How can the Democrats start winning?

GRR Spartan wrote:More bullshit from Comrade Goosechev who regularly parrots every thing he reads on Drudge or sees on FoxNews.

Obama kicked ass with small donations as did challenger Sanders.

Despite attracting millions of new contributors to his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama received about the same percentage of his total political funds from small donors as President Bush did in 2004, according to a study released today by the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute.

The analysis undercuts Obama's claim that his supporters "changed the way campaigns are funded" by reducing the influence of special-interest givers.

"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said Michael Malbin, the institute's executive director. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

Cameron wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:So anyway, as far as who gives big donations who give s little donations... here's a couple of screen shots. Both from fec.gov. I can give you links but fuck do you not trust me? Dick. Anyway.

Here's quist-



Here's body slammer



So, what I was getting at is that if anything democrats need more of those "I'm gonna spend all my rich guy money in Montana to buy a seat then throw some money somewhere else" and have plenty of "I want to help! Here's $20!" Already. That's what I was getting at earlier. I had a softball game to go to though. We lost.

That's rather eye-opening. Not at all what I presumed. I think presidential candidates still rely on large donations more than small ones, but maybe I'm wrong about that too. Regardless, your point is well taken.

Cameron wrote:Now you're just showing off.

GRR Spartan wrote:Democrats suffer with off year elections and the GOP has done a masterful job of getting the governor races moved to the off year schedule.

Democrats also have to do a better job of getting people registered to vote and making sure those registered don't get taken off voter rolls if their state's Sec of State run a multi state cross over eliminating duplicate names.

It's not like Trump blew out Clinton in key states. Had the Democrats replicated the '08 or '12 urban turnout it would be President Clinton.

Based on current Congressional and state districts it's nearly impossible for Democrats to win majorities in many state legislatures.

But Sanders spoke to the Democratic Party of 2016, not the Democratic Party of the Great Depression.

In days past, a proposal to slam the rich to reward the working and middle classes meant hitting Republicans to benefit Democrats.

Even as recently as 1976, according to data from American National Election Studies, the most affluent voters, the top 5 percent, were solidly in the Republican camp, 77-23. Those in the bottom third of the income distribution were solidly Democratic, 64-36.

In other words, 41 years ago, the year Jimmy Carter won the presidency, the Sanders proposal would have made political sense.

But what about now?

In the 2016 election, the economic elite was essentially half Democratic, according to exit polls: Those in the top 10 percent of the income distribution voted 47 percent for Clinton and 46 percent for Trump. Half the voters Sanders would hit hardest are members of the party from which he sought the nomination.

The problem for the Democratic Party is that “them” has become “us.”

In the past, Democrats could support progressive, redistributive policies knowing that the costs would fall largely on Republicans. That is no longer the case. Now supporting these policies requires the party to depend on the altruistic idealism of millions of supporters who, despite being relatively well off, often feel financially pressed themselves.

Reeves himself points to the Democratic uproar when President Obama proposed a relatively modest change in a tax-based mechanism to help pay college costs. The change in what are called 529 College Savings Plans was designed to make the program more advantageous to people with moderate incomes and less so for those with high incomes. An estimated 70 percent of the tax benefits of 529 plans currently go to families with incomes above $200,000.

The moment Obama suggested the reform, prominent Democrats from both the House and Senate were inundated with angry complaints from affluent constituents. They pressured Obama to drop the proposal. In less than a week, he did.

“The idea was sensible, simple, and progressive,” Reeves writes. “The episode was a brutal reminder that sensible policy is not always easy politics.” Reeves noted that two of the leading Democratic opponents of the 529 reform, Nancy Pelosi and Chris Van Hollen, who was elected Maryland’s junior senator in November but was a congressman when Obama proposed it, represented districts where “almost half their constituents are in households with six-figure incomes.”

Only a tiny fraction of Americans actually give campaign contributions to political candidates, parties or PACs. The ones who give contributions large enough to be itemized (over $200) is even smaller. The impact of those donations, however, is huge.

In the 2014 elections, 31,976 donors — equal to roughly one percent of one percent of the total population of the United States — accounted for an astounding $1.18 billion in disclosed political contributions at the federal level. Those big givers — what we have termed the Political One Percent of the One Percent — have a massively outsized impact on federal campaigns.

They’re mostly male, tend to be city-dwellers and often work in finance. Slightly more of them skew Republican than Democratic. A small subset — barely five dozen — earned the (even more) rarefied distinction of giving more than $1 million each. And a minute cluster of three individuals contributed more than $10 million apiece.

The last election cycle set records as the most expensive midterms in U.S. history, and the country’s most prolific donors accounted for a larger portion of the total amount raised than in either of the past two elections.

The $1.18 billion they contributed represents 29 percent of all fundraising that political committees disclosed to the Federal Election Commission in 2014. That’s a greater share of the total than in 2012 (25 percent) or in 2010 (21 percent).

LooseGoose wrote:Strange to have those FEC numbers so different from Open Secrets.   But no link and no way to check them.
Donor Demographics

Only a tiny fraction of Americans actually give campaign contributions to political candidates, parties or PACs. The ones who give contributions large enough to be itemized (over $200) is even smaller. The impact of those donations, however, is huge.

LooseGoose wrote:I've got better things to do.

Cameron wrote:I agree about mid-terms. I know I tend to ignore those pretty much entirely. I'm a piece of shit who never votes and I'm not representative of the voting public as a whole, of course, but still...

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:I've got better things to do.

Well then just trust my screenshots that say "fec.gov" on them are in fact from fec.gov and not a photoshop.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Well then just trust my screenshots that say "fec.gov" on them are in fact from fec.gov and not a photoshop.

I didn't say they weren't from FEC.   Links are nice to click on to see the basis for those numbers.   I provide links and you use them to rebut me often, yet somehow when I ask for links I'm accusing you of photoshopping.  Nice Strawman.

Based on my easily searchable data from opensecrets I stand by my original statement that the Dems are now the party of the very wealthy.   Donations show that.  Polling shows that.