She is an eloquent speaker, an expressive author. Elizabeth Edwards is effervescent, effusive, and has an excellent mind. She understands profound policy issues as easily as she prepares a sandwich. Her memoir appeared on The New York Times bestseller list. Few think of Elizabeth Edwards as every woman. Other daughters of Eve might say Edwards is exceptional; surely, she is not as I am. Yet, life experiences might have taught Elizabeth Edwards otherwise. Just as other ladies, she is brilliant, beautiful, and not nearly equal to a man.
Another year has come and gone. Everywhere she goes she hears people speak of New Years resolutions. They all say this time will be different. I will decide to do as I had not done previously or at least had not done well. Countless commit to a life of calorie counting. Others merely muse that they will exercise more. Drugs, drinking, there are also discussions of these concerns. People are confident. This year I will deliver myself from what I think evil. A few philosophize as to their personal career path. Change is the objective. A greater goal is thought to be golden. As Author Mary Anne Radmacher reflected and now millions whisper as their mantra, "Live with intention . . . Choose with no regret. . . . Do what you love. Live as if this is all there is." Therein lies the problem.
A response to dedelste's comment, here, the thrust of which is "Are you accusing the Democratic party of plotting to sabotage health care reform?". It hopefully will provide most of an answer to that question, as well as others.
A fascinating article was in the WaPo yesterday morning about Democrats having more trouble raising money than they expected. I haven't had the chance to really look closely at the numbers to compare how flat the big dollar fundraising was as opposed to the small grassroots donations but according to the article "The vast majority of those declines were accounted for by the absence of large donors who, strategists say, have shut their checkbooks in part because Democrats have heightened their attacks on the conduct of major financial firms and set their sights on rewriting the laws that regulate their behavior." It also said that:
Other Democrats and their aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal party strategy, said that rhetoric toward big business has grown so antagonistic that it has become increasingly difficult to raise money on Wall Street, particularly after the controversy about bonuses and executive compensation.
I am going to write today not from my populist blogger perspective, but from my intensely pragmatic Democratic strategist perspective. This is a complicated and important issue that Democrats, individual candidates, and we as a party, will have to wrestle with in the coming years.
Until we pass a public-financing bill for elections (a topic I will come back to), it is a very tough thing for a congressional candidate to not get the money they have raised in the past from big business. Wall Street is the wealthiest and most generous industry in cultivating politicians, so their withholding of dollars is a particularly hard hit, but other business special interests are going to be withdrawing or threatening to withdraw their campaign cash as well. If a public option is passed, insurance execs will be pissed, so a lot of their money goes away. If a serious climate change bill were passed, a lot of energy industry money goes bye-bye. It's a serious problem for Democrats, and it's what makes real change in Washington so damn hard.
I have raised a ton of money for Democratic candidates over the years, and I have worked on a ton of campaigns desperate for cash, so I would never minimize how hard it is to walk away from all this money. But tough as it is, the alternative in my very pragmatic view is quite a bit worse for Democratic prospects. The alternative is to downplay our rhetoric about change, and downplay our efforts to make real change- because let's face it, it's not mostly the rhetoric these business interests are worried about, it's the policy.
That path leads us to mushy rhetoric that doesn't address the real anger voters have at Wall Street and insurance companies. And it leads to policy choices that avoid dealing with the really deep and fundamentally important problems in our society. If we fail to take on the power and profits of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, the smartest economists who most accurately diagnosed the problems that created the financial collapse last year say we are in for another major financial collapse in the not too distant future. If we fail to deal with these big banks after the bailouts they were given, the anger about those bailouts will boil over with voters in a hundred different ways.
Or take health care. The poll I referenced in my last post is absolutely stunning, and should strike terror in the hearts of any Democrat who is thinking of voting for an individual mandate without a public option: voters oppose a mandate on its own 64-34, but support a mandate with a chance of a public option or private insurance 60-37. And I think those numbers understate the sentiment. If you pass a mandate to buy insurance without creating real competition for private insurers, you know they will raise their rates and continue to screw people, and voters are going to be very angry.
The problem with the big money in politics is that politicians will start doing things that voters don't like in order to get those checks. It leads to weak messaging and twisted policymaking, doing things that make no sense to average voters.
The ultimate answer is public financing of campaigns, ending this terrible dependence on special interest big money. It would make it so much easier for Democrats to do the smart thing politically and the right thing in terms of policy, to really make the transformative changes this country has to make. In the meantime, I am convinced that if we have to choose between losing that money from the bankers and the insurance execs, and doing the most sensible thing politically and policy-wise in every other way, the hard, cold, pragmatic path is the latter. We can find other ways to raise the money we need and win elections.
From the about section of the ActBlue page I've created:
Despite the self-important screechings of the traditional media, the hurt feelings and ruffled feathers of the primary season are not insurmoutable. Hillary and Bill Clinton have worked to unite the Democratic Party with their rousing convention speeches and gracious support of Obama during the delegate voting process. Now it's time to reward Hillary for being a team player by helping pay off her campaign debt.
And while we're at it, lets give Barack Obama, who was equally gracious in victory, the funds he needs to expand the map, create coattails for down-ballot races, and end the conservative governing that thinks that all social issues are due to gays, Atheists, Hollywood, and working women, that the way to solve all economic ills are tax cuts for the super rich, and that war will solve all of America's international problems.
July campaign spending is the focus of two AP articles today (here and here). Here are some key highlights:
Obama spent $55 million in July, compared to McCain's $32 million
Obama spent about $33 million on paid media, compared to McCain's $19 million
Obama's paid media reach 18 states, compared to McCain's 11 states. Not sure which states were removed, but an earlier count suggested 20 states for Obama, and 14 states for McCain.
Obama spent $2.2 million on salary for field staff, compared to $0.925 million for McCain.
Obama outspent McCain 2-1 on non-paid media and non-field staff salaries.
Obama has $65 million cash, while McCain has about $33 million in cash (from open secrets). McCain has to blow his wad, plus what he raised in August, by September 4th.
Overall, McCain is able to stay competitive in paid media in some areas by targeting a narrower list of states, and also because the RNC has more money than the DNC. He should also be much more competitive in August than in July in terms of total spending because he has to spend such a huge amount this month. (What isn't clear to me is whether Obama has to spend all of the money he raised for the primary by August 28th, and then move on to funds he raised for the general election.)
One lesson: just because you spend more, doesn't mean you go up in the polls. Obama heavily outspent McCain in July, but McCain closed the gap during the month. Not only does that perhaps speak to the differing quality of McCain and Obama's paid media, but also to how a presidential election is determined as much by free media as anything else.
Something called the Wisconsin Advertising Project just sent me this useful information over email. You can read the full report here (PDF). In thousands of dollars, here is the amount of money each campaign has spent on television advertisements from June 3rd through July 26th:
Campaign TV ad spending by state, June 3rd through July 26th
State
Obama
McCain
Margin
Alaska
$88
$0
+$88
Colorado
$802
$1,104
-$302
Florida
$5,028
$0
+$5,028
Georgia
$1,824
$0
+$1,824
Indiana
$1,268
$0
+$1,268
Iowa
$700
$946
-$246
Michigan
$2,240
$2,655
-$415
Minnesota
$70
$575
-$505
Missouri
$1,246
$1,600
-$356
Montana
$136
$0
+$136
North Carolina
$1,620
$0
+$1,620
North Dakota
$157
$71
+$86
New Hampshire
$391
$342
+$49
New Mexico
$260
$440
-$180
Nevada
$633
$1,134
-$501
Ohio
$2,486
$2,568
-$82
Pennsylvania
$3,937
$4,602
-$665
Virginia
$2,660
$1,509
+$1,151
West Virginia
$166
$414
-$248
Wisconsin
$1,198
$1,426
-$228
In its famous online strategy briefing, the McCain campaign claimed that Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington were swing states. Clearly, that was a lie, since the report was released on June 9th, at which point McCain had begun his advertising in every single state listed above, except New Hampshire and Virginia. They never had any intention of running ads in those states. Kind of makes you wonder if the McCain campaign will tell the truth about anything.
More thoughts on these numbers in the extended entry.
The struggle over appropriation of funds within the Democratic Party economy is always an interesting one, as it rests at the intersection of several strategic, ideological, and power centers. Here are just some of the factors in play:
It is a struggle between narrow targeting and more aggressive, multi-tiered attacks. This was the message at the heart of the Use It Or Lose It Campaign, which sought to transfer money from ultra-safe districts not to the top tier battleground districts, but rather to second and third tier challengers. Use It Or Lose It caused quite a fuss, although I should note that the DCCC was firmly on our side in that one, while many individual representatives were not. One of the more interesting arguments I heard during the Use It Or Lose It campaign was when one Rep said that he didn't think it was ethical to transfer his campaign money to other campaigns, because the people who gave him the money had not intended for that to happen.
It is also becoming a struggle over ideology. The Politico reports that 15 of the 31 Blue Dogs who are not in the "frontline" and other DCCC programs for highly targeted incumbents have not given any money to the DCCC this cycle. Apparently, they are mad that many, including Lynn Woolsey, are threatening primary challenges against them:
But there is also lingering concern among the Blue Dogs - and resentment, in some cases - over comments made by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) to leaders of the anti-war movement.
In a late-August conference call, Woolsey encouraged the anti-war groups to field primary challengers to any Democrat who does not vote to end the war. While she later moved to repudiate the remarks, saying they were misunderstood, Woolsey's statement angered many Blue Dogs and led some to withhold their DCCC dues.
"What [Woolsey] said was reprehensible," said one Blue Dog who has so far declined to hand over any money to the campaign committee.
A Democratic strategist with strong ties to the Blue Dogs said the Woolsey incident is being seized upon by some conservative Democrats, even those who don't yet have an opponent, as an excuse not to give to the party committee.
"Some of these Blue Dogs are saying, 'If I have to defend myself in a primary, the DCCC is just going to have to wait,'" said the strategist.
The Democratic Party, even at the federal level, really is run like a local urban machine. Money apparently is only dished out when members feel they have been shown the proper amount of fealty. This is something of a two-way street, given that activists like myself and Howie Klein have called for DCCC funds to become conditional on demonstrations of loyalty to the party other than voting for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. There are also other ideological concerns, given that I have argued in the past that too many of our resources were spent targeting red districts, and others have argued that too many resources were spent supporting extremely conservative Democratic House nominees in primaries. But the difference in power between entire groups of US Congressman and bloggers such as Howie Klein and myself is gaping.
These are major sources of power within the Democratic Party: where does our money get spent, and how? Does it go it TV consultants, or to field operatives, local activists, and local parties? Is it spent on narrow targeting of a top tier, or on a wide targeting of dozens of seats? Is it spent trying to defend conservatives, or only when loyalty has been broadly demonstrated? This is the heart and soul of party operations, and it cuts across everything we try to do. These struggles over the internal appropriation of our monetary resources are never going to go away, and we need to engage them. This is one of the main areas where power within the party rests, and several competing interests are hitting each other at once.
There's a terrific 3 part series in MyDD this weekend by Shai Sachs entitled Supporting the Blogosphere (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3) which I highly recommend. As I said in my Bloggers and Donors post a few days back, I think it is essential that bloggers start forming more organizations that provide tangible services and benefits to them. In addition to the good things that can be generated internally by and for the community, they will also open the door to the donor community in terms of making investments in the blogosphere. Shai's piece is very thoughtful, and I am quite excited about the potential here. Clearly, between Shai and folks like Joel Silberman and others, we have the ideas we need to make something happen, and to do it sooner rather than later. I'm certainly willing to help make it happen if other folks out there are (although clearly someone as new as I am to this community should not take the lead). Anyone? Bueller, anyone?
I know a lot of my posts tend to be on the long side, so I promise to keep this short, but I have a few random thoughts based on the responses I've been getting (personally and on OpenLeft.com) to my first post on this topic:
1. I really do feel like I sounded too dismissive in my first post of NPC, and that wasn't my intent. I think what they are trying to do with the PROI idea is intriguing and has potential for changing the culture of giving patterns, and I failed to convey that. The challenge for them is that, in the spirit of their founders and their home in Silicon Valley, they have a true venture capitalist model, and the results of their efforts will take a while to prove themselves, so it is too early to judge what they will accomplish. They are trying to do something that is difficult- make the culture of giving in progressive politics more sane- and they deserve credit for that effort.
2. It's been pointed out to me that we should give credit where credit is due, and thank the donors who already have supported the blogosphere in different ways. I don't know them all, but here's some to note:
-Rob McKay mentioned in his post that he has done so.
-I've been reminded by multiple people, including some of the recipients of their generosity, that Andy and Deborah Rappaport, in addition to founding NPC, have given substantial grants to great netroots-y groups such as ActBlue and NOI.
-Rob Johnson and Gail Furman have both been stalwart friends of the blogosphere.
-The Arca Foundation (which I'm on the board of) has given two sizable grants to groups helping bloggers.
There are others as well, including a fair number I don't know about, who have helped out in different ways. Thanks to all who have done their part.
3. I've been told that my post was fine regarding the big picture, but lacked a real world "next steps" section, especially for frontline bloggers writing away on issues with no access to sources of money. Good point, and I think all of us need to spend some time working through the realities of all this.
There is a great deal of conversation in the blogosphere about why Democratic and progressive donors don't do more to support this movement. Bloggers are justifiably proud of the incredible added value they've brought to Democratic/progressive politics in the form of breaking important news stories that the media has ignored, shaping the debate on major issues that nobody else has done, identifying candidates early on that the Democratic establishment was ignoring and helping them go on to victory, recruiting tens of thousands of new volunteers for Democratic candidates and raising millions of dollars for the Democratic Party and progressive candidates. Bloggers have revitalized the Democratic Party and progressive politics, and yet for the most part, they are ignored by its major donors.
I wanted to share my perspective on this, as someone who knows and has worked for many years with people in the donor community. I believe that bringing these donors into a mutually beneficial relationship with the progressive blogosphere will happen, but that it will take a different kind of strategy and some patience before things change. I am optimistic over the long term, because for all their differences, the big donor community and the blogger community have one big thing in common: candidates and groups all too often look at them as ATM machines, rather than valuing their ideas and strategic thinking.
I'm curious how the net-roots will react to the bags of money that surly will start following traffic. I plan to continue to post at other sites as long as I'm welcome, but I wonder whether we're participating in the birth of a gigantic cash-raising organization: for profit political activism.
STATE BLOGS
