Can we beat Dumbya with limited funds?

If I am not mistaken, the campaigns that opted for public financing for the primaries are confined within those limits until sometime in July. Only two campaigns -- Dean and Kerry -- can raise unlimited funds in the race for the White House until the convention.

If I'm wrong about this, feel more than free to correct me about the fundraising rules. But if I'm correct, I'm interested in how the campaigns plan to fight against Bush's quarter of a billion dollars on an austerity budget.

Thanks for your help!

I don't think that we have the candidate that we can do it with.

Quarter billion dollars? Hardly.

Bush has set a GOAL of 200 million. We'll see if he gets it. There's a report on Drudge right now saying that a lot of republican fundraisers are withholding support.

Democrats traditionally have been very supportive of public financing. Howard Dean himself vowed to abide by it last year. Evidently he changed his mind. He also did so in Vermont.

The Republicans have ALWAYS outspent Democrats - this year will be no different, no matter who the nominee is. Clinton won twice and Gore won once despite being heavily outspent.

However, there are also now groups like MoveOn, as well as individuals like George Soros who are free to spend all the money they want on issue ads. They will.

I'm disheartened to hear this argument brought up again and again. If money is the main criterion for which candidate to suppport, we may as well give up right now. We'll never have as much money as Republicans.

But without the tv time people there is now way. It will be a cakewalk for them to steal another election. I hate to say it but having Barbour pretty much buy the election here in MS, it is sad but true. I have typed this like ten times today but, Dean and Kerry are our only viable options. Matching funds is a deadly blow to anyone who didn't opt out.

Simply put, if the candidate is a FEC limited candidate, it will only be destroyed five times over by Chimpy McCokespoon.

I read awhile back a breakdown that eased my nerves on the issue (I'm sure someone else can find the previous thread or expand on this).

If any candidate spent 6 million a month for the next six months, that is 36 million. 6 million a month is a lot to spend. If you consider the 527's spending on top of this, I think we are fine.

Wouldn't it be prudent to choose a campaign that can fight back? It seems to me that there is no strategy to win with an austerity budget; the hope is that Soros, special interest groups, or God itself come and bail us out.

there are ways to inject money into things to alleviate that pressure.

But more important is seeing to it that the other side has little to spend that money ON. Obviously that statement favors my guy Edwards over some others but the principle is solid.

Spend your money on message and hope and your money goes farther than if you spend it on vitriol and spite.

Get the ratio right and you win.

I thought that a candidate could opt for matching funds in the primary and then had the choice again to make in the GE? I think any Dem candidate will have the benefit of 90% of the Dems on there side and I think that the contributions will flow like water. There are a whole lot of people that want to see the * removed from office. Also we have moveon.org and George Soros.

word, talk the candidate up. I truly believe that for the first time, the people, and not the money are going to win this election.

:hi:

We can do what money cannot!! We shouldn't elect a candidate based on money, we should elect a candidate based on who can beat Bush AND who can lead the country in the direction we want to go, and will actually stick to his guns and get the stuff done too.

Sure, we can beat him with less funds. Gore did so last time and the Shrub outspent him by $60 million.

That's why I don't quite understand why everybody (or so it seems) is so worried about raising "enough money". How much is "enough"? Democrats don't win elections by buying them. They win them by running as Democrats, by being right on the issues, and by getting our supporters out on election day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the more you raise, the better the odds.

http://www.mstbrazil.org/mediaclash.html

The people and activists there are in the process of challenging the corporate media.

But if money alone decided elections, we wouldn't bother going to the polls. We could just check the FEC reports and swear in the guy with the most. It doesn't work that way.

Lots of cash can make a weak candidate more competitive, but it doesn't mean he can beat a strong candidate who runs a good campaign.

but do keep in mind that you are better off donating some $$$ to the DNC rather than the 527s if your funds are limited. By law, they can still coordinate advertising and messages with a candidate's campaign while the 527s cannot. Just something to keep in mind.

Keeping DNC coffers flush is not only good for the Presidential campaign but also for key congressional races.

military will have to tell to their families and communities. I guarantee that Bush,Rummy and Iraq will be getting very bad reviews from the troops.

Bush outspent Gore in 2000, but Gore still won.