This blog is a place for us to give our Analysis and Opinions on important topics related to civics, government and politics.
Analysis is a clinical interpretation of items, issues, ideas, or events and an explanation of their impact on the future (i.e. something you think is going to happen).
Opinion is composed of your reactions, feelings, and beliefs on items, issues, ideas or events (i.e. something you would like to happen). Even though they are your opinions, they should be based in fact.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Analysis: Will first quarter fundraising have an impact on what the DCCC and the NRCC are able to accomplish?
Obviously, the significant difference in money will have an affect. This could make it harder for Republicans to maintain seats and easier for Democrats to make gains. Although this will have an affect, it will not be a huge impact. Nationally, the Republican spirit is high and publicly supported. The lack of fundraising also aligns itself with the Republican ideal of smaller government, so it could actually help in some cases. I think that the fundraising will have only marginal impacts on upcoming elections.
I don't see the first quarter fundraising totals having any significant effect on what the DCCC and NRCC are able to accomplish. Many of the House seats that the Republicans picked up in 2010 were typically conservative districts that had been taken by Democrats because of opposition to Bush administration policies. With these seats back, I don't think the lower fundraising totals will have much of an effect on the election outcomes in these places - besides the differences aren't jaw-dropping. It's just the media putting their spin on the news. Of course, they'd want to make the 2012 elections and fundraising sound much more dramatic than actuality. Now, these lower totals could affect the Republicans that will be in tight reelection races - but only time will tell. This is the data from the first quarter, and campaigns are nowhere near full swing yet.
I feel whenever there is more money involved in a campaign it give an advantage. According to the graphs there is an increase in total money but the new freshmen GOP's did not raise a much as new democratic freshmen. I feel this is because the GOP's feel safer in there seats that some of the democrates. This will probably have a greater impact on the DCCC because they will have more money and therefore be able to spend more on campaigning. But I feel that the nation right now is leaning to the right a little more and the extra money may make it equal again.
I agree with the general consensus that more money equals more success in the political world. Therefore, based on this handy little anecdotal syllogism, the difference in money the Democrats were able to raise will have a larger impact on their accomplishments than that of the Republicans. However, I believe that this impact will not be proportional to the difference in cash-money between these two parties because America will be likely to vote more conservatively (the trend viewed as of now). This will counterbalance the spectrum of votes, but only marginally.
All of this is conjecture, and there are still many months of fund raising and spending and then more raising to look forward to as Hanna brought up. Ultimately, the later fundraising tallies amongst the DCCC and the NRCC will have to be analyzed further down the road.
First quarter fundraising will have an impact. New freshman Democrats have already shown an advantage. The nation may be leaning more towards the republican side, but the Democrats are making a statement with fundraising. More money = more campaigning. The GOP may not be so safe in their seats with the amount of money being raised by Democrats.
This first quarter funding will have little impact on the accomplishments of the DCCC and NRCC. With all of the publicity and new bills coming into the House, especially among the compromises trying to be made over the budget and other matters, the incumbents will have a large advantage. The Republicans are focusing on what the people really want to work on--the economy, which in turn will work to gain more votes for them in the next election. And, of course, it is only the first quarter, and as like Hanna said, "campaigns are nowhere near full swing yet."
It will definately have some impact since thats more campaigning money. However, money really shouldn't be what makes the differences in the elections, it should be the candidates and what they stand for. First quarter fundraising will probably have some impact. Better campaigning will help with getting votes from independant voters. But right now the nation is leaning with the republican side and I don't think money will change people's opinions on who they should vote for and why.
First quarter fundraising will not affect what the DCCC and NRCC are able to accomplish. Since the primary focus of the new Congress has been budget compromise and stabilizing the economy, campaign funding has been put aside in order to save this country from fiscal destruction. This effort has been primarily fostered by the GOP and likely has contributed to the lack of campaign funding. If freshmen Republicans accomplish what they were elected to do, I believe their incumbency will be inevitable—regardless of campaign funds. Also, it appears that the redrawing of congressional districts will prove helpful for Republicans in the 2012 Congressional elections. Because of the conservative swing of the 2010 Congressional elections, the Democrats will definitely take advantage of their funds to attempt to lean the American populous more left.
I think that the Republicans are not raising much money for their campaigns because they want to look like wise spenders and are campaigning against unwise government spending. Spending a lot on their campaigns would make a Republican look hypocritical. This will have a negative effect on the Republicans because a lot of times whoever raises the most money for their campaigns ends up winning.
Money might affect these races in the long run, but I don't see it having any kind of major impact as of now. The differences are not extreme, and there is still ample time. Although Republicans are generating less money than Democrats at this point, I agree with Hanna when he says that many of the seats currently occupied by Democrats represent traditionally conservative districts that might not be held long-term. The American public seems to be approaching government with a bit of a trial-and-error method these days, constantly looking for the "change" that they have been promised. Because of this I think that Congress will be a game of political musical chairs in the near future.
Of course, in a monetary respect, the fundraising in the first quarter will have an impact on both democratic and republican committees and what they will accomplish. However, the amount they are able to raise does not necessarily help them to accomplish all of their goals as there are many other factors that are in play other than money. An example from the article that was posted included GOP Florida representative Daniel Webster defeating his Democratic competitor, Alan Grayson, in 2010 despite his funds being almost 20% lower than Grayson's. Clearly money doesn't play the biggest factor in what the committees can accomplish, I believe it is more or less how they make use of the funds they are able to raise.
How is a freshman member supposed to make significant contributions right away? I think because of the lack of progress in this Democratic presidency, the moderates and middle class will vote Republican anyways. Also, I remember the Bretzmanator saying that advertising and such isn't positive nor negative when trying to sway a vote.
I think that obviously the diference in money has an affect. Money seems to heal all. The results could mean Republicans loosing seats, while Democrats gain seats. Fundraising is a must, and it needs to be done fully. I see no reason for the lack of it, besides laziness.
13 comments:
Obviously, the significant difference in money will have an affect. This could make it harder for Republicans to maintain seats and easier for Democrats to make gains. Although this will have an affect, it will not be a huge impact. Nationally, the Republican spirit is high and publicly supported. The lack of fundraising also aligns itself with the Republican ideal of smaller government, so it could actually help in some cases. I think that the fundraising will have only marginal impacts on upcoming elections.
I don't see the first quarter fundraising totals having any significant effect on what the DCCC and NRCC are able to accomplish. Many of the House seats that the Republicans picked up in 2010 were typically conservative districts that had been taken by Democrats because of opposition to Bush administration policies. With these seats back, I don't think the lower fundraising totals will have much of an effect on the election outcomes in these places - besides the differences aren't jaw-dropping. It's just the media putting their spin on the news. Of course, they'd want to make the 2012 elections and fundraising sound much more dramatic than actuality. Now, these lower totals could affect the Republicans that will be in tight reelection races - but only time will tell. This is the data from the first quarter, and campaigns are nowhere near full swing yet.
I feel whenever there is more money involved in a campaign it give an advantage. According to the graphs there is an increase in total money but the new freshmen GOP's did not raise a much as new democratic freshmen. I feel this is because the GOP's feel safer in there seats that some of the democrates. This will probably have a greater impact on the DCCC because they will have more money and therefore be able to spend more on campaigning. But I feel that the nation right now is leaning to the right a little more and the extra money may make it equal again.
I agree with the general consensus that more money equals more success in the political world. Therefore, based on this handy little anecdotal syllogism, the difference in money the Democrats were able to raise will have a larger impact on their accomplishments than that of the Republicans. However, I believe that this impact will not be proportional to the difference in cash-money between these two parties because America will be likely to vote more conservatively (the trend viewed as of now). This will counterbalance the spectrum of votes, but only marginally.
All of this is conjecture, and there are still many months of fund raising and spending and then more raising to look forward to as Hanna brought up. Ultimately, the later fundraising tallies amongst the DCCC and the NRCC will have to be analyzed further down the road.
First quarter fundraising will have an impact. New freshman Democrats have already shown an advantage. The nation may be leaning more towards the republican side, but the Democrats are making a statement with fundraising. More money = more campaigning. The GOP may not be so safe in their seats with the amount of money being raised by Democrats.
This first quarter funding will have little impact on the accomplishments of the DCCC and NRCC. With all of the publicity and new bills coming into the House, especially among the compromises trying to be made over the budget and other matters, the incumbents will have a large advantage. The Republicans are focusing on what the people really want to work on--the economy, which in turn will work to gain more votes for them in the next election. And, of course, it is only the first quarter, and as like Hanna said, "campaigns are nowhere near full swing yet."
It will definately have some impact since thats more campaigning money. However, money really shouldn't be what makes the differences in the elections, it should be the candidates and what they stand for. First quarter fundraising will probably have some impact. Better campaigning will help with getting votes from independant voters. But right now the nation is leaning with the republican side and I don't think money will change people's opinions on who they should vote for and why.
First quarter fundraising will not affect what the DCCC and NRCC are able to accomplish. Since the primary focus of the new Congress has been budget compromise and stabilizing the economy, campaign funding has been put aside in order to save this country from fiscal destruction. This effort has been primarily fostered by the GOP and likely has contributed to the lack of campaign funding. If freshmen Republicans accomplish what they were elected to do, I believe their incumbency will be inevitable—regardless of campaign funds. Also, it appears that the redrawing of congressional districts will prove helpful for Republicans in the 2012 Congressional elections. Because of the conservative swing of the 2010 Congressional elections, the Democrats will definitely take advantage of their funds to attempt to lean the American populous more left.
I think that the Republicans are not raising much money for their campaigns because they want to look like wise spenders and are campaigning against unwise government spending. Spending a lot on their campaigns would make a Republican look hypocritical. This will have a negative effect on the Republicans because a lot of times whoever raises the most money for their campaigns ends up winning.
Money might affect these races in the long run, but I don't see it having any kind of major impact as of now. The differences are not extreme, and there is still ample time. Although Republicans are generating less money than Democrats at this point, I agree with Hanna when he says that many of the seats currently occupied by Democrats represent traditionally conservative districts that might not be held long-term. The American public seems to be approaching government with a bit of a trial-and-error method these days, constantly looking for the "change" that they have been promised. Because of this I think that Congress will be a game of political musical chairs in the near future.
Of course, in a monetary respect, the fundraising in the first quarter will have an impact on both democratic and republican committees and what they will accomplish. However, the amount they are able to raise does not necessarily help them to accomplish all of their goals as there are many other factors that are in play other than money. An example from the article that was posted included GOP Florida representative Daniel Webster defeating his Democratic competitor, Alan Grayson, in 2010 despite his funds being almost 20% lower than Grayson's. Clearly money doesn't play the biggest factor in what the committees can accomplish, I believe it is more or less how they make use of the funds they are able to raise.
How is a freshman member supposed to make significant contributions right away? I think because of the lack of progress in this Democratic presidency, the moderates and middle class will vote Republican anyways. Also, I remember the Bretzmanator saying that advertising and such isn't positive nor negative when trying to sway a vote.
I think that obviously the diference in money has an affect. Money seems to heal all. The results could mean Republicans loosing seats, while Democrats gain seats. Fundraising is a must, and it needs to be done fully. I see no reason for the lack of it, besides laziness.
Post a Comment