If Democrat voters are so fired up, why is the DNC nearly going broke?
I don’t know the answer, but that’s my question.
Here’s the basis for my question:
This report is nothing short of a disaster. Having $6.1 million in debt with only $6.3 million cash on hand is basically being broke. Debt means interest payments, after all, which will eventually overtake the COH position ”” and probably sooner rather than later. The DNC has to be able to spend to set up its fundraising, and right now that’s looking iffy.
More to the point, the DNC has to organize and fund a GOTV effort this fall if they want to score big in the midterms. Some have suggested that the dollars are going instead to the candidates directly, although there’s no real data to support that as of yet. It’s not going especially to the congressional committees, at least not in ways that show a serious advantage for Democrats. However, as 2016 should have proven to everyone but especially Democrats, it’s dangerous to leave GOTV to the candidate campaigns. They usually don’t have sufficient resources for significant coordination and usually rely on the central committees for at least the heavy data crunching.
Ed Morrissey, who wrote the piece, believes that DNC heads Tom Perez and Rep. Keith Ellison are to blame for the lackluster showing.
I have no idea what or who’s to blame. But I don’t think the problem is that there’s any dearth of angry Democrats willing to give money to help unseat Trump and the Republicans, and convinced they can accomplish it.
At least the DNC is saving money by taking me off its mailing list. Back when Dubya was President, the DNC mailed me a survey to fill out and return. I received the survey, the DNC informed me, because I was “a leader in the community.” I have no idea how the DNC determined that.
Two parts of the mailing left an impression. First, there was a request for money. Second, there was a question about leaving Iraq, with all of the choices predicated on unconditional withdrawal. The only choice was when. There was no choice which said something like, “We should leave when we have won.”
I didn’t bother mailing anything back. The next year, the DNC mailed me the same questionnaire. This time I replied. I filled in the questionnaire, with the exception of the When Should We Leave Iraq question. I also indicated to the DNC that the Leave Iraq question was very poorly phrased, as it didn’t present an option I would support. I also wrote a reply that indicated that I would contribute money to the DNC, or vote for a Democrat for President, only over my dead body.
I received no more DNC questionnaires.
I did receive an Obama for America solicitation, after he was elected. I decided that a snarky reply might result in negative consequences for me, so I just threw the solicitation in the trash.
Gringo:
I still get a ton of mail from them.
I’m on their lists, big time, as I am in that demographic of being a very good, very reliable democratic donator.
But, since I’m also a child of a Holocaust survivor by way of Stalin’s gulags, I got paranoid about Obama because of Israel, (which turns out to have been well founded according to discovery in the recent pro Israel group v IRS lawsuit.)
So, I decided to keep my mouth shut– as that is also the demographic who does not want to draw attention to themselves by requesting to be removed from lists.
I just don’t give them money, or vote for them or, as it turns out, agree with them about anything, anymore.
Most of the email solicitations resemble viagra spam and my fired up democratic friends, who are also scaring me with their level of hysterical hatred, whipsawing with every political meme and suddenly behaving like Hitler concern trolls, don’t tend to be big donators.
Just an anecdote, don’t know the reason for the low fundraising.
The reason is easy. They’re American-hating post-American assholes. People are more inclined to give their spare change to the crack-junkie at the exit to the mall with the sign saying “Jesus will bless you.”
vanderleun:
I disagree.
The number of people who agree with them is legion among the rich and well-educated, and they are very fired-up to defeat Trump and undo their ignominious loss in 2016.
Motive is strong, numbers are strong, money is there, and in the past such donors have been generous.
There was some chatter on the internet a month or 2 ago to the effect that the DNC’s brand was really hurt in 2016-17, but many Democratic candidates are doing well with their fund-raising, the money just isn’t going to the Party qua Party.
I have not independently corroborated any of that, but it sounds plausible.
If a horse has 20% + odds of winning, few people are willing to bet on the nag.
Oops, I should have typed -20%. I claim old aged brain fart, not lack of math skills.
Neo notes (correctly) “The number of people who agree with them is legion among the rich and well-educated, and they are very fired-up to defeat Trump and undo their ignominious loss in 2016.”
Agreed … as I said: “They’re American-hating post-American assholes.”
Typically generous with their blather and stingy with their cash. As is said “Money talks, bullshit walks.”
If you think there’s going to be a lead-obliterating wave of oodles and boodles of cash I think you’re in error…. but history will tell.
vanderleun:
I never said it would happen. I never indicated that “there would be a lead-obliterating wave of oodles and boodles of cash” from the Democrats.
What I did say was that in the past this group had been generous in their donations, and that at the moment they were plenty fired up. That’s why I’m puzzled at the seeming lack of money from them to date.
I have a couple educated friends on the left. One bought my wife and I dinner recently, and after a few cocktails, he launched into an ad hominem riff about Trump being the new Mussolini and his followers were black shirts. Since we weren’t following a logical thread anyway, I countered with “At least we don’t have to worry about ISIS controlling most of Iraq and Syria anymore.”
That stopped him for a couple seconds, since he has had a lot of contact with the civilian side of the military, and replied “Oh, Obama was just terrible” and changed the subject. Of course, my mind was spinning but I kept my mouth shut. Don’t tell me he is a racist too! (sarc)
_______
More to Neo’s point, we had lunch with the other friend about 8 months ago and naturally he was pumped up over Trump’s latest tweet. But later in the day he took a donation solicitation phone call from the DNC or the like. I wasn’t trying to eavesdrop, but the louder tones carried through. He essential told them to f-off and that he would never donate again until they changed their ways.
Now maybe he was angry that they weren’t moving far enough to the left. He does hold an eclectic collection of somewhat faddish and conflicting ideals, (at least he reads and thinks a little) so it is hard to tell. I do think we are seeing instances where Dem leadership is responding to aggressive far-left pressure from the base.
On the one hand, I worry that the Dems may be too successful in whipping up the hateful and angry mob, and lose control of it. On the other hand, we on the right should remember that many on left CAN see the duplicity and corruption of their party and don’t like it. It is easy to dislike something, or foment that dislike. It is harder to like something enough to open your wallet.
Plus most of the money Dems collect comes from the rich in Hollywood, tort lawyers, big environmental groups, etc. Could be the Spielbergs and Streisands are getting tapped out.
Redistributive change with progressive returns, as is the convention with minority capital and control schemes.
“What I did say was that in the past this group had been generous in their donations, and that at the moment they were plenty fired up. That’s why I’m puzzled at the seeming lack of money from them to date.”
Well perhaps the demographic makeup of the dems now isn’t the same as the demographic makeup of dems past. Perhaps Trumpism is asset-stripping the dem demographic.
neo-neocon Says:
February 1st, 2018 at 4:27 pm
..
What I did say was that in the past this group had been generous in their donations, and that at the moment they were plenty fired up. That’s why I’m puzzled at the seeming lack of money from them to date.
* * *
Following up on some other points made in the comments, so long as the DNC is pushing Clintons and Kennedys, I don’t think the money-bags (practical and idealistic alike) are going to be funding the party.
They know that both families are now branded as “losers” and they don’t want to waste money.
If the DNC comes up with a charismatic potential candidate ala Obama, maybe they’ll be ready to play again.
Esther Says:
February 1st, 2018 at 3:13 pm
I’m on their lists, big time, as I am in that demographic of being a very good, very reliable democratic donator.
But, since I’m also a child of a Holocaust survivor by way of Stalin’s gulags, I got paranoid about Obama because of Israel, (which turns out to have been well founded according to discovery in the recent pro Israel group v IRS lawsuit.)
So, I decided to keep my mouth shut— as that is also the demographic who does not want to draw attention to themselves by requesting to be removed from lists.
I just don’t give them money, or vote for them or, as it turns out, agree with them about anything, anymore.
* * *
I agree with the spamming (and get the same from the RNC) and can see your point on the caution (because nothing says “party of hope” like vindictive persecution).
You might want to square the circle by crossing out any identifying information (watch for secret code numbers), then fill in the questionnaire with the “missing options” that Gringo mentions), and then send it back – without money, of course.
Maybe if they had been getting more reliable feed-back from moderate Dems in the past (and a known loss in donations, instead of just missing replies), they might not have gone so far down the looney-left rabbit-hole.
I believe that the DNC is currently broke because—if I understood Donna Brazile correctly—Debbie Wasserman Schultz et al. funneled most of it into Hillary’s stellar high-octane compaign.
And, Hillary, of course, was supposed to win, in which the money would all be recouped (give or take) without anyone taking much notice.
Just because the DNC isn’t raking in dollars does not mean the lefties aren’t funding their cause. George Soros and Tom Steyer don’t put their coins in the church poor box. And the hangers-on and favor seekers deposit directly into the coffers of the Clinton Crime Family or Obama’s Community Organizer-in-Chief War Chest. Also, they have been expert at spending your tax dollars and lawfare spoils on their pet projects.
AesopFan, I think they know, what with them being the pro thought police party — In fact, I’m sticking with my plan to put their direct mail in the shredder just to see if they spam my email about it. 😀
People with the big money are probably quite careful about donating to a bunch of incompetent cretins at the DNC.
There is an article I read the other day on the topic of gerrymandering. One of the points it made, a bit of a tangent actually, was that because of the way the Democrats have situated themselves geographically, GOP gerrymandering of congressional districts wouldn’t matter to the outcome of elections. The idea is that Democrats have highly concentrated themselves on the East and West coasts, particularly in the big cities.
I live in Massachusetts, a true blue state if there is one. Our representatives in the US House and Senate are all Democrats. The citizens of MA are predominantly Democrat as well. There is no serious threat to the Dems hold on public office. Seeing this perhaps translates into the lack of motivation to donate to the party. Maybe this is happening in most Democrat controlled areas.
Just a thought.
“What kind of ‘genius’ loses a billion dollars?” – Hillary Clinton
“Hillary’s Failed Campaign Costs a Record $1.2 Billion” – Drudge Report
“Spent all our money, please give us yours” – DNC, today
The DNC isn’t getting any money, because the real money on the left is going to OFA, Obama’s shadow-DNC.