Monday, April 03, 2006

Lamont Campaign Nets 4,000 Donors: Swan Optimistic

The Lamont campaign is feeling upbeat about this quarter’s fundraising, and perhaps with good reason. According to a campaign email, Lamont has raised money from over 4,000 individual donors.

I sat down with Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan today to discuss fundraising and other issues surrounding the U.S. Senate primary.

Swan was hesitant to discuss exactly how much money the Lamont campaign had raised, but did say that it was "…significantly more than what’s on [progressive fundraising site] ActBlue," which, according to a report seen on the site, currently stands at about $177,000 and accounts for 3,526 donors. Swan also added that "a decent number [of the donors] are from Connecticut," although he was unable to say precisely how many.

Swan seems confident that the Lamont campaign is keeping pace with their rivals. When asked whether Sen. Lieberman’s sizable lead in the money race worried him, Swan smiled and said, "It did before our filing deadline."

Swan acknowledged the role that the Web is having on the campaign. At this point, he said, "The netroots won’t win it for us, but we won’t win without the netroots." Later, he added, "There’s no way we’d have 4,000 donors seven weeks after hiring a campaign manager without the internet."

The Ground Game

The Lamont campaign is looking for more than just the support of the Web. According to Swan, they’ve been busy building a field organization, gathering enough signatures to petition their way on the ballot, continuing to develop issues and reaching out to delegates and organizations. And, although many unions are standing behind Lieberman, Swan says he remains "optimistic about labor."

Swan also spoke about the reception his candidate got at the Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey dinner last week. He recalled that Lamont and a few supporters had circulated among the tables. "The response was phenomenal," he said. "…Out of the sixty tables we went to, [only] one didn’t want to talk to us." He said that while most didn’t commit to Lamont, they were at least willing to listen.

A Desire for Change

Swan rejects the charge made by the Lieberman campaign that Lamont is an angry candidate focused on one issue. "[Lamont] is anything but an angry single issue guy.” In fact, Swan says, Lamont seems to encourage decorum in the ranks. "He doesn’t even want us referring to [Sen. Lieberman] as ‘Joe.’"

Swan stressed that the campaign was about issues, and that "On most big issues, [Lieberman] hasn’t represented Connecticut." He hopes that Lieberman and Lamont will have a chance to debate at some point.

In the end, he thinks voters want something different. "When we win August 8th [it will] really wake a lot of people up nationally on how much people want change," he said.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

4000 progressives gave money...all well and good, but where is the moderates and democratic centrists that you need to win,Tom....and where is your strategy to effectuate winning the center?

ctkeith said...

Thanks for putting your ass on the line again Swanny.

Never let it be said that Tom Swan lacked courage.His is immense

Anonymous said...

Anon12:07

Lamont is the center.Liebermans support for radical Ideas like Preemptive Wars,Subsudizing Big Pharma,Useless and very expensive weapons systems that don't work(starwars) and changing accounting rules that allowed Enron to happen are radical, not moderate or center anything.

Anonymous said...

Moderates and Centrists luv the Lieberman/Bush war!

Not!

Luckily for W, Joe and his NeoCon buddies were pushing for the Iraq Invasion c. 1998. (well before Bush @ Co. took the stage.)

I only wish the Neo-Cons were legitimately concerned with the security and future of Israel. Blinded by utopian visions, (and corporate hand-outs), they have made Israel less sage.

In the long run, Lieberman and his Bush-kissing buddies are right! And the critics of nation-building should be relegated to Croatia/Serbia/Muslim. FWIW>

Anonymous said...

Lamont 2006

All Iraq, all the time

You give me a six year senate seat, I give you Baghdad

Anonymous said...

One of the biggest problem with Joe is that he is only in it for himself. Imagine a 35 year democratic legislator refusing to rule out running as an independent! He's been taking calculated policy positions that led him to being Gore's vice presidential running mate and ultimately to his joke of a presidential race. In the meantime, democrats in Connecticut haven't had adequate representation in the Senate. It is time for a change and who better than a smart, optimistic and hard-working guy like Ned Lamont??

Anonymous said...

"CTKeith said: Thanks for putting your ass on the line again Swanny."

What the hell are you talking about? Oh yeah, it was a tough decision--either I can sit in my stadard issue CCAG shack down here in Danbury without even two nickels to rub together, or I can manage the campaign of a GREENWICH BILLIONAIRE. Hmmmm...let's see...I'll pick the billionaire. And it's not like he's putting a star-studded career with tons of credentials on the line--Swan has always been a margin player, and is generally regarded as an overly venomous bomb-thrower--the definition of small time and small mind.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous with hatred for Swan : First, we all should know by now that you are a low-level staffer at the LOB who has never won an election and thinks he actually matters for something. Otherwise you would be workign on something instead of posting on a blog. I can post--I'm not claiming to be anybody. Second, the fact that CCAG played a key role in helping pass Campaign Finance reform should be enough to show that Tom Swan's time at CCAG has been monumental. That is not to mention the countless other contributions to cleaner politics in Connecticut and the movement toward single payer health care in Connecticut. He has the courage to challenge an 18-year incumbent who CCAG actually helped to overthrow Weiker in 1988. You on the other hand, don't even have the courage to post under anything other than anonymous. Lame!

Filthy Liberal said...

Whatta hypocrite--don't impugn someone for posting anonymously when you're doing the exact same thing.

And where did I claim to be anything? I don't recall writing anything about the LOB or giving any indication that I work there. Paranoid much?

And just because you cite issues that Swan has worked on doesn't make him right, nor does it point to any sort of political wisdom on Swan's part. If anything, you've validated his liberal kook credentials.

And does this "Handle" help you figure out my identity or respond to what I say?

Filthy Stinking Liberal said...

Filthy Liberal...Thank You, you've givin me my laugh for the day...Great post!

Anonymous said...

Filthy liberal--stop whining and get back to work!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:07; Judging by the letters to the editor, the blogs, the listener base to the Colin McEnroe show, just to name a few, these aren't just liberals that are donating to Ned Lamont. His support runs across any media defined political spectrum. IN fact, in Monday's Hartford Courant there was a letter from the Plainville DTC, a Vietnam veteran, who effectively endorsed Ned and pointed out how Joe has failed to represent CT citizens and has failed to represent the ideals of the democratic party.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 9:40am -

In response to: "In the meantime, democrats in Connecticut haven't had adequate representation in the Senate."

The question shouldn't be "Do democrats in connecticut have adequate representation in the US Senate?" it should be, "Do the residents of Connecticut have adequate representation in the US Senate?" Contrary to your statement Joe Lieberman represents all the residents of the state, republican, democrat or other; not just the democrats.

Do I think he is the best man for the job..nope. Do I agree with everything he does...not a chance. Do I think he represents this state responsibly...most of the time.

Do I think Lamont can do better...no way. The only thing I am confident Lamont will do is represent the democrats of Connecticut and as I said before, that is not the job of a US Senator. I suspect that majority of Connecticut residents, not just democrats, feel the same.

bluecoat said...

Different house of Congress than this post but straight from the AP here DeLay Announces Resignation From House. he's still indignant but it's a good day for the GOP nationally and probably in CT too.

Anonymous said...

disgruntled republican--your criticism of Lamont ignores one important point about electoral politics: People run affiliated with a political party. Democrats and Republicans have major differences on all types of policy issue. The question in the primary is who is the real democrat. So, unless you are a democrat, why don't you worry about Paul Strietz and we'll worry about Ned and Joe.

streitz luvva said...

Update from Streitz for Senate:

Today, in an obvious move to counter Ned Lamont's 4,000 reported donors, U.S. Senate candidate Paul Streitz announced his intention to 'ramp up' his stump presentation. So he hopped into the Streitz-Talk Express (an '89 Dodge Caravan)and went to CVS to buy two more sheets of poster-board (he calls it 'oak tag')and the 64 pack (not 32) of Crayola crayons--you know, the one with a sharpener built-in the back!

Last week it seemed that a mole in the Streitz campaign had leaked his top-secret finance plan to collect $20 from a million people. We are proud to announce that at the end of the first quarter, Paul Streitz's cash-on-hand had exceeded all expectations by amassing -$5.58 (his CVS splurge on oak tag, crayons, and a Mountain Dew Code Red).

ThemDems said...

Any word on who the new Labor Commissioner might be? Here's a name...Dave McKluski. Jodi if you read this bloog you might want to consider him...he knows labor issues and is ethically sound! I think would be a great choice!

Anonymous said...

McCluski is a democrat and Jodi is not going to appoint a democrat.

Anonymous said...

I would think that a state rep would be able to spell his own name, Mr. McCluskey

troll hater said...

However, I wouldn't expect a troll to spell things right.

Looks like this blog has jumped the shark and has become nothing but a playground for trolls.

disgruntled_republican said...

GC-

I would hope ANON 1:49 comments will be removed.

Anonymous said...

Genghis, help!

Staffers are not candidates, and there should be boundaries.

Criticizing their performance and/or actions is one thing. Criticizing their persons should be a real no-no!

Anonymous said...

Stop poking fun at Mr. Melita--he's just a man, doing his job. PLUS, Bruce Springsteen wrote a killer song about him:

"Rickmelita jump a little lighter, senorita come sit by my fire
I just want to be your lover ain’t no liar, Rickmelita you’re my stone desire."

Genghis Conn said...

I must agree.

I am now considering either turning on comment moderation or (sigh) requiring people to get a Blogger username. I don't want to do either, but I don't think that a lot of what's said in here reflects what I wanted this blog to be anymore. I also don't have the time, energy or desire to be the comment police.

So there we are.

Anonymous said...

GC--

Comment moderation would be a drag, unless you set several of us up as moderators.

Registration via sitekey isn't that bad. Everyone could get an onscreen identity, and we could carry on...

It would improve the dialogue, as even at Kos you don't see the sniping that you see here. (sadly, we're getting to be a lot like Free Republic or LGF).

Genghis Conn said...

Maybe so, Anonymous.

You're right about comment moderation. That tends to be a really vague area, anyway.

Go vote in the poll in the new post, everyone. I'm going to do one of these, probably by the end of the week.

Middletowner said...

Speaking of Lieberman, while other campaigns and office holders handed out candy-filled coffee cups (DeStefano), pencils (Lamont), flyers (everybody else) and -bizarrely- keys (Malloy) at last thursday's JJB, Lieberman's took the cake.

At every place setting, Lieberman had a little giftwrapped tree (an evergreen sapling) with the label, "Stick With Joe." This was apparently supposed to highlight Lieberman's environmental record, but all I heard was a bunch of snickers.

Anybody know how high the Lieberman Campaign's horticulture budget is?

Anonymous said...

Is there any word out there as to when and if Lamont and Lieberman will have a debate soon?

Anonymous said...

I will be prepared to give to the Lamont campaign just as soon as someone an guess how many donuts RIck Melita can eat in one sitting

Anonymous said...

The "stick with Joe" theme is good but I think it needs a second line.

How about "stick with Joe,After all,He's been stcking it to you for 18yrs."

Joe Berenguer said...

I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you a note telling you, Friend, how impressed I was with it.
I give you my best wishes for your future endeavors.
If you have a moment, please visit my site:
job portal
It covers job portal related contents.
All the best!