I guess now that ACT is dead, the money has to go somewhere:
At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades.
The money will be channeled through a new partnership called the Democracy Alliance, which was founded last spring — the latest in a series of liberal initiatives as the Democratic Party and its allies continue to struggle with the loss of the House and the Senate in 1994 and the presidency in 2000. Many influential Democratic contributors were left angry and despairing over the party’s poor showing in last year’s elections, and are looking for what they hope will be more effective ways to invest their support.
Financial commitments totaling at least $80 million over the next five years generated by the Democracy Alliance in recent months — at a time when some liberal groups, such as the George Soros-backed America Coming Together, are floundering — suggest that the group is becoming a player in the long-term effort to reinvigorate the left. The group has a goal of raising $200 million — a sum that would inevitably come in part at the expense of more traditional Democratic groups, although alliance officials say donors have committed to maintaining past contribution levels.
Alliance chairman Steven Gluckstern, a retired investment banker, said that President Bush’s victory over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) last year after millions of dollars had been poured into pro-Democratic “527” groups caused many contributors to think that a dramatically new approach is needed.
“It wasn’t only the failure to win, it was the question ‘What does it take to win?’ ” Gluckstern said. “Among the lessons learned was that to bring back the progressive majority in this country is not just a periodic election investment strategy.”
This might help, but if we learned anything from 2004, when the Democrats raised as much money as the GOP, it isn’t only cash that gets candidates elected. It sure doesn’t hurt, but it isn’t the only thing.
Marx Marvelous
Uh, that’s the point of the article, right? You can’t win elections by pumping cash into particular points at election times. You need to have political infrastructure that trains your operatives, disseminates your ideas, pulls the media, and primes people for voting for you whether it’s an election year or not.
John Cole
Umm, yeah.
TallDave
Ironically, Dem fundraising tends to make their problems worse, because its done by narrow interest groups.
Dollars don’t win elections, people do. And the Democratic Party is increasingly serving its donors at the expense of its constituents.
Pug
The Democrats’ problem, of course, is a lack of constituents. Oh, and by the way, dollars do win elections. Rich Republicans have been pumping millions into the cause for thirty years now. About ten years ago, they started winning big.
TallDave
Dems have been pumping just as much money into the cause; look at George Soros. What kind of return did he get on his $200M investment in 2004?
Pug
He lost the closest re-election of an incumbent prez since Woodrow Wilson. If you think Dems have been “pumping just as much money into the cause” as Republicans, you are sadly mistaken. I think 200M may be a bit of an overstatement, too, though I’m not real up on the numbers.
Republicans have vastly more money than Democrats. Always have, always will. Seems Republicans have big business and most rich people as contituents.
Marx Marvelous
Oh, I thought you were contradicting the article. It looks like this money will go to build infrastructure, which is a good thing.
Aaron
Pug,
Read Freakonomics. Money does not win elections. Candidates do.
Aaron
Oh, and I love the canard that Republicans are filthy rich, while the poor, working class Democrats have no money at all!
Why they are poor little matchstick girls!
Case in point: the last Dem candidates for President and Vice President were respectivley a lathe operator and a janitor.
carpeicthus
Of course it’s an exaggeration, but at least it’s not completely inverse from the truth the way the strange, popular idea that the Democrats are the “party of the elites” is. Federal voting patterns are some pretty nice sample sizes.
My real question is how do I get some of this money?
Rusty Shackleford
This might help, but if we learned anything from 2004, when the Democrats raised as much money as the GOP, it isn’t only cash that gets candidates elected. It sure doesn’t hurt, but it isn’t the only thing.
Yeah, you have to have Diebold in the bag as well.