September 30, 2016

"Not looking so great anymore, Ann."

Email sent last night from the Democratic Party. I thought they were the ones who weren't disparaging women's looks. Oh, they're the ones who are not looking so great anymore:
Ann, up until this point, September has been a great month of fundraising for Democrats thanks to grassroots supporters like you.

When we hit our mid-month goal, it seemed like Donald Trump and the GOP wouldn't be able to catch us by the end of the month -- but I have to tell you I'm starting to get a little worried.

Donald Trump's grassroots donations are steadily climbing each month. He's getting record-breaking numbers of small-dollar donations -- something that's not typical of a lot of Republican campaigns we've been up against.....
I'm told to "pitch in $3 now" as a way of saying "hell no" to the question whether I want to the Democrats look bad because they got "outraised by Donald Trump and the GOP."

I never give any politicians money, by the way, but I do read the email, because I like to see how the different characters try to scare up money. This one is interesting not just because they played on a woman's fear that she's losing her looks — but thanks for appreciating how I used to look — but also because it calls attention to Trump's success getting a high volume of small donations. That reminded me of this article in the NYT, which also highlights how the 2 parties have switched positions: "Democrats Rake In Money, Thanks to Suit by Republicans":
Democrats denounced [McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission] as an assault on democracy and a sop to billionaires when the Supreme Court issued a ruling two years ago that loosened limits on campaign giving. But Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party leaders are now exploiting the decision, funneling tens of millions of dollars from their wealthiest donors into a handful of presidential swing states.... Just 250 donors have accounted for about $44 million in contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund during the last year....
At the very end of the article: "By contrast, the money raised by Mr. Trump and the Republicans, while robust, has been driven chiefly by small checks from his grass-roots supporters."

Imagine how the NYT would phrase the story if it were Trump taking advantage of McCutcheon — tapping the wealthy — and Hillary reaping huge numbers of small donations from ordinary people.

24 comments:

damikesc said...

They wouldn't need any proof. They portrayed the vote recounting in 2000 funds as the poor supporting Gore and the rich supporting Bush --- yet Gore was bankrolled by a tiny number of people. Gore's massive individual donations were dwarfed by Bush's much smaller individual donations.

Press recorded it otherwise.

mikee said...

The campaign donation emails are works of psy-ops artistry, containing a massive amount of BS but having almost no smell of corruption to them.

eric said...

Giving money has got to be harder than voting. Right?

I mean, easier in the sense that you don't have to do anything very complicated. But harder because you're giving away your hard earned money.

Shouldn't more small donors mean something as far as expected turn out?

Democrats love turn out. Off year elections don't go so well for them, because turn out is low. But presidential election years go much better for them because turn out is much higher.

But what if the turn out and enthusiasm is on Trump's side? What if, for once, it's on the Republican side?

I still worry about fraud though. Ugh. Wish I had more confidence in our process.

rhhardin said...

Whenever I triumph, I always thank the little people.

Todd said...

So Hillary raises more money from big donors whereas Trump more from small?

The pressing question (unanswered) is: how much by percentage has the Hillary campaign raised by stealing from poor little old ladies?

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Aitken said...

OT, sort of. Johnson gets endorsed by Chicago Tribune

rehajm said...

There's a Democrat lady who acts as traffic cop to coordinate where the big money donations need to go. She was very very busy last week.

Darrell said...

Is Hillary still stealing $96.99 after you donate $3?

Big Mike said...

The Trump campaign claims to have raised $18M in the 24 hours following the debate, and further claims that this is some sort of 24 hour fundraising record. All or nearly all of it from small donations (or so they imply.

For all the golf courses he owns, Trump sure knows how to dish it out to the "country club Republicans." I wish the guy had thicker skin and got off Twitter (and stayed off!), but his heart surely is in the right place.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...but thanks for appreciating how I used to look...

For the record, we all appreciate how you used to look too...

clint said...

Whenever you see an ad that seems ridiculous... it's usually wise to assume it's actually a brilliant ad targeted at a different audience.


Matthew Sablan said...

"I still worry about fraud though."

-- 14 dead people in VA registered to vote. I'll be interested to see what the investigation turns up.

As for the actual fundraising pitches: I'm glad I don't get them from either side any more since GMail's junk mail filter started working.

Peter said...

"I never give any politicians money, by the way..."

If you really like to receive this stuff, occasionally give one dollar. Doing so won't get you the same amount of attention as $1,000. would, but just being in the "gave something" bucket will generate an enormous volume of mail.

That, and, I'd figure it'll probably costs more than $1. to process your dollar anyway.

Todd said...

Peter said...

That, and, I'd figure it'll probably costs more than $1. to process your dollar anyway.

9/30/16, 10:59 AM


Not for the Hillary campaign as they wind up hitting your account for closer to $100 (but not over)...

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

AprilApple said...

If you don't give the Democrats money, you are a racist.

damikesc said...

OT, sort of. Johnson gets endorsed by Chicago Tribune

How bad is Hillary to lose the endorsement for Chicago's top paper to a burnt-out hippie?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Democrats have been the part of 1%ers, foreign and domestic, for at least several decades, but earlier, too, as they progressed to overtake their competitors. It was not for Posterity (a.k.a. "children"), diversity (i.e. individual), equality, peace, science, and economic prosperity.

traditionalguy said...

Actually, Ann is looking great lately.

I thing I'm going to skip the next Trump donation, which KellyAnn seems to want given over and over, and send a special one time donation to Althouse Blog to buy its great writer a Retirement Gift.

Martin said...

I recall back in 2008 and 2012 the meme was how Obama raised money from lots of small donations--which turned out to be a lie, his contributions came from ten usual mix of big and small donors, most of the donations being small but the lion's share of the money from the big donors.

The idea, I suppose, was to Astroturf the matter of who supported him. Never very credible as I knew lots of people who supported Obama, none of whom said they gave any money.

In Trump's case, given how much the "establishment" fears and loathes him, it is more believeable, but I'm still curious to see the final FEC reporting.

Todd said...

Martin said...
I recall back in 2008 and 2012 the meme was how Obama raised money from lots of small donations--which turned out to be a lie, his contributions came from ten usual mix of big and small donors, most of the donations being small but the lion's share of the money from the big donors.

9/30/16, 1:16 PM


Don't forget his [Obama's] web site for donations was [mysteriously] broken in that it allowed foreign contributions which is [for mere mortals] illegal. Funny, I don't recall anyone going to prison for that "little" screw-up.

Clyde said...

"Aw, Hill no!"

Thrasymachus said...

I got an email with the exact same subject line, except that my name is "Andrew". I don't think they're targeting women. Are they targeting donors of *cough* a certain age? Hard to say. I'm in my 40s, so it could go either way. But I doubt they're as clever as all that.