The big donors from 2004 haven’t stepped up; the DNC is hardly a player; activist on-line groups are doing impressive things but operating in fewer states and districts. The two party committees have raised historic amounts of money and now have to make choices about how much debt and how broad a playing field.What Greenburg is alluding to is fundraising that should be coming from candidates in non competitive races to the aid of candidates in hotly competitive races. Although Democrats in Connecticut would be loathe to admit it, the Lamont challenge to Lieberman drained a steady source of cash that would have naturally flowed into the congressional races. It's the zero sum game that liberal activists like to deride, but in looking at the money in congressional races nationally you can see the CT Democratic challengers lagging. Lamont has had to funnel his own cash into his campaign, so its not likely that he's been sending money to his fellow Democratic candidates, let alone the CT Democratic Party or DNC. The DNC has taken out a $10 million dollar loan to help out the DSCC
The key is for all involved to look at this as an historic election and make choices now that reflect the moment. (Source: tpmcafe.com)
The money is not designated for specific Senate races, however, sources tell us that two races in particular were used as leverage in negotiations between the DSCC and the DNC. Those two races: New Jersey and Virginia. Apparently the extra DNC money will help soften the financial blow the DSCC was taking by incurring the extra cost of saving Sen. Bob Menendez from the challenge of Republican Tom Kean Jr. as well also trying to target Virginia. New Jersey and Virginia sport three of the most expensive media markets in the country (NYC, Philly and DC). In addition, TN was also a factor in the DNC-DSCC discussions as the investment the DSCC is making is possibly more than they expected. (Source: Hotline)Contrast the DNC's financial predicament with the CT Senate race
An explosion of campaign cash - dramatized by $6.1 million in new contributions since July 20 to incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman - could push the cost of this year's white-hot U.S. Senate race above $25 million, and already has obliterated the old record of $9.3 million in combined spending by candidates in a Connecticut political contest. (Source: Courant)Despite Howard Dean's push to make all 50 states competitive against Republicans, CT Democrats have chosen an intraparty scuffle over winning a majority. it will be interesting to see how the factions reconcile post election.
CQPolitics.com Shays’ Uncharacteristic Comments Raise Questions in Conn. 4 10/17/06.
Hotline DNC Takes Out Loan For DSCC 10/17/06
Courant Senate Race Shatters Spending Record by JON LENDER, 10/14/06
13 comments:
Hey - You aren't still anti-Lamont, are you?
Turfgirl--
Why are you re-hashing this stupid argument now? First, political donations aren't a zero-sum game. Second, you are a registered Republican so why do you pretend to give a flying duck about Democrats?
If anything, the spirit of the Lamont contest inspired the Dem base, both to fight harder, and to give more.
And what kind of a jerk are you to immediately post above the hot debate thread? Is that a purposeful strategy on your part? It certainly seems to be a pattern of yours.
Joe Lieberman seems to want to blackmail everybody these days: republican voters who want schlesinger, democrats who want to see congress in their control...
Ah ha, the rare and amazing self-proving tautology!
Vary rare in the wild, the SPT is known by its inability to be refuted - if you ignore it, its correct because no one said it wasn't, but if you refute it, its correct because it predicted that you would refute it!
From an email that I just received from the Joe Courtney campaign (and clearly the ever-present gods of irony):
Since I officially began this campaign, we've shattered fundraising records for six consecutive quarters and have been able to get our message of change to the voters like never before.
We raised over $518,000 during the latest 3 month filing period with over 80% of the money coming from individuals!
[emphasis in original]
Clearly Rob didn't get the message that his fundraising was lagging...
Nor did Chris Murphy when Lamont hit his supporters with a fundraising appeal for Murphy.
And for those of us who indeed care about Democratic Congressional fundraising, the UCONN Law School Dems are throwing a little shindig for Murphy on Friday night at 6:00 at the Half Door in Hartford - Turfgrrl, will I see you there?
I have three major problems with this post and they are as follows:
the Lamont challenge to Lieberman drained a steady source of cash that would have naturally flowed into the congressional races. It's the zero sum game that liberal activists like to deride,
There is absolutely no evidence for this contention. Go check out JStor if you access, its impossible to link to a scholarly article suggesting that congressional fundraising is zero sum, because such an article does not exist.
So I do agree with point that liberals will deride the argument. We do so for the same reason we deride the argument that the Cobra Commander has a secret base on the dark side of the moon - there simply isn't any evidence to support the assertation.
but in looking at the money in congressional races nationally you can see the CT Democratic challengers lagging.
This claim is not factually accurate.
First of all, the linked file is only a selection of congressional races, not a review of fundraising in all congressional races. I think we can sefely assume, based on the number of races that will be familiar to political junkies, that the highlighted races are the most contentious and thus the best funded.
Even given the fact that less funded challengers are not included in the data set, which would tend to make anyone in the data set look worse off then they actually were, the numbers provided still don't show what the post claims they show, namely that the fundraising is lagging for the three CT challengers.
There are 49 races highlighted where a Democratic challenger is going up against a Republican incumbent, as the three CT challengers are. Of those 49 races, Diane Farrell is in a virtual tie for fourth; Chris Murphy is in seventh; and Joe Courtney is in 8th (keep in mind that leading the field is Francine Busby who had to run two campaigns - it is not at all clear whether the donations for both campaigns are included in the total).
They are "lagging" ahead of the vast majority of Democratic challengers - even when the numbers are selected so the least funded challengers don't show up!
Finally, so its not likely that he's been sending money to [Lamont's] fellow Democratic candidates
Again, not accurate. First, Lamont sent a fundraising appeal to his list of donors on behalf of Chris Murphy.
Second, candidates face the same donating restrictions that everyone else does - its not like he can turn around give Chris Murphy a million dollars. What he can do however, is turnout Democrats in the 5th CD. Which his campaign will be doing - as they will in the other districts.
Meanwhile, the campaign of erstwhile Democrat Joe Lieberman has based their electoral strategy on getting 80% of the Republican vote. So who exactly will the Lieberman campaign be turning out in the 5th?
And who exactly is the villian when it comes to the Democratic congressional challengers?
You can say there's no scholarly reasearch in the zero sum game argument, but it is also just as true that scholarly research isn't exactly abundant on the art and science of fundraising.
Thats well and good, but no one made a claim regarding the art and science of fundraising. You made a claim about its zero sum-ness and its a claim that you cannot back up, because such support for your claim simply doesn't exist.
Put politics aside, and think back to what happened when the Tsunami hit in Dec of '05. Fundraising for victims of that natural disaster hit all time highs, but for every other humanitarian program, fund raising dropped. Money, after all, is not an endless resource.
Charitable giving is a faulty analogy to political giving. Many people plan their charitable giving (cynically speaking, they have an incentive too given the tax benefits), while there is little evidence to suggest that political giving is likewise planned. As an example, the $10 I gave to Lamont did not come at the expense of any congressional candidate - I had not planned to contribute but was moved by the negative stories about Lamont self-funding because he didn't have individual contributors, so I did what little I could (ironically, partly thank yourself for Lamont receiving that $10).
Except looking historically is not quite addressing what is happening on the ground. This is a historic setting year for Democratic fund raising.
Except that I didn't look historically (although one could validly be impressed by the fundraising records broken)! Looking at right now, the three CT congressional candidates are fourth, seventh, and eighth among democratic challengers in terms of raising money (third, sixth, and seventh if you discount Francine Busby)!
This fact, taken from the link you provided, directly contradicts your claim that "in looking at the money in congressional races nationally you can see the CT Democratic challengers lagging." This statement is true only if you are willing to define "lagging" as "leading". You are, of course, entitled to the opinion that they would have even more money if Lamont weren't running (as I stated before, you would be doing so without evidence), but it is flatly wrong to argue that they are lagging behind in fundraising.
Also, what races specifically are you referencing when you write "Other races are keeping pace with Republicans"? Because there are 2 or 3 of the 49 that are, but the vast majority are in far worse shape compared to their opponents than are the three CT challengers!
Where is Lamont's fundraising going? First he keeps having to kick on his own money, and second its going to his own race.
As I stated above, its going to turn out Democratic voters - something that will directly lift the three congressional challengers.
In substance you are wrong about what candidates can do. That is why candidates have PACs and that is how money gets directed.
Did campaign finance reform get repealed? Or do PACs still have limits on how much they can contribute to campaigns?
You are right that Lieberman will attract republican voters in the 5th.
Lets be clear - The issue isn't that Lieberman will attract Republican voters.
Its that he will use his funds to turn them out! He actively needs to work against the three Democratic challengers in order to have a shot at going back to DC. If he doesn't turnout Republicans, he doesn't win. Its pretty clear that you care more about whether those three get elected than he does.
And, you didn't answer my question above! Can we expect to see you on Friday night?
So the missing $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 was because Ned Lamont ran against Joe Lieberman? Because Ned hasn't raised that much and much of what he raised has come in small dollar donations (the nature of the beast when you take on an 18 year incumbent in your own party)...
When Harold Ickes called me - I call him Hal BTW - and asked for my $10, I, sadly, had to tell him that I had already given my $10 to Ned Lamont, so he was out of luck.
/snark
Also, lets not get crazy about the 5th district - its the most conservative in CT, but it also went for Kerry over Bush in 04.
But I am saying that there are those donors who would give to issue/candidate x or y but not both. And there's just as much anecdotal evidence of that too.
Yes, but only anecdotal evidence - which is my point. We are well into the land of speculation unsupported by facts.
So what is the x factor? My argument is that there is less money available to Farrell because unlike '04, there is a contentious senate race sucking up some percent of money.
Given that all three candidates have raised more money than ever before, it is likely that the x-factor is the amount that the Republicans have raised - clearly something that Lamont's presence does not affect.
Same is true of republicans, but they seem to expand their funding pools, while democrats seem to have trouble attracting new donors. Which is why I linked to the WP and the Ickes comment.
Hal has ran out of rich people, lets not expand that problem to the Democratic Party. At every level, DNC, DSCC, DCCC, we have raised more money from more people than any other off year ever (adjusted). So may heart goes out to Ickes, but he is, quite frankly, part of the Democrats' problem, not part of the solution.
I think its safe to say that we differ on who deserves blame for that predicament.
You think?
But I am saying that there are those donors who would give to issue/candidate x or y but not both. And there's just as much anecdotal evidence of that too.
Yes, but only anecdotal evidence - which is my point. We are well into the land of speculation unsupported by facts.
So what is the x factor? My argument is that there is less money available to Farrell because unlike '04, there is a contentious senate race sucking up some percent of money.
Given that all three candidates have raised more money than ever before, it is likely that the x-factor is the amount that the Republicans have raised - clearly something that Lamont's presence does not affect.
Same is true of republicans, but they seem to expand their funding pools, while democrats seem to have trouble attracting new donors. Which is why I linked to the WP and the Ickes comment.
Hal has ran out of rich people, lets not expand that problem to the Democratic Party. At every level, DNC, DSCC, DCCC, we have raised more money from more people than any other off year ever (adjusted). So may heart goes out to Ickes, but he is, quite frankly, part of the Democrats' problem, not part of the solution.
I think its safe to say that we differ on who deserves blame for that predicament.
You think?
Post a Comment