Admittedly the point isn't all that profound, but you manage to dodge it in each metric you offer:
> 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
Not the same as who has more dough. It costs money (e.g., up-front investment) to troll for the small donations.
> >Soft Money $262 million
> >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.
1/3 and 1/4 of different totals. So what?
> 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.
No but cash on hand does not reflect all the other cash sloshing around.
there's really only two numbers at issue: all the money supporting Dems, directly and indirectly, and all the money supporting the GOP. Do you have them? Last I heard, the GOP's number was much higher.