Anyone Know of how Kucinich's money bomb went?

[fenriswolf]

I cannot find how much he raised. Been scouring the net for an hour.

[polichick]

1. I've been wondering too...

Maybe Davis Fleetwood has a new YouTube about it.

[saltpoint]

2. I hope it went generously. It would be nice for a real genuine public servant

to have a much thicker wallet out on the campaign trail.

[Desertrose]

3. Sure would.

Did what I could but wasn't much at all.

*sigh*

[MrMickeysMom]

4. I'm betting we'll be seeing this in Monday's update video

... I'm hoping it went extremely well, of course. :-)

[fenriswolf]

5. keep this K&r so we can find out what happened

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I'm wondering the same thing

and am posting to keep this kicked as well.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Wondering and kicking.

[Stevepol]

8. K&R

[riqster]

9. This from december152007 as of 5:30 PM

Congratulations! We did it!

While the Kucinich Campaign has not released the numbers (yet?), I know that contributions were pouring in and it was a great day.
I also know that leading up to December 15, we created a lot of exposure for Kucinich on various online communities, which he may not have received otherwise.

I'll keep you posted as soon as I hear anything on the amount raised.

[fenriswolf]

10. the mark was ten million

he raised that much in a single day!!!! wow all those ron paul supporters that were touting 4.5 million will be livid.

[riqster]

11. They didn't say they hit ten million

...yet, anyway.

[Occam Bandage]

12. So DK's campaign is refusing to release figures?

[riqster]

13. Probably don't know yet

...he's running on a shoestring. Lots of server issues.

[Desertrose]

14. Love how you "spin" that...

Actually, I don't really love it at all.

"refusing"....interesting choice of wording that.

[riqster]

15. Ya gotta wonder why people attack Kooch

...I mean, he's got no chance, he's no threat, yadayada.

:sarcasm:

[Clintonista2]

16. That's like saying that he doesn't have a chance so

why support him?

[riqster]

17. I shoulda used the sacrasm smiley. I'll go add it.

[Clintonista2]

22. haha sorry, after spending time on DU

I seriously can't tell when people are kidding anymore :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[riqster]

29. Yeah, it's getting a bit tense hereabouts.

I'm going on vacation in another week, and will not be taking a laptop. (Mostly to avoid work, but I need some time AFK.)

[cyclezealot]

54. Candidates whose positons twist with the polls

are intimidated by those whose opinons are consistent.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. How consistent was he on choice?

[cyclezealot]

59. how many times do we have to repeat.

He was Catholic , but evolved because his significant others including his daughter hit him over the head with the pro choice, baseball bat. He still personally opposes abortion, but has the strongest pro choice message. He will ask a supreme court nominee, will you vote to protect choice, not sugar coat it with , "do you favor privacy."

[MonkeyFunk]

60. You can repeat it all you want

but I find it rare for a man in his mid-50s who had been ardently pro-life his entire political career to suddenly change his view. And I find it especially suspicious that he did it just prior to running for the Democratic nomination for President.

You can think it was a principled change of position - but it was still a change of position, and *I* think it was politically motivated.

BTW, he's still Catholic.

[cyclezealot]

61. having your daughter hit you over the head

because you come from a family that did not practice birth control , force reality down your throat: is certainly more convincing than Hillary grandstanding to get on the Armed Service Committee and trying to out hawk Joe LIeberman. And now she is disappointed Joe goes with McCain. Talk about a political put on act. Did not work dit it.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. Why change the subject?

Look, you think his change of stance was a principled switch. I believe it was pure political posturing. We're not going to change each other's mind on that.

I'm just pointing out that his vaunted "consistency" is lacking on at least one major political issue.

[cyclezealot]

68. personally, the guy is still against abortion

heard his explanation in person. I know bull s*** when I hear it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. Didn't some other guy conveniently change his stance on abortion before running for President?

[penguin7]

67. This is nonsense

Kucinich changed his view on the effect of the laws. This was the first time he served in federal office so he was not confronted on his beliefs here before.

And he did not change prior to running for president.

Lastly, abortion is a right wing talking point. Are you a right winger?

[MonkeyFunk]

69. Am I a right-winger? No

I'm an abortion-rights activist. I've been a clinic escort at three different clinics. It's an important issue to me.

And yes, he did change prior to running for President. His record, according to NARAL:

2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent
2004: 100 percent
2003: 100 percent
2002: 25 percent
2001: 0 percent

[cyclezealot]

78. Kucinich did evolve

from his first term as Congress member. He explained it very well. It was a gradual evolution based on feedback from family members. At present, his views towards privacy, trumps his views about abortion. I sympathize with his evolvement. My wife followed the same process, at about the same time. Not at all a rare occurence.

[Libface]

88. My view on many things has evolved

since 2000. One of them is abortion coincidentally. If it were any other candidate I would be quick to assume they are lying, but not DK.

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. He was a devout Catholic, but that didn't stop him from getting divorced twice?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

19. It's been a day. They haven't released, nor have they even acknowledged it.

[riqster]

21. Why are you so scared of Kucinich?

[Occam Bandage]

24. Funny how supporters of flailing campaigns pretend other people are afraid of them.

I don't think I've said anything unreasonable or unfair about any candidate.

[riqster]

26. Your tendentious post upthread proves otherwise.

"Refuse" indeed.

[Occam Bandage]

27. So your case for "fear" is that I suggested that DK might be deliberately not releasing figures.

I think that by the evening after a highly-publicized fundraising event, with absolutely no word from the campaign even acknowledging that it had happened, it's not unreasonable to ask. Most candidates keep instant tallies.

Your first reply was more level; you gave an actual response to a fair question.

[riqster]

28. As a student of the English language, I am not taken in

...by your disingenuous claims.

"Refusing" is a loaded word which implies nefarious intent. Kucinich is running a shoestring campaign, with inadequate infrastructure and staff due to low funding. To leap to a conclusion of corruption (which you did by using that term, deny it though you will) shows your aim. It is far more likely that they are working feverishly to figure out the total.

Be logical: this is a big deal. Whatever number they got is going to be huge to a campaign like DK's and they would love to share it, to build momentum. The Kucinich campaign has nothing to lose and everything to gain by releasing the number: and nothing to gain and everything to lose by withholding it.

Occam's razor must cut you a lot, thence your screen name.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Corruption? You perhaps give me far too much credit.

While I appreciate the compliment embedded in your argument, I did not actually sit and think of the right word, laden with implications. I only meant to ask if he was deliberately withholding the number, since most campaigns provide near-instant feedback. You read far, far too eagerly.

And that is why I picked my screenname, actually. I find that people too often oversimplify and leap to unsupported conclusions, all the while invoking Occam's Razor.

(Again, your initial response, in which you said, "probably not; he's running a shoestring budget," was appropriate for the question. It was when another started suggesting "spin" was involved that you began to speculate incorrectly.)

[riqster]

31. Perhaps so.

OTOH, you do have a habit of leaping onto Kooch threads to bash him. In view of that, I believe I was justifed in reading your post as I did.

[Occam Bandage]

33. I admit I do.

I've defended him as well, though; I was pretty vocal about the unfairness of his ban from the recent DMR debate. I don't have an issue with him, per se, I think he's incredibly valuable in his role, and I should probably start talking about that more, lest I create more responses like in this thread. I'm sorry if you think I hate him; I don't. I think he's a good person and a very, very valuable voice. I think the party needs a conscience, and DK fits that role well.

I more have an issue with the idea that other candidates should emulate him, or that he is the only "good" Democrat, or that in order to win an election we would be best to run a Kucinich. These are appealing but false notions, and supporting them leads to later splinterism--if one accepts that Kucinich is popular and would be viable in a general election, and one sees that we are running a non-Kucinich, one is almost forced to begin believing in either Naderism or in conspiracy theories regarding the specter of corporatism, the DLC, the media, polling companies, and the like.

It's kind of funny how we can on one hand accept that the most "compromised" Republicans (Romney or McCain) are potentially electable, and the "purest" Republicans (Tancredo, Keyes) are jokes, yet on the other hand believe that our compromised candidates are unelectable and our purest candidates are our best chance. Funny, but not surprising: people want to believe their opinions are valid, and popularity is validity.

So in conclusion, didn't mean to bash DK here, did mean to be slightly provocative, went too far, and I've been too much a dick to DK recently and I'll try to watch myself.

[riqster]

38. A fair and reasonable response. Thank you!

My reply (and this is no way directed at you personally-rather, it is a pervasive phenomenon which I am calling out to explain my attitude) is this: to dismiss any candidate before a ballot is cast is an affront to democracy and an insult to the voters, whose voices have been increasingly marginalized over the last few years. The media, the parties, the insiders and bigwigs DO in fact filter the information and by so doing slant the playing field in their candidate's favor. Look at Dodd's talk meter on the MSM debates and you'll see this proven-to give one example. This isn't a conspiracy, and it isn't limited to Kucinich: Edwards, Dodd and Biden also get this treatment, albeit to a lesser degree.

I feel quite strongly that each and every candidate deserves equal time, at least until actual ballots start being tallied. After that, let the marketplace (as defined by the voters) rule.

Election integrity is my passion, and this is another example of the emasculation of the electorate. By dismissing out-of-hand anyone who is insufficiently mainstream (or excessively so, for that matter), we stultify debate and deny the voters the opportunity to make an informed decision. The voters deserve the respect of those that they put in power.

I am supporting Kucinich for a number of reasons:
First, to reward him for being that conscience you accurately describe. If that is rewarded, other politicos will notice and emulate the behavior to some extent.

Secondly, because although his views are actually quite mainstream, he is depicted as a liberal. To me, that is yet another example of the extreme rightward shift of this nation, and we need to get back on track, towards a balanced national psyche. Supporting Kucinich is a good way to do this, by pushing the party Left from its overly rightward slant.

Thirdly, I have watched him for decades, taking shot after shot for doing the right thing. He lives in a little house in a marginal neighborhood. He has not sought riches (and for a man who came from extreme poverty, that is unusual) or power- he has worked to take care of his constituency throughout his career. He has not played the image game, he has never pandered, he has literally done the right thing even when it put his life at risk. He is in every respect the sort of person we should want to have in the White House, because he respects the voters who put him in office.

This stands in stark contrast to the front runners, who have teams of people scripting their every belch; who make deals with the bigwigs to extend their own power. In the immortal words of Tom Lehrer, their "allegiance is ruled by expedience".

In actual fact, Kucinich is a long shot. Yes, taking the easy way is probably smarter. But the primaries are where we the voters get to have a voice: every four years, we wait to have some influence over the direction of the party. We cannot, we must not, stifle the voices of the voters. I quite frequently feel that the Kooch-bashers are trying to push us out of the game before we even have a chance to play. Thus my immediate reaction.

We need a revolution all right-one in which the voters, through their ballots, have the power they are supposed to have. We need wide-open primaries, a true marketplace of ideas, so that the voters can shop there to find the candidate they favor.

[Occam Bandage]

40. And I agree that supporting Kucinich to move the debate leftwards

is an honorable and intelligent thing to do. I was strongly considering supporting Kucinich in the primary until Biden made an impression on me; I'm supporting him to register my belief in the necessity of even-handed, intelligent, non-politicized foreign policy. Like I said, my problem with Kucinich is only when that support morphs into "only DK can save us;" and I have been perhaps too eager in the recent past to engage in Glorious Battle against that mindset.

I agree candidates should have equal time in debates, and I think that while polling is both accurate and useful, when the polls are made story and justification, the process suffers. I'd like to see, in 2012, for news agencies to pledge not to publicize polling data, and for all candidates to be given equal time in the debates. Just to see what happens.

[riqster]

41. Most candidates have some of those supporters

...and yeah, they are quite off-putting, to say the least. Biden is a good man, and I would happily support him had I not chosen my often-annoying but usually-right homeboy.

An interesting article on primary voting from CounterCurrents.org, via Kooch's site: How to vote in Primaries and Not Be An Idiot

A key quote:
"In most presidential elections, the party's nominee is decided before many states hold their primaries. So, for most people, the point of voting is not to choose the nominee. (And therefore almost nobody votes, opening the door to effective action by non-idiots.) The point is also not to "show support and loyalty" for a nominee already chosen (democracies have no need for such displays, which are best suited to another type of regime). Rather, the point is to elect as many delegates as possible for the candidate whose positions you most favor, so that those delegates can influence the party's platform and the nominee's positions at the convention, or even make your candidate the vice presidential nominee."

I'd say that delegates from Kucinich or Biden would be damned good to have at the convention.

[Occam Bandage]

42. I ran across that article a while back, and liked it. I remember back in '04,

I decided to vote for Kerry and not Dean, because it had pretty much been wrapped up by Super Tuesday and I thought it would be best if the party presented a united front behind him. I regret that decision.

[cyclezealot]

55. until I am convinced

the likes of Hillary, O'Bama are taking on Kucinich's positions on Trade and health care; I will continue to say, only Kucinich can save the Democratic Party , but also the USA. It was Bill who put the US on course for our huge trade deficits, which are equal to the subprime crisis in taking down the whole country. Bush is not the only cause of the present economic calamity.

[maxanne]

43. oh, my

You were pretty vocal about the unfairness of his ban from the recent DMR debate?????

I must have missed that in all of your remarks about how he deserved to be excluded.

[Occam Bandage]

49. If you're going to claim to be following my posts,

please follow a bit more closely. After it was brought to my attention that Keyes was allowed to debate, and that the rules were being arbitrarily "enforced," I started a thread to reverse my earlier position.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3831366

Note how I kicked that thread four times to keep it visible, in addition to replying frequently. Also, I brought it up more than just there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3831373#3831450
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3836146&mesg_id=3836641
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3833116&mesg_id=3833651

[cyclezealot]

80. go to response number 40.

You don't want to have to answer for support or Nafta and leadind Democrats pandering to Insurance lobbys interests . So, you have a need to inflame Kucinich oriented links. Kucinich people show little interest when stories come out about Richardson or Edwards not gaining traction in Iowa or New Hampshire. We Could care less. yet, when media moguls or newspapers silence our voice, its ok. Your resentment reaks of not wanting to come to terms for your candidates embarassing voting records.

[maxanne]

18. where did anyone say that?

Your constant anti-Kucinich drone is tedious, and lacking in originality, BB.

[Occam Bandage]

20. What's anti-Kucinich about it?

I just asked if he was refusing to release figures, or if there were going to be figures forthcoming. I haven't seen any indication that he's going to; have you?

[Libface]

23. You make me want to bash Biden, but I won't. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

25. Let me guess.

You worry that Dennis Kucinich's money bomb was a failure, as do the other people who have reacted strongly to me. You're rather self-conscious about this. I ask if he's going to release figures, and word it in such a manner that implies that he might be deliberately not releasing.

Really, take a look at my post there again. I haven't said anything offensive. I asked if he was releasing figures or not. When it comes to fear, y'all might want to look in the mirror.

[Libface]

34. There's a difference between "refusing"

to release the numbers and just not having them yet (there are people going on about how disorganized his campaign is just about everywhere you look, yet you expect...what?). I don't have any evidence that they are refusing at this point. In a week, or even 3-4 days, maybe your assertion that they are "refusing" will have some evidence to back it up. At this point, it looks like smear to me. I don't know why I should be afraid they won't release them, unless you are aware of something I'm not. I mean, I'm personally not expecting a huge miracle or anything (hopeful it turned out good though) and it's not like it would derail me in my support.

[Occam Bandage]

35. Well, that's certainly a possibility.

And I meant to ask if he was sitting on the numbers or just didn't have them yet. I've never worked that closely with a campaign; I don't know how fast it is, but I've noticed that many other campaigns have instant tallies on their sites.

I'm sorry my post was so provocative/insulting. I really didn't mean to suggest corruption.

[Libface]

36. Okay, I can chalk it up

to a simple misunderstanding then. Thanks for clarifying.

[Occam Bandage]

37. It's more than understandable. I've been taking an aggressive tone in DK threads recently.

I left myself very open to a misunderstanding. The fact that several jumped on me suggests it was completely my fault there.

[redqueen]

70. Ain't loaded language great?

It really facilitates serious discussion.

:sarcasm:

[maxanne]

44. the spin, the spin!

You know very well what you were implying.

You might check weather reports while you wait breathlessly for the fundraising numbers. Much of the east has been hit with a huge snowstorm, big enough to compromise the ability of folks to get to work.

[Occam Bandage]

50. Read a couple other posts in this thread.

I've explained myself and apologized twice. In fact, you even replied to one of those posts.

[bean fidhleir]

73. Do you see the difference betwee

"refusing to release" and "hasn't yet released"? The former implies that someone asked him for the figures who had a right to demand them, and he refused to hand them over. Unless you can give evidence that that's what happened, you should apologise for the implication and use more accurate words.

[Occam Bandage]

74. Two replies:

1. I think we do have a right to know. Many people donated, and donated under the impression they would be making a statement through a show of support. If he sits on the numbers, no statement is made. His donors are asking (in this thread and elsewhere), they have a right to demand them, and he isn't handing them over. Ron Paul released tallies throughout the day, and gave a final tally within minutes of the promotion closing. Almost every candidate has live instant updates on their site during their donation promotions. As for DK, well, it's been two days now, and he hasn't shown any sign of releasing figures. In fact, he even took down any reference to the event from the front page of his site. His Monday update didn't say a *word* about the money bomb. I still think he's refusing.

2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3846924&mesg_id=3849084

[nonny]

32. Wondering & waiting for total

Act Blue page on DU has an additional 20 donations for Dennis. I would like to know how many donations came into DK's website yesterday.

[FlyingSquirrel]

39. Probably Monday...

Kucinich himself carefully did not aim for $10 million himself on his site, just "millions". It was the December152007 site that gave an actual figure. This of course was smart, cause then if it falls short of $10 million he doesn't have egg on his face. Still I'm sure some outlets like Fox will gleefully play it up if he doesn't reach the mark.

But let's face it, it takes awhile to count up $10 million in small donations. And they have to be able to prove it when they release the figures to the media 'cause otherwise they will look bad.

Patience, my friends.. I would stop scouring the internet 'cause the place you'll hear it first will be Kucinich's own website, so just keep checking there.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. But right on his website it says:

"In America, candidates are considered "electable" or "unelectable" based on their bank accounts. It's pretty hard to argue that a guy who can raise $10,000,000 in one day is unelectable."

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/circle-the-date.-and-let%92s-make-history!-again!!!/

[FlyingSquirrel]

46. That's a quote from a Kucinich supporter, not an official statement

No statements from Kucinich himself or anyone on his staff have mentioned $10 million.

The context is, this is a supporter of Kucinich who has created his own website which is NOT associated with the Official Dennis Kucinich campaign. (It says so on the site).

Obviously Kucinich wants to encourage the goal, but does so without specifically mentioning it himself and instead does so indirectly on his website. He's a politician, he knows how to say something without saying it and therefore be able to claim that the goal was that of one of his grass-roots supporters and not in fact his own goal.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. Yes, I know

it's from a supporter. But it's the most prominent article on his official website - surely that gives it SOME degree of "officialness", no?

[FlyingSquirrel]

48. There's enough wiggle room for him.....

Yes of course it has his official sanction or it wouldn't be on his site. But it still does not come from his campaign. Therefore he can state, "My campaign encouraged the ambitious efforts of this grass-roots supporter to collect $10 million on behalf of the Kucinich campaign in a single day. I myself did not expect to raise nearly as much, and am more than happy with the $6 million that was raised, which is now the highest single-day fundraising total in history for a presidential candidate. I feel that it sends a strong message that Americans like what they're hearing and support my agenda."

Or something like that.

[FlyingSquirrel]

51. Uh Oh

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/16/on_tea_party_anniversary_ron_p.html

Looks like Ron Paul has just raised another $6 million + on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. So Kucinich better beat that or he'll be overshadowed big time. Wonder if his supporters are fervent enough to do TWO fundraisers.

Edit: Wonder how it is that Ron Paul's fundraising story gets out to the Washington Post by 8pm on the day of the fundraiser (the 16th) while the outcome of Kucinich's fundraiser on the 15th is still a black hole ....................................................................

P.S. Ron Paul's supporters were also aiming at $10 million.

[Jennifer C]

52. It might be because

Paul has the live fundraiser counter on his website, so people can see and keep track of the amount that's been donated as it's updated live every few minutes.

[FlyingSquirrel]

53. Smart... Kucinich should've done that.

I hear Ron Paul is up to 11 million????!! Kucinich will really be in trouble if his thunder is stolen here.

[denem]

72. Paul is up to $18 million nt.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. Perhaps Kucinich's total is lower than expected and they are hoping people forget about it?

:shrug:

[bluedog]

75. probably too embarrassed about the total

or an incompetent campaign team........these counts should have been out by now.....the supporters of his have a right to know the tally....who is he going to blame for the delay?

[cyclezealot]

56. I thought the goal was one million in a day.

much more reasonable.

[cyclezealot]

57. all these smug azz holes

Think its some kind of shame not be be in bed with big donors like Hillary. I think it is a badge of honor. Only shows up the honesty of a a politician beholden to the people and not the fat money cats.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. Ron Paul's campaign was quick to announce their 'money bomb' total

I guess Kucinich's haul was so large that they are still counting it.

[redqueen]

71. Well he is supported by the "rich bitch" set, so...

I bet you're right.

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. Apperently Paul's average donation is about $50

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/rp.html

Not exactly what one would expect from the "rich bitch" set.

[redqueen]

81. Well I was talking about Kucinich, so...

he's the one who's supported by the "rich bitches" according to some on this site.

[bluedog]

76. kick....wheres the total? n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

79. According to an email I got from December152007.... Here it is

$131,400 TOTAL
$86,400 made directly to the Kucinich site
$45,000 made to ActBlue
Approximately 1,592 donors (1,072 to Kucinich, approx. 520 to ActBlue)
At least 665 were new donors (As determined via contributions to the Kucinich site. New donor results via ActBlue are not known.)
Average donation works out to $82

If that's for real, no wonder there is nothing coming out of the Kucinich campaign.

I find it incredible that a wack job like Ron Paul can raise $12 million and Kucinich can barely break 100,000.......................

Truly incredible. What has happened to this country?

I would say it's over for Dennis.

[FlyingSquirrel]

82. Ron Paul did not collect 12 million in one day, by the way

He collected 6 million yesterday according to his website. The higher figures people are quoting are his 4th quarter totals.

But somehow Kucinich collected an embarrassing $131,000. Ron Paul clearly has a vastly superior fundraising organization.

[redqueen]

89. Or wealthier supporters.

Geeee.. hmmmmmm... which is it?

:think:

[Libface]

90. Yeah I'm not sure I buy

the $50 average thing.

[penguin7]

83. This December 15, 2007 thing got like zero publicity

So like how does it really say all that much about anything?

[Libface]

84. Did RP's get publicity? n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

85. Ron Paul's tea party got zero publicity as well. nt

[redqueen]

86. So what?

:wtf:

:eyes:

[Libface]

87. To me it says

most libertarians back up their views.

[redqueen]

91. What?

How does a fundraiser show that anyone backs up their "views"?

:wtf:

[Libface]

93. You're right, I phrased that badly

I should have said "Put their money where their mouth is" or something else and I know money isn't the only way to support a candidate/your views. Bad phrasing on my part. I just wonder if Dennis could have had a similar momentum.

[riqster]

92. Paul is a corporate darling, since he wants to deregulate any and all businesses and industries

...so he gets shitloads of money from such.

Kooch gets money from average working folks who happen to be progressives. A much shallower pool in which to fish.