Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site