A whole bunch of people -- Tapped, John Judis, Donkey Rising (Ruy Teixeira), The New Republic, E.J. Dionne, Joe Klein – have weighed in recently on the Howard Dean phenomenon, with a heavy focus (naturally) on the question of whether he is "electable" – which, the context of the modern Democratic Party, means "is he another George McGovern?"
Most, though not all, of the above have answered in the affirmative, casting Dean into the pit of left-wing losers – the kind of candidates the Democratic establishment may secretly admire, but has no wish to actually nominate.
Now personally, I think the better question is this: If Howard Dean is nominated, will he:
- Stand up at the Democratic National Convention and swear to raise everybody’s taxes?
- Take a ride in an Abrams tank, wearing a silly helmet that makes him look like Snoopy?
- Break down and cry on camera because some right-wing nut case of a newspaper publisher wrote nasty things about his wife?
- Slap a ton of orange pancake makeup on his face and sigh loudly into his mike every time his opponent tries to get a word in edgewise in the next presidential debate?
All of these, of course, are stupid things that were actually done by the party establishment's favored candidates. (And a free virtual beer to anyone who can match names to those stupid candidate tricks.)
My point is that if the establishment is going to throw George McGovern in our faces, then progressives should have the right to throw some of the establishment's turkey candidates back in its collective face. Did Wally Mondale win more states in 1984 than George McGovern did in 1972? Not that I noticed.
As you can tell, I’m still a little defensive about the McGovern campaign. Which I suppose is like saying the ghosts of Custer’s troopers are still a bit defensive about that Little Bighorn thing.
The Money Thing
But what interests me most about Dean isn’t whether he’s electable or not. I do have my own strong doubts on that score, but they’re not significantly stronger than my doubts about the electability of the rest of this year’s crop of candidates.
What does interest me – fascinate me, really – is whether Dean’s campaign has invented a fundraising model that will finally allow Democratic candidates, or at least, Democratic presidential candidates, to cope with the GOP’s money advantage.
Now saying the Democrats have a campaign finance problem is a bit like saying Sonny Corleone had a little difficulty with the Tattaglia family. Public financing leveled the playing field for a time, but now the Republicans – emulating the North Koreans -- have broken out of the fundraising nonproliferation regime (rejecting federal matching funds in order to raise unlimited amounts of private dough). This means the coming election could bear an ugly resemblance to that scene at the toll booth in The Godfather..
While the Democrats are battling out in the primaries, the Bush campaign will be able to saturate the airwaves with generic attack ads ("Did You Like 9/11? Vote Democrat.") By the time the Democratic convention rolls around, Shrub's minions will be pushing the warm and fuzzy "Bush is Our Dear Leader" spots. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be, could be flat broke, waiting for the first of those federal matching funds to land.
Picture Sonny's corpse, riddled with machine gun bullets, laying face down on the pavement.
Taking It to the Net
But Dean’s impressive fundraising operation offers a ray of hope. Look at the numbers:
- In the second quarter, Dean raised over $7.6 million, the most of any candidate except the Bush (who, naturally, raised more than the entire Democratic field combined.)
- An impressive 53% of Dean's contributions were under $200. Only 23% were $1000 or more.
- Over half of Dean’s second quarter haul was collected over the Internet.
This is amazing stuff. I doubt any major presidential campaign in modern history – or least, Democratic Party history -- has raised such a large share of its funds from such small donations. Let’s compare Dean’s breakdown with that of the other major candidates:
What Dean’s people may have stumbled upon is a way to overcome the demographic disadvantage that’s created the Democrats’ fundraising dilemma. Unfortunately, explaining that remark requires a long digression into the on-going debate over how the Democrats can put together a winning majority.
Building a Majority
If you’ve read Ruy Teixeira and John Judis’s book The Emerging Democratic Majority, you know their basic thesis is that the Democrats can look to two major groups to form the base for a majority coalition. One is the same segment of society that Democrats have always relied on: the poor and working class. This population segment is being expanded by growing income inequality, by immigration and by above-average birth rates in several key ethnic communities, Hispanics in particular.
The other potential Democratic bastion, however, is much higher up the social ladder. It can be found in the growing ranks of skilled, educated professionals – the "knowledge workers" who are the backbone of the New Economy. Admittedly, the new economy isn’t looking so new (or so special) right now, but the importance of this group continues to grow, as the next chart suggests:
You can see that professional and managerial employment has continued to grow since the collapse of the New Economy bubble three years ago, even as the number of "production" jobs has declined. This is a secular, not a cyclical trend. The demise of the Internet bubble may have slowed it, but it hasn’t reversed it.
The political implications that Teixeira and Judis have identified can be seen in recent election results. Look, for example, at the breakdown of the 2000 vote by income level:
As you might expect, the Democratic vote falls as income rises, but that trend slows abruptly once you get above about $50,000 a year. Note particularly, that when you go from "over $50k" to "over $75k," the Dem vote barely changes, which suggests that Democratic support in the upper income levels is not concentrated in that lower tier.
That data was collected by the late, unlamented Voter News Service, which didn’t break income down in a way that was particularly useful. For example, I’d like to know how partisan preference correlates with income in the really high brackets, say $500K and up.
But the existence of a left-leaning upper-income group can be seen more clearly in this chart:
Again, the Democratic share falls as you move up the educational ladder, until you get to the ranks of those with postgraduate degrees, where it rises again, sharply. (The chart actually understates the liberal leanings of this group, since He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (i.e. Nader) also ran strongest among the most highly educated.
Pyramid Scheme
What does all this have to do with campaign finance? Well, the problem for the Democrats is that the trends described by Teixeira and Judis create a social pyramid that looks something like this:
Notice the layer cake effect: Democrats are strong at the bottom, strong (relatively) in the upper middle, but weak at the top and in the middle.
This may have produced something close to a 50-50 split in the electorate -- with the Democratic share likely to grow faster than the GOP share over the next ten or twenty years. But financially, it leaves the Dems very much behind the eight ball.
The advantages of owning the top of the pyramid (Gore’s "wealthiest 1%") are as obvious to the GOP as they were to the notorious bank robber Willy Sutton. Somebody once asked Sutton why he robbed banks. "Because that’s where the money is," he is said to have replied. And because the "top 1%" is a relatively tight, self-referential group, raising money – big money – is easy for the Republicans, as this Washington Post story from a few weeks back makes clear.
The Democrats do have their own small share of this market – heavily based on Wall Street and/or in Hollywood. The importance of that support to keeping the Dems (barely) competitive probably can’t be overstated. But it's not very large -- and doesn't always benefit the progressive wing of the party.
The bottom of the pyramid doesn’t have money to spend on necessities, much less politicians. The next layer up – populated by blue-collar or semi-white collar "Reagan Democrats," very small business owners and right-leaning technicians and professionals – has a little more, and sometimes a lot more, since these people often aren’t as over-leveraged as your average upper-middle class family trying to live the upper 1% lifestyle on the salary of the upper 10%.
Going back to the ‘70s, the GOP has had great success at reaching that second layer through direct mail – the angrier and more paranoid the better. But direct mail is expensive, slow and inherently something of a con job, since the lion’s share of the proceeds end up going to the fundraising pros, not the candidates.
Funding the Left
The Internet, however, is the ideal medium for reaching that red-tinged layer just below the 1%. The reasons should be obvious: These are some of the most wired people on the planet. They’re accustomed to doing financial transactions on the web. They’re also highly educated, skeptical, and likely to be left cold by the kind of simplistic marketing pitches that are the bread and butter of direct mail. And they’re often willing to put their mouths where their money is, and get directly involved in political campaigns --if they are motivated by a candidate or a cause they find appealing.
Most importantly, though, these people have disposable income – not as much as the upper 1%, to be sure, but enough to make them potentially a force to be reckoned with, as Howard Dean is busy proving.
Of course, political movements don’t live by bread alone. Some skeptics have argued that Dean’s Internet operation isn’t reaching the broader universe of voters he needs to build a truly grassroots movement. This op-ed in the Washington Post expresses the view:
If the Internet is going to remake politics, it has to do more than collect credit card contributions efficiently. It has to help candidates get their message directly to new voters, not just connect to their same old base of support. Based on my recent engagement with the Dean campaign, I would say that reports of a revolution are, as yet, greatly exaggerated.
This misses the point, I think, in much the same way that Clarence the Angel misses the point in Its a Wonderful Life, when Jimmy Stewart asks him if he has any money:
Clarence: Oh no, we don’t use money in heaven.
Jimmy: Well it comes in pretty handy down here, bub.
My point is that it’s easy to disparage the Dean Internet campaign for just talking to the elite – but the fact of the matter is that if the Democratic Party can’t figure out a way to reach that particular elite, organize it, and turn it into a donor base to match what the GOP already has, it’s not going to be around long enough to "get its message directly to new voters."
The kind of money that Dean is raising is money that could also be used to organize the other part of the Democratic base -- the lowest level of the pyramid. It could allow the Dems to intensify their "ground war," the GOTV and grassroots organizing work that helps offset the GOP media-based "air war."
That’s not to say that Internet fundraising is some kind of political panacea. There are other problems with the Teixeira-Judis thesis. It’s not clear to me the socially liberal, fiscally conservative views of the yuppies near the top of the pyramid can be easily reconciled with the needs and aspirations of the voters at the bottom. But unless the Democrats can build a more competitive financial base, the question will remain academic: The Republicans are going to bury them under a mountain of cash.
Braveheart
Which leaves us, finally, with the question I started with, the one that’s getting so much attention now: Dean’s electability. The truth is I don’t think he is electable -- for reasons that would take another post at least as long as this one to explain. But it does look as if Dean is developing the tools that might make other Democrats electable down the road.
In a way, it reminds me of the plot of the movie Braveheart. (I know that sounds bizarre, given Mel Gibson’s politics, but hear me out.)
The hero, William Wallace, built an army out of nothing and figured out how to use it to beat the English. But Wallace was too angry and too uncompromising. In the end, he was seen as a threat, both by the Scottish lords who originally supported him, and by the Scots king, Robert the Bruce. In the end, Wallace was betrayed and executed.
But the Bruce – a far more devious and unscrupulous leader – went on to beat the English at the battle of Bannockburn, won Scotland’s independence, and used all of his diplomatic wiles to build a network of alliances to safeguard it.
I suspect that at some point – maybe in this election; maybe the next – a Democratic presidential candidate who is not Howard Dean is going to have to turn to Dean’s supporters and say, as Robert the Bruce says to Wallace’s supporters in the final scene of Braveheart: "You bled for him, now will you bleed for me?"
If the Dean campaign accomplishes nothing else, perhaps it will bequeath to that future political army the swords that bring it victory.
Update 7/27 2:30 AM ET: The Washington Post has a short profile of Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, the guy who is putting together Dean's Internet army. It's worth a read. I don't know much about Trippi, but right now he rates as a political genius in my book.
Best piece of analysis I've seen yet. Although, I'd like to hear/see your views on Dean's electability. But again, great post.
I really don't care which candidate is nominated as long as it isn't Lieberman. Bush has created so many facts on the ground that Lyndon Johnson himself couldn't get much accomplished. We're stuck in Iraq and we won't be able to roll-back the tax cuts.
The only point of this particular election is to veto Bush's future catastrophes. No more wars and no more tax cuts. Any progressive agenda will have to wait for later, when we're organized enough to have a chance at capturing the House and Senate.
Are these the right answers?
a) Walter Mondale
b) Michael Dukakis
c) Edmund Muskie
d) Al Gore
Was Dukakis really the establishment candidate going into the primaries? Obviously he was more establishment than Jesse Jackson, but was he the preferred establishment candidate early on? My memory of back then is pretty fuzzy.
Good Christ Billmon. Fascinating. Are you a teacher in the formal sense in any way?
The thing with Dean, the thing with the left, the thing with the progressive movement, the THING: is so uncertainly couched in this new medium of last resort that the blogosphere is making a semblance of what may amount to a major impact in not just our temporal lives, but staking a claim in the annals of the most formative moments in civilization.
Maybe? .? .
A double edged "William Wallace Special" if you will. Revolutionary movements heretofore have required secrecy. And here I am writing the word "revolution" where anyone, even the likes of George Sorros could see. . .
Not that I'm at all revolutionary. That would be the point I guess. All of us who read, write, discuss in and around the "blogosphere" and the particular "blogular" orbits we take are subjects in a fascinating case study in viral concepts and collective human intelligence. Whether we like it or not. I suspect the next few years will yeild some breathaking sociological dissertations. Where it will be subsequently picked to shreds by that which it studied.
We'd be crazy to think an understandably sinister note is not being taken of all this minor hubbub. Making it all the more precious, I suppose, in the great undertaking nobody knew they were undertaking at the time they plopped in their first AOL disk in 1996.
It's not only a fundraising model-- but also a people raising model. Dean has found a way to cheaply raise both money and volunteers tp get his message out. Many of these donors are Meet-up persons who then go out and canvass, or write letters, and talk to friends an co-workers.For example,in the WaPo Howie Kurtz ran a rather snide article on Dean's media relations and the DeanDefense.org , but missed the larger point-- these guys organized themselves over the internet with out official support to be Dean's media watchdogs.How much is that volunteer worth? A lot given his ascent in the polls.
Yumpin' Yimminy!
I hate to be hard on you guys, but I thought the only ones who might consider the questions challenging were small children. If you were politically aware during the respective campaigns, reaching back 23 years, it should be a no-brainer. I figure the cut-off line should be around 35 years old....If you are over 35, it is like asking how did the guy die in "the Deer Hunter", if you are younger, you might have to think a bit, but not hard.
I'm worried there could be more trouble if Dean wins. It will take more than just a streak of mean to beat back the treasonous Republican Wurlitzer in the event he somehow gets enough votes to keep the Supreme Court out of it. Expect the Federal Reserve to help President Dean out by letting interest rates go into a "market float." Four years of a Bush disaster will leave the successor Democrat few good choices ala Carter. Winning the 2004 election may be worse for the Democrats than a landslide loss. It will take a strong strong man with a genius at getting his way, otherwise he will be a one-termer for sure.
Your questions lead me to the thought that with the army of republican spinmeisters along with the tacit cooperation of the SCLM, some innocuous act can be seen as stupid and then exploited. This is a real possibility, I'm afraid, given that Dean is an outsider to the mainstream press.
Specifically, Dukakis did look ridulous, I admit, but it was just a basic photo op to show Dems weren't soft on defense. It could have just been passed over, but it was pushed. Any candidate will have hundreds of pictures taken. Sure, Dean can avoid a similar picture, but if the press takes the easy way and avoids their responsibility of focusing on the issues, a nothing act can result in the same type of memory.
We have to push the press to actually talk about issues. I have taken to e-mailing outlets, to let them know we want better. I hope it helps. We'll see.
Analysts keep leaving something out of their looks at Dean's new model:
The Internet does provide a low-overhead way to collect money. But, far more importantly, it provides a feedback loop to potential voters that fulfills far more of voters' need to know that the candidates are listening.
Dean is kicking ass not because he has a web page connected to some secure server, but because Trippi and he know that people want to believe in their candidates, and that fostering an ongoing conversation over the web is a far more reliable way to get them to believe than stumping around the country, hoping that the network news portrays those stump speeches favorably.
The other candidates so far seem pretty comfortable with putting up the donation forms; the rest of the explosive campaign possibilities that Dean has shown them seem largely ignored.
Just wait until they get wise, though; the GOP will have a tough time overcoming their demographic deficiencies once Dems--and potential Dems--start seeing ways that candidates can hear them, beyond shaking their hand in a receiving line and cashing their checks.
Who broke down in tears? Was it Dukakis? I remember kitty was having was having problems, but i don't remember dukakis crying...
Ed Muskie was the weeper. Man, I feel old....
Matt Davis said: ...the GOP will have a tough time overcoming their demographic deficiencies once Dems--and potential Dems--start seeing ways that candidates can hear them, beyond shaking their hand in a receiving line and cashing their checks.
Hope so! I think you're onto something really significant, Matt. Been wondering at times lately why I read comment threads, and this is a precious nugget to make up for all those pebbles..
people want to believe in their candidates, and ... fostering an ongoing conversation over the web is a far more reliable way to get them to believe than stumping around the country, hoping that the network news portrays those stump speeches favorably.
The Internet does provide a low-overhead way to collect money. But, far more importantly, it provides a feedback loop to potential voters that fulfills far more of voters' need to know that the candidates are listening.
Yes. Listening and responding. For quite some time now the disconnect between pols and candidates has been growing and has been limited to focus groups and polls, both of which can be and are manipulated. (on the dem side see Stan Greenberg) The 'net, the blogosphere and the evolving Dean model provide something like a continual, ongoing townhall meeting on an enormous scale. I think one of the reasons the other candidates haven't taken advantage of it is because they don't wish to lose control of their message or campaign.
I think the dialogue aspect will prove more important than the fundraising prospects, however closely intertwined these two facets are.
That said, I am interested to know why Billmon thinks Dean isn't electable and hope he will post on this soon.
Gonna wade in here with one quick comment:
The man to beat in 2004 is not going to be W. He wasn't, after all, the man that got elected in 2000, but that's water long gone-
The man to beat in 2004 is Rupert Murdoch. Fox News has such a grip on public consciousness right now that you're going to see a lot of those democrat-in-a-tank photos, if someone makes any of those sorts of mistakes.
Well, Dukakis wasn't slammed over the tank, inevitably. He was slammed becasue every five seconds Bush-the-elder was seen saying the Pledge of Allegience (The Dems want to burn our flag!), in front of Boston Harbor (Can you trust Dukakis to really fight for the sake of the environment?) and shoving Willie Horton down our throats (Will the Dems protect us from repeat violent offenders of color, which seem to be _everywhere_ at the moment?). It also didn't help that Dukakis had a group of folks in his home state, aided by publicity from the Boston Globe, that hammered him repeatedly for not being liberal enough.
While I must admit to a lot of concern regarding Defense for Dean, this will hammer a lot of reporters into not being so willing to print easy-access lies and screeds. (I also hope Steven Soto's Truth Squad work (www.theleftcoaster.com)will provide a counterpoint to the same, so it's not just a bunch of folks on both sides screaming at the press for being quislings - gotta feed the beast, not just hit it when it does bad.)
I suspect that the same folks that hated Dukakis in his home state are geared up for doing the same to Kerry. Dean will face some of the same from those to his left in Vermont. (I also expect that his policy towards native americans in Vermont will be used against him somehow, though given the Repugs attitudes on this front, it would be truly cynical campaigning.) Gephardt - well, it's Missouri - what more can I say - probably the most divided state in the Union since 1855.
It's been interesting to watch things from this vantage point, but again and again, what I get from committed folks around here is how many like Kerry's policies more, but at a visceral level, they respond more strongly to the Dean campaign.
Bottom line for me, though, is who can take the onslaught of bad press, who can attract the minorities and the "bright collars" equally well, and who can come up with valid policy and "simple but effective" memes that people can react to immediately and believe in?
Speaking of which, does anybody know of anything regarding how well or badly the Dem candidates were responded to at the recent NAACP meeting?
I agree with the comments a few said previously that the success of Dean's model has little to do with the technology (which all the candidates have access to and many are using) but with the campaign's open channel communication with its supporters. The Dean campaign is the first I can remember in my lifetime that actually seems to listen to the opinions of its supporters AND ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTS SOME OF ITS IDEAS!
This feedback is incredibly empowering to the volunteers who work to get the message out. The enthusiasm of the volunteers also inspires the people who work directly on the campaign to do even better. It's a mutual appreciation society that creates a powerful feedback loop.
It is that feedback loop that produces the incredible fundraising numbers that Dean has posted. Those who look on this from the outside and think it has anything to do with the technology are completely missing the point.
This may be a little off topic but a) it's a great picture (of the chimp) and b) there has to be a way for the progressive Dem's to collaborate with the true conservatives. Hope this link works.
And kudos to the billmon for this great forum that helps restore the rest of the world's faith in the "other" America -- notwithstanding that billmon is really a Canuck wannabe :).
Those who look on this from the outside and think it has anything to do with the technology are completely missing the point.
As always it is about the technology, but it's also about the ways people figure out to use the technology -- ways that often have little or nothing to do with the original purpose of the technology.
In other words, it's about innovation.
Did Al Gore really slap on a ton of orange pancake makeup? Or is that just urban legend, like so many of the other lies that were told about him?
Or is GW Bush the one who slapped on a ton of make up and this is classic Republican projection?
Never forget, Al Gore won in 2000. The election was stolen.
Mondale, Dukakis, Muskie, Gore.
I swear I didn't peak at anyone else's answers.
And remember how "unelectable" a candidate Reagan was in 1976, compared to Jerry Ford?
BTW, I don't think it was ever established that Muskie shed tears that day. The weather was lousy, wet snow was falling, and he wasn't wearing a hat or using an umbrella. He got so upset that his voice broke and he stopped speaking. Some moisture was rolling down his face, whether tears or melted snow no one ever really knew. What is not debatable is that it was an stupid thing for him to have done, and he lost control of his emotions. Since his public image had been one of imperturbable calm, this incident did him a lot of damage.
As to Dukakis, he looked like a jerk. I remember seeing this incident the day it happened and wincing, thinking "there goes about a million votes every time they show this." Now that Boy George has done something similar, I think we can agree that Presidents done up in military drag is a horrible idea. They look like little boys trying to pay war.
I thought you wanted to name the tricks:
A) The Mondale Mamba
B) Pulling a GWPR
C) Tears of Pain. It worked for Jim Baker(Tammy Fae's Hubby), it can work for you.
D) The Red Buttons
"What does interest me – fascinate me, really – is whether Dean’s campaign has invented a fundraising model that will finally allow Democratic candidates, or at least, Democratic presidential candidates, to cope with the GOP’s money advantage."
In a word, Yes. Just this weekend the Dean campaign is running sort of a on-line challenge grant fundraiser. Can his supporters raise more than the $250,000 Cheney is expected to raise in S. Carolina on Monday? The total as of Sunday noon Eastern was $204,469.20 with 3752 individual donors, for an average of $54.50.
Couple of points here. First nearly 4,000 individual donors is huge. I suspect most campaigns would like this many over the course of the whole fundraising season.
Second, $200,000 (and counting) is not chump change, and all it has cost to date is a couple of staffers sitting at a terminal typing "Go Team, Go". Contrast this to the effort most candidates would have to put out to obtain 200 $1000 dollar individual contributions.
Third, only contributions up to $150 are matchable by federal funds. A huge percentage of Dean's dollars fall in this category. Just about every dollar contributed in this weekend's campaign is leveraged in this way.
Fourth, most of these people are not tapped out. You hit a guy for $2000 and he's done. Maybe these folks can't kick in $50 every month, but now they know how to give and every periodic $20, $50 or $100 contribution they can make over the next year adds up, and with effectively zero fundraising costs.
Bush is planning on raising $200,000,000 dollars. A HUGE, UNPRECEDENTED amount of money. To counter this a Democratic candidate would need 2,000,000 contributers kicking in $8.50/month for a year. And putting it that way my response is "What is so hard about that?"
Dean has established an easy, cheap way to accumulate small contributions into huge sums while allowing contributers to interact directly with the campaign via the blog. And all without having to spend hours with his cell phone and his Blackberry going over his contact list wondering "Who am I going to beg for money today".
Spot on, Bruce. Thanks for filling in the details.
Just wanted to second the point raised earlier about Murdoch. His media outlets have a mesmeric control over a large part of the country (especially white men). The Democratic strategy must have a way of dealing with Murdoch's mouthpieces. Systematically point out the bias, make them look deceptive and unreliable as often as possible, show how it is part of a plan to influence the American people to vote Republican. Not just conservative, but Republican. How else can Murdoch pull in favors with the FCC chair to be allowed to own even more stations than he already does?
For Murdoch, profits and propaganda are in symbiosis.
Tattaglia's a pimp, Billmon. He never could have outfought Santino.
Now Barzini, he's the dangerous one...
My research into Dean's record answered some of my questions. As far as his ability to get his agenda passed, Dean's record surpasses almost every other Democratic governor run for President in my memory. Is he too liberal? Maybe, since it appears that balancing the budget has become part of the vast left wing agenda . . . .
Anyway, signed up for the August 6 meetup . . .
I don't see why people question Dean's electability. The misadventure in Iraq, when it really turns ugly, will bolster respect for a man who had the courage to call it as he saw it when others thought they had to play ball with Bush to preserve their viability in 2004. It will also erode or destroy Bush's standing as a National Security president. Dean does not have to say he will raise taxes; all he has to do is say he will forgo future upper bracket cuts. I have the impression that war and foreign conflict often give way to a desire for progressive policies at home; Dean might be regarded as the right man at the right time.
Great post, great comments thread. But I wonder if I was the only one who thought this quote from the WaPo article in the posting was particularly noteworthy:
"...The GOP can solicit a greater number of $2,000 donations as a result of wide support in a corporate community eager to repay the Bush administration for its pro-business policies. ..."
How the *&^%ing hell does the economy-crashing Bush administration still get credit for being pro-business? Shouldn't the business community have noticed by now that this whole revenue slump/shrinking customer base problem is getting worse the longer these people are in office?
"How the *&^%ing hell does the economy-crashing Bush administration still get credit for being pro-business?"
Because, Natasha, BushCo. keeps giving the businesses in question whatever it asks for. The end result is defacto control over our govt.
Why should they worry about the American economy, when they are 'global'?
Natasha it is simple. Just substitute the words "corporate executives" for "business community" and it all makes sense. Executive compensation has been entirely delinked from the business cycle. Your business is a huge success? Here is your bonus. You put your business into bankruptcy? Well we have to continue your compensation and then supplement it so you won't jump ship in our time of need. If you make $200,000 at least $130,000 is taxed at the top rate (more I think, help me out here). Dropping the top rate by 3 points means a $4000 savings on that portion of your taxes alone.
For these guys every day is like the bumper sticker back when Bell had a near-monopoly over phones "Ma Bell, We Don't Care, We Don't Have To".
(And yes kids there was a time when it was illegal to own your own phone, you leased an ugly black rotary phone and liked it).
I'm another who believes Dean is eminently electable. A recent national poll (Zogby?) showed Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards faring equally well (or okay, anyway) against Bush, with Dean's numbers lagging slightly. I think it's fair to suggest that Dean's lower numbers are attributable to the fact that he is still less known to much of the country than these others. At the same time, he is clearly exciting people in ways these other candidates can only dream of, and with Trippi's intentions of changing the ways presidential campaigns operate, I think we're going to see more innovations that will continue to create interest, and subsequently, commitment. For instance, I've been predicting for a while that the Dean campaign will lead an unprecedented series of voter-registration drives on college campuses, helping Dean win favor among one of the least politically active age groups. If his efforts can encourage significant new numbers of Americans to vote in 2004, they will at the least offset Republican dirty tricks.
I have one question about the Dean Campaign strategy. They have 60,000 meetup-ers, and 200,000 on their mailing list. Will this mechanism scale to 2,000,000 donors, the current goal? Already the dean weblog is swamped with responses, most of them quite repetitive. The dean forums is an attempt to fix this: multiple threads, divided roughly into interest groups.
But I am curious to know what they are planning to do about the scalability issue. A weblog is an excellent forum for an internet "town." I don't know if the model scales up to a "city" or a "nation."
-- P Mac
I think the most important thing the Democrats must do is make liberalism respectable again. If that means running a loony leftist who gets crushed a la Goldwater in 1964, fine.
I don't think Bush is beatable anyway. I don't think it is necessarily desirable to win the 2004 election. I don't think the Iraqi quagmire will be any more fun for the Democrats than it is for the Republicans. I think the economy is going to tank even further no matter who is in charge or what policies are followed.
If the Democrats do win with a moderate like Dean, his "liberal" policies will be shown to be a failure by the SCLM, and we'll be looking at Jeb Bush or somebody just as odious in 2008.
I realize there is a risk to this strategy. Can the American democracy stand another four years of Bush? Can the Murdoch media convince Americans that the chocolate ration is going up even if the economy tanks? I'm hoping the answer is "Yes" to the first question and "No" to the second.
In 2008 - the more important election in my view - a centrist will be seen as a centrist if somebody is prepared to lose as a real liberal in 2004. A real liberal might do surprisingly well, too.
But I am curious to know what they are planning to do about the scalability issue. A weblog is an excellent forum for an internet "town." I don't know if the model scales up to a "city" or a "nation."
I think this is a good question, P Mac, especially since HD himself has, apparently, given favorable consideration to the idea of a White House blog. It's possible that Dean for America will have to permanently turn off comments on threads and try to move the discussion to an alternate site at some point. I think they'd probably rather not do this.
But can you imagine the traffic over on that site in, say, the summer of `04 if Dean is the nominee? Considering that (until they recently changed things) the White House gets 15,000 e-mails a day, it could be enormous.
maybe the behemouth is so bulky that we should let it blossom into more and more daisy cluster cutter adventures, remember george custer, george the lesser for now. james baker will make tings right. any demo is okay instead of the smirking chimp.
The Dems better win in 2004; there may be nothing left of the American democrcy in 2008 if GWB is allowed another four years to practice his political, economic, environmental and spiritual mayhem.
The Dems better win in 2004; there may be nothing left of the American democracy in 2008 if GWB is allowed another four years to practice his political, economic, environmental and spiritual mayhem.
I hear you and you could be right. But do you think a Democrat can fix the mess? Do you think that the same forces that went after Clinton won't go after Dean? Will he be forced to raise taxes and cut services? Will he be able to make it work in Iraq?
The Democrat would be lying in the bed Bush made, but don't you think the SCLM will blame him for the stink? The next President has to do well or we will get a different re-incarnation of George Bush with the left even further discredited.
The first order of business is to make the left a credible alternative anyway. I think the best chance for American democracy is to make sure that the hard right pays politically for their mistakes.
I'm impressed by Dean's ability to raise money - and by Dean himself, truth be told - but I don't think it will really matter, even for a model of the future.
Bruce Webb's post gave me pause until I started to really think about this: "Bush is planning on raising $200,000,000 dollars. A HUGE, UNPRECEDENTED amount of money. To counter this a Democratic candidate would need 2,000,000 contributers kicking in $8.50/month for a year. And putting it that way my response is "What is so hard about that?"
It isn't that hard, I agree. The problem is that would only mean that a George Bush would have to go out and raise $400 million. No problem if it means staying in power. Politicians are bought with petty cash, not important money. The return on the investment is awesome. If the investment has to be higher, well, what is so hard about that?
I admire Dean's spunk and innovative answer, but the only real solution is campaign financing reform.
I will also back the Rupert Murdoch is the enemy comment.
My job involves going into residences and it amazes my how many people are watching either Fox news or the local Fox affiliate. I don't know the political affiliation of these folks but I'm willing to bet a lot of them are Democrats. People for whatever reason like Fox's flashy trashy method of delivering the news. I personally find Foxs hosts to have way too much make-up on. With the exception of the higher rated shows Fox hosts tend to wear Kmart clothes.
Re Muskie's tears in 1972 -- Anyone remember the LSD in Muskie's coffee story? Is that an urban legend?
As a Dean supporter whose politics lean left (well, I used to be a centrist growing up in Europe, now the same political outlook makes me an "extremist" here...), I think the idea that Dean is a "loony lefist" even by American standards is hilarious. He's a progressive moderate -- he's been called a Rockefeller Republican, and that might not be too far off the mark. Those looking for said leftist loon need look no further than Dennis Kucinich, who really does do his best to hammer every single point of the Left-wing wish-list as hard as possible. And yet Dean has my whole-hearted support because I like his style, believe he has what it takes to be a great President and like the direction he wants to take this country in.
I also believe Dean is highly electable, otherwise I would not support him. This has been Bush's election for the losing, and, obligingly enough, that's exactly what he's started doing. Popular president, you say? Less and less so, considerably less so than his father at around the same in the election cycle in his term. Rove's a smart dirty player, of course, but Trippi is every bit as smart, and plays an anti-Rove to Dean's anti-Bush.
In terms of money, the advantage is to Bush and must be. The GOP will certainly catch on to the idea of grassroots fundraising via 'Net, although it is going to be an interesting contest. So far Dean has more donors than any other Democrat and is not too far behind Bush, and of course, those donors can, for the most part, keep giving and giving. We shall see how wisely both groups spend that cash.
As for media? Well, the GOP will always have Fox, and history has shown that Murdoch is the toughest of political opponents. But the SCLM have started to turn on Bush, no longer giving him so many passes -- if real blood is in the water, they'll go for it. If Blair suffers an internal coup (very do-able for the Labor party, just as Conservative visionary Maggie Thatcher was replaced by her part back in 1991), the shock waves will be felt back here, even in our insular political world.
Of course, Dean (or any other Democrat) could win and find himself a lame duck. So much depends on what happens over the next 18 months that depends on three major factors: the economy, the war and the corruption. A White House exposed as truly Nixonian could create a coat-tails effect, which could help restore Democratic control much more swiftly than anyone has been predicting.
Ultimately, although I'm much more optimistic about success, I like Billmon's "Braveheart" analogy a lot. Dean has helped mobilize the liberal and Democratic grassroots in a way that directly effects electoral politics in a way unheard of for three decades. Whether or not he wins the nomination and whether or not he wins the election (and I believe he will do both), the "Dean effect" will be with us for a long time.
First, to answer your four questions:
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
Dean is not like Mondale, or Dukakis, or Muskie, or Gore. Why can't people just take him for who he is?
Second, we bloggers may be driving the fundraising for Dean right now, but we don't live in a vacuum. I know lots of people who aren't bloggers, but who are becoming politically active in ways that they haven't before. They may not have contributed ... yet. They may never contribute. But they will vote, and assuming we don't have another scandal like Florida 2000, and assuming Dean continues to motivate people like he has been (and there's no reason to think he won't) he stands a good chance of beating Bush in 2004, or at least as good a chance as any other Dem who is running.
P.S. In response to Cheney's $2000-a-plate luncheon scheduled for Monday, 7/28, Dean has already raised that much money, over the web, in the past 48 hours.
Forgot to mention that Cheney's goal, which Dean has already reached is $250,000.
Re Muskie's tears in 1972 -- Anyone remember the LSD in Muskie's coffee story? Is that an urban legend?
Don't know about LSD, but I do remember when Hunter S. Thompson spread the rumor that Muskie was taking some kind of exotic South American drug called "Ibogaine" (fictional, as far as I know).
At the time, Thompson was covering the '72 campaign for Rolling Stone (and what an insane, inspired idea that was). His pieces were later collected in a book: Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. Here's the Ibogaine story:
Not much has been written about The Ibogaine Effect as a serious factor in the Presidential Campaign, but toward the end of the Wisconsin primary race - about a week before the vote - word leaked out that some of Muskie's top advisors had called in a Brazilian doctor who was said to be treating the candidate with "some kind of strange drug" that nobody in the press corps had ever heard of.
It had ... long been whispered that Muskie was into something very heavy, but it was hard to take the talk seriously until I heard about the appearance of a mysterious Brazilian doctor. That was the key. I immediately recognized The Ibogaine Effect - from Muskie's tearful breakdown on the flatbed truck in New Hampshire, to the delusions and altered thinking that characterized his campaign in Florida, and finally the condition of "total rage" that gripped him in Wisconsin.
There was no doubt about it: The Man from Maine had turned to massive doses of Ibogaine as a last resort ... It was noted, among other things that he had developed a tendency to roll his eyes wildly during TV interviews, that his thought patterns had become strangely fragmented and that not even his closest advisors could predict when he might suddenly spiral off into babbling rages, or neo-comatose funks.
In restrospect, however, it is easy to see why Muskie fell apart on that caboose platform in the Miami train station. There he was - far gone in a bad Ibogaine frenzy - suddenly shoved out in a rainstorm to face a sullen crowd and some kind of snarling lunatic going for his legs while he tried to explain why he was the only Democrat who can beat Nixon.
It is entirely conceivable - given the known effects of Ibogaine - that Muskie's brain was almost paralyzed by hallucinations at the time; that he looked out at that crowd and saw gila monsters instead of people, and that his mind snapped completely when he felt something large and apparently vicious clawing at his legs.
We can only speculate on this, because those in a position to know have flatly refused to comment on rumors concerning the Senator's disastrous experiments with Ibogaine. I tried to find the Brazilian doctor on election night in Milwaukee, but by the time the polls closed he was long gone. One of the hired bimbos in Milwaukee's Holiday Inn headquarters said a man with fresh welts on his head had been dragged out the side door and put on a bus to Chicago, but we were never able to confirm this.
Funny, yes? Problem is, the "straight" press (which in those days meant something entirely different than it does now) didn't realize Thompson was kidding. So a couple of mainstream papers picked up the story, and then the wires, and pretty soon the Muskie campaign, which was already disintegrating by that point, actually had to get up and deny that their candidate was a slobbering addict.
Which isn't a claim that every recent presidential candidate (or President) can honestly make, if you know what I mean.
Tom, It isn't a question of Repug opposition, that is a natural. The issue is whether the American Democracy is able to survive the sheer mendaciousness of the neocons and the unholy drive for profits of their Big Business supporters. Frankly, I think a progressive program emphasizing tax fairness, environmental protection, national health insurance, repair of our crumbling infrastructure, political financing reform. safeguarding of workers' rights will not only carry the day but ensure Democratic victories far into the future, on both national and state levels. I think the key should be ending special privileges for the well-born and well-to-do.
As for Iraq, I would put that problem right where it belongs, in the hands of the UN. Maybe, it can do, what nobody else has been able to do in that forlorn country for the past eighty years; develop a viable and peaceful nation run by reasonably effective and benign leaders.
All I know is that the people who are worried about 1972 still need to explain themselves about 2002.
What makes Dean unelectable? The most plausible explanation is that he is simply riding the anti-war sentiment of the "extreme left." However, this explanation really doesn't hold water. First, let's imagine there never had been a war in Iraq. How many Dean supporters would still be supporting him? I would guess that nearly all would still be pulling for Dean. His non-war message remains very compelling.
So the question is, once you separate out the 35-40% of the voters who are going to vote for Bush no matter what, how many people are going to refuse to vote for Dean because he was skeptical of the need for war? I don't think that that is a significant number. Particularly in light of the absence of WMD and any Al Qaeda-Iraq connection.
Not only has Dean shown that a new fundraising model - something that I agree is fascinating. But even more importantly he may be showing that Democrats can raise money without compromising their views. Or more accurately, raise money by responding to the interests of the majority of their constituents, as opposed to the interests of their wealthiest donors.
Billmon, amazing piece. But all I am saying is, give Dean a chance! -- or I'm going to stop quoting you once a week on other blogs.
Na, forget that last bit, that was a damn lie.
But seriously...seriously brilliant stuff, man oh man. You are hillarious and can perform numerical analysis that is interesting to read. I hate you. I am not worthy. More!
Bush Takes a Brief Break From Relaxing to Rake in $7 million
Bush has an unlimited amount of money to spread the truth about the two wars:
"Fifty million people in those two countries [Afghanistan and Iraq] once lived under tyranny. Today, they live in freedom."
And of course the truth about the economy:
"Two and a half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession, and then the attacks on our country, and scandals in corporate America, and war affected the people's confidence. But we acted. We passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account. And to get the economy going again, we have twice led the United States Congress to pass historic tax relief for the American people."
Anybody who disagrees on the war is declared unpatriotic and soft on terror. Anybody who disagrees on the economy is engaging in class warfare. Anybody the Democrats nominate is going to be defined as a loony leftist.
Repeat it all again and again until the $200 million is gone.
How do you beat that? I don't think you can.
I think the best way to lose is with a guy like Kucinich. "Extremism is pursuit of peace and security is not vice. Extremism in pursuit of full employment and a fair shake for the working man is no vice. Extremism in pursuit of the Wall Street crime that emptied the pension funds is not class warfare. A fair tax system is not class warfare either. Extremism in pursuit of health care for everyone is no vice. I'm proud to be a liberal. Conservatism - compassionate or not - is selfishness, plain and simple."
He'd get pasted, but the message would get out. Bush can sell himself as a moderate and he can paint Dean as a loony leftist because the political spectrum in the US has been narrowed so much. If you are going to lose, run someone from the hard left. Broaden the political spectrum.
I think a Bush victory in 2004 will be very bad, but no matter who wins in 2004, the Democrats had better win in 2008. If not, I wonder if they will ever win.
If those who are rallying right now to support Howard Dean (or some other successful Democratic candidate with the Dean machine behind them) brush their hands off on November 3, 2004 after a Democratic victory, then of course we will see a failed presidency....
But, somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.
"We" of the knowledge tier (writ larger every day) are getting used to the idea that politics is part of our lives, whether it means support in small dollars, organizing locally, writing letters, calling representatives, etc.
We will expect the feedback loop, the responsiveness to concerns, the organizing for causes to continue....and we will be there to work with our Representatives, Senators and President.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems more a lifestyle change, similar to the action sports movement (snowboarding, X Games, etc.) There may be a relative plateau, but the overall movement doesn't stop...
B is Dukakis, D looks like Gore to me.
For Tom Benjamin
"It isn't that hard, I agree. The problem is that would only mean that a George Bush would have to go out and raise $400 million."
Sure to a point. But $400,000,000 at $2,000 a pop equals 200,000 donors. And people who give $2k expect time, attention, and favors. Five minutes per $2k donor to raise $400M means 1,000,000 minutes, or 16+ thousand hours, or 694 days. 24/7. And I suspect it takes more than five minutes on average to get some one to open his wallet that wide.
Cheney is organizing his whole schedule around a $250,000 fundraiser in South Carolina on Monday. To raise $400,000,000 at that rate would require 1600 days of such highly touted events.
But 10% of the American population kicking in $100 over a one year period would mean $28 billion dollars. How do you think we afford those aircraft carriers?
Math (and Visa/Mastercard) are your friends.
Me, me, me.
That is (ahem) I take full blame for my posts.
"Math (and Visa/Mastercard) are your friends."
Billmon,
Excellent observations, all. I would actually add one thing, and that is that Dean has engaged the blogosphere and is aiding its transition to a tool of politics and governance apart from fundraising.
Still, I too share doubts about Dean, though mine aren't so much about electability (anyone could win if the economy keeps going badly, anyone could lose if it turns up) but about what a bad and divisive President he'll be in the wake of one of the worst Presidents we've ever had.
Then again, I'm a Clark man.
Well I suppose it was inevitable that a Braveheart nerd would check in eventually, and here I am.
Just for the record, the real Robert Bruce was not as despicable as the one portrayed in the movie. I fact, a type of narrating device was used in the film whereby many of Wallace's allies were turned into his enemies and vice versa. This was done to spare the feelings of those whose ancestors took part in the events and might have had their names dishonored by an unfavorable film portrayal. In other words, Robert Bruce was portrayed as a villain precisely because he wasn't a villain in real life. All the sins of the aristocrats were rolled up and blamed on Robert Bruce, so to speak.
In fact, there is no evidence to show that Bruce turned Wallace in to the English, nor was he present on the English side at the battle of Falkirk. While careful about his allegiances and concerned with conserving his family's wealth and property, he never crossed up Wallace in any way. On the other hand, his brother Edward's invasion of Ireland was a disaster. But that wasn't Robert's fault.
In case you haven't guessed, I am a Dean supporter, and I find your reasoning here to be quite accurate. I am also suffering from recent revelations about Mel Gibson's politics, since I always just assumed he was a liberal given the kind of movies he appeared in over the years - Peter Weir vehicles like Gallipoli and The Year of Living Dangerously, for example. He even made Air America back in the early nineties, which was quite critical of America's role in Vietnam. And I mean, at least We Were Soldiers had Sam Shepard in it, and offered a graphic and unflinching view of the war. I didn't think it was so bad.
Who knew that Mel Gibson was a devotee of Dr. Laura and Matt Drudge in real life? All I ever knew was that he was supposedly "very religious."
Whatever - an Irishman like myself doesn't need Mel Gibson's permission to deploy symbols and images from the Celtic past in the way he finds most meaningful. And at the moment, Billmon's interpretation is preferred.
"In the year of our lord 2004, patriots of Vermont, starving and outnumbered, charged the field at Burlington. They fought like warrior poets, they fought like Yankees, and won their freedom."
Come on, Billmon. The Terrible Sighing Gore was entirely a media creation - you should know that by now. Check out Daily Howler - they did some great articles on this particular subject.
It seems like the real reason McGovern was unelectable was that for whatever reasons one 'wing' of. the national party hiearchy was against his candidacy, or so I gather from people more knowledgable than myself. Obviously, thats politics and you can argue whether it was justified or not.
But... I think it says more about the party in general than McGovern as a political candidate of that party.
The real reason the Dean = unelectable meme keeps on getting repeated, and I think Billmon alluded to this, is that a large wing of the party hiearchy, namely the DLC and those associated, are ready to spite themselves and the party if he becomes nominee Dean.
So, Dean is McGovern in that respect. I think the discussion shouldn't be about Dean, but about the party and whether it can stick together for its own benefit...
Geez, and I carefully checked every computation but the last one. 28 million Americans (10%) times $100 equals $2.8 billion not $28 B. Still a lot of nickels.
Come on, Billmon. The Terrible Sighing Gore was entirely a media creation.
Then I guess the media must have fooled me into remember those strange sighs I kept hearing in the background whenever Bush was speaking. And it must have fooled me into thinking I saw Al's massive shoulders shake on the split screen every time he let one of those sighs rip. So I guess the Matrix already exists. Who knew?
Well I suppose it was inevitable that a Braveheart nerd would check in eventually, and here I am.
Well, I'm not a Braveheart nerd, but I'm also smarter enough not to take my history from a Mel Gibson movie. My main source on the Bruce (Robert, I mean, not Springsteen) was the one volume Oxford History of Britain.
It paints Bruce as a cunning, duplicious warrior who was perfectly willing to make deals with the English when it suited his short-term strategic interests. He may not have betrayed Wallace (although some of his favorite nobles did) but the Bruce described in the Oxford History of Britain wouldn't have hesitated to do so if he thought it would be to the advantage of his crown or his kingdom.
A true New Democrat, in other words.
I didn't mean to suggest that you were not in possession of the historical facts - nothing you said would have led to this conclusion. I was only pointing out for the sake of your readers that the film takes liberties with the historical facts - the real battle of Stirling was fought over a bridge, for example.
Of course, Dean isn't as tall as either Wallace or the Bruce. It's hard to say how far he could throw a hammer, for example. But I think we can overcome the height deficit if we only show him on horseback from now until the election. Maybe the rest of his staff can ride ponies or something, I don't know.
if we only show him on horseback from now until the election
no no. he should be riding tall on an ATV. Remember this is NASCAR politics.
off thread, but I really liked Conan Dean Carey's post and had a similar disappointment about Gibson - wasn't a big Braveheart fan, but have a "genetic" love of watching the English aristocracy get beaten by noble Celts (Scots and Irish). A few years ago some people referred me to "The Vermont Papers", a book on democracy that cited early Vermont patriots - that's a nice image for those of us taking on the challenge to win our freedom from the neocons!
Bruce-
Dean can't raise $200 million: He's agreed to campaign finance limits, which limit the amount he can spend to (I think) under $100 million dollars.
On the other side, if you have people giving just $100 apiece, you can consider the total amount doubled.
Now that a Braveheart nerd has called a technicality, the botany nerd will make an appearance.
Ibogaine is from Africa, specifically Gabon, not S. America. It's a serious, heavier than LSD, walls moving, colors changing, 1-2 day long trip hallucinogen. And it may cure narcotic addicition. When it's in your system, you're higher than a kite, and then you're off. It would be highly unlikely that anyone could engage in normal life while taking the stuff, let alone campaign.
Anyone who'd done even a cursory amount of research would have seen that Thompson was definitely Putting Them On.
Ibogaine is from Africa, specifically Gabon, not S. America. It's a serious, heavier than LSD, walls moving, colors changing, 1-2 day long trip hallucinogen.
Son of a gun -- the stuff really exists! Sounds pretty good, too. And all these years I thought Thompson just made it up.
I shoulda known the good Doctor wouldn't fib about something as serious as a hallucinogenic drug. But it does make me wonder about this bit in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where he takes the drug made from fresh human adrenal glands ...
Adrenochrome, too, exists. And these people make it. But it doesn't really do what he said it did.
Ah, well, someone got to Muskie-on-drugs before me. In consolation I offer a short but popular poetic piece of history.
Ed Muskie is the Man from Maine,
He's tripping nuts on Ibogaine.
Matt W. I'll concede your specific point about the $200 million, but this just means cutting the average donation down to $4/month, or lowering your donor base to 1,000,000. The bigger point is that campaign financing can be separated from whoring for $1000 & $2000 checks.
Cue Lennon music: "Imagine a campaign where the candidate doesn't spend most of his day begging rich people for money, or altering his platform so that it doesn't alienate the rich people he needs to get elected."
Somewhere Paul Wellstone is smiling.
$100 mill limit + federal donation = @ 150 mill with 50% under $250 ?
"$100 mill limit + federal donation = @ 150 mill with 50% under $250 ?
Posted by dave from ireland"
The fact that Dave can even pose that question shows that 99.9% of us on our side of the pond don't know what the hell we are talking about. Most definitely including me.
As Matt W pointed out, a candidate for public election as President can only raise so much money and still qualify for matching public funds which are raised on a check off box on our Federal Income Tax forms of up to $3 dollars per taxpayer with a limiting cap on those matching funds at $125 per contributer. And it gets a little more complicated from there. Hope that cleared it up for Dave. Slainte.
Dave, I composed and scrapped two convuluted posts which failed to make the fundamental point. ( Which you nailed, with malice aforethought, for which I thank you).
This is a totally and unnessarily complicated system, and we can do better. And maybe the inherently broad-based nature of the internet can make it better.
building a web army that can really make a difference ...
a)Carter's VP whose names escapes me at the moment. That guy who ran in Wellstone's place.
b)Mike Dukakis
c) & d) ?
Tapped and TNR's view does not suprise me. I think at times they are DLC moles or are so disconnected from the average pissed off Democratic voter they don't get Dean's popularity.
The term Limosine Liberal maybe applicable here.
Another thing that I think enrages these elitists is that Dean is playing the populist(big tent) card. Instead of selling his/her soul to corporate masters as certain other contenders and senators have done, Dean is taking another route by appealing to mainstream Democrat.
He also has guts. Something most of the other candidates lack. He'll need it to survive the shrubco attack machine.
I remember when Gore considered going the populist route and was rebuked by many in the party. Liberman was totally against it.
BTW Dean is not a hard core liberal - he comes across more as centrist. I say this as a ex-republican of 19 years. In many respects he comes off as a moderate Republican of old. Not these neo-fascists that populate the party today.
I just wish these party hacks would stop engaging in self-inflicted injuries to the Democratic Party. Its childish and does nothing to help the party succeed.
The Democrats must adopt the republican 11th commandment 'Thou shall not attack another democrat' if they want to win in 04.