Possibly. I'd wait until we have fundraising numbers for the Dems' first general election month before we start talking apocalypse though.

Let's get cracking!

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute?source=NETA805

but the GOP will almost certainly be able to step in with a parallel apparatus that will be formidable

Eric, you are presupposing quite a bit here - for one thing, we don't know if this fund-raising on the part of the GOP is the result of a renewed vigor in the GOP or if it is a bump due to some large donations from donors who intended their donation as ongoing, or a one time deal in response to the Democrats having finally settled on a nominee.

I mean - it's impossible right now to tell if the GOP will maintain this edge.

Huh.

Can I ask a question about the GE? Since McCain is opting in for public financing, that means he can spend up to 88 million? (Or whatever the number is?) Does this mean he cannot collect money from private donors once the convention is over?

as of May 31

Obama has 43M on hand McCain has 31M on hand

Obama should have a huge June

This is why it's important to continue donating... to compensate for the Shrooms 'n' Whippets sect of our party currently wringing their hands over FISA.

Well, if the small donors don't donate then perhaps we'll have to wait another 4 years for a perfect liberal progressive candidate who will never ever cmpromise ever to do what's right for the greater good. I am more worried that the "low information voters" believe that Obama will be votng against the bill because he has "terrorist ties". That is more frightening than anything. Because people believe whatever they want.

Lamont- You can't change people's minds once they are made up. Most of those angry with Obama's statement on FISA see a clear opportunity to hold his feet to the fire because Obama opted out of public financing. While I applauded his decision, I wonder if maybe it was a bad decision after all, given what we all have seen in the last few days.

Yes - "democratic" doesn't fit the Democratic Party anymore because Obama had to divide the party through corrupt means to "win" the nomination.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/the-undemocratic-party-the-new-culture-war-pt-2

Dems have bashed Bush corruption for the ends justifying the means. Now they've done the same.
Obama is tooo much like Bush.

And now - Obama had to sell his soul and become the only candidate since public financing began to reject it.
The only candidate in 30 years to opt to buy an election!

THANKS, HILLARY CLINTON!!! you and your brilliant strategies!!!

While there's great enthusiasm among Democrats to put more Democrats in office, there's not a lot of enthusiasm for the current leadership. Most of us wouldn't piss on Pelosi or Reid if they were on fire, but we'd be happy to if they weren't. The Party clearly has a problem. Maybe if they'd get a few things done...

now i see why obama camp is revamping the DNC and moving all their operations to chicago... its because the DNC cant even raise money on its own, the DNC should be ashamed of themselves

http://sensico.wordpress.com

On "Fox News Sunday," Daschle argued that Obama "didn't break his word on this."

Daschle channels Bush-speak and lies again for Obama.

The Republican party is raising money because it does what its constituents want it to do. The DNC is not raising money because it is betraying its constituents. Even when the Democrats only want the Congress to simply not act, Reid and Pelosi can't even manage that. So impeachement doesn't happen, but telecom immunity and war funding do. Reid folds at the slightest hint of a filibuster and extracts no political pain for the obstructionism. Why would I fund such a betrayal? Progressive candidates running to unseat Republicans get my attention and my money. DNC beg letters go strait to the recycle bin.

All the Republicans can offer is the RNC money. The combined efforts of Bush and McCain. The latter, in fact, urged the PAC contributors to contribute to the RNC, thus completely circumventing the spirit of his own campaign finance reform legislation. Anyway, the GOP has the RNC money, but as has been pointed out, they are running behind the Dems when it comes to the DSCC and DCCC equivalents. The RNC will need to spend a fair amount of its money on its congressional candidates, something Obama won't really have to worry about. And finally, I think the Obama decision is predicated on the understanding that he needs to define himself to the general public before the convention. Hence the need for as much money as he can get from us.

No surprise to me either.

Most Dem's who are not active in the party apparatus are feeling disenfranchised. The party has not represented them, going along with approving conservative judges, allowing Bush to do as he pleases, and in general reinforcing the (mis?)conception that they are also a party of the corporations that is ruled top down instead of bottom up. Two years ago when I asked our town Dem Committee chair who she liked for the primary to challenge the incumbernt Repub US Rep she told me "I don't know, 'they' haven't told us yet."

Republicans are under threat. Remember that the repub MO greatest campaign tactic is fear. And it works best on the dopes who usually vote for them. They're being told they're under threat (they are) so they're responding with cash.

My advice to Obama is get on the stick and get the unregistered and registered but non-voting folks. These are the people turned off by the "system" and that you've so successfully motivated in the primaries. By moving to the middle you're alienating your base and guess what - you're not going to get any substantial numbers of disaffeceted Rebubicans. They're going to swallow hard and vote for McSame just as disaffected Dems are going to swallow hard and vore Obama.

And before you go off with the trolling accusations, I am registered to vote with no party affiliation (here in NH that's "unenrolled" not "independent".) I'll vote for Obama if it's close in my state. Otherwise Nader's the one who advocates for most if not all of what I believe. And, if you'll look at his positions, for what the "Democratic" party "stands for." Or "stood for" when they used to actually stand for something. Whoops, I'm venturing into troll territory there.