Google Ads


Site Stats

Tinklenberg's surplus should be a lesson to us all

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM EDT


Last October, Representative Michele "Crazy as Steve King" Bachmann (MN-06) disgraced herself on "Hardball" and sparked a ridiculously successful fundraising drive for her Democratic opponent, El Tinklenberg. I was impressed by the enthusiasm and kicked in a few bucks for Tinklenberg myself, but I was dismayed to see bloggers continue to help him raise money even after he'd raised more than $750,000 and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had promised to spend an additional $1 million in his district. Within a few days of Bachmann's notorious comments, Tinklenberg had more money than he needed to run a solid media and GOTV campaign during the final two weeks before the election.

Since most Congressional races against incumbents are longshots, I wanted to see the netroots expand the field by raising $50,000 or more for a large number of unheralded challengers.

Instead, the fundraising frenzy for Tinklenberg continued.

desmoinesdem :: Tinklenberg's surplus should be a lesson to us all
Yesterday Markos linked to this piece from CQ Politics about how Tinklenberg's campaign committee was the largest donor to the DCCC in March, giving a total of $250,000:

You may recall that his Republican opponent was Rep. Michele Bachmann, whose mid-October comment that Obama "may have anti-American views" angered Democrats nationwide and spawned an avalanche of contributions to Tinklenberg in the waning days of a campaign that Bachmann won by 46 percent to 43 percent, with a third-party candidate taking 10 percent.

Apparently the money was coming in too fast for Tinklenberg to spend completely: he raised $3 million for his campaign, of which $1.9 million came in after October 15, and had $453,000 in leftover campaign funds at the end of 2008 and $184,000 at the end of March.

I'm not saying it wasn't worth getting behind Tinklenberg. Bachmann is among the worst Republicans in Congress, and this district rightly seemed winnable. However, the netroots clearly funneled way more money to Tinklenberg than he could spend effectively. We got carried away by emotions and were not thinking strategically.

What if a million of the dollars we sent to the MN-06 race had been spread around 10 or 20 other districts? A bunch of the candidates I wanted to support as part of an expanded field got blown out by large margins, but an extra $50,000 could have made the difference for Josh Segall in AL-03, or for several candidates who weren't on my radar, such as Bill Hedrick in CA-44.

The netroots rally for Tinklenberg started out as a good cause but took on a momentum of its own. It didn't help that Tinklenberg sent fundraising e-mails to his new donors every day or two during the home stretch, even after he had more than enough money to close out the campaign.

Maybe the majority of blog readers who gave $10 or $20 or $50 to Tinklenberg wouldn't have given to some other longshot Congressional challenger. Maybe people need an emotional trigger before they are willing to open their wallets. But in future election cycles, we need to be smarter about how we focus our energy and our fundraising efforts during the final weeks of a campaign. There's no shortage of wingnuts worth targeting. Also, a fair number of good incumbent Democrats will probably need our help in 2010, depending on how the economy looks 18 months from now.

Any ideas or suggestions on how to raise money effectively during the next cycle would be welcome in this thread.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

desmoinesdem, wrong lesson; the right one is...
...give all you can at least several weeks out.

What gets raised at the 11th hour is tough for a candidate to really use effectively.  TV time is already bought up, and voters are saturated with too many commercials to notice late ad buys from unknowns.

I don't have any problem with the netroots concentrating on a few targets at at time, as those targets do change over time so that the 5 who get the most play in early July get replaced in attention by 6 others later in the month, and so on through the cycle.  Tinklenberg simply broke through when he broke through, and that was it...but it was too late, and there needed to be more focus there before Bachmann was on Hardball.

The real problem was that the blogging community needs to emphasize the importance of depleting our donations by mid-October and not wait any longer.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


Perhaps, give all you can several weeks out
and then DO all you can after that, in terms of ground game.

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

[ Parent ]
I think we need to spread the giving around
Going after an incumbent in a Republican-leaning district is a low-percentage play. I still believe $50,000 to $100,000 in 20 districts is a better use of our money than $1 million to $2 million on a candidate like Tinklenberg.

You are right, the netroots need to focus on earlier giving. Actually there was a fair amount of netroots fundraising last summer, but it tended to focus on bloggers' favorites such as Darcy Burner.


[ Parent ]
I still support the $50,000 to every candidate or so
sort of thing.

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

[ Parent ]
I think Democrats in purple/blue suburban districts
like WA-8 is a good investment.  If Darcy had won in 2006 or 2008, she would have held that district for as long as she wanted with little trouble.

[ Parent ]
it is like the Emily's List lesson
Early Money is Like Yeast -- helping candidates get a jump on fundraising allows them to be more viable later

(Unfortunately Emily's List doesn't always follow their own motto -- witness their late support for candidates like Becky Greenwald)

As anyone who has run campaigns can tell you, nothing is worse than trying to develop and implement a campaign plan without being able to accurately assess what resources you have - while a sudden rush of money at the end would still be welcome, it is extremely difficult to spend it effectively at that point.

Spread it around early.


[ Parent ]
Miscellany
1) In 2006, $700,000 was dumped into ads for Nancy Boyda givng Boyda overall spending parity with Jim Ryun (counting third party ads) at about $1.5 million each.  Based on that, I believe that a half million is a proper sized end of campaign "dump."

2) Several other candidates in 2006 would have won with another half million imo.  Dan Maffei and MaryJo Kilroy come to mind.  Possibly Linda Stender or Eric Massa.  The ideal "candidate" for such a surge fits Boyda to a T:  competitive nut outspent 2-1 in a low-to-medium cost race.

3) That of course excludes the Dan Seals, Darcy Burner types in very heavily funded races.

4) One interesting "candidate" for a money dump in 2008 would have been Bob Roggio.  In retrospect, some of the California Democrats would have been possibles. Josh Seagall is apossible.

5) In 2006, challengers needed a minimum of 60% to contend including third party ads.  An 80% ratio gave a fair shot; obviously a 3-2 advantage would be rare but possible in this situation.  I looked at literally several hundred races and only Carol Shea-Porter won spending under 60%.  That was a frigging miracle.  She had the fund raising edge in 2008 and won by a larger (but not huge) margin.

6)VA-4 looks interesting on the surface.

Keeping a larger number of campaigns alive early has a value.  It drains the incumbent Republicans (often by a much larger amount, see Wendy Wilde in 2006).  But putting in $50 K late is not imo a wise move.


[ Parent ]
If Roggio were elected...
what would he even fare like, as a representative?

I'd hope he wouldn't be as completely out-of-touch as Joe Cao...

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


[ Parent ]
Hedrick wasn't on anyone's radar.
The only SoCal challengers who was on anyone's radar last cycle was Debbie Cook in CA-46 and Francine Busby in CA-52.  I don't remember seeing anything about challengers in the other districts which Obama won.

Busby in 50?


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

[ Parent ]
It was Nick Leibman in 50
Busby was the candidate in the 2006 special election and general, Leibman ran a great race in 2008. Busby says she is going to run again in 2010.

Hedrick was definitely a sleeper in that race, but he was a credible candidate from the beginning and it would have been great if we (the collective blogosphere, DCCC, Dem activist and donor base) had at least given some core funding to his race - and then could monitor the campaign to see if it was worth further investment.

I agree with Desmoinesdem that it makes strategic sense to try to provide as many credible Democratic challengers as possible with the kind of seed money that allows them to get their campaign off the ground and see if they can get some traction. I personally like the idea of a $100,000 or so being given early on in the campaign cycle to a large number of candidates -- it would have been great to see folks like Bill Durston, Bill Hedrick, Becky Greenwald, Josh Seagall, Don Johnson (SC-2), Steve Sarvi, Jeff Morris (CA-2), Steve Blythe, Jim Esch, David Robinson (OH-12), Bob Roggio, Sam Bennett, etc get that kind of start up support.

In CA in 2010 there are likely to be a number of Democratic targets in districts that haven't been on the Democratic map before -- Steve Pougnet against Mary Bono Mack in CA 45, Beth Krom vs John Campbell in CA 48, as well as Hedrick again in CA 44, Bill Durston or another challenger taking on Dan Kungren in CA 3, Leibman or Busby against Brian Bilbray in CA 50, maybe Charlie Brown again against freshman carpetbagger Tom McClintock in CA-4   -- as well as potential targets like CA 24 (Gallengy), CA 25 (McKeon),  CA 26 (Dreier),  and CA 46 (Rohrabacher). California has potential to be a gold mine in 2010 if trends continue going our way.


[ Parent ]
I heard a few things about CA-26
I think the candidate's name was Russ Warner? Then again, I only heard that early. The chatter seemed to have died down by autumn.

[ Parent ]
Drier is definitely vulnerable in CA 26
A lot of folks had high hopes for Warner, but he never really caught fire (either in the district or in fundraising) - in the end he only got 40%, pretty much the same as Cynthia Matthews in the two previous races (38% in 2006, 43% in 2004)

Obama was carrying the district 51-47% -- (improving on the 44% that both Gore and Kerry got in the district).

The right challenger could definitely put this race in play.


[ Parent ]
Bleeding cash
Dreier has tapped in to his campaign war chest for an extra million in each of the last two campaigns.  He's down from $2.8 million to $1.7 to $745 K now.  

He can be had before redistricting.


[ Parent ]
$50,000 late in the game in AL-03
Wouldn't have changed that race, and it's folly to assume otherwise. Late spending is not all that efficient, now if we would've invested earlier then maybe it would've been different, but on the other hand, early on there was no sign that this race was going to be competitive.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


You can turn a race upside down in a month
but probably not in two weeks.

[ Parent ]
I think you're right about too much, too late...
but what exactly is $50,000 going to do for anyone. that is little more than two pieces of mail and generally not enough for a week long tv buy in most districts in the country. Bottom line, without a minimum of $1 Million you are not a serious candidate.  

Tinklenberg should have
made a very strong statement to all his supporters, inside and outside the district, that this isn't the time to send money, it's the time to send on-the-ground help.

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

"this" as in two weeks from the election when he got a huge fundraising boost.


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

[ Parent ]
Retired millionaires
At least seven former House members have over $1 million in their personal kitties according to the FEC and are running for nothing.  

The worst, of course, is the sanctimonious Marty Meehan with over $4.9 million cash on hand.  Also on the list: Bud Cramer($1.3), Joseph P. Kennedy($1.6), Rahm Emanuel($1.1), Jim Turner ($1.0) (TX) and the late Tom Lantos ($1.2) plus Republican Mark Foley ($1.2).

Is there a way of recycling the balances of these individuals?



Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox