Skip to main content

View Diary: Kristol: "WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!" (318 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's not early at all. IIRC (I'm more used (11+ / 0-)

    to working House and Senate races) the filing date for early states closes in about a month. But what's more important is the lesson learned from EMILY's list: "Early Money Is Like Yeast, it helps raise the dough."

    At this time, public perception isn't as important as impressing big-ticket doners. People who will finance your primary/caucus runs in states that matter. And if you live in a media expensive state, as I do (CA) or a media expensive district, you need big bucks. I think Jon Tester spent on TV/radio for his whole state what my House district (CA-12) costs.

    Add too that, they have staff to pay, including, if I'm not mistaken 4 of the top tier Republican campaign operatives in the business. These people don't come cheap, and they will gladly work for a losing campaign, because it's a long time between paychecks when you're a campaign operative. And make no mistake, three of the four people I'm thinking of are very, very good at their jobs. (The fourth I haven't enough knowledge of.)

    Polling, message testing, speechwriters, right now it's the money that counts, and anyone who was seriously thinking about running would have hired a staff ans started putting stuff together about eight months ago. Senate run for a big state, the same. Senate run for a small state, six months ago. House? Too late now, but it's a judgement call depending on district size (geographic) and media precinct which tend to be inversely proportional.

    If I were working the campaign against an incumbent President, I'd have started at least eight months ago, probably a year, quietly, not forming any committees, just testing the waters. I'd have hired "the Pro from Dover" and started marching in parades, speaking to any audience that was interested, and developing a surprising fondness for those big pork cutlet sandwiches they serve in Iowa. As it is, anyone who enters now has several disadvantages, unless they're truly a Rethuglican Messiah with national name recognition, they have a lot of ground to catch up on.

    Yes, there is a correlation between President Barack Obama and Neville Chamberlain. Both have brought us "peas in our time."

    by Jonathan Hoag on Fri Sep 23, 2011 at 07:43:30 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, it's all about being the first one to get... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      briefer, falina, bablhous

      all the money they can out of the big donors.

    •  Sad situation. (4+ / 0-)

      It basically means that no one who does not have access to a lot of money to start with can possibly afford to run for national office, especially the presidency.  Forget about anyone resembling normal people having a shot at the job.  Only rich people and career politicians with good fund raising connections can possibly compete.

      Of course, mandatory public funding of national level campaigns would go a long way toward opening up the field to real people.  But that would require rolling back Citizens United and having some campaign finance laws with real teeth.  The present bunch of incumbents are not interested in that, for obvious reasons.  Hence, we are limited to the current clown show.

      •  Yes and no. Again, there's the lesson of (0+ / 0-)

        EMILY's List. And ActBlue is more effective than anything the R's have been able to put into the field.

        Yes, the rules suck, but the only way to change them is to play by them. Electing Elizabeth Warren and as many like her as we can find is a start. Putting the Blue Dogs down (sorry, I mean, "Skipper went off to live on a farm upstate.") Pressuring (scaring the poop out of) existing congress-critters to pass small steps toward clean election finance rules. Then another set of small steps. And so on.

        Yes, there is a correlation between President Barack Obama and Neville Chamberlain. Both have brought us "peas in our time."

        by Jonathan Hoag on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 06:47:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I certainly don't mean (0+ / 0-)

          that we shouldn't run progressive candidates when the opportunity presents itself.  I certainly wish Elizabeth Warren well, think it's a good thing that Bernie Sanders is in the Senate, etc.  But we have to realize that the deck is very stacked against genuine activists, first in obtaining office at all, then in having an effect once they are in office.  

          For that reason, we have to consider electoral campaigns as only one part of an overall social movement, and not necessarily even the most important part.  We need to grow things like Occupy Wall Street, but on a national scale, and with real resources behind it.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site