Skip to main content

View Diary: Rahm Emmanuel Lied Covered Up Mark Foley? (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Rahm didn't "give" us a Dem Congress (8+ / 0-)

    The Clintonistas want that to be the official version, but it simply isn't true. Emmanuel gets some of the credit, the netroots get some, and George W. Bush gets some for being so unpopular and stubborn.

    Personally, I hold Rahm the Magnificent in minimal high regard. He wrote off all challenger races in my home state of Michigan. Not one dime for the DCCC until he's gone.

    "I am a Christian first"--Augusto Pinochet.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:20:06 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Devil's Advocate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LunkHead, DemocraticLuntz

      Did any of the challengers raise any significant money?  There's no reason why even a semi-credible candidate in lower Michigan couldn't raise at least a quarter million without breaking a sweat, and a half million wouldn't be hard at all for a halfway decent candidate.  Did any of them raise enough to get themselves off the ground?

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

      by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:23:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nancy Skinner (MI-09) did (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mickT, gmb, LunkHead

        To the extent that $250K is the price of admission to the Democratic Credible Candidates Club, or DCCC, isn't that a reflection of how corrupt our campaign finance system has gotten?

        My problem with the national party's "all or nothing" stance toward challenger races is that it creates an infinite loop: challengers can't raise money because their race is perceived as hopeless; would-be challengers shy away from running because they can't expect support; the challenger who does run is out-gunned and defeated; and then the cycle starts anew.

        The party elders have basically told Michiganders to find a Mega Millions lotto winner who wants to buy a congressional seat, move to a state with more competitive races, or go into a Rip Van Winkle state for six years. None of those alternatives particularly appeal to me.

        "I am a Christian first"--Augusto Pinochet.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:39:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Have to Deal with Reality (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LunkHead

          A week of TV in Detroit costs about $400K.  I mention the $250K as the absolute basement even if you do almost nothing.  

          The issue you raise about raising money is one that pops up higher than $500K, ESPECIALLY in an incredibly wealthy district like Knollenberg's district.  

          As for the final paragraph, I don't buy that at all.  I predict that the nitwit over in Schwarz' seat will be one of the nation's top Republican targets.  With Schwarz in office it probably wasn't winnable.  With him in there, it's a great opportunity for a pickup.  If Knollenberg retires or can draw a top notch candidate, that seat is vulnerable.  Between Knollenberg (probably safe, but not certain) and...Wahlberg, that's his name--between those two in competetiveness is McCotter.  But Tony Trupiano just wasn't the candidate who would be seen as a top notch candidate.  May be a great guy, but I don't think any of the people in Michigan were willing to stake their credibility on his ability to win that seat.

          And as the money spent by the DCCC on Boyda and in the Florida seats and on Grant and Kleeb and others shows, if they think they can win a seat, they'll go anywhere.  Of course they're often hampered by their own biases on what's a competetive district, but their perceptions of the candidates often come from the members of that state's delegation and the state political leaders.  If the DCCC never played in Michigan, it's probably more because the delegation members and other political leaders in the state didn't think the challengers in those three seats were particularly credible and conveyed that to the DCCC.

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

          by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:57:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay, but how do you break the cycle? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LunkHead

            It's hard to believe that a better candidate than Trupiano will run in 2008 (I wouldn't be surprised if Tony punts on a rematch with Thin-Skin Thaddeus McCotter), which means we'll start from even deeper in the hole next time around. Seriously, should I put the house on the market and move to a district with better representation?

            "I am a Christian first"--Augusto Pinochet.

            by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:07:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hey, Knollenberg Ain't Great Either (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chumley, LunkHead

              I think there are several factors.

              One, candidate recruitment.  One of the reasons we were competetive in a bunch of places this time around was that we had fairly good candidates in lots of districts, including some that were much more Republican than yours.  Some were self-funders, but most were just good candidates who were a good match for the district, could raise a decent (but seldom huge) amount of money, ran efficient campaigns, got lots of press, and conveyed the impression that if the race got hot and they were under pressure that they'd come off well and would be a good investment.

              Two, it helps if you've got good grass roots support, both attached to the candidate and in the institions in the district.  

              Three, it helps to have a good state party, because they're really important in Congressional races because you have to do a lot of the field through the state party.  While we may disagree, having seen two other state parties up close and having heard about lots more, on this score Michigan is in excellent shape.

              Four, it helps to not be going against the political winds in the state and district.  Here, for no reason of their own doing, the Michigan candidates were at a disadvantage, because for the longest time Michigan was lagging behind most of the rest of the country because of the awful economy and Granholm's anemic standing in job performance perceptions and in her race against DeVos.  

              Five, it really, really helps to have the ability to raise money locally for the candidate.  PAC's (primarily labor) only generate maybe $225-$275K to a Democratic challenger against an incumbent.  The DCCC is limited to giving no more than $79K directly to a candidate (and half of that has to be passed through the state party).  In a year like 2006, with races popping up all over, they might be able to push another $200K in individual contributions to challengers who aren't absolute top tier from day one (like Lampson against DeLay or the three candidates in CT), and even that would be a lot.

              So, it's really important that a candidate be able to raise quite a bit of money relative to their district.  If you're running in the Plains, that might mean $350-$450K.  In a place with an expensive media market, like Detroit, it probably means you need to raise about $650K on your own (not counting labor and liberal interest group PAC money).  And to do that, local people need to buy in to the campaign, figuratively and literally.  That means lots of $50 to $250 checks from people for whom that's not going to keep them from paying their bills, but for whom that may mean not going out on the town as often during election time.  It may not seem fair or right, but it's the harsh reality.

              And speaking from one of those harsh realities, it can be done, and people will give quite willingly if they think the candidate has a chance and is working hard.  

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

              by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:28:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Nice to know what the Democratic Party stands for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LunkHead

        Let me guess. Which is it?

        A. Health Care for the average American

        B. Going to wealthy contributors and raising money to show to gatekeepers of the elite club that you won't upset the status quo with other elite club members and actually demand something stupid, like health care for the average American.

        C. Living in an imaginary world where the people that most need government support, those that are already fighting between feeding themselves and buying the over-expensive drug that will keep them alive because shareholders need gas for their corporate jets, all of a sudden have thousands to shower their saviour that they know will march into Washington and make their mandatory energy/food/health care costs go down.

        •  My Friend Had Horticulture in High School (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LunkHead

          My subject line had as much to do with your comment as your comment had to do with my original question.

          The DCCC isn't a policy organization, it's a campaign committe tasked with electing Democrats to Congress, and they have to do their part because the DCCC can't do it themselves.  

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

          by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:49:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It has everything to do with your comment (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shpilk, LunkHead

            I'll use simple sentences.

            Someone runs with a ticket that he wants to provide health care to his people.

            Who supports him? People that are broke/bankrupt by the current broken system. Not a lot of money to be had.

            Rahm says go jump in a lake, the people that support you can't afford costly advertising. We only like people that have money.

            End result: The people with no money, no health care, crappy jobs have no on the Democratic party supporting them.

            Not a real difficult concept to understand.

            Or in other words, to most of America, big fucking deal corporate Dems won instead of corporate Reps.

            Lovely long-term strategy to win the hearts and minds of Americans and get them convinced that Congress actually cares about them.

            •  Find a Single Example (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LunkHead

              Just one.

              And find a Democratic challenger who got more than one-fifth as much money from corporate PAC as they got from labor PAC's.

              Sir, I submit that on the subject of campaign finance and on how the DCCC and DSCC target resources, you really don't know what you're talking about.

              If you wish to prove me wrong, the easiest way will be to answer my two questions.

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

              by Dana Houle on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:32:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site