« The Amnesia ... it Burns | Main | Reality Check »
July 25, 2006
Dole in the Hole against Million Buck Chuck
Yeah, the title was too rhymeriffic to resist. I liked this description of a NRSC fundraiser:
The tables were loaded with untouched platters of food as Senator Elizabeth Dole rose this week to introduce her party’s Senate candidate from Nebraska. Sixty people were supposed to be at the fund-raiser, but Mrs. Dole, the host and leader of the Republican effort to hold the Senate this fall, found just 18 people scattered across an expanse of empty carpet.
I'm annoyed with Chuck Schumer for sticking us with Bob Casey when Rick Santorum was weak and pro-choice candidates regularly win statewide office in PA. But given that the DSCC has $37.7 million while the NRSC has only $19.9 million, it looks like he'll be able to buy us a pro-choice Senator or two to make up for it. Now I know how Republicans, with their funding advantages, have been feeling all these years... it's pretty nice!
July 25, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
I don't know if you saw the conversation about this at Tapped, but cross-party single group fundraising differences are bad comparisons. The DSCC/RSCC, DCCC/RCCC, and DNC/RNC simple are not that similar and in the same circumstances.
To wit, the DS and DC have both out-raised the RS and RC, but the RNC has so outraised the DNC that it adds up to a Republican advantage.
Why might this be? One strong reason is Dean's chairmanship. He has not focused on the same donors McAuliffe has, and for a variety of reasons (including negative nellies), those donors have directed their funds to the DSCC and DCCC. In contrast, Mrs. Dole is not the most powerful member of the Republican heirarchy, which values the centralization via Ken Mehlman somewhat more.
Which is not to say the Dems aren't doing somewhat better than a minority-left party would be expected - but not hugely better, and not enough to rule out "we sell out to corporations gud".
Posted by: Tony v | Jul 25, 2006 9:35:32 AM
Also Neil, you know how nervous parties make me. The image of an emptry party room makes me so sympathetic to Dole.
Posted by: Tony v | Jul 25, 2006 9:39:37 AM
Yeah, I saw that discussion, Tony. I'm wondering, though, whether the DNC's relative lack of cash on hand is just because Dean already gave it all away to people in idaho and mississippi, while everyone else is waiting to see which Senate campaign they need to donate to.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 25, 2006 9:52:17 AM
There are indeed many considerations. But at the very least, I'm comfortable saying:
In Dem politics, Schumer > Dean
In GOP politics, Mehlman > Dole
Posted by: Tony v | Jul 25, 2006 9:59:59 AM
How should the DSCC be spending that money?
1) Close the gap between Tester and Burns/McCaskill and Talent.
2) Shore up Stebenow, Cantwell, what's her name in MN.
3) Whitehouse and Brown.
The question is, is Webb worth it? He's down 10 percentage points and 8 million large, and it's not a cheap market. And can this guy in AZ actually take down Kyl? It's hard to see a path to the Senate that doesn't go through AZ or VA, but I don't know how realistic either of those are.
Posted by: djw | Jul 25, 2006 10:48:44 AM
"Now I know how Republicans, with their funding advantages, have been feeling all these years... it's pretty nice! "
Tony v is correct. Total Republican cash on hand exceeds total Democratic cash on hand quite significantly. And that's the only measure that matters.
However, Schumer's department has been doing it's job quite well. The money breakdowns in comparison to the Republicans belong to Dean and the state parties.
-----
"I'm annoyed with Chuck Schumer for sticking us with Bob Casey when Rick Santorum was weak and pro-choice candidates regularly win statewide office in PA."
The game is not to elect pro-choice candidates. The game is to elect Democratic candidates.
The whole point of a Big Tent gameplan is that each individual interest group is far better off by having a Democratic majority nationally, along with a majority of their interest group inside the Democrats.
In other words, it's good for there to be pro-life elements in the Democratic coalition because it'll help us become the national majority party. But despite there being pro-life elements in the party, there will still be a clear pro-choice majority inside the coalition.
Posted by: Petey | Jul 25, 2006 11:29:08 AM
My understanding is that the RNC has not outpaced the DNC, but that they have greater COH because Dean has been spending money rather than hoarding it.
While it is nice to see the Dems rack up numbers comparable to or greater than the GOP, this isn't a game, and COH isn't the score. Remember the $15 million that Kerry hoarded at the end of the campaign? I don't remember any Democrat applauding the Kerry campaign's great COH numbers.
The DNC shouldn't be in the business of trying to fund congressional campaigns. Why duplicate things when there is so much else that needs to be done?
For example, I live in Kansas. The Dems aren't in as bad shape as in other areas, but it's not great either. Paul Morisson is running against Phill Kline for AG - if Paul hadn't switched parties, the Democrats wouldn't have a candidate at all. This race is enormously important, with national implications.
Why? Because Kline doesn't give a rat's ass about AG. He wants to be governor, and if we don't stop him now, he will be governor. Sebelius won't be around forever.
Kline has all the winger credentials and the nice TV face needed to get on the VP shortlist. That's why we need to knock him out now, and giving all the DNC's money to Schumer or Emmanuel isn't going to help us with that.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 25, 2006 11:34:21 AM
However, Schumer's department has been doing it's job quite well. The money breakdowns in comparison to the Republicans belong to Dean and the state parties.
This is what I am trying to argue against. It is not Dean's fault (entirely at least) if Schumer poaches long time DNC donors from him. At least, it doesn't mean that Dean is selling the party poorly. And if in a few years people use stuff like this to argue against Dean's chairmanship, I will be... sad.
Petey: I think neil's point is that in blue states, we should be electing leftist Dems instead of moderate Dems. How moderate Casey really is because of one issue, or how reliably blue PA is up to debate (PA being a frequent state of residence for both Mr. Werewolf and myself, I think Casey was the right choice) are up to question. I don't think Neil even says this in order to bash Casey... but to bolster previous arguments and narratives of his for why Lieberman is inadequate in Connecticut.
Posted by: Tony v | Jul 25, 2006 11:40:38 AM
Massively off-topic, but an Edwards diary actually hit the recommended list on dKos. Where's Jerome when you need him?
Posted by: Petey | Jul 25, 2006 12:02:23 PM
"While it is nice to see the Dems rack up numbers comparable to or greater than the GOP, this isn't a game, and COH isn't the score. Remember the $15 million that Kerry hoarded at the end of the campaign? I don't remember any Democrat applauding the Kerry campaign's great COH numbers."
While there are deeply real consequences to winning or losing this game, it is very much a game. And COH really is how you keep score. Having more COH means you win more elections, and having less COH means you win fewer elections. Simple as that.
As far as Kerry goes, having COH after election day is an utterly different matter. John Kerry stole that $15m from Democratic donors to further his personal ambitions, and in a more just world, he would be currently in prison.
Posted by: Petey | Jul 25, 2006 12:07:53 PM
Tony v makes interesting and subtle enough points to prevent a simple reply...
Posted by: Petey | Jul 25, 2006 12:10:43 PM
And COH really is how you keep score. Having more COH means you win more elections, and having less COH means you win fewer elections. Simple as that.
Petey, that makes no sense. Absolutely none at all.
Raising more money overall is what will help win elections, not hoarding money in the bank to win some damned pissing contest with the Republicans.
If you want to discuss whether the money is being spent well, that is a viable topic. But it's absurd to think that having money sitting around in the bank is going to help win elections. Money doesn't do a thing for anyone until it is spent.
I simply fail to see how you can keep arguing for the status quo - courting "centrist" voters and protecting self-hating Democrats like Lieberman for the sake of a "big tent" is the status quo. The status quo is losing elections. The status quo is having our committees give money to candidates that already have millions in the bank. The status quo is saying "yes, yes, giving women the right to choose and trying to end discrimination in the workplace are crazy-radical-extremist-bolshevik-leftist ideas! We need to appeal to the anti-abortion, bigoted 'center' so we can win elections!"
Business as usual has helped to ensure a GOP Congress and White House, with radical conservatives taking over the Supreme Court. It means handing the GOP victory after victory in the hopes that our complete inability to accomplish anything, or even offer an alternative will somehow make voters want to choose us.
Pick us! Pick us! we say, because we're just like our opponents, only we don't have any accomplishments to our name! Pick us! so we can keep running away from our donors and voters in order to bow and scrape at the feet of our betters, giving them whatever they want!
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 25, 2006 12:55:12 PM
"...to win some damned pissing contest with the Republicans."
That damned pissing contest is otherwise known as "elections"
Posted by: Petey | Jul 25, 2006 1:11:38 PM
Shorter Petey: He who dies with most toys wins.
Posted by: paperwight | Jul 25, 2006 1:13:59 PM
"Shorter Petey: He who dies with most toys wins."
More accurate shorter Petey: He who spends significantly more money in a competitive election usually wins.
Posted by: Petey | Jul 25, 2006 1:38:25 PM
That damned pissing contest is otherwise known as "elections"
That was uncalled-for, and you know it.
First, because that's not what I was talking about.
Second, because your strategy - the strategy of the Democratic party for at least 14 years now - hasn't exactly been winning many elections.
In fact, if it wasn't for all of the icky liberals in the icky liberal blogosphere and the remarkable idiocy of the GOP this year, the DSCC and the DCCC wouldn't have the kind of numbers they have been enjoying this year.
The monumental rise in small donors to various Democratic organizations is not coming from so-called moderates. It's coming from progressives, from real liberals.
If the Democrats manage to take back part of Congress and/or the presidency, your strategies will guarantee that once the country is stable again, the Democrats will be kicked out of office in favor of the real thing.
To write so smugly about "winning elections" when your strategy is such a sure-fired loser would be funny except for all the people in power who share it.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 25, 2006 1:46:04 PM
More accurate shorter Petey: He who spends significantly more money in a competitive election usually wins.
Oddly, that's not the argument Petey used. Petey said that cash on hand is the only measure that matters. Then Petey didn't explain why. And of course, Petey is famously not a supporter of spending any money building a party or a movement, preferring the DLC strategy of "pick off a few voters with massive commissioned ad buys and pre-compromise of individual rights with the Republicans" which has been doing so very very well for the Democrats over the last 15 years.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Askew, From, Shrum, Carville et al were paying Petey to pimp their strategies.
Posted by: paperwight | Jul 25, 2006 1:46:28 PM
"If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Askew, From, Shrum, Carville et al were paying Petey to pimp their strategies."
Which of those names is not like the other? Which of those names doesn't belong?
Hint: Shrum.
Posted by: Petey | Jul 25, 2006 2:22:51 PM
Actually the quote you refer to Petey is entirely what's wrong with any argument "we've been doing your strategy forever, and look where it's gotten us!"
If I'm moderate, here's what I say: "We've been trying your paleo-liberal class-warfare approach, using populists like Shrum, nominating anti-war Kerry, and it's just lost us election after election."
If I'm liberal, here's what I say: "We've been trying your kow-towing to the corporations so we can raise money and we don't tick off moderate voters, using triangulating operatives like From and Carville, nominating pro-war Kerry, and look where it's gotten us!"
How many times have we seen those two posts? Can we maybe drop the "the past 6 years of Democratic politics has been run entirely by my enemies and therefore my enemies are wrong" pretension? Democratic strategies, like Republican strategies, are a mix of triangulation and selling our policy goals, a mix of the moderates and the extremes. And our future strategies will also be a compromise of such politics.
Posted by: Tony v | Jul 25, 2006 2:47:18 PM
Hint: Shrum.
Oh, I'm sorry. Does Bob Shrum not get a commission on the big media buys? It's not just the ideological problem of not really standing for anything, it's also the institutional assumptions about how people are compensated that distorts the proposed strategies.
How many times have we seen those two posts? Can we maybe drop the "the past 6 years of Democratic politics has been run entirely by my enemies and therefore my enemies are wrong" pretension? Democratic strategies, like Republican strategies, are a mix of triangulation and selling our policy goals, a mix of the moderates and the extremes. And our future strategies will also be a compromise of such politics.
Ah, yes. It's a moderate amount of moderation. That's the key. This sounds so eminently reasonable, it's easy to just let it slide right by the filters. And how, pray tell, does one do this most reasonable of reasonable things? And of course, one wonders in what way the Republicans have really triangulated as electoral strategy, other than flat-out election year lies about the power that moderates have in their party.
Posted by: paperwight | Jul 25, 2006 3:27:29 PM
Petey, it must be emphasized that a purely COH-focused strategy is utter madness. It would mean that you just save all your money and never do anything with it. It doesn't matter when you spend your money -- it just matters how much you raise and how effectively you spend it. And at some point, you have to spend it.
On the Casey point, I think we have enough room to spare that we could've picked some pro-choice candidate off the bench (Barbara Hafer, perhaps) and installed her. In tough races, I'm fine with nominating whoever you need to get a (D) in office -- check out my sentiments on the issue here. The point is that PA-Sen isn't a tough race. Santorum is so hated and PA pro-choice enough that we have slack to play with.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 25, 2006 3:32:48 PM
"Does Bob Shrum not get a commission on the big media buys? ... the institutional assumptions about how people are compensated that distorts the proposed strategies."
OK. If that's your complaint, why is Al From doing on the list?
In reality, I think you're just making ad hoc rationalizations for your Khmer Rouge kill everyone wearing eyeglasses kind of strategy. There are smart folks and dumb folks among current Democratic insiders. When you group them all together without rhyme or reason, it's hard to figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Posted by: Petey | Jul 25, 2006 3:38:42 PM
"it must be emphasized that a purely COH-focused strategy is utter madness. It would mean that you just save all your money and never do anything with it."
If it really needs clarification, (and I'm somewhat amazed it does), COH is a vital measure at this point in the political calendar. Obviously, as the fall campaign heats up, the amount of commercials already aired will become as important, and then more important, as the amount of commercials yet to air.
-----
"...and PA pro-choice enough..."
I'd disagree pretty strongly on that point. I think PA is the textbook left on economics / right on god 'n' country electorate.
And depending on how strong or not the wind is at our back this fall, I think Santorum would've had a decent shot at beating Hafer. If the wind is strong enough at our backs that we're going to pick up 25 House seats, Mickey Mouse could beat Santorum. But in a weaker wind, he's wouldn't be as doomed against Hafer as you assume.
Posted by: Petey | Jul 25, 2006 3:53:47 PM
The thing is, Petey, what if you prepay for everything, spending your money right when it comes in, rather than hoarding it to make one big expenditure later? That is what Dean has done, and he's prepaid for a couple years of organizers in neglected state parties. If that's what you're trying to do, I don't see any harm in spending the money right as it comes in.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 25, 2006 4:02:25 PM
And on the PA / pro-choice point -- the state has gone to the Democrats in the last several presidential elections, and has a nominally pro-choice GOP Senator. This isn't Louisiana or something.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 25, 2006 4:05:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
