Dean Falls Short
It has been brought to my attention by my Republican friends that Dean maybe losing his touch. The fundraising efforts of both parties have been announced and the RNC has 32 million while the DNC has 7 million. Dean who was to be the saviour of the party seems to be making all the Republicans gloating that Dean is going to be the end of the Democrats. Dean utilized the Internet and fundraised millions of dollars in unheard amounts truly showing America what the Internet could do. Does this severe gap in fundraising efforts mean that Dean has lost his magic? As for how come the amounts of fundraising are so little I can't answer, but this case could be used to support that the Internet could have no influence on politics.
4 Comments:
I think that even if Dean raises only $10 on the Internet it shows that the Internet can influence politics. I think there are many other reasons why Dean is losing his touch not the use of the Internet. It is time for the Democratic Party to either step up or replace their leader. Otherwise they will be in big trouble in 2006.
I believe that the lack in Democratic Party fundraising does not correspond to the Internet being unpersuasive. There’s no exclusive correlation between the two. The political stage during the first half of 2005 has been eventful. There were free elections in Iraq, campaigns for Social Security reform, filibuster showdowns, and intense Senate confirmation hearings. These events have prompted some emotional coverage from the traditional mass media and can absolutely influence fundraising results. Or perhaps the Internet is incredibly persuasive and it convinced citizens to support Republicans over Democrats?
Remember when many of the "fat cat" Democratic donors said they wouldn't give money if Dean were chairman of the party?
Maybe this is a result?
Also, Bush is one reason the RNC is doing so well. Despite being hounded with bad publicity and sinking poll numbers, he remains the number 1 draw among Republican donors. He headlined fundraisers for the RSCC and Rick Santorum recently. His fundraiser in Missouri for Jim Talent helped net over $1 million I believe.
Dean successfully used the internet, but his donors were atypical. Many gave in small sums and were not large donors. Large donors can afford to give more often and more frequently. Maybe Dean was getting money from more people with less discretionary spending power.
These people have to spend money on high gas prices and food for their familes. They don't care about the next political crusade like Social Security. They'll donate again at election time, but I think it's a fallacy to expect these people to be repeat donors - even the hard core "Deaniacs."
The Dems had a lot of work to do and we'll see how Dean handles it. Fundraising is crucial, but not the end-all, be-all. And the internet method still works, but it can't replace the large contributions from party elites.
Howard Dean's fundraising on the Internet was not because of the Internet - that was merely the mechanism. Dean raised money because he had something new to say that people were desperate to hear. It was only when the other candidates began to co-opt his message that he lost. Democrats wanted someone to stand up to Bush and his unjust war.
Unfortunately, the Democrats don't seem to have anything to say that people want to hear right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home