I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Woo-hoo!
No one ever accused the dems of running smart campaigns.
I'm glad it's your birthday,
Happy Birthday to you, Atrios!
And thanks for posting the link to the "Cowbell" sketch last night; it filled in an annoying gap in my pop culture lexicon.
Word, Atrios.
And Happy Birthday.
Excellent point.
Atrios--just 'cause it's your birthday, it doesn't mean it's your *party*! The posts are going so fast, I can't get a word in edgewise!
It's clear why the big money people give to secure incumbents: those incumbents can then redistribute the money to other campaigns, thus racking up favors they can later cash in... to help their big money donor's interests. Voila.
Well, maybe they are buying exactly what Republican donors are buying? Unlike the netroots, who are trying to elect someone who will represent US?
The folk who have those big bux to donate want sumpin in return...
by giving to Hillary, or some other big fart, they are assured of some return on investment...
donating to Ciro, on spec, ummmm not so much...
.
So the netroots is like the venture capital of the election world? Interesting take.
I suspect people who donate to safe seats, especially in 2k increments, are looking for points with the Senator fom NY.
If you are a large donor it doesn't make sense to back a risky choice - the safe one is a better bet.
What is the risk adjusted value of a dollar?
I'm guessing you'd need to use a fairly large discount rate for some of the candidates.
Another point is that the 'netroots' picks candidates in states they are unfamiliar with, especially the districts. I'm not sure that they actually understand the public's view of the candidate or their real chances. They maybe downplaying the risk because of an information gap.
Of course Ciro is a fairly good place to put money, just because the alternative is horrible.
The offense factor at play? Emotions over reality?
Candidates do deserve support but I think there could be a real backlash, particularly for Ciro. It's really, really good he stuck dailykos at the bottom of his endorsements and got a bunch of reps and sens to endorse him, now at the top.
Seriously, dailykos and all the sites we enjoy might not appeal to the voters Ciro needs to win over.
Also, voters dislike outside influences. Imagine the attack ads featuring shots from some of the endorsing blog's posts - which will probably be what happens in the actual election.
James and WoodyGuthrie have a point. And, of course, Hillary might be pursuing some other office in the near future.
Those big $ donors probably want to build those ties ASAP.
Funding incumbents with safe seats is largely just wankery.
with all due respect, i think it is NOT wankery. it's buying access.
yah, I understand the reasons incumbents get money, but if the goal is "electing more democrats" rather than all of the other things it's money badly spent.
Fucking great post Atrios.
My guess is that there's more money allocated to safe seats because the money is given in return for favors, not to get someone elected.
Think about it - if you were someone who wanted a favor, would you give money to the candidate with an outside shot, or someone who's a sure thing?
Yes atrios,
like when Hillary came to Portland and left with another $100K for her own campaign. Didn't bother to use her star power to help the locals. Finally she left $5,000 to the OR Dems after being shamed by the dude whose life John Kerry saved.
Hillary is a selfish poopy diaper.
HBD! what're we going to do w/ this DLC? Think there was a good post here a while back about not contributing to the negative Demo. memes, but we can’t go all “oxyaddict ditto” either. Pushing one positive progressive race at a time is a good start for 06, but if shit isn't gotten together soon, 08 aint gonna be pretty.
Funding safe incumbents isn't wankery - it's bribery
One of the things that the insiders don't get is that it's our money and we're going to spend it however we want. It doesn't matter if they think it's wise or not. I don't hear them telling folks not to spend money on a van to carpool because a train somewhere else just might get them where they want to go (or not) and it's BIGGER and SHINIER and don't you want the train to make it into the station? We all know the train is going to get there anyway because wealthy people and corps. like the train. I'd rather buy the van to help folks in the desert get where they need to go.
Oh, and we aren't sure how the public is going to respond to candidates in other parts of the country? What, we don't read their local newspapers or check out the net buzz on these here internets? Granted, it doesn't give you the entire picture, but it does let you know if the candidate is likely to be a tool -- and that's all you'll get if you live where they're running. Living in the "heartland," I can attest that not a single fucking politician who isn't regularly surrounded by corn, laid off manufacturers, pissy farmers and meth addicts who think we don't notice their teeth actually gets what it's like here, the same way that someone who has never lived in Boston doesn't get what it's like in Dorchester. Do we let those limits stop us from helping decent candidates speak for our compatriots? Lord, I hope not.
Good point, Atrios. It's a good time to remember that the Bush Republican dynasty in Texas is up for challenge. The current governor Perry, the evil twin of Tom DeLay, like DeLay, is being challenged in a wierd race that includes ScotBot McClellan's mama, Carol Keeton Strayhorn, and Kinky Friedman, both running as independents, and Chris Bell and Bob Gammage, the Dem candidates. But some Dem money is backing Strayhorn (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/
latestnews/stories/
012606dntextxcash.173c62f6.html)
because "The thing we have to worry about right now is who has a shot," said the Waco insurance executive. "And the only two people who seem to have a shot at it are Strayhorn and [Gov. Rick] Perry."
Well, that will always be the case unless the contributions go to the lesser-knowns.
A little ad money would help, too, in both the DeLay contest and the Perry contest. Another Perry is bank-rolling DeLay ads (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/
metro/3668654.html).
Contribute to Texas Dems!
And all those "insiders" are part of the same rotten scheme. They get access to the people with access, or help grease the way for them. Until there is real election reform (i.e. when hell freezes over) the dems will be playing the same game as the rethugs, but not as well - there's still some vestigial remnant of conscience in most cases.
atrios:
Isn't it also true that funding Dem challengers who have no chance of winning is poor strategy?
If we could rely on someone to inform which Dem challengers are in an actual "race" and have a good shot at taking away a seat then our donations would be better spent I think.
Is there anyone providing that information? We need a top 25 or 50 list to help focus on races that have a chance of electing a Democrat.
Direct From the Frontlines
Republicans deep pockets
My name is Tim Barnwell and I am running as a Democrat for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 26th TX Congressional District against the Republican incumbent Michael Burgess.
During the 2003-04-election cycle my opponent received over $925,000 in contributions and disbursed $817,000.
For that same period the Democratic challenger collected $7,453 and spent $9,564.
He lost by a 2 to 1 margin despite being outspent 85 to 1!
I believe my campaign, reasonably funded, has a very real chance of achieving victory.
It's not just Washinton insiders. You can add Sirota to that list as well. His response to the Hackett/Brown thing is symptomatic and frankly makes Sirota sounds like a little punk ass bitch. He launches a "it's not true, but even if it was.." followed by ceaseless ad hominem.
The only way to bypass the loser milquetoast Beltway insider consultant class is to choke off their funds. Give directly to candidates and tell org like DLC, DSCC, etc to go fuck themselves. That's what I did.
Good luck to you Barnwell. TX 26? That's in the northern burbs of D-FW?
Corruption, plain and simple. Why do big donors give money to safe seat incumbents? It must be for something. If they cared about the Democratic Party they would put their money to better use. The corruption in politics sucks.
Democratic insiders need to add the word "triage" to their vocabularies. As everyone else knows, this is the concept of putting your limited medical resources where they'll do the most good. It's intuitively obvious that you shouldn't waste money on candidates who are doomed to lose (and actually wrong, but that's a subject for another time). It's less intuitively obvious, but still true, that that you shouldn't waste money on candidates who are doomed to win.
That is, if your goal actually is to have your party wrest control of national politics from the opposite one. If instead your goal is only to suck up to, and siphon a living from, the senior figures of your party, whether they achieve majority status or remain merely minority office holders, then throwing money at the winners is the smart, if corrupt, thing to do.
I'd like to see the money go to Jonathan Tasini, not Hillary Clinton. Clinton needs to be chucked out of office.
Well look at the whole Hackett fiasco, where was the money for him? He was not that much of a long shot. Yet the politics and the money seemed to work against him when the DSCC decided he was not their man.
Frankly I will be reticent to give $ 20.00 let alone $2,000.00 to anyone if this party does not get on track and start backing the people’s candidates.
People who give to Hillary are like those folks who donate money to Harvard instead of a smaller school that could really use the cash. They get to claim they are making a difference without really doing anything at all.
Regarding Hackett/Brown: the DSCC did not tell the netroots not to back Hackett. He dropped out. This has nothing to do with what Atrios talked about - backing Brown is money well spent, as he has the better chance of winning (he's also more progressive, btw). It's that simple.
Funding incumbents with safe seats is largely just wankery.
As others have pointed out, it's actually Dukestir wannabe wankery.
As in, "I gave you some dough, and I wannabe remembered in the next earmark porkfest!"
But it is wankery, in that investing in candidates whose election would shift the balance of power could offer a much greater ROI. Hillary will remember your donation, alright -- with a Billary Christmas card.
From what I have read he dropped out because he was asked to,( told to reconsider) and money was a big issue, as Brown had a wad. My point is they supported Hackett until Brown got back in the race, then for some reason , with his links or political connections Brown seemed to become the favorite. There are several articles about this incident, I do not know who is the progressive of the two, all I know is that there is still muddy water around this. And money was an issue. If there is nothing going on here, why does the DSCC seem to be caught up in a fray.
Short answer -- because campaign contributions are not primarily about winning elections. They're about currying favor, greasing the system, getting your meathooks into an established, recognized candidate, and getting maximum return on investment, because most of the money is coming from corporations and corporate personalities who have a fiduciary responsibility to optimize shareholder returns.
This is hardly a cynical observation. Happy birthday, btw.
People who donate big bucks to the Hillary Clinton campaign are like the campaign volunteers putting their time and energy to working for Sen. Kennedy's reelection campaign-- they're doing it because they want to be connected to the right people. Plenty of people are willing to donate their time and money for a cause when they're absolutely needed, but politicians want to know who the people are who will donate their time and money to those who already have plenty. It's a matter of cultivating a dedicate core who will be around if the going ever gets tough.
(I, not having a particularly large surplus of time or money, leave the donations to campaigns like Clinton's and Kennedy's to others who have money to burn)
The other point is...Hillary may get elected, but unless there is a DEM majority, she won't actually get to DO anything.
Assuming that some politicians actually do want to accomplish something good for the people, this is a problem.
Yes west of east...
But I thought we were trying to be different...
Being different would be calling for publicly financed campaigns.
Democrats will be a permanent minority party till we see that day. Since Buckley v. Valeo, we'll have had 12 years of Democratic presidents and 20 years of Republicans by 2008 (8 Dem years, really, if you subtract Carter's term). And we've had the longest run of Republican congressional power since Reconstruction.
Raising $50K from the grassroots for Ciro is noble and good, maybe even effective as a one-off, but Time/Warner wouldn't miss $50K on the worst day it ever had.
IMO, people giving to Hillary are placing an influence bet on the chance she will be President-it has nothing to do with electing Democrats and little to do with her job as Senator.
"Those Who Know Where Our Money Should Go" also include some of the "netroots" people. Just saying ...
...goes around the world
No "Yes" references lately, though...
an important point.
and worth repeating,
along with the campaign finance info posted further up the line.
the reason is, i suspect, that people wanting the senator's (or any senator's or congressman's) attention and influence are buying that influence.
and they are buying it because it is a safe investment in a safe seat.
why risk your money on a candidate who may not make it to the congress?
this is where ordinary people,
each of whom don't have a lot of money
but of whom there are millions,
need to make their own risky $20, $50, $100 investment on lamont, ciro, and many others.
the big-money, safe-money guys will NEVER do this.
I don't care how much money Hillary
has for her campaign a woman will never be president or vp today. All you are doing is handing it over to the republicans for another 8 years.
And esp a woman who is republican,
enabler, put her daughter through
it, White water, last clinton in the
oval office put in NAFTA. clintons
ruined the Democratic Party. And
if clinton who calls himself republican democrat and now bush's
brother is Hillary not his sister too?
And Hillary was a Goldwater girl
in Chicago and can't get more conservative than Goldwater who
wanted to escalate the Viet
Nam War. Running a woman is stupid, but running her is really stupid.
Edwards is the only good one you
have--why can't you see that if
you are so smart.
Well it is of course the difference between "we the people" and "we the politicians..." when it seems forever never to get down to campaign reform. Between that and the diebold factor Dems have a hell of a hill climb ahead.
How much money did John Kerry save for his next senate race? wanker
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
