A regular reader of mine might be forgiven for wondering why there's any sort of surprised tone in this Washington Post article.
Democrats Are Jarred by Drop In Fundraising
Democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business.
The trend is a marked reversal from recent history, in which Democrats have erased the GOP's long-standing fundraising advantage. In the first six months of 2009, Democratic campaign committees' receipts have dropped compared with the same period two years earlier.
After all, the people reading this post already know all of this. The ongoing fundraising situation has been regularly reported on here, here, here, here, here (all of which also compared points in this cycle to the equivalent points in the last one), here, and here - and also here for the state of the parties' financial status at the end of 2008. Readers of both RedState and my own personal website have been kept apprised that Democratic fundraising has been consistently below last cycle's expectations, and that the GOP has been overperforming (compared to largely media-driven expectations) - and that the amount of debt that the Democratic party has chosen to retain is warping its cash-on-hand numbers (which is something that the above article neglects to mention). So why is the Washington Post apparently discovering this now?
Oh, right: because I'm not a 'journalist.' Just somebody who was paying attention.
*Thank you, Virginia Postrel.
PS: [Rather brazen call for filthy lucre relocated to here.]