If Dean can break Bill Clinton's fundraising record twice in 1 year

[Larkspur]

and in a crowded field, why can't John Kerry?

If Kerry is so electible, why aren't those who vote for him donating to his campaign? If they did, then he would be able to almost match Bush dollar for dollar.

Personally, I will not donate to Kerry's campaign. He has to liquidate all his assets with no hope of getting them back before I will consider donating to his GE campaign. I don't want my money paying off his mortgage to his mansion.

[sangh0]

1. All you care about is money

when Dean has proven that money doesn't determine the winner, brains do. In 2000, Bush* outspent Gore 2 to 1 and Gore still won.

[Larkspur]

8. Bush has a lot more money now than he did in 2000 and that means

more media time to blast his opponent constantly.

Gore won the popular vote, barely, but Gore lost 32 days responding to Bush in 2000 because Gore took FEC matching funds. Those 32 days cost Gore poll numbers that he had to hurry up and make up after the convention. Gore did it, but the election was too close and SCOTUS put Bush in the White House.

[sangh0]

10. Still making predictions, I see

Some people never learn

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=802700#810756

[Larkspur]

12. And your point is?

Your link doesn't make sense.

[sangh0]

18. "Like it or not, Dean is going to be the nominee"

was the name of the thread I linked to, and in that thread you agree with that prediction. So please forgive me if I doubt your ability to make predictions about the future behavior of voters

[Larkspur]

25. I did not start that thread...

Here's where your link sent me

Dean is annointed by his small donor supporters who have sent him
$25 million to date, and it's Dean's small donors who voted to OK their candidate to forgo FEC matching funds. Kerry did it on his own and is going into debt to fund his dying campaign.
-------------------------

That's not a prediction. That's a statement of fact.

You should go back to school and learn English because it's obvious you have a language problem.

[sangh0]

31. "Dying campaign" is a prediction

and a wrong one at that.

[Larkspur]

40. Kerry's campaign was dying in December.

That is why he was desperate to get money and his quick fix solution was to mortgage his mansion. Without that mortgage, Kerry's campaign would have died.

[sangh0]

46. No it wasn't

Kerry's campaign was revving up in December.

[Larkspur]

50. Yes, it was dying in december

Kerry had about $1 million left at then end of 2003 before he took out his loan, and he made campaign personal changes because his previous staff wasn't working. So yeah, his campaign was dying in December. He made personel changes that he needed but he also needed cash. His loan and his personal changes is how he resurrected his campaign, along with going to bed with Torricelli the Corrupt.

[sangh0]

57. No it wasn't, and I can prove it

If it were dying in December, it would be dead by now. Obviously, it hasn't died.

His loan and his personal changes is how he resurrected his campaign

So now you believe in resurrection of the dead? No surprise there.

[displacedtexan]

14. Well said! And JK doesn't waste $ on orange hats and cowbells.

JK won't waste $50 million (the obscene amount of cash donated by folks with little to spare during this Bush* economy) and then beg for more.

[Rich Hunt]

16. wow

Ronald Reagan must have been an absolute genius, then.

[sangh0]

19. Politically speaking, Reagan was a genius

How else did he get millions of Democrats to vote for him?

[Rich Hunt]

26. marketing

Reagan had good PR. I don't think that's the kind of 'intelligence' some people are trying to claim here.

[sangh0]

32. Yes, it was marketing

and marketing takes brains. Hiring the right people to market also takes brains. However, you are right about it not being the type of intelligence that many here are talking about. That's why I qualified my original statement by saying "Politically speaking"

[Renew Deal]

2. Kerry isn't the nominee.

I am holding my cash for the winner.

[Nashyra]

5. I'll donate to Kerry

again and again and again, then I'll donate to who ever is the eventual nominee. I want Bush out of the WH more than I want to stew about my candidate not making it.

[wndycty]

6. Preach it!

:kick:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. liquidate all his assets with no hope of getting them back?

You're far too easy on him. Why not just ask him to walk across water?

[Larkspur]

9. Kerry chose to mortgage his mansion and will use campaign contributions

to pay it off. He did the same thing in 1996 against Gov. Weld.

Kerry's current mortgage is $200,000/year. His income is $158,000/year. If Kerry really had political courage, he'd have sold his mansion to refuel his dying primary campaign, but he chose to take a loan and will get his serfs to pay off his mansion. This is why I will never donate to Kerry's GE campaign.

[sangh0]

13. Be honest

You know that Kerry can't sell the house because he doesn't own it by himself.

[Larkspur]

17. So?

Instead of using that house as collateral on a loan, he should have begged his supporters for money, like Dean did with his supporters, who willingly gave.

[sangh0]

20. Dishonest

First it was "If Kerry really had political courage, he'd have sold his mansion"

Now that you've been revealed as dishonest, it becomes "So? he should have begged his supporters for money..."

No one believes people who run away from their own arguments.

[Larkspur]

23. Me dishonest? You're illogical!

Dean proved that a politician, a Democratic one, can successfully solicit funds from average Americans if he/she stands up for basic Democratic principles and has a record to support it.

Kerry raised money the way aristocrats do -- from fellow wealthy people and making his supporters pay for loans he takes on his personal assets.

[sangh0]

24. Breaking news!

Campaigns aren't about soliciting funds; They're about winning elections, something that seemed beyond Dean's ability.

And you never explain how you went from "Sell the mansion" to "beg for money" without batting an eye

[Larkspur]

27. "Beg for money" = "asking supporters for money to fund campaign"

and pay campaign bills.

Duh! Sangh0, if soliciting funds was not a large part of politics, we wouldn't have corrupt politicians. Even the most good hearted of politicians from all levels of politics complain that raising money for campaigning takes up most of their time and energy. Raising money is why most people of humble origins, who would be good politicians, don't run for office.

As far as "sell the mansion," if kerry had sold his mansion, as opposed to mortgaging it, he would have demonstrated courage and I'd have respected him for making that sacrifice. But he took a loan on it, like he did in 1996 and back then he held a fundraiser after the election to pay off that loan. Today, he can only raise a maximum of $250,000 post primary election to pay off that loan. This means that he will have to hold a fundraiser prior to the end of the Convention to pay off that mortgage. This means that the money raised during that fundraiser will not be going against Bush, but to get back his mansion. I don't live in a mansion and I will not contribute to a politician, like Kerry, who will use my money to buy back his mansion from the bank. I don't live in a mansion, so screw Kerry!

[sangh0]

35. It's still a flip-flop of yours

You went from "sell the mansion" to "ask supporters for money" without batting an eye.

And again you repeat the dishonest suggestion that Kerry could the house when it didn't belong to him alone.

[Larkspur]

38. Kerry is the flip-flopper, not me

and you need to learn English.

If the mansion did not belong to Kerry, then he should not have taken a mortgage out on it.

[sangh0]

42. Say one thing, then say another

Just like Dean's promise to stay within the campaign finance limits, you reverse yourself and deny it

If the mansion did not belong to Kerry, then he should not have taken a mortgage out on it.

That's your opinion.

[Larkspur]

45. I see you have been taking "flip-flopper" lessons from Kerry

You'r response to mine is utterly nonesense.

Learn English sangh0.

[meegbear]

4. Speaking of money

what's he gonna do with what's he got?

[Larkspur]

29. Who are you referring to?

.

[King of New Orleans]

7. I fully intend to donate as much as possible

to the Democratic nominee. I've already go about $250 bucks set aside and will probably be able to dobule or triple that.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Larkspur]

15. If that was true, then Kerry should not have taken out that mortgage on

his mansion and he should not use campaign contributions to pay off that mortgage.

Money does make a difference. It buys media exposure as well as pays staff.

Kerry-Gephardt supporters money bought those Osama ads that were used against Dean.

[sangh0]

21. SO Kerry is wrong for raising money

but in another thread you brag about how much money Dean raised.

[Larkspur]

28. Do you understand English Sang0?

Because it sure sounds like you don't.

Kerry raised money by taking out a loan on his mansion, a loan that he will use campaign contributions to pay off. This is morally wrong.

If Kerry had raised money to refuel his campaign in the same way Dean had, through small and large individual donations form his supporters, or if he had sold his asset with no hope of getting it back then I wouldn't have a problem with him on this issue.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

30. Why is it morally wrong?

Please explain.

[Larkspur]

34. Because he will use campaign contributions to pay it off,

contributions that should go towards campaigning against Bush, not paying off a mortgage on a mansion.

I do not live in a mansion and I will not give Kerry my hard earned money to help by back his. Kerry took our the mortgage because he was desperate for money and did not have a network of supporters he could rely on or who were not maxed out.

In short, Kerry broke the heart of campaign finance reform, but not the letter of the law. Morals are not always codified into laws.

[sangh0]

37. So what? How is that morally wrong?

He isn't hiding the fact that he mortgaged his house. If people want to donate, they can, and if not, they don't have to.

In short, Kerry broke the heart of campaign finance reform, but not the letter of the law

Umm, that would be Dean who broke the heart of campaign finance reform, as well as his promise to keep within the limits

[Larkspur]

43. Dean did not break the heart of campaign finance reform

Dean's whole campaign was campaign finance reform incarnate. He opted out of FEC Matching funds and their limits with his supporters blessings and I was one of those supporters who gave him permission to do so. Dean's campaign was fueled manily by $77 checks from average donors. Kerry had a higher percentage of $2,000 donors than Dean.

Kerry didn't hide the fact that he took out the mortgage, but he is being dishonest about how he will pay it off. PHis mortgage payments are $200,000/year and his declared income is $158,000/year. That's a deficit he should clear up immediately.

[sangh0]

47. More Dean-speak

Breaking the limits is, according to Dean-speak, "campaign finance reform incarnate"

He opted out of FEC Matching funds and their limits with his supporters blessings and I was one of those supporters who gave him permission to do so

Then Dean shouldn't have promised to stay within those limits if he had no intention of keeping his promise.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

41. In the end it's all toward the campaign- I see no problem.

He borrowed money against future contributions. Now he's getting them. A loan is a loan.
I suppose if he had lost Iowa you'd be feeling sorry for him? or laughing at him? :shrug:

[Larkspur]

49. You just admited that Kerry is Bush-lite

Bush takes in contributions and rewards contributors with favorable legislation and government contracts. Is Kerry going to do the same thing as Bush, if he wins the White House?

Taking the loan out and not being able to pay the yearly mortgage payments sets Kerry up for being corrupted, if he's not already.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

64. You seem to be jumping to conclusions

your logic is stretched a bit. In the end I see you just want to find more reasons to despise Kerry and the ground he trods.
The mortgage is a silly reason to deride him unless you have an agenda.

[OKNancy]

74. LOL

Hey anyone who takes out a loan on their house is morally wrong...guess that includes me, because I did...I needed to do some foundation work and took a loan on the equity...I'm immoral.

[maddezmom]

76. darn you OKNancy

:evilgrin:

[Larkspur]

86. Duh! He took to pay for his campaign and will use campaign contributions

to pay for it. If he paid for that loan out of his own pocket and not donors' contributions, then his loan could be acceptable, but his loan payments are $200,000/year and his declared income is $158,000/year. That's a deficit right off the bat.

The reason the loan is immoral is that he will use donor's contributions, contributions that are to be used against Bush, to pay off that loan. Kerry will not be using his money, but donors', who want to beat Bush. That is why it's immoral.

Don't worry, I'll spread the word that Kerry doesn't need money to fund his campaign. His supporters said right on this board that he doesn't need money to beat Bush.

[OKNancy]

92. Don't duh me

When a person takes out a loan, they can use it for what they wish if they tell the bank. They can pay it off with funds from any number of sources.

Whatever money goes into the Kerry campaign can be used as he sees fit. That could be buying advertising, paying off the loan, or for orange hats and chocolates.

[sangh0]

93. Buying votes with orange hats and chocolates

(btw, those chocolates were purchased, at a very high price, from a chocolatier that contributed to Dean, and who also received a business development grant from the State of VT...hmmmm)

Isn't that corrupt?

[RetroLounge]

82. So is Gephardt.

So Kerry is endorsed by losers.

Nice try...

[RetroLounge]

95. 753rd post with the same sentence

and the winner is:

[maddezmom]

22. hmm, cuz Dean is way better than Clinton and Kerry???

:shrug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. If you are going to raise Dean as an issue in this light then please

don't bitch when he is raised on other threads.

The better question is if Dean can raise that kind of money and then lose his ass off as a result of one commercial, how much would he have had to raise when Bush opened up the floodgates on him?

[Larkspur]

36. Dean was under multiple assault from the media, and the other

candidates at the same time. Yes, he also made mistakes which contributed to his downfall. There is not one reason for the Dean Campaign's demise. There were multiple factors.

I also think that Dean did not expect the Repuke-lite attacks from Democrats. He was prepared for them from Bush. But Dean didn't expect Kerry to go to bed with Torricelli the Corrupt.

[sangh0]

39. Dean couldn't defend himself, even with the money

On the other hand, with less money, Kerry is making Bush* defend himself even though Bush* didn't plan to campaign until AFTER the Dem convention.

There is not one reason for the Dean Campaign's demise. There were multiple factors.

Yep. Dean was a loser in many ways

[Nazgul35]

51. ok....now your argument has jumped the shark...

I wasn't going to engage in this debate until I saw your post that implied that Kerry and Kerry alone is responsible for Bush being on the defensive...

That is just dishonest. Bush is in the situation he is in, and his public support has suffered due to the excellent Democrtic primary race we had from early fall until now...

To suggest that Kerry is somehow the indivdiual responsible for all this is just plan silly! You forget that Kerry was an astrick through much of the fall after he lost the front runner status!

To ignore the influence that all the Dem candidates had on the current situation is being a tad bit dishonest...if you were to rank those candidates who have had the largest impact, Kerry wouldn't even be in the top three...not over the whole decline period.

I know there are plenty of player-haters here at DU...but let's not get carried away with the heroic assumptions that many here are making in this thread....Dean supporters as well as Kerry....

[sangh0]

65. I'm sorry but

it was the AWOL charge that got Bush* into the campaign, and it was Kerry's attack on that issue that got him going. It sure wasn't Moore or Clark who did it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

87. I actually agree with Nazgul, it was everyone's contribution

and the fact that the concern kept surfacing.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. OK let me see if I get this straight

If Kerry speaks fondly of Israel, then he is a PNAC enabler.
If Dean hires an AIPAC lobbysit he is not.

If Dean claims he is the real democrat in the race and attacks others as inconsistent even though his own statements concerning Iraq indicated he DID justify pre-emptive war, then he is speaking truth to power and everyone else is getting along to go along.

If Kerry had bundlers, that is an issue. If Dean had bundlers but doesn't reveal that fact, that is NOT and DON'T EVEN tell me he didn't.

If Kerry gets funds from media groups he is doing it to sell out. If Dean gets money from NEWSCORP, then it is because they are afraid of him.

If Kerry backtracks on an issue, he is a waffler. If Dean backtracks on a statemnt about Israel it is because AIPAC held a gun to his head even though he had a member of AIPAC on his staff.

If he couldn't take the heat then he did the right thing by getting out of the frying pan.

The other humorous aspect of this is the fact that he had Al Gore in his camp who is now GOD...but that is because we are debating the 04 primary rather than 88 or 92.

[sangh0]

48. You left out

Dean was going to break up the media monopolies even though he couldn't defeat a commercial

[BruinAlum]

52. In other words, right out of the Repug playbook. Doesn't count when Dean

does things. Same arguments the Repugs use. Yet we KNOW the Repugs are wrong - it just hasn't sunk in to some people that it's wrong when the logic is applied to Dean as well.

Sorta like grasping onto Drudge as Holy Scripture when he smears the candidate you want to smear (ahem!) but denouncing Drudge if he smears your OWN candidate.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. In other words...my bullshitometer peaked a while back

[BruinAlum]

60. As has mine

Comparing Dean's fundraising to his electability is about the most embarrassing argument to Dean I've seen yet. :eyes:

[Larkspur]

53. Referring to the AIPAC connectition

Steve Grossman, who switched to Kerry, was that man, and unlike AIPAC now, Grossman was a moderate who helped Bill Clinton engineer a peace plan that was working for a long while. Grossman was never a Likud sympathizer, like the AIPAC heads seem to be now.

[sangh0]

58. "My view is closer to AIPAC's view." - Howard Dean

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

Dean Not Progressive on Mideast

"...And when asked whether his views are closer to the dovish Americans for Peace Now (APN) or the right-wing, Sharon-supporting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he stated unequivocally in an interview with the Jewish weekly The Forward, "My view is closer to AIPAC's view."


"At one time the Peace Now view was important, but now Israel is under enormous pressure. We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations," he said.


Similarly, Dean's official campaign position on solving the Palestinian-Israeli problem is that "terrorism against Israel must end," but there is no mention of the Israeli violence that has resulted in over 2,391 deaths since September 2000.


Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees ... the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state. ..."

[Larkspur]

63. And Dean also said that an "evenhanded" approach was needed

between Israel and Palestine. Dean got in trouble with that word, but he was right.

[sangh0]

66. AIPAC is "even-handed"?

Sharon agrees

[Larkspur]

56. What you can't bring yourself to admit, is that Kerry has no charisma

to get the funds he needs to campaign against Bush.

The topic of this thread is "why could Dean get all those funds he did from average Americans, many who never donated to a campaign before, and Kerry, who was dubbed electible, can not?" Those funds are needed to fight the battle against Bush, so it's important that Kerry be able to raise those funds.

[sangh0]

59. Charisma doesn't win elections, votes do

Charisma didn't do much for Dean in Iowa and NH. Bush* doesn't have charisma either. Neither did Gore.

so it's important that Kerry be able to raise those funds.

Yeah, I can tell you're real worried about Kerry's funds

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. What you can't get yourself to admit is all that charisma and money

didn't translate to a single win in a single state.

[OKNancy]

78. Charisma is in the eye of the beholder

He didn't have it to me. I didn't think he had charisma at all.

[BruinAlum]

55. Dean had a formidable fundraising machine, there's no doubt about it

But obviously, it didn't translate into Dean's being electable, so your analogy with Kerry falls short there.

Even with 40 Mil, Dean couldn't BUY enough votes to win IA or NH, nor a single solitary primary in17 after that. So this is really a pathetic argument to argue Dean's electability with Kerry's, and an embarrassment to Dean.

[Larkspur]

61. This topic was not about the electibilty issue but about why Dean could

raise funds and Kerry still has trouble doing so.

And this topic is not just about Dean vs Kerry, but why the Democratic Party has trouble raising funds from its members and sympathizers as opposed to Bush and the Republicans. The DNC has only raised $16 million in total to help the eventual nominee. Bush has got $143 million. Hello! But don't you see this as a problem.

One of the reasons is that Dean clearly stated why funds were needed against Bush's monster money machine. Dean and his supporters showed that small donations from thousands of people could at least make a dent against what Bush and the Repukes are doing. Kerry has not tapped into what Dean did and it will not only hurt him, but the Democratic Party as well.

[sangh0]

62. Not about electabilty?

Yeah, right!

From your initial post:

If Kerry is so electible, why aren't those who vote for him donating to his campaign?

Nope, not about electability

[Larkspur]

68. Kerry is having trouble raising money

Kerry is $5.1 million in the red, as of end of January 2004. That includes his $6.4 million mortgage on his mansion.

If Kerry is dubbed by the voters as the most "electible" why aren't those who are voting for Kerry donating to his campaign? I find it interesting that none of the Kerry supporters can answer that question or make an attempt to solicit those voters to get much needed funds to fuel his campaign.

Dean proved that small donations from thousands of people can take a campaign from being an asterick in the polls to a front runner status, at least for a while. But imagine if all who voted for Kerry, contributed $10 to his campaign. He would be able to compete with Bush almost dollor-for-dollar. What a lost opportunity for Kerry to get much needed funds to compete against Bush? It's your loss, not mine.

[sangh0]

70. "This topic was not about the electibilty issue"

turns back into "If Kerry is dubbed by the voters as the most "electible" why aren't those who are voting for Kerry donating to his campaign?"

If Dean is electible, how come he can't win elections?

Dean proved that small donations from thousands of people can take a campaign from being an asterick in the polls to a front runner status, at least for a while

Too bad that's not how you win elections. The goal isn't "removing asterisks"

[BruinAlum]

67. Your second paragraph MADE it about electability AND Kerry

If Kerry is so electible, why aren't those who vote for him donating to his campaign? If they did, then he would be able to almost match Bush dollar for dollar.


You made electability a CONDITION for which people would be DONATING to Kerry's campaign.

[Larkspur]

71. So, what's wrong with that statement?

Money is important in getting the message out. If Kerry doesn't have money, he's not going to be able to fund TV ads or pay staff. No politician can last for long in a campaign without money. Kerry proved that when he took out his mortgage on his mansion.

[BruinAlum]

77. It contradicts your assertion that your topic is not about electability or

Dean vs. Kerry

Dean is NOT a good argument for this. He only proved how to blow 40Mil on 2 states and go broke and be unable to compete. Not to mention the news of gross mismanagement of funds.

Don't worry about Kerry. He is the only other candidate that has opted out of the fundraising limit. I'm sure his team knows full well what they are up against.

[OKNancy]

80. All of these posts just prove to me what I've said before

"Dean people care more about the process than the policies"

[sangh0]

83. Many don't even care about the process

they just care about how Dean made them feel

[sangh0]

72. Now he's back onto "electability"

even though the subject is not electibility.

Go figger

:shrug:

[Larkspur]

73. I'm not a "he". I'm "she".

When you guys complain about me not donating to Kerry's GE campaign, I'll remember that you said money doesn't win elections, votes do, so thank you for giving me another justifiable reason not to donate to Kerry's GE campaign.

And I will gleefully watch as Rove skewers Kerry in the media and Kerry can't answer back because he doesn't have enough funds to do so.

[sangh0]

75. LOL!

When you guys complain about me not donating to Kerry's GE campaign

Which will be immediately after hell freezes over

And I will gleefully watch as Rove skewers Kerry in the media

No surprise that you look forward to that. Too bad you're gonna be disappointed.

[maddezmom]

79. more folks will start to ante up after Super Tuesday for JK

if not before. I know I'm planning on it. :)

[Larkspur]

81. I will make sure to spread the word to my Dem Town Comm and

anyone intersted in politics that John Kerry does not need money from them because votes win elections and money does not, so Kerry does not need funds to compete against Bush.

[sangh0]

84. Good luck with that!!

Politicians always love to hear from the cranks who tell them "Don't do anything for the man who may be your next President and the leader of your party. He doesn't need your money"

[Larkspur]

88. I will only be telling them what Kerry supporters have told me

that Kerry doesn't need the money and I will direct them to give their funds to other candidates who do need it.

I am on my town's Demoratic Town Committee and they respect me.

[sangh0]

90. And I am the Queen of England

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a cocker spaniel"

[Larkspur]

91. I know you're not because your English is terrible

.

[sangh0]

94. It's the teeth

.

[JHBowden]

85. If Dean can't win with 40 mill, how is he electable?

I don't get it. Dean's campaign was also supposed to bring in oceans of new voters, and that didn't happen either.

Dean is not the only candidate who lost. I don't see the supporters of Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman, and so forth spouting this nonsense.

Haven't we had enough of Bushit?

[maddezmom]

89. actually I think it was closer to 50 million

according to the guy that spoke before Dean, when Dean suspended his campaign.