>The party with the capital is a good indicator
>of the party of capital. Clinton's fundraising
>prowess notwithstanding, in the grand scheme of
>things one party wages electoral contests with
>dollars and the other with people.
Really? Aside from union members pressed into phonebanking, just who are these people who support the Dems? Historically, the Reps have actually led the Dems in contributions under $100. And here's what the Center for Responsive Politics says about the 1996 election:
>Soft Money $262 million
>Under federal election law, "hard money" raised
>by the parties - money that is subject to regulated limits - may be used
>directly to benefit federal candidates such as the president and vice
>president. "Soft money," on the other hand, can be raised with no
>restrictions on amount or who can give, though it is subject to more
>restrictions on its use....In all, Democrats raised just over one-third
>of their money in soft dollars; Republicans raised about one-fourth of
>their party donations through soft money.
And in the election cycle? The average Republican Congressional candidate (House and Senate combined) has $473,123 in cash on hand, and the average Dem, $404,004. It's always nice to have an extra $70k around, but this doesn't strike me as a profound difference, especially since the Reps are the incumbent party.