Couldn't agree more

Got to love the third party spending that frees up DSCC money.  On the flip side of this, if the spending makes the NRSC not spend money in Colorado that does make it harder on us.  

That possibility is why I suggested not send netroots money to places like Virginia and New Mexico.  Neither race will need it and we will have a muhc bigger impact on the lower races like Idaho or Oklahoma.  A place where the DSCC isn't likely to get involved despite strong candidates unless things get better.  

Check out http://electioninspection.word... for the latest news, election results, poll analysis, and predictions

---

by: skywrnchsr509 @ Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 22:35:44 PM UTC

Alaska, Alaska, Alaska.

You're right. Stretch by sending it to Begich or Berkowitz.

---

by: nrimmer @ Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 22:44:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alaska

With all the action taking place in Alaska with the Stevens indictment and the Young investigation and the fall out from Palin's little scandal along with the strength of Begich and Berkowitz along with the current polling, I think the DSCC and the DCCC will be playing "heavily" here.  I say "heavily" because spending "heavily" here is spending incredibly lightly.  100,000 will go much much further in alaska than it will in say, Colorado.  

Check out http://electioninspection.word... for the latest news, election results, poll analysis, and predictions

---

by: skywrnchsr509 @ Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:50:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

and Idaho! and Oklahoma!

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:09:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good god

Third party groups are wildly stupid to be spending any money on this race. Udall has the lead and has more cash. It would take a serious gaffe for him to lose.

That kind of money could make Nebraska or Idaho or a race like that seriously competitive on the other hand. Argh.  

---

by: Populista @ Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 23:59:24 PM UTC

I actually don't think they're being stupid.

Udall hasn't put this race away yet (not nearly), but expenditures like these may help us get there. Like I said above, if third party groups could help free up the DSCC, then this is well worth it.

---

by: James L. @ Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 00:01:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was going to say $775k would not make Nebraska seriously competitive.

But then I realized I had misplaced a zero in my memory, and I was wrong.

Kleeb only raised about that much in Q2, and Johanns raised less.  So yeah, that amount of money would double Kleeb's Q2, and bring his CoH equal to Johanns', which would obviously be a big deal.

On the other hand, that is still kind of what they are doing.  Third party groups can't really afford to go out on a limb; they need to give money to candidates who do really need it, but who also are going to win.  Giving a bunch of money to a losing candidate is bad for them in several ways: bad with their donors, bad with the direct retaliation from the victorious opponent, bad with the future reputation for offering a credible threat.  (I'm guessing about the institutional incentives here, having never actually worked with or near such groups, but I'm going to indulge my overconfidence and guess that I'm right.)  

So Udall in August is the perfect situation for them.  They have a likely winner, who nonetheless needs the money to help put his opponent away early and cheaply.  These groups help do that by dropping $800k in August.  Now the DSCC can hold on to $800k of their own, and maybe spend it in riskier ways in September, since they don't suffer as an institution for placing riskier bets.

If they were giving money to Tom Udall, you'd be right, cuz that race is OVER.  But Mark's race is just trending toward over, and if these guys help end it now, they do themselves, Mark, and the DSCC, and therefore maybe even Scott Kleeb, a huge favor.  Without exposing themselves to blowback.

Am I getting this right, folks-who-know?  I can often spin out a pretty good theory, and yet still be completely wrong.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 00:23:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you have some solid logic there.

Well said.

After all, it's not like the NEA just dropped $400K on someone like Mark Warner, who could spend the rest of the campaign sleeping in a hammock and still win by 15 points in November.

---

by: James L. @ Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 00:29:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

I can see your point. But if Mark Udall loses we are going to be in for a bad night. At least put it into Maine or Oregon or Minnesota or a race like that.

---

by: Populista @ Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 00:55:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Psst...

the Quinnipiac poll shows a 44%-44% tie.  It's hardly in the bag right now.  But if we can PUT it in the bag over the summer, then all the better for our other candidates.

---

by: BruinKid @ Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:08:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd put it another way

If it frees up DCCC to put their money to Health Shuler, Nick Lampson and other conservative Democrats, then I'm not thinking that's much of a help.

I'd rather have DCCC put their money on races like this, that deserve it, instead of aiming it primarily at conservative Dems - that way outside organizations and individual donors don't have to do all the work for the Democrats who will be with the caucus when the chips are down.  

The DCCC isn't totally excluding the better Dems from it's list of support, but they're still too much tilted toward the corporate-owned kind of Democrats...  

---

by: PeterB @ Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 15:47:18 PM UTC

You're kind of missing the mark...

As this is a Senate race, and the DCCC is involved only in House races. So just because the NEA is dumping cash in the CO-Sen race, it doesn't mean that Nick Lampson is going to see more IEs.

And as for Heath Shuler, that dude is 100% safe. The DCCC won't be spending a dime on him.

---

by: James L. @ Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 16:17:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correct - DSCC rather than DCCC/Point still holds though

And I got it wrong on the conservative Dem's getting DCCC support.  However the point still stands: institutional Dem campaign committees should also be supporting viable non-conservative Democrats just as much as the viable conservative ones.  What is worth getting excited about is when they're evenhanded in stepping up for the more progressive Democrats who have a real chance.  The DCCC has not been doing that, and I suspect that DSCC isn't much better.  

---

by: PeterB @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 05:44:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]