dems will probably recover, but a huge waste of cash that could have been put to better use taking on mcbush. Thanks clintons.
June 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The money problem is obvious. The Democrat that has raised money is Obama because he offers a new politics to progressive Dems. He stood against the War and did not cave for political cover like many in Congress. He inspires. The rest of the Party, the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, and especially the DLC all represent old clique politics and the weakness of the Dems over the last decade. They DO NOT INSPIRE, they disappoint and frustrate us. Why would we give to them, when we can give to Obama. I have been called by fundraisers for the DCCC three times and told them the same thing. When they stand up in Congress and fight back against Bush, I will support them. As long as they wimp out, I will not send them a dime.
June 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is blowing the goodwill towards the democratic party from indpendents and non-affiliates.
He keeps adding on new taxes with nothing in return. People are not stupid.
Raise the CG tax then the income tax. Wait, do not stop there, raise the soc security tax, but claim it will only affect the wealthiest 3%.
Whoa.
Didn't the income tax and alternative income tax only affect the wealthiest americans and now they apply to almost everyone?
Well the huge rise in the Soc Security tax will affect the middle class sooner than they think.
And what will they get for it. Nothing.
Basically Obama wants to change the Social Security retirement/disability insurance fund into a welfare program.
That will turn a successful program into a doomed program.
He can raise the income tax rate if he wants,he can raise the retirement age, but he needs to leave the basic meachanism of Social Security alone, or it will cost him.
Somebody in the DNC better have a talk with Obama or he will erase his lead and make it even harder for the DNC to raise cash
June 15, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Independent has no problem spending some money on taxes for worthwhile public works and other endeavors that improve the infrastructure and quality of life for Americans in America. I would also like to see a radical revision in what we spend on military hardware and all the other garbage trappings of empire. With that money, a suicidally large quantity, redirected to useful purpose, we would recover our equilibrium, and our proper place in the society of man in rather short order.
June 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too. I'm and Independent who is more than willing to pay my way.
And, by the way, this is the second time that "Wisdom" has voiced this concern. He appears to be a concern troll - best ignored.
June 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Turning Social Security into "welfare" should have been a clue....
June 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with you that these trolls, I had identified it, are mindless pond scum, I do feel that they have to be answered from time to time in order to negate any effect they might have on people dropping in who aren't as seasoned at this as many of us profess to be.
June 15, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the occasional response of derision is always entertaining.
June 15, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best response to Trolls is to call 'em out with "Troll." No need to address their text.
June 15, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely! I'm not giving a penny to the Democratic party, because they took my money and my vote last time and then ignored everything that my money and my vote stood for. Now I give my money (what little there is of it) directly to progressive candidates, and I volunteer my time to help organize and register voters. Howard Dean may have promised on behalf of the DNC to stay in line with Obama's refusal to accept PAC or Lobbyist money, but the DCCC and the DSCC are up to their old bad ways. I'm not giving one red cent to the party to spend on electing one more Dino.
As for the impeachment argument that says we have too many important things to do instead, can anyone name one thing in the last 18 months that was done in our name that couldn't have come with the Republican name wrapped around it instead of the Dem?
June 15, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't they already have the Convention a couple weeks ago at the Marriott in DC? Obama's already been selected. What's the point of this other convention in August?
June 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignore at your own peril.
Obama should have a much larger lead with the way the economy is and the results of recent special congressional elections. The DNC should be able to raise money very easily, which it isn't.
I have no problem rversing Bush's tax cut or paying my share.
But I do have a problem with proposing other tax hikes for nothing in return.
I do have a problem with turning the Social Security retirement/disability insurance program into a welfare program.
The DNC and Obama are chipping away at their own support.
They need the independents to win.
Hopefully the DNC does not share CarolBG's attitude, of , if I do not agree with them, let's ignore them attitude.
That is a sure fire way of losing the support of Independents and ultimately the election.
June 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "concern" noted and consigned to dust bin.
June 16, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush should be impeached. I just think country would have had such a negative response going through that, I don't think it would have passed Congress, and frankly, there might have been sympathy from all the idiots that support Bush and McCain types. So we won't see him punished, but history will be brutal to him. His legacy will be huge payback. I still think it would be better to pursue him for war crimes. And Cheney.
BTW, regarding the DNC, kick Liberman's ass to the ground and I will contribute. And least hit him every time he opens his stupid mouth until January. Don't let all this shit he is doing go without slapping him around, loudly and often.
June 15, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
if they weren't about to cave on telecom immunity, i might consider sending them something.
June 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely great point!
June 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC doesn't have a Congressional vote. The DCCC and the DSCC are flush with cash and they're the ones who do the voting in Congress.
June 15, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sent Howard Dean a message via Facebook that I will leave the Party if the Dems cave on telecom immunity. That will be the last straw. And it's not as though opposing it has much in the way of political costs. I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but there is no clamor for immunity for the telecoms.
June 15, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
NOW THE ELITISTS
ALL SMUG AND SNOOTY
FINALLY SEE VALUE IN
WENCH HILLARY'S BOOTY!
CAN YE LANDLUBBERS APPRECIATE HER CORPORATE RAIDING NOW?
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
June 15, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
As funny as ever.
June 16, 2008 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm. Let's see. In April when gas hit $3 a gallon, my business slowed. In May when it hit $4 a gallon, it really slowed. Now in June when it is close $5 a gallon, my business is all but sitting dead in the water.
What makes the DNC think they are any different than the rest of us.
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE MONEY TO SPARE!
June 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
KttN, the small towns where I live are dying. It is a tourist area, with no tourists. Every time I hear some one say they are voting for McCain, I flat out tell them this country cannot financially survive his administration. It is damn frightening already. Sorry about your business, hope things pick up.
June 15, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Convention is important for many reasons: It showcases the diversity of our party to the entire nation, and the entire world. It provides a national stage to introduce some future stars to the country.
The 2004 convention launched Senator Obama into the national spotlight, before he was even an elected senator. Think about that folks. The cost of the convention is actually a bargain when you consider the amount of TV coverage it gets.
Denver folks; Denver. Giving that city an economic boost should earns the party a fair amount of good will, that just might make the difference in winning the Colorado in November.
Let us not become penny wise and pound foolish. You will not get a bigger bang for your publicity dollar than you will from what is spent on the convention. We will have a VP to introduce to the nation, among many other very important events.
June 15, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry liam -- as a volunteer at two previous DNC's I have to disagree. Conventions are tradition, they can be a lot of fun, they can generate momentum and goodwill and all those intangible things, but they are also a colossal waste of money. It's one big junket for state & local pols and their many, many, MANY hangers-on. They have a few meetings and spend the rest of the time touring the city, shopping at outlets, feasting on (very expensive) catered meals, and collecting swag. At night, some of them attend the speeches...some just hit the party circuit. It's a feel good free for all of them, but as my hometown of Boston showed in '04, it can actually *deaden* the local economy, cost the host city a fortune in police details and the like, with little to show for it but booked hotel rooms and some well-paid event vendors.
Don't get me wrong -- there are many good reasons to have a convention. I actually heard Obama's vaunted speech in person in '04, which more than made up for the hours dealing with picky delegates, no-show delegates, mountains of uneaten food, angry corporate sales reps, and armed police squads in the streets and checking out bags on the subway.
The problem is the scale and lavishness these party "faithful" have come to expect just can't -- and shouldn't, IMHO -- be sustained esp. in a reeling economy. For every "publicity dollar" we get, $20 is flushed on pointless partying. If the DNC can tighten the belt, then great. But I'm not forking over a dime for a typical blowout -- remember, the nightly balloon drop alone costs like $150,000!
June 16, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why it takes that much money to throw a convention.
Surely they can rent a stadium for a week for a cool million. Let's say FIVE million, which seems absurdly large.
Pay for travel, hotel, and per diem for 4000 delegates? Let's say ten million, and I think that's probably actually pretty generous.
So that's fifteen million. What's the other 25 million for?
June 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
the problem is that people like me, lifelong DEMs who are Hillary Clinton supporters are disgusted with Dean and the DNC for messing up the primary process and for standing by while the media and many in the leadership spewed sexist garbage.
i have not sent a penny to the DNC this year, no matter which DEM leaders "signs" the request.
June 15, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it is your right to be a cheapskate, if you choose. But you have no right to cling to distortions when the facts are plainly evident.
Neither Dean nor the DNC messed up the primary season..... that can be laid directly at the feet of the state Democratic leadership spoilers from Michigan and Florida who voted for jumping the calendar. As for any 'sexism' from the media....... that can laid directly at the feet of the media personalities.
Can you ever learned the very simple truth that it is ridiculous to blame someone for something someone else did?
Putting the blame where it really belongs [for whatever wrongs you are still angry about] is the only way to get out of your error-based negative slump. Good luck.
June 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the impeachment issue, I agree that the story is longer and more complicated than what might have been accomplished since the '06 elections; that the effect would have been distracting, inefficient, unlikely to produce its aims and likely to have weakened Democrats in various ways. I also advocate opting for the long run - war crimes trials set in motion only after Bush can't do anything about them. I have hope that following his departure the consensus perception of this debacle will evolve, and may well be such that there will be a stronger appetite to take action against the whole lot of them than could ever have been accomplished against Bush, Cheney and company via impeachment. Not that I wouldn't have relished that as well. No form of condemnation against them is strong enough.
June 16, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink