Slashdot Mirror
Disintermediation and Politics
code_rage writes "Everett Ehrlich (capsule biography) writes an article in the Washington Post that examines Howard Dean's effective use of the internet to create a political organization. He says that Dean has created a 'virtual' party that has taken over the only remaining asset of value, the brand name of the Democratic party. His analysis refers to the theory of Nobel-winning economist Ronald Coase: that the size of an organization is determined by the cost of gathering information. Ehrlich's article makes some predictions about the effect that Dean's strategy will have on the political system." In a related story, there's an mp3 interview with Dick Morris, along with a couple of (appropriately) blog posts about it.
"Actually the Democrats have more money from large organizations such as unions and PACs than any other party. Truth be known the Republicans have more small donations."
i al/donordems. asp
No, it's not at all true, and I have facts to back up my argument...
http://www.opensecrets.org/president
The impact of unions and PACs has been negated by the McCain-Feingold prohibition against soft money donations to candidates and parties.
Quoting the link (a Robert Novak column)
The other interesting thing here is to consider the source. Novak was the journalist who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. Also, notice how it's the "Bush-haters" who listen to NPR, but "mainstream viewers" who watch Fox News's Sunday morning news.
Krauthammer also misrepresented Dean's interview on Hardball when Chris Matthews asked Dean if Deam would break up Fox. Everybody, including Dean started laughing, and Dean jokingly answered "On an ideological basis, yes." Anybody who was watching the show knew he was joking, plus the transcripts indicated [LAUGHTER]. But Krauthammer used the famous ellipsis (...) to eliminate the [LAUGHTER], and then criticized Dean for being "unhinged", which seems to be the current right-wing meme that is going around.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
A December 18, 2002 Washington Times editorial reports that donors giving "small and medium amounts" in 2002 overwhelmingly supported the GOP, while "rich or deep-pocketed givers" hugely backed the Democrats! Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million. Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307 million. The "fabulously wealthy" donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million to the GOP - a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they lavished on the Democrats! Among those who gave $100,000+, the Democrats raised $72 million - more than double the $34 million the GOP took. The fact is that in the 2002 election cycle, those who gave a million dollars or more poured $36 million into the Democrat coffers, and a paltry $3 million into the pockets of the GOP. Again: millionaire donations went Democrat by a 12:1 margin! The two parties took in about the same amount overall - GOP: $384 million; Democrats: $350 million. Just look at the Hollywood left, and you see where the big money goes. In addition, the GOP attracted 40% more individual donors! (George W. Bush set an all-time fund-raising record by collecting the most money from one-thousand-dollar donors in the history of presidential politics.) Far more people giving small amounts exist as contributors to the Republican Party - while Democrats skunked the GOP among the super-rich. That's no surprise, since nine of the twelve richest members of the United States Senate are Democrats.
"Dean is far-left" is a standard right-wing straw man. Dean is not *even* left. Check out Political Compass's analysis of 2004 Pres. Candidates for a little perspective.