Directing Lower Ticket Cash This Cycle

by: Matt Stoller

Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:12


I just got a form fundraising email from JB Poersch, the head of the DSCC and Chuck Schumer's acolyte.  Poersch is quite good at political strategy, and he's discussing Senate candidate Kay Hagen in North Carolina versus Liddy Dole as 'the sleeper' race of 2008.  It might be, and could bring us to 58 or 59 in the Senate.  Much as the open secret of South Carolina is that Lindsay Graham is closeted, the open secret of North Carolina is that Liddy Dole is senile.  She could lose if she acts too much like a bumbler.

Here's Poersch:

Kay Hagan is a great Democrat and a great candidate to topple Dole.  As a leader in the state Senate, she has developed a statewide reputation as a moderate who can run and win in November.  Her favorability ratings are already as high as Dole's, and Hagan doesn't carry nearly the same level of unfavorable baggage.

That said, Hagen supported retroactive immunity for telecom companies, didn't know if she would support Mukasey for Attorney General, and would not support children's health care (SCHIP) if it were funded by tobacco taxes (unlike the rest of NC's Congressional delegation).  She might be a good Democrats, but she's also conservative.

Party organizations like the DSCC support conservative ideas because it is easier to raise money from business with conservative candidates while going to liberals, offering nothing and saying 'we need to get to 60'.  There's going to be a lot of chatter about getting to 60 votes in the Senate, and there's a good reason to want to get there to break filibusters.  But the reality is that the Senate is going to be conservative regardless of whether we're at 60 votes or 58, with people like Max Baucus Chairing powerful committees.  We need more liberals in the Senate, not just more Democrats.  We ought to go directly to the more liberal Senate candidates, like Al Franken in Minnesota, Novick/Merkley in Oregon, Tom Allen in Maine, and Tom Udall in New Mexico.  Let the telecom PACs fund the DSCC and candidates like Kay Hagen, they get good value for their money.

Matt Stoller :: Directing Lower Ticket Cash This Cycle

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Directing Lower Ticket Cash This Cycle | 31 comments
wait... (0.00 / 0)
Lindsey Graham is a closeted what? A closeted liberal? A closeted frotteur?

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific. If you're saying what I assume you're saying, I'm all ears.  

I thought everyone knew that Lindsay Graham was gay. (0.00 / 0)
It's sad that it's an issue, but it will be as long as our government fails to protect equal rights.  
[ Parent ]
Well who is (0.00 / 0)
the liberal alternative to Hagan? Why complain if there is not an alternative? Wouldn't Hagan and the Dem seat she might bring be better than Dole?

And If Obama is the nominee who is he going to endorse? Given that he wants unity how easy is it going to be for him to campaign for either side because if he takes sides then he is no longer the unifier. Post-partisanship does not seem to provide the long coat-tails some said Obama would provide as far as what personal influence he could have while still sticking by post-partisanship unification.

So even though as Matt pointed out yesterday Obama has ignored grassroots efforts like ActBlue and looks to replace them there may very well still be a place for the ActBlue's instead of throwing in the towel as was suggested.

In the end post-partisanship is not going to make true Progressives like myself happy and we will find ways to push back against Obama in order to advance Progressive ideas.

I thought he already gave the alternative (4.00 / 1)
Al Franken in Minnesota, Novick/Merkley in Oregon, Tom Allen in Maine, and Tom Udall in New Mexico.

I would have though that given your desire to push back, you'd agree.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Clearly I was talking (0.00 / 0)
about an alternative to Dole in NC.

What we do in other states has no direct bearing on NC. If Dole is vulnerable then we should have a Progressive candidate there if there is a viable one and if a Progressive could have a chance of winning in NC. If a Progressive has no chance of winning in NC then Hagan is still better than Dole unless we can find a more palatable moderate with a chance to win.

[ Parent ]
Where was the complaining? (0.00 / 0)
Matt said:
We ought to go directly to the more liberal Senate candidates, like Al Franken in Minnesota, Novick/Merkley in Oregon, Tom Allen in Maine, and Tom Udall in New Mexico.  Let the telecom PACs fund the DSCC and candidates like Kay Hagen, they get good value for their money.

Given that that was the end of his post, I'll also assume it concluded his point. I don't get what your problem with it is. Where is he complaining?

The primary is over. There was a progressive who would have had a chance, he didn't win the primary. "What we do in other states" does have a direct bearing because we can't direct money and activism to everyone. So why support a conservative Democrat in a close race instead of a liberal Democrat in a close race? That is the entire point of this post, and unless you're extremely sensitive I don't think there was any whining in it.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
I see this as complaining to a degree (0.00 / 0)
That said, Hagen supported retroactive immunity for telecom companies, didn't know if she would support Mukasey for Attorney General, and would not support children's health care (SCHIP) if it were funded by tobacco taxes (unlike the rest of NC's Congressional delegation).  She might be a good Democrats, but she's also conservative.

Again I was only asking if there was an alternative to Hagan. is that a bad thing to ask?

[ Parent ]
It was Jim Neal (0.00 / 0)
and he lost.  As the saying goes, get over it and get on with it.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I would not even have (0.00 / 0)
mentioned it had Matt not brought it up. Given that he did I commented on it and asked a question. Get over it.
[ Parent ]
No, it's not (0.00 / 0)
And I wouldn't have gotten pissed off if you hadn't used to opportunity to try to make it about the presidential candidates. If you didn't gather it from my initial post, I find that intolerable.

Anyway, I think we can both probably agree that is too bad that the national netroots (this site and others) didn't do more to push Neal when we had the chance.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Well sorry (0.00 / 0)
you have a short fuse.

From my perspective what I wrote about Obama's coattails and how he would handle endorsements in his post-partisan platform is totally relevant to the conversation of electing down ticket candidates which is what the post was about - Hagan, Franken, and the rest.

If you wish to not comment on that dilemma and instead get pissed there isn't much I can do about that. My comment was relative to the bigger picture and is one that will need to be addressed and talked about should Obama be our nominee.

[ Parent ]
I did comment on it (0.00 / 0)
Is extremely rare for presidential candidates to endorse in a down ticket primary (neither of them did) and it is certain that Obama and Clinton would both support the Democratic nominee for Senate in North Carolina. I don't support his "post partisan" rhetoric, but he is not going to endorse a Republican for Senate against a Democrat.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Well if he starts endorsing or letting other Dems (0.00 / 0)
appear with him then there goes the post-partisanship, which is fine by me, because the Republicans aren't going to stand for it because it would be double-talk by him.

Actually I never believed he could pull it off which is why I didn't like him. I didn't like him because he was looking at me through the TV screen and telling me something that he knows he cannot do IMO. Therefore he is lying to people by telling them something he thinks they want to hear and he knows he can't deliver on. And that is just 'one' of the reasons I don't like him as a candidate.

[ Parent ]
Gosh (0.00 / 0)
Maybe you should look it up. I know you can, because here you are on the internet.

Hagan had a more liberal opponent in Jim Neal. Had he won, no doubt he would be on the list of really good Senate candidates to support. He didn't win, so it doesn't make much sense to focus the netroots' limited attention on Hagan, who won't be particularly liberal. Matt's post is about where to focus our resources. It would be good if Hagan beat Dole, but why should it be our priority if she is going to vote with the Tobacco companies over children? It's odd that as a "true Progressive" you can't seem to make the distinction between a good Democrat and a bad Democrat.

It would have been highly unusual for Clinton or Obama to make an endorsement in the primary. The idea that either of them wouldn't endorse the Democrat in the Senate race is equally absurd. There is no distinction between them in the context of this Senate race.

I responded to your comment as if you were actually interested in a discussion of the North Carolina Senate race, but I'm fairly confident that you're just here to whine about Barack Obama. If so, DO IT IN A FUCKING CANDIDATE THREAD.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Gosh (0.00 / 0)
No where in my post did I say we should focus the netroots' limited attention on Hagan.

I just said if she is the best the Dems can get then why complain?

[ Parent ]
She isn't the best the Dems can get, (0.00 / 0)
And the post wasn't complaining, it was an analysis of where attention should be focused.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
So who do YOU (0.00 / 0)
suggest for an alternative to Hagen?

That was my original open question in my first post and although you keep trying to make this a personal issue about what I posted you still not have offered an alternative even though you now claim Hagen is not the best we can get.

So who do YOU suggest for an alternative to Hagen?

[ Parent ]
Question is where liberals should put their money (4.00 / 1)
Assuming you don't have $2300 for each Dem Senate candidate in a contested race, who should you give to?

Matt says not Hagen but Franken, the Udalls, Allen, OR etc.  I'd add Begich, Noriega, maybe Rice as a long shot.

Certainly of you live in NC it's fine to vote for her, but if you are thinking where to put scarce dollars, I'd agree completely with Matt (except I'd like to see Allen poll better).

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
I didn't say (0.00 / 0)
to put our resources into Hagen.
[ Parent ]
I recomend this article (4.00 / 1)
Combined with Matt's definitive article Obama's Consolidation of the Party yesterday, these are the two salient points of our time now. These articles are steeped heavily in our actual situation, and are not an abstraction. If you have been paying even a small amount of attention, then these two articles clarify and I hope inspire, our efforts and goals in the short term.

If Obama has the progressive heart, the transformational vision I can feel, and I am starting to see, then these articles are long term goals as well.

Obama has foreseen and embodied a restructuring of the voter base in America. He has used respect and principals and citizen involvement to benefit the formation of a Democratic Party coalition that could, could, govern for a generation.

There is a set of scenes in Michael Moore's Sicko where he is talking to U.K. Labour MP (and former powerhouse) Tony Benn about how socialized medicine came to Britain. Benn is incredibly eloquent about democracy being the sole driving force for that reform and others. He is articulate on the wisdom of citizens engaged in their democracy.

The crisis that is America is due in large part to the destruction of democracy. Voter suppression, hanging chads, voter photo-ID, fraudulent electronic voting (make no mistake ALL electronic voting is fraudulent), voter suppression in the south, the "Electoral College" (Gore won the election) etc etc etc etc.

Just saving democracy is enough. That will be transformational, that will drive all other reforms and it will save Histories noblest experiment. The fact that the coalition also wants to tackle peace, the environment and the wages of the average American, Bonus!

PS.
For those of you who don't know Tony Benn is actually Lord Sir Anthony Wedgewood Benn, Viscount Stansgate, but he does not use any titles any more. He is one of the few politicians who moved left as he rose in office.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

Matt- thanks for making the point (4.00 / 1)
The same holds even truer in the House, where a bare majority that's totally unified is better than a solid majority that's made up of a large share of Blue Dogs, because the Blue Dogs will get a big say in picking the leadership there.  And unlike the Senate, the majority rules big time there.  

Every Cazayoux and Foster and Childers added to the caucus tilts the leadership battle to the Steny Hoyers and Rahm Emmanuels of the world, and we sure don't want that for the next session of congress.

Not saying the DCCC or the DNCC shouldn't sent any money to viable candidates in conservative districts, but they should also send money to more progressive candidates as well that are competitive.  

Moreover, NO liberal/progressive donors should be sending their money to those candidates IMO because we don't have enough left over to fully fund the candidates who will ensure the right kind of leadership for both houses of congress.

Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Moreover, NO liberal/progressive donors should be sending their money to those candidates IMO because we don't have enough left over to fully fund the candidates who will ensure the right kind of leadership for both houses of congress.

I would temper that with on the ground, actual races, based on real world facts. Webb is an excellent example of that. Taking the Senate, reforming Virginia (Virginia!) as a democratic party stronghold, that was so very worth it. I can't support Webb for VPOTUS, but he deserved our money and support and work to make him Senator.

So yeah rule of thumb for progressives, support progressives, we cant afford to support blue republicans. (Really, we can't afford it, 20 50 bucks here, 100 bucks there, 375 bucks to that, we are all nearly tapped out)

Heres a random idea, get a second job, 6 hours a week, and donate it all to ActBlue. Become a waiter, let it be known all tips go to Democrats.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Kay Hagen also spoke derisively of the netroots (0.00 / 0)
("those people are out of control" was the phrase, IIRC.) Then  she turned around and campaigned on Blue NC and advertised on Talking Points Memo. Charming.
   
[ Parent ]
Great post. (0.00 / 0)
Unlike DailyKos, for example, this site shouldn't support non-progressive Democrats.

There is a place for both the effective partisan advocate and the effective ideological advocate, as long as they work together effectively.

Both Wendell Phillips and Abraham Lincoln were necessary to end slavery.  

 

I believe that the fundraising on DK (0.00 / 0)
is limited to solid blue candidates.  The frontpagers may root for a more conservative Dem against the Republican, but I don't recall fundraising for them.  
[ Parent ]
Matt, DSCC is pushing Merkley HARD (0.00 / 0)
they just made a massive ad buy on his behalf:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/bre...

Word circulated late today about a big political ad buy in Oregon by the national Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which supports Jeff Merkley in the U.S. Senate primary.

Just how big isn't known, but documents show the committee has bought more than $44,000 in air time at a single Portland station, KGW-TV.

that's $44k at a single station in portland.

in addition to the $93k and advance team they started him out with (from the bend bulletin)


   the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee paid $73,000 to an Arkansas company for an advance team to help stage his kickoff as well as $20,000 for research.


end the blurring--vote steve novick for u.s. senate in oregon
oops, forgot link (0.00 / 0)
the bend bulletin, via oregon live dscc , $93k to merkley.

also, from Roll Call via Loaded Orygun the whole saga is laid out in more explicit terms, the Hill see's it as a power stuggle between schumer himself, and the grassroots campaign being run by steve novick.

In seeking to upset state Speaker Jeff Merkley in the Oregon Democratic Senate primary next month, attorney Steve Novick is fighting against a Capitol Hill powerbroker with a proven record of shepherding his preferred candidate to victory: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.).


end the blurring--vote steve novick for u.s. senate in oregon
[ Parent ]
Why limit the range of impact? (0.00 / 0)
This hierarchy of progressive purity assumes that there's just not enough money and influence in the progressive community and the blogosphere to spread around to the Dem candidates who  rank lower on the hierarchy. Where's the evidence of that? In fact, there's ample evidence that targeting ALL Dem candidates for support is the wiser strategy.
For instance, in '06 I volunteered with Move-On to phone-bank for Heath Shuler. The Dem party had written him off as a long shot but Move On saw the chance to take out a senior level Republican hack. Now I know that Shuler is one of Matt's Bush-Dogs--he voted with Republicans on FISA--but 9 out of 10 times he votes with Democrats which is something his predecessor certainly wouldn't have done. So was Move On's  decision to back Shuler good strategy? You bet.
Progressive Democrats in NC did have a good alternative to Hagen in Jim Neal. And he got his butt kicked. Now the next best move is for progressives to do everything they can to bring down a very high-profile Republican Senator in Liddy Dole. That means supporting Hagen.  

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
Here's the thing (0.00 / 0)
If those 9 out of 10 votes were overwhelmingly carried by the Democrats (haven't done the research, but I suspect I'm pretty close to accurate), then what does having him in the seat do for us?  

I know it's a vote in the caucus for a conservative house leadership, but I mean what GOOD does it do for us.

The calculus changes now that we have a growing majority.  

[ Parent ]
What good? (0.00 / 0)
Because it's better than having a Republican in that seat. Are you meaning to say that, should there be a tight vote, the Democratic party would have less leverage over a Democratic new-comer than it would have over an entrenched Republican who has a long and consistent record of rubber-stamping the party line? Because in the case of Heath Shuler vs. Charles Taylor and Kay Hagen vs. Liddy Dole, that's exactly what we're talking about.
What having a Shuler or a Hagen in the seat does for us is give us better odds of pushing through a more progressive agenda. Maybe not our best odds, but definitely better odds.
This incremental progress is better than not making any progress at all by letting Liddy Dole get an easy-pass to yet another term. And it's worth investing in down-ticket campaigns to make it happen. It also pressures the Republican party to spread their assets thinner.
When finally the progressive movement is looking at an election with a high-tide of funding and activist energy, holding back--without any concrete evidence of a scarcity of resources--is a big mistake.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
Franken is in trouble (0.00 / 0)
I support him and I've donated to his campaign, but the recently revealed "mistakes" that were made in his taxes and worker's compensation payments are muddying the waters.  

The issue has been spun - by Coleman and the M$M - that these are representative of the "sloppiness" with which Franken will approach the Senate.  Thus far, Al's response has been, IMHO, rather lack-luster - he's basically blamed it all on some nameless, faceless "accountants".  He has to get out in front of this issue, or its gonna come back to bite him in the GE.  Norm Coleman is a scrappy politician - he's no push-over - even in the face of the apparent rising tide of anti-Republicanism.  

So, yeah, by all means - get some money to Franken - his path to the Senate has gotten a good bit rockier in the last month or two.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Directing Lower Ticket Cash This Cycle | 31 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox