In the middle of all this theorizing and analysis of the Democratic base, etc., there's one more thought....
In 2004, Bush and all that Republican "Big Money" raised a total of $367,228,801, while the Democrats raised $328,479,245. http://www.opensecrets.org/ Based on this level of difference apologists for the DP described their party as that of the underdog, the party of working people and small contributors. In 2006, as of the October reports, the Democratic gubernatorial campaign in Ohio showed a balance of over $9.7 million, as opposed to a bit over $6 million for the Republicans. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/campaignfinance/campaignFinance.aspx?Section= 116 This 2005 race is an even higher proportionate difference in favor of the Democrats than the Republicans enjoyed nationally in 2004, so--by the same criteria--the Democrats are the party of "Big Money." I guess this means that those advocates of the people's rights should support the Republican candidate Ken Blackwell, who (as Secretary of State) stole the 2004 election for Bush. Of course, if you see the differences in both elections as merely quantity rather than quality, both are Big Money parties and, no matter how many working people vote for them, neither deserves them. ML
