Skip to main content

View Diary: IL-06: Duckworth v Cegelis (270 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  they are concerned she (4.00)
    cannot receive donations from the organizations and people rahm instructed to not donate to her campaign.  self-fulfilling prophecy.
    •  1,400 people like us (4.00)
      Donated an average of $130 or so. It's small donors that will make the difference here.

      Donate to Cegelis.

    •  No, After Reading the Link... (none)
      ...I suspect they're concerned she's blowing all her money, and is almost broke.  From the link:

      To date, Christine has raised $160545.56
      She has spent $121992.17

      That's a 75 % burn through rate

      One rule of thumb in fundraising quarters is a burn rate of 35% though many would say even lower this far out.

      Last quarter Christine raised $52127.25
      Spent $46615

      That's a 89% burn rate.

      Roskam [The Repub candidate] has in total raised $681046.03
      Spent $129354.88
      A burn rate of just about 19% and a raw total only $8000 more than Christine.

      His burn through just last quarter was about 36%.

      It's realistic to say that no Democrat is probably going to match Roskam dollar for dollar so lets look at Bean's numbers.

      Bean didn't start raising money until the third quarter of 2003 for the 2004 race. She raised $38365.00

      Spent $5076 a 13% burn rate.

      In the fourth quarter Bean raised $100929.45
      Spent $29779.60 at 30% burn rate

      In three quarters, Christine raised $160,000 so far this year compared to two quarters for Bean bringing in $139474 in two, though the last quarter in Illinois should be higher than the previous quarters given the closeness to the primary.

      That said, Bean had $104,721 on hand at then end of 2003. To match that, Cegelis at her current burn rate would have to raise $200,000 approximately in the fourth quarter. Bean's primary wasn't terribly competitive so she may have been able to bank some that far out instead of spend it, but the worst burn rate from Bean was about 50% until the last 3rd quarter when you are spending serious money and then the last month.

      There's no virtue in spending almost every penny you raise and not having anything left to communicate with voters.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 03:27:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a bit disingenuous of you, DH (none)
        Roskam's had the local GOP bigs doing big-ticket fundraisers.

        Christine has been unable to get Dem bigs to line up anything. Rahm's managed to keep them on the sidelines. Small-ticket funders have a high expense ratio. If Emanual had given her his blessing, the numbers and burn rate would be, at worst, similar to Roskam's.

        BushIsWeak.com ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

        by wystler on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:42:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's BS (none)
          I've been doing campaigns for years, and I've never done a campaign that didn't spend at least 70% of it's expenditures on direct voter contact.  The period in the cycle is when you raise money but don't spend it.  If they're spending everything they raise, they're an incredibly undiciplined and unfocused campaign.  They're eating all their nuts instead of burying them for later, which means they'll either starve or require someone to feed them.  

          And what the DCCC does or doesn't do now has absolutely nothing to do with their expenditures.  Other than FR expenses, there's almost nothing they should be spending money on right now.  

          I had been an agnostic on this race prior to seeing that linked blog entry.  I hated the typical groupthink that makes people into martyrs, but I wasn't ready to embrace the criticism of Cegelis.  But seeing this burn rate, it's political malpractice.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 06:31:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting Choice of Words (none)
            Where you see "political malpractice", those of use in the IT industry see fiscal responsibility.  It's indicative of an IT project manager:

            1.  Time
            2.  Budget
            3.  People
            4.  Success

            Plan the work.  Work the plan.  It allows people to pay their bills timely.  Many conventional candidates have no desire to be timely.  They do pay the vendors -- eventually.  Until then, the money is in the campaign treasury making them look good instead of being severely in debt, which is routinely their actual status -- in the red.  It also keeps them from being accused of "political malpractice".

            Christine's honorable, responsible.  The country needs her in Congress.

            Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."

            by Philosophe Forum on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:10:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What? (none)
              There's nothing to be spending money on right now!  It's too early to do polling, there's no voter contact, other than a maybe a finance director, there shouldn't be staff...there's simply nothing they should be spending money on.

              Whatever, convince youreself that being broke before they should have incurred any costs, regardless of when the bills would come do, is a sign of brilliance and virtue.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:20:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  So have you won any campagns in all those years? (none)
            DHinMI, the old patterns of congressional campaign management have not worked for the Dems.  Not even in districts with more Dems than the IL-06.  

            The Cegelis organization is the only established Democratic candidate organization in the district.  All politics are local so adaptation is required to address local constituent needs.  Anything else is old-hat conventional wisdom.  Get out the vote means have an active campaign, the voters want to know that there is a Democrat running for congress.  A Democrat who they know, a Democrat who knows them.

            Oh yeah, I guess Roskham hasn't spent any money on anything.  

            Build the party, spend as needed, spend for the long haul.  Your proposal is simply more establishment pro-money anti-constitutent propaganda.

            The establishment has spent nearly 13 months trying to find a candidate to run against Cegelis.  This latest 11th hour attempt is another example of project mismanagement.  The establishment has lost control of the project calendar, will over spend their budget, will lose the election, will lose credibility and will lose contol of the political agenda.

            Fortunately there are people working to make sure that Democrats will win control of the House.

            •  No, I Haven't (none)
              Just ignore what I wrote.  

              Ignornace is bliss.

              [And ignore the Dean campaign as an example of how to blow all your money too early...]

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 08:26:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There you go again. (none)
                I love how every time DHinMI makes a valid point based on practical knowledge, observation, and experience with the party, somebody has to flame based on the fact that the argument isn't towing the line.

                DH's posts have nothing to do with how progressive somebody is or isn't, they are merely observations based on the best way to managed a budget. There shouldn't be arguments whose tenor is "It's ok for Cegelis to do things wrong because she's a netroots candidate and anyway the old fashioned ways don't work anymore." I daresey spending most of your funds when voters are mostly not paying attention to the race doesn't seem like such a good idea, progressive or not.

      •  Conventional Wisdom (none)
        Use it, & it'll screw things up every time.  Maybe it worked 15 yrs. ago.  In the 21st Century, it's the best way to lose an election.

         If the 110,000 people that voted for Christine in the November 2004 election each gave her $10, everyone embracing the conventional wisdom would have to shut up about the lack of fundraising. Why haven't local Party leaders sponsored fundraising events & provided mass mailings?

        Good instincts would say to support Cegelis. She's only the best person for the job. Unfortunately, purposely withholding support isn't anything new for Emanuel. Last year it was MN-06 & Scott Mortensen. This year it's MN-02 & Colleen Rowley. Last year in IL it was the senate race. There's definitely a pattern, & some of us are seeing it.

        I'm also concerned about all the money Emanuel's wasting -- $1M start-up for a stealth campaign war chest. The DCCC argument for not supporting more than "targeted" races is based on "limited" financial resources. He's risking a lot on Duckworth. When she loses the Primary, he's wasted it instead of "investing" such a large amount on progressive candidates that everyone wants, & the DCCC should really support.

        With so much money to start & a Chicago Hilton fundraiser for Duckworth's stealth campaign, she doesn't have to spend time on fundraising until after the Primary. As for the low fundraising numbers for Cegelis, it's all part of the plan:

        1. Emanuel doesn't support a candidate because millionaire donors don't contribute literally thousands.
        2. Emanuel doesn't sponsor DC fundraisers with PACs (like the RNCC) so candidate exposure is minimized.
        3. Candidates are poor fundraisers as a result of #1 & #2.
        4. Candidates don't deserve the votes as a result of #1, #2, & #3.

        Ultimately, Dem candidates can never win an election against a GOP incumbent with this strategy, & the Minority remains the Minority. Best case scenario:

        1. Emanuel wastes too much money that the DCCC doesn't have on Duckworth's campaign.
        2. The voters kick ass showing Emanuel that THEY chose their representative & not him. A Duckworth loss proves Emanuel's lack of leadership skills.
        3. Emanuel gets kicked out of the DCCC chairmanship.
        4. Someone with common sense takes Emanuel's place as chair & gives Cegelis the support she so richly deserves.
        5. Cegelis wins in November 2006, & the Party's legislative delegation becomes a Majority in IL.

        Now if we can only find someone in the Party with common sense.  Cegelis wins.  We have someone in the Party -- in Congress -- with common sense.  We win.

        Qui tacet consentire videtur - "Whoever seems silent, consents."

        by Philosophe Forum on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 11:27:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site