Jump to navigation
Individual Campaign Contributions to Date by Party and Candidate
From the most recent information filed with the Federal Elections Commission
by declared candidates competing in the 2008 President Election, the graphics below offer broad and detailed views on the individual contributions, and the beneficiaries thereof, made during the campaign to date. The first graphic shows total individual contributions to all candidates of each party, and the graphics below it break down the individual contributions by candidate within each party. Strikingly evident in the first graphic is the overwhelming edge the Democrats have realized in fundraising from individuals; they have received a total of almost $160 million in individual campaign contributions, compared to less than $105 million received by the Republican candidates, meaning the Dems have raised more than half again as much overall as the Republicans have. In fact, as can be seen from the third graph below, the two Democratic front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have between just the two of them raised more in individual contributions than all the GOP candidates combined.
None of the graphs presented here include campaign contributions from sources other than individuals; but even at that, because money raised by a candidate and overall fundraising strength by his or her party are highly reliable predictors of election success, it is quite apparent that any of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates is in a commanding position to defeat whichever candidate eventually emerges from the lackluster Republican pack. In plain terms, the GOP candidate, regardless of who it is, will march into the general election next year with a purse full of coins to do media battle against a Democratic nominee who will be waiting with the bludgeon of a war chest full of gold.
While a number of interesting talking points can be drawn from the graphs, one curious if subtle feature is that individual contributions to Republican candidates are considerably more focused on the front-runners, while individual giving is slightly more evenly distributed to the Democrats. Although arguments could be offered exactly to the contrary, conventional wisdom holds that this may, if the trend persists, lead for the Republicans to two or three powerful candidates going deep into the primary season, possibly draining resources from one another in a protracted, high-profile fight that could theoretically spill even onto the floor of the GOP national convention next year.
On the other hand, the more even distribution of money among the Democrats could allow several candidates with no hope of winning to remain in the contest long enough to force their more powerful counterparts to face tough issues they might otherwise try to avoid. Nevertheless, the swollen coffers of both Clinton and Obama, along with the persistence and still respectable fundraising ability of Edwards, ensure that the Democratic Presidential nomination will not be a slam-dunk for Clinton or
All of the above having been noted as rough and summary analysis, the graphics do speak volumes on their own. Readers are encouraged to make their own assessments of the implications for a race to the White House that is already looking more and more more like a slaughter waiting to happen rather than a Presidential election waiting to be held.
The Dark Wraith finds no small irony in how Republican President George W. Bush has turned his party and its still-groveling politicians from what was once an unstoppable fundraising machine into the party bankrupt not just of ideas, but also of the money it used to raise to hide that embarrassing truth.
Simply amazing that the sheeple will throw $264 million at a bunch of fvcking dorks.
That's the priveledged class throwing money into a pit.
Yes, the monied class. They aren't the sheeple. They are more like the sheep dogs. They chase and run and yap. And they themselves answer the whistles of the 'rancher(s)', who throws them scraps from his table, or else just lets them forage for themselves. When the s.h.t.f. they will join the rancher in eathing the sheep. Till he decides he don't need so many dogs no more, and decides to shoot some of 'em. And there are wolves too, don't forget them. They are the more direct pedators. But the ranchers, oh they will still have to reckon with God and nature. The sheeple don't donate to political parties. They've already been shorn, and now they just don't give a baahh.
Sure there's monied folks throwing dollars into the wishing well, but I've seen plenty of campaign disclosure forms regarding contributions and individual donations. There are plenty of "less monied" suckers throwing in their money too. And if you don't think it adds up to significant money, go ask your favorite televangelist.
(Variant of question I asked over at the BigBrassBlog):
Do the Democrats have enough money to guarantee there will be no election fraud?
PoLT:Do the Democrats have enough money to guarantee there will be no election fraud?
By the same token...different train, will the Dems find enough good lawyers to fight fraudulent or suspiciously timed election fraud indictments of Dems?
My Pet Goat: Simply amazing that the sheeple will throw $264 million at a bunch of fvcking dorks.
Yes. If you start adding up the monies spent by both parties, to benefit presidential and congressional nominees which, according to some rough figures I've mashed up, comes to approximately WTF IS WRONG WITH US? This crap is soooo frustrating to me. I guess I just wish we could find a way to talk to Republicans, Independents, everybody, and just lay it out for people, honestly, that the only real enemies we face, right now, is our representatives in D.C. One tiny example is the money spent on television ads. I realize that the stations are a business, "No fair making us foot the bill.", yet nothing is offered as an alternative to paying through the nose to airwaves that we own! Sheesh, 300+ cable stations and we can't get an Election channel or similar?
Awww, don't get me started. Thanks for the graphs, DW. Tres relevant, as usual. I wonder if the Dems spending being somewhat more spread out shows how divided they are in general, as has been noted in past election cycles? I mean, c'mon, we can't even decide how much abortion we're for. Anytime she decides? only if her health is compromised? first trimester only?
Let not young souls be smothered out before
They do quaint deeds and fully flaunt their pride.
It is the world's one crime its babes grow dull,
Its poor are ox-like, limp and leaden-eyed.
Not that they starve, but starve so dreamlessly;
Not that they sow, but that they seldom reap;
Not that they serve, but have no gods to serve;
Not that they die, but that they die like sheep.
-- Vachel Lindsay
Phydeaux Speaks, ya' beat me to it.
Wraith, did the field just get tilted a little farther?
And, is anyone besides me UNable to access "Conspiracy Planet" at
Looks like a Margaret Mitchell book!
Become a Registered Commenter