I'm in a lazy mood.

Anybody have an idea how much money the DCCC has left?

---

by: nrimmer @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:44:57 AM UTC

Just pissing the money away

Another $400,000 spent in VA-11, an open seat. Does anyone at this site think this one is tight?

Does anyone think this race has been tight since, oh, it became clear that Byrnes was not going to be the nominee, that Connolly, a popular county official accused of [the horror of it all] friendly relations with rich real estate developers, would be the one raising funds to turn this seat blue?

Does anyone else here have any other ideas on how to spend $400,000 in the last week or so of this map-changing, realigning, wave year election? Immediately forward your suggestions to the DCCC or your nearest flush toilet, same difference.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:47:11 AM UTC

I'm never giving to the DCCC again

I am just sick looking at all the money being spent in districts we've already won.

Just $100K goes very far in the Des Moines and Mason City markets.

An investment of $250K at the beginning of October in IA-04 would have probably made that race a tossup by now.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:58:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

$101k to Ciro Rodriguez

I think I hear a toilet flushing somewhere in TX. Seriously Lyle Larson isn't a threat to this seat Van Hollen. Jesus instead of giving that money to someome who dosen't need it like Ciro Rodriguez how bout giving to either Michael Skelly who trying to defeat John Culbertson or Larry Joe Doherty who's trying to defeat Mike McCaul, they can need for they Ciro does.

Am I the only one that's talking like this or is this all in my head?

---

by: bradley minoski @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:00:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've been screaming my keyboard off

about the potential to pick up IA-04 and (in a big Democratic wave with depressed Republican turnout) perhaps even IA-05. I can't for the life of me figure out why they won't even spend $100K on paid media in D+0 IA-04. Tom Latham has been advertising like crazy and went negative, suggesting his internal polling is scary.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:02:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe they think they owe him

Ciro Rodriguez got messed over by Tom DeLay's racist redistricting back in 2003, and maybe his House colleagues are still guilt tripping that they let him down.

But this year he has never been threatened by Larsen to the best of my knowledge. I grew up in a county that used to be part of his district, I read Burnt Orange Report and other blogs, I have never seen anyone anywhere say that Ciro is in trouble this year, except a Repub in DC talking out of his orifice, and that stuff stopped months ago.

James L., it's your dirty job to talk to the Repubs ;-) and other sordid sources, why is $100,000 a week still flushing into the Rio Grande in TX-23?

Meanwhile I'm with Bradley, we do seem to have a real chance to take two districts in the Houston area, so why not spend some money over there?

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:35:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honestly dude

I have no idea why the DCCC is spending so much on Ciro. Like you, I really don't think he's in trouble.

One possible theory is that the DCCC wants to "run up the score", to create an impressively large frosh re-election score for Ciro as a means of scaring off potentially stronger challengers from making a run in 2010. But I'm not really sure if the DCCC is playing that game of 3D chess here.

---

by: James L. @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 06:34:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That would actually not be a bad idea

Ciro is safe this year, but if he wins with 52% he might get a strong challanger in 2010. And that might be a bad year for democrats to get strong challangers.  

---

by: Ectoras @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 15:42:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Expand the map!

At least they added WV-02 and WY-AL. I think they could help a lot in WV-02, where Ms Moore Capito well deserves a large helping of the kind of negative advertising that the DCCC does so well.

And OR-05, an open seat, is new. Our guy out there needs their help? Who knew.

And down in SC-01 we're in now for $42,000. Wow! That could make a big splash. But I should try to be nice (or that's what they say, I don't see what nice gets me in this situation) so I'll hope that this sum is for the last day of the reporting period and some real money is beginning to flow.

Boyda get a couple hundred grand, O.K., her opponent has been spending and doing it dirty.

Bachmann, the DCCC will spend half a million last week, and another half a million next week, just in case the million that Tinklenberg got directly isn't enough.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:03:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Add IL-11 to the list

Is the DCCC seeing something in the internal polls or are the on something else that's making them see stuff?

---

by: sulthernao @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:13:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm guessing it's a mix of....

Having promised some candidates X amount of money, and a sense of stubbornness to "Sticking to the plan" where they have reserved money, and can get a better deal for it.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 06:41:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

While I agree it's probably a waste of money....

I'm guessing some of these people are in because the DCCC promised them X amount of money.  It's the only reason I can imagine the NRCC spending money on Gard in Wisconsin, or Bradley in New Hampshire.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 06:30:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Typo

You got the color of the two Alabama seat's switched.

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:48:11 AM UTC

Thank you.

---

by: James L. @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:49:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When are they going to drop some $$$ in AL-03

AL-05 isn't close anymore.  Shift some of those dollars to a race that is close -- where winning would demoralize some Republicans and give us a seat we can hold.  Josh Segall needs help in Alabama's third.

Progressive voices for Alabama at Left In Alabama

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:50:57 AM UTC

I don't know about AL-05

I won't be happy until election day when Parker Griffith beats Wayne Parker. Until then keep giving the man money.

---

by: bradley minoski @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:52:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I made a small donation to Segall

I feel bad that the DCCC is leaving him behind, along with Debbie Cook and many other good challengers.

2010 is going to be a crappy environment for us--all defense in the House, more than likely. The seats we leave on the table are going to stay red for a long time.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:00:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alright, i'm starting to get angry not

For the love God DCCC. BARON HILL DOES NOT NEED THE MONEY!!! Alright, after all the polls showing he had a comfortable lead over one term wonder Mike Sodrel. He's okay and it's time to cut him off and pass that money on to other candidates who can really need it.

---

by: bradley minoski @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:51:13 AM UTC

absolutely

What the hell is going on there?

That money could support two or three good challengers in under-funded races.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:59:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It could.

   But the candidates in the under-funded races weren't handpicked by whoever it is that lurks in the DC shadows and picks these people.  

24, Male, GA-05

---

by: cilerder86 @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:09:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pedal to the metal

Maybe no rearview mirror at the DCCC? They seem unable to take their foot off the accelerator even long after the have left the opposition behind in a cloud of stinking rubber and dust.

Even if they decided to support Hill at the big meeting back in January, or whatever, didn't anyone notice Obama's ground game saturating the state more recently, creating a Democratic GOTV effort like never seen before in Indiana?

Vrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:09:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some general thoughts

--Delighted to see the spending in FL-25 and WY-AL.  They should drop a lot more in both because Joe Garcia and Gary Trauner would be outstanding wins and congressman.

--Carol Shea-Porter's internals must be weak as heck.  That's a lot of money.

--What took so long for the spending to start in TX-22?  Even if Lampson's numbers have looked stronger than expected, the DCCC came pretty late here.

--I'm sure they're not happy to spend so much in NJ-03, but it's necessary to ensure Adler comes out on top.

--I am a little more nervous about AL-05 than the DCCC seems to be.

--Bye bye, Mahoney.  

---

by: Andy Dufresne @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:55:09 AM UTC

I tell you why NJ-3 is costing so much:

the DCCC is on Philly TV. Saw it with my own eyes last night on a visit.

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:59:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes

I guess my point is that with Adler's big COH gap with Myers, the Dem lean of the district, and Obama's strength there, the DCCC would prefer to win here without spending in Philly.  But it is close enough that they need to bury Chris Myers to ensure Adler's victory.  

---

by: Andy Dufresne @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:09:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They never watch TV?

I mean, don't these decision-makers ever watch the NBA games on TNT and ESPN? Or catch the news on Comedy Central? Don't they turn to the Weather Channel to get the Local Weather on the 8s? Don't they know that cable TV reaches over 80% of all Jersey households? Don't they know that the local cable operators can insert ads in almost every channel they carry? Why are they wasting their money on broadcast station covering one of the largest media markets in the country?

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:15:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

MN-3

dang, they've spent more money on this race than any other.  I feel pretty confident we'll win this one and hopefully have at worst a 6/2 Dem advantage.  

Glad to see some big buys in WA-8, NV-3, FL-21 and 25, IL-10, and OH-1.  These are all seats I hope we win and that I expect us to hold for a long time once we do.

---

by: Andrew @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:56:28 AM UTC

This is exactly why I don't donate to the D-Trip

Because I have no idea where my money is going to end up at. I could be donateing $30 to them because I want to help out a candidate in a tight race, instead my money could be going to help out Baron Hill and Gerry Connelly, two Dems that don't need help from the D-trip whatsoever.

That's why when I want to donate to a Democrat, I do it through their own campaign. That way I know that my money will go directly to where I want it to go, right to the candidate I wanted.

---

by: bradley minoski @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:05:14 AM UTC

Damn near melted my Visa card

It seems I get more email from Act Blue than from any of my friends, acknowledging my too-many contributions to candidates across the country. But I'm proud to say I haven't wasted one dollar on the DCCC, where my every dollar might be wasted.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:18:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ho-Hum.

   More money for Kirkpatrick, Conolly, and Halvorson.  Why don't we give some money to Perlmutter and Sestak too?  I heard that they also have sentient opponents.

24, Male, GA-05

---

by: cilerder86 @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:06:41 AM UTC

Advice from Wall Street

Good advice from Wall Street is DO NOT get emotionally involved with your stock picks. Be ready to sell any one of your stocks and get out.

Methinks the DCCC falls in love with some of its candidates and just never can say goodbye, can't let them grow up and go off on their own, just can't let go. The commitment might be admirable if we were talking human relationships, but we are talking money and power here, folks. The goal is not be form a lifelong relationship like a penguin. The goal should be to promiscuously spread our Democratic DNA into the maximum number of districts.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:25:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here, let me manage the funds

Lemme get together a bunch of Democratic-leaning game theorists.

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

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:37:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's that sound?

That's the sound of $3,406,275 being flushed down the drain in seats that even the most conservative estimates consider leaning strongly to our side. That's not even counting places like WI-08, PA-10, PA-03, OH-15, NY-29, NV-03, NM-01, NJ-07, NJ-03, MN-03, MI-07, MI-09, LA-06, KS-02, ID-01, CO-04, CT-04 and AL-05 which would more then double the number.

To be frank. The DCCC is wasting millions of dollars of money and squandering lots of opportunities. You've got to take a few risks to gain anything and while we'll probably win big the DCCC has squandered millions that likely would have been able to make those gains larger by quite a bit.

---

by: Populista @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 03:44:43 AM UTC

as a former DCCC staffer...

I have to stick up for the committee, Van Hollen, and their spending decisions.

First of all, the committees primary responsibility is to re-elect their incumbents. This explains why they are spending money they way they are on Baron Hill, Ciro Rodriguez, Carol Shea-Porter, etc. The first two have already lost re-election before --- so I'm sure there is some sense that perhaps the DCCC didn't do enough to help the first time around. Furthermore, the motivating factor to spend money on these races is likely out of a desire to drive up their winning percentages. When the Republicans meet in December or January to figure out an initial round of targets -- they will first look to anyone winning with 55% or less.  If we can get Baron, Ciro, Mitchell, Giffords, McNerney, and a few other potential targets to 57-60%, then its less likely that they will be a top target for the nrcc in 2010 --- and its also more likely that top tier challengers will decide to take on the race. An incumbent who gets 58% of the vote on election day is a lot less attractive than one that only gets 52 or 53 percent.

Secondly, it makes perfect sense for the DCCC to spend on Halvorson, Connolly and Kilpatrick for the very same reasons I listed above. Yes, we should win these seats ("should" being the operative word, as we also "should" have fun the Mahoney seat 10 days ago...), BUT as we all have learned, anything can happen. It's imperative that we win these seats on November 4th if we are to have a House majority that lasts for at least a few more cycles. And let's not forget that these new members could all potentially  be top targets for the nrcc in 2010 despite the democratic leanings of their districts (they are, after all, represented by republicans right now). If we can score convincing wins this time around (think Brad Ellsworth), then its less likely that a top tier challenge will join the race.

It's really disappointing when the netroots community feels the need to harp on the DCCC and their decisions -- with threats to stop contributing or calling into question their spending strategy.

In many districts around the country, an ad or campaign literature from "the democratic congressional campaign committee" would not be warmly received -- and so they dccc has to occasionally tread lightly, and maybe transfer funds to the state party or simply raise contributions from their national donors directly for the campaign. In other instances, the it makes more sense to use the element of surprise with some of these republicans, and to run ads in the closing 5 or 6 days of the campaign.

I wouldn't be so quick to question the dccc's strategy under van hollen. he is an incredibly bright and politically savvy individual. And Rahm Emanual  -- the same man who orchestrating the democratic takeover of the House and achieved a feat very few thought was conceivable when he first took the reins of the committee in early January 2007 -- continues to have a commanding voice in all the dccc's operations.  

With all due respect, I know we all love to follow politics, and we're all incredibly passionate about the races and our favorite candidates -- but I personally think sometimes we should acknowledge that the people running the dccc -- van hollen, emanuel, pelosi, other active Members, political staff -- actually know what they are doing.  They have, after all, actually run races and won.  How many of us on SSP can say the same?

Yes, in 2006 we missed some opportunities (Kissell for example) and there were some races that we won that we never expected -- but the decisions made by the dccc resulted in us winning the House and electing some wonderful, intelligent, and hardworking Democrats.

Will we end up winning some races the dccc didn't get heavily involved in this time around? -- I hope so (then that means we've had another wave election in our favor!)

Will we lose 2 or 3 close races where an additional $100k from the dccc could have made the difference? -- undoubtedly, but things like that are going to happen every election cycle.

I'd expect our republican counterpart to be questioning the expenditures and political intelligence of the nrcc -- but not us.  After all, we've capitalized on an incredibly favorable political environment for the Democrats, and we're running competitive races in places that haven't elected a Democrat in decades (or ever!) -- so the DCCC must be doing something right.  :-)

 

---

by: CarnahanDemocrat @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 07:15:40 AM UTC

facts are facts

I'm sure most of us understand one ofthe jobs of the DCCC is to help re-elect incumbents.  However, one of their jobs is also to elect new members.  

If the DCCC is going to waste, IMO, millions of dollars on incumbents who stand very little chance of losing instead of helping to support dozens of candidates who have a shot at winning then they are not an organization that is working for my causes.  

There are, at a minimum, 28 seats that the DCCC has not spent a dime in when they should have.  With the amount of money they have spent in races for Kirkpatrick, and Halvorsen and Hill in recent weeks could have sent a couple hundread thousand to several of these seats.  

If the DCCC is not going to spend my money in an effort to elect new members to congress by wasting millions in elections we have already won, then they are not an organization worth giving my money to.  I will simply have to give it directly to the candidates that deserve it.  

There are no garauntees that an environment like this one will pop up anytime soon.  Leaving nearly 30 seats on the table is idiotic and if that is the source of the DCCC then I will have no part in it.  

I am working my tail off to elect Democrats, not spend millions in red districts so that maybe a top tier challenger won't come along.  Big margins of victory garauntee nothing.  Just ask Kanjorski.  He had over 70% in 06.

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

---

by: skywrnchsr509 @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:50:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

out of curiosity

what are the 28 races you mention?

The DCCC's job is FIRST AND FOREMOST to protect its Members. They have certainly cut off incumbents who they think are on strong footing for re-election -- ie Boswell, Acuri, Chet Edwards, Ellsworth, Bean, Hall, Ron Klein, Shuler, Space).  

Let's also not forget that Hill lost to Sodrel just four years ago, so even though he holds a healthy lead in all the polls, an upset is not out of the realm of possibility. In addition, while Indiana looks to be in play, it is traditionally a Republican state at the presidential level, and anything can happen if the state starts to tilt towards McCain. would be a horrible embarrassment for Hill and the dccc to lose this race (again). Not to mention, Baron has been a great Dem for us -- even voting much more progressive than his district should allow him to in many cases.

Halvorsen's race is not nearly the "slam-dunk" we all thought and hoped it would be.  SSP, Cook, etc have all moved it's rating away from "Dem Favored" to "Lean Dem" -- meaning that though there is a good chance we will win the seat, it's not certain.  The polls have all confirmed a tighter than expected race, and while the nrcc may not spend here, Ozinga can write himself a check for $5m in the final weeks if he is inclined to do so.  I'm fine with the DCCC spending money to keep him from doing that and to make sure we get this seat -- because its one we should hold for 25 or 30 years now.  Let's also not forget that the figures here are a bit misleading due to the ridiculously expensive Chicago media market.

I'm not entirely sure what deal was made with Kirkpatrick to get her to run -- but promised DCCC funds I'm sure were part of it.  It's also possible that internal polls from the DCCC and Kilpatrick's campaign show a much closer race. Despite the democratic lean of the district, we are still playing in McCain's home state, and even though he is inching closer and closer to a presidential campaign loss -- there will undoubtedly be a strong turnout for him back home (and perhaps even a significant sympathy vote?).  

---

by: CarnahanDemocrat @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 15:41:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why broadcast? It ain't 1976 any more

the ridiculously expensive Chicago media market

Now this does chap my tender parts.

Cable TV ad rates are based on estimates of the number of viewers, plus some adjustment for the desirability of the audience to potential advertisers, based chiefly on age and income. So cable TV per voter costs about the same in the center city as it does in the suburbs and the small towns. In most suburban districts, cable TV is found in something like 80% of all households.

If ads for Halvorsen are going on broadcast stations reaching, what, 8 or 10 million people in ChicagoLand, and not all on cable targeted to the district where viewers can actually vote for her, then our money really is being pissed away.

When Coca-Cola buys an ad on broadcast, they don't mind who sees it where. Viewers in any Congressional district are able to buy a Coke. In El Paso, over half the broadcast viewers may be in Mexico, and some others in New Mexico, besides those in Texas. No problem for Coke.

But when the DCCC buys broadcast, the ads are seen in other districts where the viewers cannot vote for or against the candidates in the ads. In fact, this kind of advertising serves to confuse voters, which is probably not good for our side.

Recognizing the value of cable TV, commercial advertisers spend over 40% of their ad budgets on cable TV. Political advertisers spend about 10% of their ad budgets on cable TV.

Explain, please, please, please, why political campaigns have to spend almost all their money -- our money -- on broadcast like its 1976, while businesses spend half their ad money on cable?

By the way, 1976 was the last presidential election before cable TV as we know it. Ted Turner put his Atlanta station on the satellite soon after, and then launched the Cable News Channel. MTV went up 8/1/81. By that time there were already more cable networks than could fit on the 12-channel dial of the old TV sets. Today most of us get hundreds of channels and watch half a dozen cable networks without a thought. The Weather Channel, NewYorkNews1, Comedy Central, MSNBC, the NBA games on TNT and ESPN, and during financial meltdowns like today CNBC, among others.

I suspect that inside the Beltway, the decision makers don't watch much TV for fun, and don't know squat about cable. They are still spending our money on broadcast, trying to get their spots on Leave It To Beaver or Bonanza, TV as they remember it from when they were kids. (Of course, those shows are re-running now on cable.) Others have suggested that our media consultants make the big bucks booking broadcast and have a corrupt interest in continuing to spend this way.

Or what? I truly do not understand how you can write this:

the ridiculously expensive Chicago media market

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 16:56:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

30 Races

the exact number that I have is 30,  I missed 2 in my quick head count.  

in alphabetical order by state abbreviation,  not by competetiveness

Alabama 3   Josh Segall
California 3  Bill Durston
California 26   Russ Warner
California 45  Julie Bornstein
California 46  Debbie Cook
California 50  Nick Leibham
Colorado 5  Hal Bidlack  mostly because Lamborn has no money left
Florida 8  Alan Grayson
Florida 13  Christine Jennings
Florida 18  Anette Taddeo
Iowa 4  Becky greenwald
Iowa 5  Rob Hubler
Illinois 6  Jill Morganthaler
Illinois 13  Scott Harper
Indiana 4   Nels Ackerson
Louisiana 7  Don Cravins Jr
Maryland 6   Jennifer Dougherty
Minnesota 2   Steve Sarvi
North Carolina 5   Roy Carter
New Jersey 4   Josh Zeitz
New Jersey 5  Dennis Shulman
Nevada 2   Jill Derby
Ohio 3   Jane Mitakides
Ohio 7   Sharon Nuehardt
Ohio 14  Bill O'Neill
Pennsylvania 15  Sam Bennett
South Carolina 2   Rob Miller
Texas 7  Michale Skelly
Texas 10  Larry Jo Doherty
Virginia 10   judy Feder

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

---

by: skywrnchsr509 @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 20:43:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply

Some time and effort was involved in this response. It's a full explanation and not a brush-off. So I greatly appreciate your respectful attention to our concerns.

I'm not fully convinced by your answers, but you raise some interesting points that might be explored by the party establishment and netroots together.

I understand that in some areas a mailing or TV ad brandishing the words, "Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee" could be counterproductive, or at least, less useful than if it did not have to carry those words. If we agree that is a potential problem, can we look for a possible solution?

The solution probably involves Act Blue and various non-party endorsement and fund-raising outfits like Daily Kos's Orange to Blue program and others.

We all like the DCCC's Red to Blue lists, including the Races to Watch or Emerging Races. It could be helpful in the future if those pages -- and the dead-tree mailings and emails from the DCCC -- prominently urged donors to contribute directly to the candidates on those lists via Act Blue or the campaign page. That move would remedy the unpleasant implication that if you send your money to D.C, the experts at national headquarters will always know best how, on whom, where, and when to spend it. Pushing those decisions down closer to the donors and the individual campaigns seems more the way to go.

I could imagine a series of DCCC emails to likely donors emphasizing a batch of R2B races organized by region, for example, or issue emphasis (like Fighting Dems or Culture of Corruption races), or dare I say, grouping several women or minority candidates together. These emails, instead of linking back to the DCCC with a Contribute button, could link to the individual candidates' Act Blue page.

And for its own direct contributions, the DCCC could offer donors a simple choice: Contribute to defend incumbents OR to expand the map. I can certainly appreciate that the DCCC is funded year-in-year-out by incumbent members and it is therefore an incumbent protection organization first. But when asking rank and file Democrats for money, we could at least be given the courtesy to direct our money to one kind of candidate or another.

More to come. But thanks again for your response.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 15:35:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Early Money Is Like Yeast

Emily's List is on to something, ya know. Putting $10,000 into a race in March is probably as effective as dumping $100,000 in the last week of October.

We need to find a way to borrow the great "emily" concept and expand it to cover many more Democratic candidates.

Call it the Democratic Venture Fund, and give $10,000 to every Democratic challenger (post primary). How big a deal is that? Three million dollars for 300 candidates? Seems like $3 million gets dropped on a couple of hot races come October, so it isn't big money.

What could a candidate do with $10,000 the day after becoming the official candidate of the party? Professional photographs. A professional website design. Six months rent on a headquarters space; a couple of computers and phone lines. A mailing to possible contributors and volunteers. Ain't much, but it's a great start compared to trying to get going without any of the stuff that $10,000 could buy.

Scattering $3 million among 300 candidates might make a difference in, ok, your guess is as good as mine, but say, one per cent of the races. Well, $3 million to pick up three seats is a huge bargain.

The party nationally would also benefit because the $10,000 would almost certainly entice a candidate into every race in all 435 house districts, helping to boost our national share of the total Congressional vote.

The DCCC probably can't do a Democratic Venture Fund under today's campaign finance law. But it will be modified before the next election. Obama's decision to bypass public funding surely made reforms inevitable. So let's find a way in the future for the national party to get seed money to our seedling candidates in every district in all 50 states.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 16:20:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, like a cool breeze on a hot summers day.

Well said. I can get really frustrated with people's constant bitching about Rahm, Van Hollen, Pelosi, Hoyer, Wassurman-Shultz etc, etc. It's okay to express disdain, but you've got to move on at some point. Thanks for putting things in perspective and your right to say D-trip has done a pretty good job. All I look at is the money they've raised throughout the year. We've absolutely killed the NRCC in terms of fundraising and the folks at D-trip deserve the credit for that. And let's not forget the recruiting this year. Stellar job.

I'm actually a fan of CVH's. Here is a little article about him as head of D-trip if anyone is interested.

http://www.washingtonian.com/a...  

---

by: nrimmer @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 19:56:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

some good insight by former DCCC staffer however

it's not some simple disagreements over races where we seem to have overspent. it's the entire flawed strategy of not being able to cut a candidate loose at the end.

if we see some surprise money dropped in places like AL-03, IA-04, and the two Houston races then I'll feel a little better.

---

by: politicalal @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 14:08:04 PM UTC

THREE Houston races

Zogby put out a poll that's on electoral-vote.com today saying that Lampson is way behind.  I don't know if I trust it, but I also wanna see some real polling out of there.

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

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 19:24:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]