If you have "no place to go," come here!

RNC vs. Tea Party: Too Much Hot Water?

The Mayberry Lane's picture

Earlier this month, an RNC marketing document was discovered. In this appalling Power Point presentation, voters were divided into categories depending on the amount of money The Party expected to be able to suck out of them.

Perhaps in an attempt to recreate the flood of cash Obama received from small donors, the marketing presentation out lined the motivations of these “visceral” donors as “fear”, “reactionary”, and “extreme negative feelings towards existing Administration.”. In what I believe to be a classic case of not being able to see the forest ‘spite the trees, it just may be that the RNC bit off a bit more than they could chew.

Now here they stand. On one side of the party we see progressive Republicans attempting to move the party forward, attract younger voters, and calm the craziness these fear tactics have managed to incite. On the other we have the Tea Party. The anti-government, anti-Obama, anti-anything-they-don’t-understand Tea Party. Could it be that all that fear and hate speech pumped out by Faux News is finally starting to turn on the Republican Party itself?

How does the party think it can mend this fence when even Fox must admit that none of the 3 leading Republican candidates for Nevada’s upcoming Senate race have won the “Tea Party Seal of Approval”? And will Mitt Romney continue to be a 2012 Presidential hopeful after being recorded making statements like “I like mandates”?

Did Fox not realize that by demonizing government, Socialism, and government spending that it wouldn’t just be the democrats caught in the “cross hairs”?

It appears some in the party are slowly waking up to this realization. Even Meghan McCain, while on The View, stated that the Tea Party’s rhetoric will “continue to turn off young voters.”

Now, I’m just guessin’ here, but perhaps it may be the underlying hatred and racism of some Tea Partiers that find it appropriate to attend rallies with signs like “Send Obama back to Kenya”. Or maybe only the ones who openly admitted to attending said rallies for John McCain only to see Sarah Palin. Yeah. Perhaps that’s what really pissed Meghan off.

So, forgive my redneck nature if I fail to feel sympathy for this fractioning party. I can’t help but be hopeful that this could be beneficial to the Dems in 2012. Even in ancient times, Sun Tzu said it best: “The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers.” Well, cheers to the Tea Party!

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

And about those small donors. Campaign Finance Institute*:

It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought. Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated.

"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

To look more fully at presidential candidates' fundraising during this cycle, CFI conducted an extensive analysis of FEC records to identify repeat donors and to categorize each donor's giving according to the cumulative amount he or she gave over the course of a full election cycle.

Although an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama's funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less (see Table 3), only 26% of his money through August 31 (and 24% of his funds through October 15, according to the most recent FEC reports) came from donors whose total contributions aggregated to $200 or less. Obama's 26% compares to 25% for George W. Bush in 2004, 20% for John Kerry in 2004, 21% for John McCain in 2008, 13% for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and 38% for Howard Dean in 2004.

NOTE * See SourceWatch. After a quick scan of the board and the funders, looks to me like these guys aren't in the crazy part of Versailles.

The Mayberry Lane's picture
Submitted by The Mayberry Lane on

But I'm not certain they're enough to prove anything one way or another. (You see, statistics (sadly) are what I truely love.)

For one, the stats on the other presidents are not broken down into time frame. On face value, there is no indication as to whether these presidents EVER boasted a statistic near Obama's earlier percentage of small donors.

Regardless of the time frame or span, the 49% statistic during the build up to the election is significant. In essence, for the majority of the nearly two-year campaign, virtually half of the money earned was small donations.

In addition, during the last few months of the campaign, Obama recieved multiple endorsements from unions and other large organizations. One could assume that these endorsements likely came with large campaign contributions and thus changed the current statistic of fund raising.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

I appreciate the work you do for canine rescue, and applaud you for it.

Now, re: the tea party crowd -- I think there's plenty to be angry about; these people are just angry about either the wrong things, or the right things (the HCR bill) for the wrong reasons (socialist it ain't).

For my overall take on them, which is sort in full agreement with you about how bad some of the crazies are while not at all in agreement with you about other things, see here:

Most accurate summary of conclusion, beyond the "these people are dangerous fools" part:
What we get from now on, barring a voter revolt, unless the dems have more principle than *any* of them have yet shown, and I mean *any*, is one corporatist party ascendant, with two shades of rhetoric to fool the' troops on both sides that they should be fighting each other instead of trying to take down the whole damn frame.

Submitted by Anne on

from splintering within the GOP; the we-don’t-have-to-actually-be-responsive-to-the-voters-because-the-GOP-is-falling-apart method of “winning” elections is giving us exactly the kind of representation we should expect, and exactly the kind of representation we should reject.

Yes, the GOP has little to offer, but what, exactly, is the Democratic Party offering me?

I’m still thinking about that one, and so far, haven’t come up with anything particularly positive. So, are we really cheering on the crazy in order to be saddled with Democratic representation that is spineless, clueless and aimless? Now, there’s a marketing campaign for you: “We won’t stand up for you, we won’t listen to you, and we’ll be going in circles trying to keep up with Obama’s changing positions, but…we’re NOT CRAZY!!!”

No, they’re not crazy, but we are if we persist in the delusion that all that matters is that there are more D’s than R’s, and continue to ignore policy for process. We’d be fine with the number of Democrats we have if they were better Democrats; increasing the numbers without addressing the quality will simply result in the embarrassment of larger majorities delivering larger failures. Along with Republican policy.

As for fundraising, I know I am not the only one who has stopped giving to the Party and all its committees, and has stopped being persuaded by pleas to elect more Democrats; I am aware that reports are the Democratic fundraising is outpacing the GOP, but I suspect that a lot of what the Dems are raising is corporate cash, from some very pleased market sectors.

And if you think Obama and the DNC don’t have their own fundraising efforts broken down like the RNC, you might be kidding yourself.

I’m frankly not all that interested in dissecting the GOP’s problems when the Democratic Party is not exactly distinguishing itself on any number of levels; if you have been reading here for any length of time at all, it should be apparent that many here have no reasonable expectation of the Democratic Party being able to be fixed, have come to the conclusion that there is no point in maintaining support of any legacy party, and that it is time to consider and brainstorm and advance other alternatives.