With more than a year to go before the 2008 elections, Democratic candidates have raised $100 million more in campaign contributions than Republicans, putting them on track to win the money race for the White House and Congress for the first time since the government began detailed accounting of campaign fund raising three decades ago. Democrats have taken the lead by exploiting widespread disapproval of President Bush and the Iraq war to develop a more robust online network of new, small donors, as well as to gain traction with deep-pocketed business contributors.

Democrats' focus on small donors leaves them room to raise more cash over the next year, since many contributors have yet to hit the legal limit of $2,300 per candidate per election, and could potentially keep giving.

So far in the 2008 campaign, Democratic candidates for the White House and Congress, along with the Democratic National Committee and other party committees, have raised a total of $388.8 million, compared with $287.3 million for Republicans, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. The figures include reports filed Friday by the House and Senate party committees for fund raising through June 30.

The Republican money leader, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, lags far behind the top two Democrats, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney has raised $44 million, including nearly $9 million of his own money, to their $63 million and $59 million, respectively.

Democrats -- led by Terry McAuliffe, then chairman of the DNC -- have invested heavily in building databases and Internet fund-raising tools to reach out to smaller donors. Mr. McAuliffe has proudly touted his "Demzilla" database, which includes detailed profiles of more than 150 million potential voters and donors and was credited with helping Mr. Kerry come close to matching President Bush in fund raising during the last presidential election.

Internet Activists

Democrats have also benefited because of their comparative strength with Internet activists. While Republican voters tend to gravitate toward traditional media like talk radio, Democratic voters with strong opinions are more likely to go online to read blogs. That, in turn, has led to an explosion in online giving to Democrats, who are building lists of thousands of small-dollar donors for a fraction of the cost of traditional direct mail.

Many Democrats give by clicking links to candidates on the Web site ActBlue, a clearinghouse for small donors. ActBlue has raised $5.6 million for Democratic House, Senate and presidential candidates, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a Web site that tracks donations. It was the single biggest source of contributions to the party's presidential candidates during the first six months of the year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In a report last week, the center said ActBlue donors gave more in aggregate than the total from employees of heavy corporate contributors like Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Combined, the three leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards -- have raised more than $28 million online through June 30. The top three Republican candidates -- Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Romney, and Arizona Sen. John McCain -- raised $9.4 million online, though that figure doesn't include money Mr. Romney says he raised through a proprietary Web-based software program that lets supporters solicit friends and family for donations.

Some wealthy Republicans also are switching sides, including business executives who want access to the levers of power, or who simply don't mind crossing party lines to support candidates they like. Many say they are disturbed by the steep growth in government spending under President Bush, as well as the perceived erosion of America's standing in the world.

When the cash on hand is added up for presidential, House and Senate candidates, as well as the party committees, the picture is even bleaker. Overall, Democrats reported having $314 million in cash compared with the Republicans' $190 million, which means that 62 percent of the political cash is now held in Democratic accounts.

What does that mean at political micro-levels? The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a 10-1 cash advantage over its Republican adversary, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has a cash advantage that is three times greater than the National Republican Senatorial Committee's take.

And consider this: When President Bush was running for reelection in 2004, his appearance at the RNC's annual spring gala raised $38.5 million. During last year's congressional campaign season, the presidential gala raised $17 million. This year, it raised $10.5 million.

In addition, the loss of control of Congress has stripped Republicans of one of their most lucrative fundraising assets: committee chairmanships. According to a Center for Inquiry study released last week, corporate donors have made a seismic shift since January toward the new Democratic chairmen. In the first six months of this year, political action committees donated $41 million to Democrats, compared with $24 million for Republicans. During the previous year, Republicans received $32 million in PAC contributions, compared with $22 million for the Democrats, the report concluded.

I agree 100% with Trippi’s assessment of the GOP candidates and competition on the net. There is no underestimating the world of pain we will be in if we don’t get the small donor and email list size thing right, and get it right by February 5th so that our nominee can go toe to toe with Hillary (1 million email addresses), Obama (258K+ donors), or Edwards (Joe Trippi’s guy).

What are the GOP campaigns doing about this? Do they even view this as a problem, or are they too bogged down in winning short term tactical victories with high dollar donors and padding cash-on-hand figures?

It’s 2007, and the bottom is falling out on direct mail. (And none of the GOP candidates come to the table with a huge housefile anyway, so there shouldn’t be a sense of cannibalizing your direct marketing infrastructure.) There’s no better time to start prioritizing online over older, increasingly less effective forms of political contact. And yet the response to stuff like this seems to be… crickets.

This isn’t a fringe Internets thing. We could lose because we don’t correct this, in the same way that we almost lost in 2000 because we forgot door-to-door.

Maybe there's some expectation management going on and the numbers are better than hinted at here, but I laughed when Thompson and his people proclaimed he would run a "Howard Dean" type of race, as though saying it would automatically create this grass- and netroots phenomenon. If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it. But it's not.

To make matters worse, Thompson's non-campaign campaign has already lost two top-ranking officials, including his campaign manager.

So McCain is dead, Giuliani is tanking hard, Romney would be having trouble raising money if he didn't have his checkbook to fall back on, and now, the party's savior, seems to be exciting absolutely no one and can't raise money or put together an organization.

Fred Thompson plans to announce Tuesday [Jul 31] that his committee to test the waters for a Republican presidential campaign raised slightly more than $3 million in June, substantially less than some backers had hoped, according to Republican sources.

Newt Gingrich generously offered the Republican candidates some unsolicited campaign advice, also of French origin oddly, on Hannity and Colmes last night.

Why is a fair fight so dangerous to the Right? Because the American people don't trust them on anything.

Rasmussen. 7/20-22. Likely voters. MoE 2.6%

Which party do voters trust on these issues?

Issue	Dem	GPO	Dem advantage
Nat. Security	42	40	+2
Taxes	43	41	+2
Education	41	37	+4
Abortion	42	37	+5
Immigration	40	30	+10
Economy	47	38	+9
War in Iraq	47	35	+12
Soc. Security	47	34	+13
Ethics	38	25	+13
Healthcare	50	33	+17

That's ten out of ten issues polled. Once upon a time, the Right used their media machine and their money to drown out Democratic advantages on just about all issues. Their "concern troll" schtick prodded Democrats increasingly to the Right, with little hope of back up from progressive institutions.

That's obviously no longer the case. They no longer have the money, and they're losing their death grip on the media. As a result, O'Reilly, Kristol, and the rest of the merry band of right-wing propagandists are left to spew crazy as the rest of the country cringes at the sorry spectacle.

Given the huge earned media hit the Democrats got this week, the fact that even the highly partisan questioners acquitted themselves better than Chris Matthews did in the first debate, and the sponsorship of the powerful Republican Party of Florida, I didn't think the GOP candidates would make the political mistake of passing up it up. I was apparently wrong.

This is a big mistake. The Democrats are afraid to answer questions from Big Bad Fox News Anchors, and the Republicans are afraid to answer questions from regular people. Which is worse?

It's stuff like this that will set the GOP back an election cycle or more on the Internet. No matter the snazzy Web features and YouTube videos they may put up, if they're fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of interacting with real people online, what's the point?

Having spent the better part of a decade working at the intersection of politics and the Web, I can’t help but feel of a deep, deep sense of dismay that we’re missing something so basic. This is EXACTLY why I am afraid that we will be outraised by $100 million or more in 2008.

Four days after the Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C,. more than 400 questions directed to the GOP presidential field have been uploaded on YouTube -- targeted at Republicans scheduled to get their turn at videopopulism on Sept. 17. But so far, only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) have agreed to participate in the debate, co-hosted by Republican Party of Florida in St. Petersburg. "Aside from those two candidates, we haven't heard from anyone else," said Sam Feist of CNN, who's co-sponsoring the debate with the popular videosharing site.

Is this the reason Rudy is trying to deep-six the GOP YouTube debate? From TPM Reader KB ...

Nine months after Republicans were routed in the midterm elections, campaign observers, K Street lobbyists and political experts say there is little evidence the party can rebound in 2008. The same bad news — the president’s low approval ratings, opposition to the war in Iraq, and the lingering taint of congressional scandal, from the Jack Abramoff investigation to Sen. David Vitter’s (La.) involvement with the alleged “D.C. Madam” — leave observers skeptical that the GOP can dent Democratic majorities, let alone reclaim power in the next election.

leading indicators suggest Democrats will win the White House and both the House and Senate for the first time since 1994. Most sources doubt a repeat of 2006, when Republicans dropped 30 seats in the House. But a Democratic pick-up of a few seats in the Senate, for example, when coupled with taking the White House, would have serious implications for major issues like global warming, stem cell research and judicial appointments. Polls this week are bleak for the GOP. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll, 65 percent disapproved of Bush, close to Harry Truman’s record disapproval rating in 1948.

Money is another leading indicator, and Democratic campaign committees are beginning to distance themselves from their Republican counterparts. GOP lobbyists say it has been harder to raise money for the party without control of the congressional purse strings.

The National Republican Campaign Committee reported $2 million in cash and $4.4 million in debts this month. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported $19.5 million in cash, and just over $4 million in debts. The Republican Senate campaign committee had just under $5.8 million versus the nearly $20 million that the Senate Democratic committee reported. The Republican National Committee, however, raised more cash than the Democratic National Committee.

Privately, Republican leaders say it will take six to eight years to win back the majority, one top GOP lobbyist said, adding, “It’s a tough environment for Republicans.” Party optimists note that there are 60 districts that Bush won in 2004 but that Democrats now represent in Congress. Only eight Republicans represent districts won by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the Democratic nominee.

Of the 60, Bush won 34 with 55 percent of the vote. Cole briefed a small group of lobbyists two weeks ago on his strategy. One source who attended said the party is concentrating on 40 members. Given money shortfalls, though, only around 15 candidates in tough races could expect any significant financial help from the committee, the source said.

Sen. John McCain's media team has resigned. Since Mr. McCain accepted the resignations of former campaign manager Terry Nelson and chief strategist John Weaver two weeks ago, and put Mr. Davis in charge, more than a dozen senior staffers have left from the headquarters in northern Virginia as well as state offices in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- all states with early nominating contests. Several fund-raisers have cut their ties to the campaign, which reported a debt at the end of the second quarter.

Another great Fox Attacks video from the folks at Brave New Films.