Last week, Change Congress pulled together over 50 national and state progressive bloggers and reformers on an "open letter" to the DSCC and DCCC -- calling them out for an embarrassingly fake nod toward combating special interests...adopting Barack Obama's fundraising rules for 1 day.
From a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee email yesterday:
When Sen. Arlen Specter joined the Democratic Party a few days ago he said his old party had "moved far to the right."
It's the truth. All the GOP has is the same low wage, no regulation economic platform and cultural warfare garbage that's like a gallon of milk out past its sell date.
We want universal healthcare? A climate change bill? We got to help the DSCC beat its goal before the April 30 fundraising deadline so they can deliver President Obama a filibuster proof 60 seat Democratic Senate majority in the 2010 elections.
While it is technically true that Democrats will not have 60 Senators until Al Franken is seated, Specter is, for all intents and purposes, the 60th Democrat in the Senate. So far, what Specter switch has really shown is that having 60 Democrats in the Senate was never a magical finish line that would guarantee progressive legislation. Here is his record as a Democrat:
One thing Specter's flip has guaranteed is an increasing level of cognitive dissonance in Democratic fundraising pitches. Now that Democrats have 60 Senators, it will be increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to blame any stalled legislation on Republicans. As such, Specter's switch ups the stakes for Democrats by removing both the last way Republicans could be credibly blamed as obstructionists, and by not actually bringing any new votes to help pass their legislative agenda. So, we get more pressure, without more votes.
If Harry Reid has actually secured something tangible from Specter as a result of this switch, we haven't seen it yet.
Recently, I critiqued the DSCC's "petition" asking Norm Coleman to get out -- saying there was no "theory of change" about why people taking that action would have any impact.
To be constructive, I gave a free piece of advice to the DSCC on how to organize people strategically: ask people to give $1/day until Norm goes away. If Republicans in DC saw the DSCC's warchest growing by the day, their incentives would reverse -- instead of telling Norm to keep going, they'd tell him to get lost.
The DSCC didn't take that advice. But Howard Dean's Democracy for America was all about it, and partnered with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (which I co-founded) to make it happen at NormDollar.com. Instead of raising money to help generic Democrats, we're raising it to support bold progressives in 2010.
Since Saturday, over $20,000 has been raised -- prompting news coverage in the New York Times, ABC, Politico, Huffington Post, and great support at Digby's blog, MyDD, CrooksandLiars, FDL, Senate Guru, The Seminal, The MN Progressive Project, and others blogs.
Here are some of the (truly appreciated) comments, rounded up from Huffington Post and MyDD:
A beautiful campaign. I usually don't start to donate until election season starts, but with this I'll definitely donate. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Now this is a constructive campaign program! My buck's in the mail.
I like this campaign so much that I'm in for two dollars a day.
From $5000 to over $7500 in one hour. Love it. The first time I donated again since the elections.
Up to $12,000. Wonderful pace, people. Tell your friends! This will work... send Coleman's financial backers a message they will understand.
Done! Told all my friends, family and acquaintances. This is a delicious way to counteract the deplorable legal foot dragging.
I just donated. Take note haters...this is how it's done...no ridiculous hats with teabags hanging off...just smart thinking and smart planning.
Freshman Republican backbencher Richard "Bank Run" Burr has been a mostly silent Senator since he first won his seat back in 2004. However, in the last several weeks, he's gained notoriety for two big political blunders. First, he inexplicably blocked the appointment of Iraq veteran, double-amputee, veterans' advocate Tammy Duckworth to a position in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Then, he relayed the story of how, with the fiscal crisis about to hit hard last Fall, his weak-kneed response was to have his wife take out as much cash from their neighborhood bank as ATMs would allow. Not exactly the steady hand North Carolinians (or anyone) want managing our nation's fiscal affairs.
While "Bank Run" Burr was doing all he could to keep his low approval ratings low, polls were coming out showing Democratic state Attorney General Roy Cooper leading Burr in hypothetical match-ups (Public Policy Polling in December, Civitas in March, Public Policy Polling in April). Attorney General Cooper indicated that he was interested in a 2010 Senate bid; and, WaPo's Chris Cillizza even reported that he had heard that AG Cooper would decide on a Senate bid "by the end of the month." The end of the month is now less than two weeks away.
So we have favorable polls, a public indication of interest, and a report that a decision would be forthcoming in the next two weeks. And today we have, what I think is, the tipping point.
An E-newsletter from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) called The Rant arrived in my inbox this morning with the subject line "Polling in NC." The focus was, as noted, heavily on Burr's moronic "Bank Run" story and on the new Public Policy Polling poll showing Burr still trailing Attorney General Cooper. Below is a screen cap:
In addition to the E-newsletter, there was the induction of Burr in to the DSCC's Hall of Shame, as well as the announcement of a new DSCC web page: http://www.dscc.org/RunOnTheBanks - which, of course, highlights "Bank Run" Burr's reckless economic "solution" and unveils a new web video highlighting recent media footage criticizing Burr's actions, at right.
So not only do we have favorable polls, a public indication of interest, and a report that a decision would be forthcoming in the next two weeks - but we also have the DSCC putting a great deal of focus on Richard Burr and hyping the poll results of Attorney General Cooper, whose decision, again, will come in the next two weeks. Given how shrewd the DSCC is about candidate recruiting and outreach, I don't think they would put this degree of focus on NC-Sen, hyping the Burr-Cooper polls in particular, unless they knew that a positive decision would be announced in the next two weeks.
In short, I'm speculating that North Carolina's Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper will announce that he will be a candidate for Senate against freshman Republican backbencher Richard "Bank Run" Burr in 2010 and that the announcement will come before the end of April. An announcement would be a massive recruiting success for the DSCC and immediately give NC-Sen "toss-up" status, making the race one of the highest-profile Senate match-ups in the country.
I know as well as anyone that some emails that you expect to work simply flop. Others that you expect to be par for the course go gangbusters -- inspiring droves of activism. Innovation and creativity are key, so I'll never fault anyone for trying weird, wacky new things -- even if they fail.
With one caveat: Every activist email must have a plausible "theory of change." People should see some concrete theory about why taking action could lead to a desired result.
But some people choose to inflame people's passions just to get their email addresses (and, more likely than not, to fundraise from them -- as opposed to later engaging them in quality activism). This sullys the online activism process for the rest of us.
That's why getting emails like this one from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recently was both insulting and maddening:
Dear Adam,
First they counted the votes. Then they recounted them. Then they painstakingly went over every disputed ballot by hand. It was the most thorough and exhaustive recount process Minnesota has ever seen.
It's time to give it up, Norm. President Obama needs Al Franken in the Senate. It's time to concede the race. Click here to add your voice.
First the bipartisan canvassing board declared Al Franken the winner of the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota.
But Norm Coleman didn't like that result, so he took it to court. And now when even his own lawyers are predicting he'll lose, Coleman's threatening to keep appealing to more and more courts.
How many more recounts does Norm Coleman want? How many more delays? How much longer will the Republican Party hold Minnesota's Senate seat hostage?
Coleman can end it today and give Minnesota the two Senators it's entitled to. But he's not going to give up unless we convince him to act. So let's speak with one voice and tell Norm Coleman it's time to go.
It then links to a page with a "petition" to Norm Coleman. If you sign, you land on a donate page. If you scroll to the bottom of the email, you also see a donate button -- and a tell-a-friend button, so the DSCC can get your friends' emails.
Nowhere in the entire email is there a theory for why a DSCC petition to Norm Coleman will make any impact.
And, if you think about it, why on earth would Norm Coleman listen to the DSCC? Can you think of a less credible messenger than the DC committee whose sole role is to defeat Senate Republicans like Coleman?
I'm not saying the DSCC has no role to play in getting Coleman to step down. I'm just saying they should play an honest and effective role.
This diary is in reaction to the diary about former Democrat Joe Lieberman giving more money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) than most Democratic Senators. It's also a try to get another "use it or lose it" campaign going.
All numbers below the fold.
UPDATE 8/13/2008:
When I looked through all the numbers I was surprised that several Senators did not have a PAC. I now learned that Sen. Schumer does have a PAC (Impact). For some reason it's not listed on Open Secret's Chuck Schumer page. His PAC has contributed to the DSCC and individual Senate candidates. I've updated the numbers below.
On Saturday a fundraising solicitation arrived in the mail from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. It asked me to confirm delivery of the enclosed "supporter card" within ten days, and also to "help keep my 2008 re-election campaign on the road to victory" with a special contribution.
Funny, I wasn't aware that Harkin needed any extra help. Everyone in the election forecasting business has labeled this seat safe for him. The available polling shows Harkin with a comfortable lead.
My head has been spinning ever since I put together the latest Senate Forecast this morning. Looking only at Republican-held seats:
Democrats currently lead by 18-24% in New Mexico Hampshire and Virginia;
By 6-10% in Colorado and New Hampshire;
By 2-4% in Alaska and Mississippi-B;
Additionally, Democrats are within 3-5% in Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas;
Democrats are also within 10-15% in Idaho, Kansas, Maine, and Nebraska
By contrast, Republicans are within 20% in only two Democratic held seats, Louisiana (Dems +14%) and New Jersey (Dems +18%). To top it all off, the DSCC has a $20.5M cash advantage on the NRSC. With so many advantages, there is now a very real possibility that Democrats can reach 60 Senate seats in the next Congress, not even including Lieberman.
As incredible as it may seem, the huge number of Democratic advantages actually gives Democrats a big opportunity to improve the Senate picture further. We have so many advantages to spare, that we can invest some of them to build even more advantages. Specifically, the DSCC could use its enormous financial advantage to start running high saturation cable and Internet ads in thirteen of the fifteen Republican held states listed above (New Mexico and Virginia look fine on their own). The ads could run from mid-June (say, the week after the end of the Democratic primary on June 9th) through the start of the Olympics on August 8th.
Hitting paid media early should result in Democratic candidates taking the lead in all five of the states where they currently trail by 3-5%, build decent leads in the two states where we already have narrow leads, put both Colorado and New Hampshire well out of reach, and maybe even move a couple of the long shot seats in tier five inside the margin of error. In this way, the ads could pay for themselves, by presenting Republicans with way too many targets to defend, giving far more of our candidates credibility to free media and donors, and also by framing the message of the campaign before Republicans go on the air. From that point, if the DSCC can credibly and accurately argue that a 10-12 seat pickup is within reach, its own coffers should go through the roof.
So, as crazy as it may sound, spending $15M on paid media over the next two months now could not only pay for itself, but it could turn an already mouthwatering Senate picture into a truly historic rout by mid-August. We have so many advantages right now, I would love to see us press further. If we spend early and wide, we can potentially end Republicans as a functioning political party in the Senate for the next four years.
The DSCC has been buying time in Oregon to soften up Republican Senator Gordon Smith, who is one of the most moderate Republican Senators out there and who will probably lose in November (he's below 50 against both Democrats running against him). Oregon has a particularly genteel political culture, with the incumbent Democrat, Ron Wyden, refusing to campaign against Gordon Smith. This gentility, though, masks a strong establishment culture that is helping Jeff Merkley stay in the primary against a much more charismatic and interesting candidate, Steve Novick.
The primary is getting somewhat nasty, though after it's over the party should rally around the eventual winner. One of Merkley's consultants actually ripped off the design work of one of Novick's staffers in putting together the attack site Novick InsultsDemocrats, a site listing the litany of criticisms Novick has leveled against Democrats for their failure to stand tall enough against George W. Bush. It's rather interesting, actually; Merkley's implicit argument is that criticism of Democrats is bad, whereas Novick's activist background is considered a liability. Merkley's record as the Speaker of the House in Oregon is set against Novick's quirky career pushing from the outside.
The Senate Guru and MyDD, along with the DSCC, are more sympathetic to Merkley. The DSCC has actually set up Merkley with around $100k in help.
It's not news that House Speaker Jeff Merkley was recruited to run for the U.S. Senate by officials from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and that the committee staffers helped stage his campaign kickoff in September.
It turns out that it was nearly 100k worth of help. The Bend Bulletin (subscription fee required) reports that 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.
People like Sherrod Brown (who apparently attempted to recruit progressive establishment Oregonian Senate candidates), Chuck Schumer, and the existing Senatorial class do not quite want to believe that Novick has a chance. He's four foot eleven and he has a hook for his left hand, and has released a set of interesting and quirky campaign commercials. Novick has a variety of impolitique statements out in public, including attacks on Barack Obama. Merkley is much more establishment oriented, though progressive.
This is a fascinating contest of an establishment-progressive versus an activist-progressive. While I have a great deal of sympathy for Merkley and his adherents, I support Novick in this race. Sherrod Brown was celebrated as a great progressive hero in 2006, and he has begun to carve out a nice path in the Senate. But I've also been in meetings with his staffers, and they are extremely clear that his first priority is working the local politics of Ohio. It is a perfectly reasonable, even good, political choice. Brown builds coalitions for his state, he does not put up censure resolutions like Russ Feingold. It is my belief that Novick would be a politician more like Russ Feingold, and that Merkley would be more like Brown.
At this moment in history, we need more Steve Novick's. Congress must be full of troublemakers, people willing to reclaim Congress's role as a co-equal branch by bucking the status quo, by speaking plainly, and by being a little different.
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.
To those of you who have been following the oregon senate race closely it is not be news that chuck schumer and the dscc have descended upon the beaver state to put their thumb on the scale weighing in on behalf of steve novick's primary opponent (jeff merkely).
early in the campaign it was common knowledge that schumer had brought their man in oregon back to recruit him to run again gordon smith, though it wasn't clear what financial, strategic or infrastructural resources they had offered him (or how it would affect that campaign he would run). as it became clear that the dscc was involved in the primary the merkley campaign took two tactics to deflect the issue:
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.
Now, 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.
Earlier today, the Senate failed to reach cloture on the renewable energy bill by only one vote. As was the case with all Democratic legislation, 60 votes were required (Republican legislation only need 50 votes, of course). The final tally was 59-40, with John McCain not voting and Mary Landrieu as the only Democrat or Independent who voted against the bill.
Let's review the situation here. Mary Landrieu is, by far, the most endangered Democratic incumbent this cycle. A Survey USA poll released today showed her narrowly ahead 46%-42%, but well under the important 50% marker for incumbents. Landrieu will need a ton of outside help from her Democratic Senate colleagues in order to get re-elected. At the same time, Democrats only need her vote in order to pass an important renewable energy bill.
Now, maybe I am missing something, but isn't there an obvious point of leverage in this situation? The leadership should turn the screws on Landrieu's potential outside support in order to get her to pass this bill. That is what leadership should do. Landrieu needs something from other Senate Dems, and Senate Dems need something from Landrieu. Instead, Landrieu will get the help she needs from Senate Dems, and Senate Dems will roll over for Landrieu:
Senate Democrats stripped Thursday two key provisions from a sweeping energy bill aimed at reducing US reliance on foreign oil in order to gain support from the Republican minority.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats agreed to remove a provision that would have cut billions of dollars worth of tax breaks to oil companies.
The majority also decided to take out another provision requiring that 15 percent of America's electricity come from renewable, environmentally-friendly sources by 2020, Reid said.
Let me be blunt: having 15% of our electricity come from renewables by 2020 is way, way, way, way more important than electing Mary friggin' Landrieu to another six year term in the Senate. It isn't even close. Second, Democrats don't even need Mary Landrieu in order to maintain their majority, since they have at least ten strong Senate targets in 2008, while Republicans only have Landrieu. Third, Landrieu is probably going to lose anyway, given both her current weak polling situation and the destruction that has devastated Louisiana's African-American community. I'd put her re-election chances at less than one in three.
The fact is, Democrats don't really need Landrieu come election time, but she needs other Democrats. As such, we could have applied major pressure relevant to her election. However, instead of making her feel any real pain for defeating this legislation, Harry Reid decides to cave on renewable energy standards and tax breaks for oil companies. That isn't leadership--that is pathetic. This was as obvious a moment where real pressure could have been applied to pass important legislation, and the Senate Democratic "leadership" utterly failed to do anything.
We need new leadership in Congress. Or, perhaps to phrase this better, we need leadership Congress. Right now, I don't see how what Harry Reid is doing qualifies.
Update Commneter Ron notes that Landieu could have voted against the bill, and still allowed it to pass:
She could still have voted against the bill, but she voted against her party to filibuster the bill. That is unbelievable.
Today I got an email from Steve Kirsch, an entrepreneurial type who does brilliant thinking on global warming, letting me know that Congressman George Miller had answered my youtube question on trust and the Democratic Congress. Miller has an interesting new program up called 'Ask George', in which anyone can submit a youtube video or blog post tagged 'Ask George', and Congressman Miller will answer it. Miller is a wonderful Congressman, and he is known as a Pelosi loyalist with immense influence on the Congressional agenda, so his outreach is quite meaningful. My question was why should we trust that Democrats will stand up to Bush, and Miller essentially pointed to three things Democrats had done. One, the Democratic Congress had forced Bush to veto the bill, two, there have been a lot of hearings, and three, there will be more votes.
In terms of why Democrats didn't send the same bill back, which was not my question but was a strategy put forward by among others John Edwards, Miller pointed out that Senate Minority Leader would simply have forced Reid to come up with 60 votes, which Reid could not have done. The only reason the bill was passed the first time is because McConnell and Reid cut a deal to let the bill go through without a filibuster. I'm not sure I agree with Miller's argument, especially as he fell into the funding frame trap ('defunding the war equals hurting the troops') but I respect him and his outreach. I hope more members follow Miller's lead.
As for Miller's instinct that Democrats do have another bite at the apple, well, Democratic Senators are feeling more confident. Senator Mitch McConnell is really Bush's plug in the dike, and he's increasingly vulnerable. Today, the DSCC is launching an ad against McConnell, which is incredibly unusual for a party committee.
Senator Schumer is media savvy, and my read is that this ad is designed more as a statement of DSCC priorities than a real attempt to knock down McConnell's numbers. But stating those priorities, while Democratic elites and liberal groups plan their strategies for 2008, is a critical part of building a narrative of vulnerability.
The blogs, the protests, the ads, and the establishment acknowledgment that McConnell is vulnerable are adding up to serious buzz in both Kentucky and DC. Of course, this is really all about Iraq. McConnell is tied to Bush and the occupation, and the situation is getting worse.
I'm told that Democratic Senators are more confident this time, and that should be obvious as GOP Senators break ranks, at least rhetorically. We'll see. Hopefully, we'll see more of this - pressure on McConnell, moves to end the occupation, and a validation of the strategies of liberal allies in Congress like George Miller.
