Why Don't Republicans Consistently Out raise Democrats?

[KevinWestern]

I've heard my Democratic friends claim that it is only the Republicans who are protecting the interests of the “ultra-rich”.

My simple question is, if this was actually true, and Republicans are the only party protecting the interests of the “ultra-rich”, then why do they often fall short of beating Democrats in campaign contributions (especially when you take into consideration the recent Citizens United ruling)?

Isn't that a paradox?

Personally, I believe both parties are "representers" of the ultra-rich. The Dems just do so more covertly.



.

 

[Moonglow]

They throw in a bonus???If you contribute a certain amount???

 

[ClosedCaption]

Most people have heard the argument that Republicans are out to protect the interests of the “ultra-rich”.

My simple question is, if Republicans protect the interests of the “ultra-rich” then why do they often fall short of beating Democrats in campaign contributions (especially when you take into consideration the recent Citizens United ruling)?

Because their ideas are stupid

 

[KNB]

It's because more rich people invest their money in the most successful candidates.

They give money to both parties, but more to the party that is likely to win in that particular election.

 

[bendog]

Big donors tend not to back candidates they see as losers. McCain was underfunded, Mittless was overfunded.

That goes for both parties, btw.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now the flip side is that you believe Dems hate the rich but they receive more contributions from them and a lot of liberals are rich themselves.

Your idea dont have to make sense for you to believe them. You just have to be easily led by the nose and dont question the inconsistencies

 

[KevinWestern]

Most people have heard the argument that Republicans are out to protect the interests of the “ultra-rich”.

My simple question is, if Republicans protect the interests of the “ultra-rich” then why do they often fall short of beating Democrats in campaign contributions (especially when you take into consideration the recent Citizens United ruling)?

Because their ideas are stupid

I think you can try harder, closed caption. You're capable of more.

 

[KevinWestern]

Big donors tend not to back candidates they see as losers. McCain was underfunded, Mittless was overfunded.

That goes for both parties, btw.

Sure. But logically speaking, if one party is the main line of representation for the ultra rich - specifically - wouldn't they naturally draw greater sums of money?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Democrats "out raise" Republicans in direct contributions, but that doesn't take into account the myriad ways that money flows into elections without ever going into either campaign's coffers.

Independent Expenditures, "Issue" campaigns, and all the PACs, SuperPACs and 501s aren't counted in those totals.

 

[KevinWestern]

Now the flip side is that you believe Dems hate the rich but they receive more contributions from them and a lot of liberals are rich themselves.

Your idea dont have to make sense for you to believe them. You just have to be easily led by the nose and dont question the inconsistencies

Not sure I understand your point here CC, can you restate? I don't believe that the Democrats hate the rich, I think that they support the rich as much as the Republicans do (and can sometimes be "wolves in sheep's clothing").

 

[KevinWestern]

Democrats "out raise" Republicans in direct contributions, but that doesn't take into account the myriad ways that money flows into elections without ever going into either campaign's coffers.

Independent Expenditures, "Issue" campaigns, and all the PACs, SuperPACs and 501s aren't counted in those totals.

Either way, wouldn't the party representing the group of people with considerably more money (obviously) be able to raise more money - consistently?

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

Again, just trying to entertain the idea that the Dems also represent the interests of "the rich" equally (if not more). It's not just the Republicans.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Now the flip side is that you believe Dems hate the rich but they receive more contributions from them and a lot of liberals are rich themselves.

Your idea dont have to make sense for you to believe them. You just have to be easily led by the nose and dont question the inconsistencies

Sure it makes sense, when you realize progressives like to divert from the real issues, in order to accuse others of the nefarious behavior in which they themselves indulge.

You know, divert attention, change the subject and isolate the opposition.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Most people have heard the argument that Republicans are out to protect the interests of the “ultra-rich”.

My simple question is, if Republicans protect the interests of the “ultra-rich” then why do they often fall short of beating Democrats in campaign contributions (especially when you take into consideration the recent Citizens United ruling)?

Because their ideas are stupid

I think you can try harder, closed caption. You're capable of more.

Yes I am but They have stupid ideas. Period.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now the flip side is that you believe Dems hate the rich but they receive more contributions from them and a lot of liberals are rich themselves.

Your idea dont have to make sense for you to believe them. You just have to be easily led by the nose and dont question the inconsistencies

Sure it makes sense, when you realize progressives like to divert from the real issues, in order to accuse others of the nefarious behavior in which they themselves indulge.

You know, divert attention, change the subject and isolate the opposition.

And propose and even pass laws to as convincers. Thats pretty convincing

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Because their ideas are stupid

I think you can try harder, closed caption. You're capable of more.

Yes I am but They have stupid ideas. Period.

And democrats have no ideas, to the point that they have to steal republican stupid ideas and make them their own.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Simple. Contrary to liberal belief, Democrats have more big and rich donors than Republicans do. They ostracize Republicans for favoring the rich and the affluent, but consistently out raise them during election season, to varying effect. Quite the double standard, wouldn't you agree?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Simple. Contrary to liberal belief, Democrats have more big and rich donors than Republicans do. They ostracize Republicans for favoring the rich and the affluent, but consistently out raise them during election season, to varying effect.

It's eve worse than that.

The wealthiest of the wealthy in congress are overwhelmingly democrats.

True to who they are, they just hate the competition.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Democrats "out raise" Republicans in direct contributions, but that doesn't take into account the myriad ways that money flows into elections without ever going into either campaign's coffers.

Independent Expenditures, "Issue" campaigns, and all the PACs, SuperPACs and 501s aren't counted in those totals.

Either way, wouldn't the party representing the group of people with more money (obviously) be able to raise more money - consistently?

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

Direct party contributions are also not a great way to measure the money that flows in, or on which "side" it goes to. Party contributions will vary based on many factors. The GOP is fractured right now, with hundreds of millions of dollars going to primary fights against "RINO"s, rather than ending up at the RNC.

Your premise is flawed to begin with, though. The Republican Party doesn't "represent the group of people with more money". Both parties represent the rich - the only difference is that the Republican party doesn't even bother pretending to represent the poor.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Democrats "out raise" Republicans in direct contributions, but that doesn't take into account the myriad ways that money flows into elections without ever going into either campaign's coffers.

Independent Expenditures, "Issue" campaigns, and all the PACs, SuperPACs and 501s aren't counted in those totals.

Either way, wouldn't the party representing the group of people with more money (obviously) be able to raise more money - consistently?

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

Direct party contributions are also not a great way to measure the money that flows in, or on which "side" it goes to. Party contributions will vary based on many factors. The GOP is fractured right now, with hundreds of millions of dollars going to primary fights against "RINO"s, rather than ending up at the RNC.

Your premise is flawed to begin with, though. The Republican Party doesn't "represent the group of people with more money". Both parties represent the rich - the difference is that the Republican party doesn't even bother pretending to represent the poor.

Just because people don't want to make people comfortable in their poverty and dependent on charity by compulsion, does not mean that they want to do nothing for the poor.

The best evidence of this is the overwhelmingly greater amount that conservative types in general give to charitable organizations, as compared to the rank stinginess of democrats.

One group believes that real charity comes from their actions, while the other cavalierly farms the task out to faceless bureaucrats.

 

[Edgetho]

To be blunt....

dimocraps have a better ground game.

Anybody in here go to College?

Remember all the groups in College? All the overtly political groups? Women's groups, Black groups, abortion rights groups, gay butt-ranger groups, Hispanic groups, anti-war groups, etc ad nauseam?

Remember them?

Every one of them -- dimocrap.

Once in a while you might find a Republican or a Conservative group but not that much.

Know why? Republicans don't like politics.

We don't like politics and we don't like politicians..... Not even our own.

But dimocraps? They're fucking BORN political. They go to College to study politics. They get Law Degrees in name only so they can get into politics by doing totally stupid shit like community organizing.

Republicans? Meh. Not really all that interested.

dimocrap scum eat, live, breathe and shit politics.

They do it from the time they're old enough to think until they die.

Useless human beings, professional politicians.

And oh.... YOu don't have to be a politician to make a living in politics. Half the Federal Bureaucracy is filled with College punks who don't have the charisma to make it in politics and get a sft, cushy with the Federal or State gubmint instead.... Usually a little higher up than the Drivers License Bureau, though.

dimocraps see government as the answer to everything they want.

Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what this Country was founded on. The exact opposite.

Our Founders believed in limited government.... Like Jefferson said, the best government is the least government.

But try to talk to a dimocrap scumbag about that and all they can do is start lying out of their fucking asses. Saying stupid shit like our Founders were liberals.

But, they're dimocraps. The scum of the earth. What else is new?