Bad Dems Give to Responsible Plan Dems (4.00 / 2)

So, do we realyl want to ask "better" Dems to make "more Dems," especially when we are about to enter an time period when we focus almost entirely "better" Dems?

I would say, take the Bush Dogs/Blue Dogs which are behind and target them to give to the core Dems challengers who developed   the Responsible Plan to get out of Iraq.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:08:28 PM CDT

The Dog Dues of Summer. (4.00 / 1)

Well, Autumn.

But this seems a pretty comprehensive answer. And frankly, annoying the Blue Dogs is a feature, not a bug.

---

by: JoelN @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:26:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Post The List, But Don't Harass (0.00 / 0)

I think it is always useful to post the list of members who are behind in their dues regardless of the reasons for the person being behind.  However, unlike 2006, I don't think there should be a concerted effort to pressure the members this time.

Hopefully, we can get them to contribute more just by embarrassing them without harassing them.

-Derek

---

by: derekcbart @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:11:02 PM CDT

Embarassment Turned To Action Requires Harassment (0.00 / 0)

To use your words, embarassment is only embarassment and doesn't result in action unless they are harassed.  Those who profess to want crops without plowing up the ground... and all that.

---

by: Peter from WI @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 20:36:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, yes, yes and yes. (0.00 / 0)

Let's do it. It made a impact in 2006 no matter what a few complainers might have told you. Anyone who would be giving wouldn't have to be running much of a campaign anyways.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:17:47 PM CDT

complaint 2 (4.00 / 1)

then why is it that these kinds of transfers are fairly routine among Senators and Reps?

Anyway, the whining makes me favor it even more. But why not target everybody with unused money in addition to those behind in dues?

---

by: tremayne @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:22:36 PM CDT

Dues are mandatory, aren't they? (0.00 / 0)

Unless I'm missing the point, I don't see how this is optional for any of them.

They all should be shamed into paying up.

---

by: Bush Bites @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:31:43 PM CDT

How (0.00 / 0)

How could they be mandatory?  Steny can't kick them out of office because they don't give money to the party.  And Nancy isn't gonna say "Please vote for Boehner" to the people who don't pay up.

"Keep the Faith"

---

by: blue south @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:43:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Changes may be necessary (0.00 / 0)

If it's primary challenges they fear, an olive branch could be extended. Make an offer that anybody giving twice their expected dues (to pick a number out of the air) gets netroots support next cycle.

Obviously OL doesn't have enough pull to stop a concerted primary effort on its own, but if you can get sufficient support amongst the largest blogs (especially DK) it might be workable.

As far as progressivism in congressional challengers goes, I'd take the risk. There are a fair amount of progressives in competitive races and very few recipients of DCCC funding who are too conservative for their districts. Sure, preserving guys like Cayazoux and winning seats for guys like Teague isn't going to help progressives, but the money is needed a lot more in more expensive races like Seals', where we have a chance of getting a decent progressive.

As for the Senate, if you can prise money from Bayh and Schumer, you gain a lot of cash that could seriously bolster the majority. The conservatives running on our side are either not in need of funding (Warner, Shaheen) or going to cause the Republicans a lot of pain if they win (Lunsford). That one's worth it.

I say it's a campaign that's worth repeating, but then again I don't get the blowback from such campaigns. If you think it's effective overall, do it. If not, don't.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:37:36 PM CDT

I'd like to see more progressive Dems... (0.00 / 0)

...not giving money to the DCCC and being vocal about it AND (this is not optional) working hard to get more progressives elected outside the framework of the DCCC.  If you give a public statement that it is a choice of quality over quantity, that you can do better through other methods than pushing more money in to the DCCC, I will respect and reward that.

Those same progressives should be working to close this loophole that allows incumbents to slide money into the DSCC/DCCC/RNCC/RNSC unrestricted - something I refer to the incumbency protection act.  This allows Members of both parties to support candidates who their constituents might find unpalatable without a paper trail.  If an elected official wants to support anyone else in an election, they should be forced to do so in their own name in a crystal clear fashion.  They should not be able (as is pointed out above) to redirect contributions made to their own campaign in such unprecedented amounts, to campaigns of others.  I'm ok with each Congressman making a 5k/election pac type contribution to a candidate/peer they support, in their own name.  I'm not ok with my contributions to X candidate being bundled in a 6 or 7 figure lump and dropped in a kitty to support candidates I may not support...unless we are talking about 100% public financing.  Then my money is going to support democracy, not any one candidate.

While I'm griping about this...candidates with high 6 and 7 figure CoH advantages and polling double digit leads asking for more money in the final days is pretty damn tacky.  Instead, leverage your list to help other candidates who aren't as fortunate please.  Strangely, this actually is also often good for the self-interested, it can work to increase your popularity and expand your fund raising base to supporters of the candidate you help out...

---

by: mp @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:38:51 PM CDT

One more point... (4.00 / 1)

...the value of a Dollar in a campaign drops dramatically the later in the campaign you get...at this point virtually all it can be spent on are media ads to sway the chronically undecided, with some being pushed to gotv ops and such, but that is rare.

Typically by this point all funding for GOTV/etc have been allocated and put aside, so the dollars are all going to media ads, often bad media ads that change no votes.

What is my point?  I encourage you to continue supporting candidates if you can, but I want you (yes, you!) to take note of all the races that became competitive or close to competitive as the election played out that lacked support early on.  That is when your money counts the most, next cycle start looking for the candidates that should be in Congress, forget about their electoral position and give them what you can.  Let the campaigns use those resources to create their own electoral position.  Three competitive races in Alabama, a bunch in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Georgia...imagine what these candidates could have done with better fund raising in the 1st quarter.

Early money results in better and more staff, more volunteer recruitment and retention, stronger long term supporters of the candidate who will over the course of the campaign share their support with more and more people that they interact with in their daily lives.  Here's a disturbing piece of information, raising more money is the best way to make it easier to raise more money.  Not raising (enough) money is a quick way to weaken a fund raising operation.

I've tried to asses the actual value of a dollar from day 365 to day 0 (1 year out to Election day) and I think this is about as close as I can get...$1 on Election Day is worth $5 a week out, $15 a month out, $30 three months out, $50 a year out.  This assumes a well run campaign with aggressive field and finance operations and a good candidate.  If you have a shitty candidate and lousy field/finance team, those TV ads are all you've got so the money is at maximum value 10-40 days out from the election.

---

by: mp @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:53:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

fire it up, ready to go! (4.00 / 1)

To answer the points:

• If they don't want the calls, they shouldn't be cheap-asses when we are facing an even better year than last year.
• Not paying dues in not ethical, getting more Democrats in congress will help each member get things done politically, which is why most people donate
• In addition to Use it or Lose it, how about start giving credit where credit is due. For example, Max Baucus is one of the top transferring senators to the DSCC -- even though he's on the ballot. That is cool. Use a carrot too

As for the progressives, more Democrats with Obama in the White House will be the best thing to happen to the Progressive Caucus.

As for the Blue Dogs, if they don't pay up then let then the case for those who should be primaried starts getting made now, in the high traffic pre-election days. If they don't want to be made famous, they should pay up. And anyway, since did Open Left start making strategic decisions based on the anticipated whines of Blue Dogs?

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:46:23 PM CDT

pay the dues... (0.00 / 0)

All of these Rep. benefit from the DCCC. They should all pay up on their dues.

I've little patience for waiting on the sidelines and hording war chests. Donors gave people money because they want Democratic party policy agenda enacted. Paying your dues to the DCCC helps make that happen.

Here's an even better reason. I want my Republican Congresswoman (WV-02, Shelley Moore Capito) replaced with a better Democrat, Anne Barth. I'm still waiting for the DCCC to drop some cash in this race. The more dues that are paid up, the more likely I am to get the representation I deserve!

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

---

by: WVaBlue @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:53:24 PM CDT

Also Committee Posts (4.00 / 2)

If you don't pay your dues, you shouldn't advance in committee and subcommittee assignments.

---

by: BBCWatcher @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 17:26:17 PM CDT

Already started it, sorta (4.00 / 1)

Posted the full list here a few weeks ago.

Should pretty much be up to date and ready to rock.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 17:59:54 PM CDT

Absolutely (0.00 / 0)

For all the complaints about ethics, I didn't see any residual effect reflected in this year's races. Surely one or two races would have had what you describe as an issue in it. None did, which I think reflects the fact that a. what we're doing is extremely insider baseball b. Most of a member's constituency doesn't bother to vote, much less give, and so there aren't a whole lot of folks who feel hurt their money went to another member or something c. The issue is an issue before the next election cycle even starts. Folks forget easily on this one.

In terms of asking better Dems to make more Dems, the amount of resources to ask people to commit on this versus what they could be spending otherwise is extremely low. We're talking a phone call or two, not asking someone to move to Alabama to elect a future Blue Dog instead of moving to Washington state to elect Darcy. And of the millions of dollars that would be going to the DCCC, a large amount would go to help better Dems.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 20:26:40 PM CDT

go for it (0.00 / 0)

I wish we'd done it right after Labor Day.

In Iowa, as far as I can tell, Bruce Braley (IA-01) has given fairly generously to the DCCC, while Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) have not given anything.

Loebsack got no help from the DCCC in 2006, but Boswell got tons of help from them several cycles in a row. Now that he is safe, he should fork over a lot of cash.

Screw these people who haven't paid their dues.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 21:32:33 PM CDT

Resounding Yes to Use It or Lose It!!! (0.00 / 0)

Even the worst Blue Dog is better than nearly all the Republicans.  It is time to really destroy the Republicans politically and the more money that safe candidates put into districts that are in play, the bigger the Democratic majority.  

The question of better Democrats is important, but it is going to have to wait until 2010.

As to whining by elected officials that pressure from mere citizens got in the way in 2006, I regard that as an attempt to tell the unwashed masses to shut up and know their place.

---

by: ammasdarling @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 08:06:49 AM CDT

Yep, do it. (0.00 / 0)

Why the heck do Ed Markey and Henry Waxman, for example, need to sit on all that money?

---

by: by foot @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 08:57:02 AM CDT