The RNC raised nearly three times as much money as the DNC last month, pulling in over $25 million in October, while reporting over $60 million cash on hand. Additionally, the joint fundraising effort between the Trump campaign and the RNC has raised over $300 million in 2019 so far, and reported over $156 million cash on hand last month.That's linked at Drudge. Looking for another source, I found the story in the Washington Examiner. I'll just quote the additional/different things:
The Republican National Committee told the Washington Examiner on Wednesday that it has $61.4 million on hand and $0 in debt. The RNC raised $25.3 million in October, nearly three times as much as the Democrats who raised $9 million. Furthermore the RNC has raised $194 million in 2019 so far with the DNC raising less than half of that, at $75.5 million.The Examiner embeds a tweet from Sean Spicer: "Embarrassing. The DNC is effectively bankrupt which is huge problem for the eventual nominee."
Both articles call attention to the tactic of dropping these horrible numbers in the middle of the Democratic candidates' debate.
Posts
71 comments:
Lefties run all things that way...cities...states...national programs. They tell us debt doesn’t really matter because reasons.
There was another Democratic "debate" last night?
REally?
I find this odd. Here in CO - money is pouring in from rich leftwing jerks in CA who want to remove Colorado's right to vote with the so-called popular "now your vote is a CA vote" referendum.
Money
Get away
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay
Money
It's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream
Think I'll buy me a football team
Money
Get back
But I'm all right Jack
Keep your hands off of my stack
Money
It's a hit
But don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the high-fidelity, first class, traveling set
I think I need a Lear jet
Money
It's a crime
Share it fairly
But don't take a slice of my pie
Money
So they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a raise
It's no surprise that they're giving none away
Next month, I'll send Trump another $200.
Boomerang and karma are a bitch.
Make Adam Schitt the face of the corruptocrat party.
I could not take their circus of lies and went into another room.The wife watched it and later she told me Buttigieg won. She sees him as an Episcopal priest. Which should get him zero States. But she sees him as the least insane one. And she is right that the sweet kid has not had time to become a fully Bribed Corrupt Democrat.
They still got beer, and Booker leads Trump in Wisconsin, and they still got beer.
At the same time, I'm reading in Politico about a huge dark money group that helped Dems win in 2018. Partially funded by two billionaires and the American Federation of Teachers. I think people who donated to the DNC are going dark money instead.
Hagar said... There was another Democratic "debate" last night?
yes, it's Good Thing for the Democrats, that instead of having to spend money,
the media is GIVING them 6 hours (or more?) a day; of Free Advertising
Imagine how broke they'd be if they had to pay their way?
Make South Bend Great Again
Or,
Make America South Bend
Good morning.
Democratics better impeach the motherfucker (Tlaib?) or he'll win 2020 (Green?) easily.
Get woke, go broke. Rinse and repeat.
Touchdown Jesus couldn't make South Bend great again, unless they recruited better.
Remember!
The Democrats HATE the Rich! and want to Eliminate Billionaires
except that the Democrats ARE the Rich, and want to BE Billionaires
Poor little Petey hasn't been able to get much graft, 'cause little South Bend doesn't have much
So we are supposed to ignore the propaganda value of control of MSNBC, CNN, PBS, ABC, CBS, and etcetera?
So we are supposed to ignore that students face a constant barrage of left-wing indoctrination by the universities and the high schools?
The mismatch between the money spent pushing left-wing values and right-wing values is almost unbelievable.
If it were all about money then the left would win every single time since there is at least a trillion dollar imbalance each year.
These people aren't going to drive home after the debate, are they? There's more than a whiff of bar time desperation hovering over this crowd. Tear Down The Walls, Medicare For All? Somebody better call a cab.
"Or, Make America South Bend."
Make America Bend South.
Which party is the party of big money?
Don't worry. The Dems will do just fine. As usual, they will have plenty of dark money slushing in, and they will find ways for their big donors to bypass the campaign finance laws. They always do. Except, maybe, if Fauxhauntis Warren is their nominee, and she can’t make peace with their biggest donors with her walking back her talk about confiscatory taxation of their wealth.
Democrats are masters of getting around campaign finance laws. Bill Clinton and AlGore first tapped into the Chinese market. Obama’s first campaign pioneered turning card verification off, allowing contributions from around the world to flow in. Then Crooked Hillary discovered how to collect up to 44x the legal limits from really deep pocketed individuals. They would contribute to a common fund, that then split the donation up and sent parts to up to 43 different state committees, which would send the money back to the DNC, which would then give it to her. The thing that made it work effectively and efficiently is that all of the bank accounts were in the same bank, and had common co-signers, who could just move the money account to account electronically. (This facet is what made it work efficiently, but is its Achilles Heel, since all of these other organizations were operating as alter egos to her campaign). This was, years ago, well documented for the FEC, showing almost $100 million in illegal contributions done this way. Last I knew, paired seats on the FEC were being stalled by the Senate Dems in order to prevent a quorum to gear this case. No doubt, whoever gets the Dem nomination will do something just as innovative, if they want a serious chance at winning. They always do.
Which party is the party of big money?
You won't like the real answer to that, ARM. Your data/mythology is a few decades out of date.
The Clinton Foundation was peak-intake during Her-> time as Obama's Sec of State. All of the international intake was Quid Pro Quo. Years of Quid Pro Quo money laundering for the lavish lifestyle a fake charity provides. Six million a year for private Clinton jets, alone.
Laughable what Schitt and the corrupt left are doing. I hope in inspires more donations to Trump and the GOP.
Tom STeyer and George Soros have enough dark money to cover it all.
"The Clinton Foundation was peak-intake during Her-> time as Obama's Sec of State. All of the international intake was Quid Pro Quo.”
Check this out, BleachBit.
"Ukrainian oligarchs who contributed to Clinton Foundation were not pursued by Obama admin DOJ or Ukraine prosecutors. Is it any wonder that Zlochevsky decided it would be good idea to hire Hunter Biden as protection?” - Steve McIntyre
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1197385678725750784
All the right answers above. The DNC is mostly a facade. The RNC may also be that, but it seems less of it.
The real political money is organized and channeled in other ways. What serious backer is going to give good money to the small time crooks and incompetents at the DNC? It has to be given to the proper mafiosi, where it will be better spent.
This is, btw, a general rule for any political system. One must learn who to pay off. You can blow tons of cash on useless or unimportant grifters who will promise the moon.
The 2016 election demonstrated that great gobs of money are necessary but not sufficient.
@AllenS, send $199. I read that they have to report donor names for $200 and up.
Dark money and illegal money for Democrats is in keeping with their character.
Cases in point were all those people who paid off such as Clinton or Biden or Kerry; that seems to have been money well spent (though in the grand scheme of things still fairly petty). The quid pro quo seems to have come through very reliably. This is an important matter, as word gets around, and a good reputation, as a recipient of bribes, is priceless.
The larger context of course is that there are much higher and less obvious levels of this game. Politicians are generally the small change part of the market, the slots in the casino.
JAORE (7:23) is right, but ARM will be too caught up in his own mythology to believe it.
Judging from my inbox, the RNC and Trump’s campaign are raising big money thanks to impeachment. In a slap at ARM they appear to be raising it in small (less than $50) contributions from millions of people who are fed up and past fed up with Democrats.
Spanish politics is an interesting comparison.
Parties are generally brought down, or regularly have been, by remarkably petty bribery scandals. After a couple of years it comes out that a bunch of municipal officials, say, have been bending development regulations or permits, for some valuable consideration. And so it goes, one party has a turn after the other to receive a press pile-on for what every one of them does every day.
The much bigger stuff though gets not much real interest, such as where all the EU development money went. That stuff goes through the non-political permanent government.
Ann Althouse said...
"Or, Make America South Bend."
Make America Bend South.
Althouse wins.
Blogger mandrewa said...
“So we are supposed to ignore the propaganda value of control of MSNBC, CNN, PBS, ABC, CBS, and etcetera?”
Worse than that, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are on their side. Two years ago, they banned advertising from fake news sites, and coincidentally most of the fake news sites they banned were on the right, because who gets to decide what is fake news, and what isn’t? Woke millennials living in deep blue enclaves, of course. Twitter has already banned false political advertising, with the same ultra progressive demographic of employees deciding what is fake, and what isn’t. Facebook is under a lot of pressure to follow suit. And I think that it was yesterday that it was announced that political campaigns are going to be hampered from narrowcasting (which is part of what Jered Kushner was so good at in 2016), by denying political campaigns critical demographic data - except that they will probably provide a new contractor access path that they will only tell the Democrats about that reinstates what they used to provide political campaigns. Or something like that. (They did something similar for Obama at one point).
Of course, if they actually seriously try to sway the election too much, and fail, they will likely be at the top of Trump’s shit list for his second term, and at a minimum, that probably means serious antitrust scrutiny.
Just yesterday, I sent a contribution to Trump's campaign. Apparently a lot of us don't think he will be removed from office.
An indirect attack on Warren and Bernie. See, you scared off the big donors. We love our big donors, we love money. I noticed the chick reporter on NPR talked about the debates and was fairly netural EXCEPT for slyly attacking Warren for pushing for Medicare for all, and taxing the wealthy. Like Gun control, all this stuff is supposed to be talked about AFTER the Election
Buwaya reports re Spain: The much bigger stuff though gets not much real interest, such as where all the EU development money went.
It's getting almost that way here. The biggest scams and scandals get ignored by all the media and nothing of real consequence is investigated. The problem, I believe, lies in the fact that the MSM have always been liberal and seen themselves as mavericks, investigating and harassing the powerful conservative elements of our society. They are blind to fact that they, themselves, are part of the powerful Deep State that has been in control for many decades.
Just yesterday, I sent a contribution to Trump's campaign. Apparently a lot of us don't think he will be removed from office.
@mockturtle, it doesn't matter. Nothing bars Trump from running again in November of next year whether or not he's removed from office in the interim. And he'll carry at least thirty states, probably more.
Big Mike, after my next donation, I'll be at $600 in donations. Publish my name, I have nothing to hide. I still have my Trump/Pence sign in my front yard.
The impeachment is certainly energizing the base....
As stated above, the D's don't really need $$$, because the entire MSM except for Fox News, has been attacking Trump and helping them 24/7 since August 2016. The impeachment inquiry is a Clown Show, but you wouldn't know that from the respectful MSM Reporters and their constant jabberings about how "The walls are closing in on Trump" with the latest "Bombshell". Given the economy and we're at peace, and the underlying popularity of Trump's POLICIES - he should be 5% ahead of everyone in the polls. He's not - and that's due to the biased news coverage.
The economy is booming and the Democratic Party is bankrupt.
$100 each adds up when millions are contributing.
Maybe they should have run a few Rs in Virginia.
BM: career REMF
It never occurred to me until reading these comments that "South Bend" takes on a whole new meaning when discussing Buttigieg. The (deeply offensive) jokes write themselves.
According to Donna Brazile (remember her?) the DNC became entirely a creature of the Hillary campaign. I wonder if it still is? If so, the Big Money guys would think twice before bankrolling it.
Typical. But fear not Bloomberg will bail them out. Then comes the pound of flesh.
Nice one Andrew. So perhaps Mayor Pete's husband has Peyronie's disease making them an ideal fit
Just makes it easier for Facebook and Google to own them.
MayBee @7:01 posted about a Politico article. I was, likewise, going to mention it.
Besides MayBee, the only other mention I saw about the article, and a link, was a Glen Greenwald tweet. It should be read by everyone, so we understand what we're up against.
Just a few lines from the article:
"The Sixteen Thirty Fund, a little-known nonprofit headquartered in Washington, spent $141 million on more than 100 left-leaning causes during the midterm election year"
.....
"The spending was fueled by massive anonymous donations, including one gift totaling $51.7 million."
.....
"Most of the group's funders are likely to remain a mystery because federal law does not require "social welfare"-focused nonprofits to reveal their donors."
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725
So Rick thank you for posting that I had no idea. so in conclusion it looks like what the article is saying is that the left has plenty of money but they are using every legal means possible to keep it hidden. This seems like a very trumpian maneuver and one would think that you people would stand up and applaud the Democrats for their ingenuity and ruthlessness
Are the parties still relevant?
"Thanks, Dem candidates!"
- Regards, RNC
Dems believed the Impeachment hearings would boast their chances in 2020. Meaning, without the Impeachment, they would be in even worse shape.
They are now desperate to get their hands on our tax dollars to payback their "donors".
Rick thank you for the link and the extra commentary. So much more helpful to other commenters than my mention.
The thing that made it work effectively and efficiently is that all of the bank accounts were in the same bank, and had common co-signers, who could just move the money account to account electronically.
Bruce, would that be Amalgamated Bank in NYC?
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Which party is the party of big money?
Tell us, ARM, how campaign donations are handled legally? If the RNC is outraising the DNC, then they aren't doing it with "Big Money" donations, they are doing with "Little Money" donations. The Democrats more than make up for this disparity, though, in the actual "Big Money" donations given to PACs and the 501c3 organizations (that are political action committees in all but name). In short, the Democrats aren't being outraised, they just outraise the Republicans in the PAC world where centi-millionaires and billionaires make their actual contributions.
And I see Rick just above points to an example. The Big Money Democrats know where to donate- it ain't to the DNC. Big Money Republicans know this, too, but they just don't donate as much money as the vastly wealthy liberals do to political organizations.
I am SO not bummed for the Dems' shortage of money.
Welp, I looked at filings for Dems in Montana for 2018 and saw a lot of money coming in from DC pacs and a lot going back to the DNC. The primary bank for the Dems is in NYC. The state gop has only a state bank.
Were being skunked again I think.
“Make America Bend South.”
More like Make America Bend Over.
’Tis fitting that St. Pete is climbing in the polls.
As tcrossse points out above, the DNC was essentially HCNC. It would surprise me not at all that "big money" would find other avenues (consider also the dire straits of the Clinton Foundation subsequent to the unfortunate events of November 2016).
In a sense, it may be the same transition of "big money" that allowed GHW Bush to succeed in the Republican primaries but not Jeb.
… in the PAC world where centi-millionaires and billionaires make their actual contributions.
According to the usual meaning for “centi-” (in the International System of prefixes) a “centi-millionaire” would be a person possessing some tens of thousands of dollars (not millions). A “hecto-millionaire” is the proper term for someone with hundreds of millions.
… or “deci-billionaire.”
@mockturtle, it doesn't matter. Nothing bars Trump from running again in November of next year whether or not he's removed from office in the interim. And he'll carry at least thirty states, probably more.
I would appreciate getting a definitive answer on this. I'm to lazy to find it in the Constitution. I have seen this. Trump gets convicted in the Senate, and can still win in November.
I have heard also, the Senate can convicted and bar from ever holding elected office. So is that an either or? One or the other?
Any clarity is helpful. The testimony to date will not get a conviction in the Senate. You cannot remove a president, less than a year from elections. As of now, I see articles getting voted out on a strictly partisan vote. Some dems may abandon this bad dream, vote with the Republicans and we would have an only dem vote to impeach, and bipartisan opposition. I don't see Nancy allowing that to happen.
Means nothing. The money will appear when they need it.
Tom Perez, update your resume.
Post a Comment