DCCC & challenging all 435 seats in 2006

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 04:45:48 AM EDT

A couple of months ago, I was in a DCCC meeting with their blogger Jesse Lee, and the new Executive Director, John Lapp, among others. Sitting around the table with them, it felt decidingly different then the last gang-- that this crew actually read blogs and was engaged in what we've been trying to do, and would work with the efforts out here to win.

Still, when I brought up the idea of contesting every single CD in 2006, I got mostly the same usual standbys for why that wasn't a priority. I'd been given a Project 90 document before meeting with them, which explains in mind-opening detail, what happens when you contest a race that would have been previously uncontested. Simply put, the safe Republican will go and spend their money helping the endangered or challenging Republicans in other districts, but the challenged Republican-held seat will siphon off money from those other Republicans. This document analyzed it in cold numbers over the past three cycles, and the conclusion was blatent-- it makes sense to challenge all the seats.

Yet, inside DC, that's still a foreign concept. There are 435 federal level seats up next year in the House, and contesting them all just doens't make sense, they say, regardless of the facts. They cannot see the forest for the trees. So, on behalf of the Democratic activists in the blogosphere, I asked for two things of Lapp's crew in the DCCC to research and compile.

First, put up on your website a list of every single CD with the filing dates and deadlines before the primary.

Second, update it when known Democratic challengers enter the contest.

And I asked that this be done before the end of this year.

Lapp is someone that we can work with, he took notes on those two requests, and said he'd deliver (I'm sure that BlogPac could fund such a minor project if need be, but heck, it's their job).

I don't fault the DCCC for not going into the OH 2nd right after the primary, when the campaign of Hackett's requested their input of resources. The DCCC looked at the numbers, and decided that they'd wait and see, and follow the netroots lead.

The off-cycle elections are years in which things are tested by the parties for using in the next cycle. It's pretty obvious that this 'experiment' with Hackett (and challenging every seat) works quite well. We have another special election coming up in California, and again, the blogosphere should lead the way to challenging the Republicans at every turn. Eventually, they'll get it in DC.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Comments

82 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Optimizing contested elections

If you are going to gather information about every district I think it would be useful to integrate it with info about the cost of the election campaign and funds raised for the previous election.

Given the fact that about 96% of incumbents are re-elected it makes more sense to target races which cost less, all things being equal. A vote is a vote. If a seat can be won in a low cost district like up state NY it is just as valuable as one in expensive NYC.

Another thing to examine is the idea of "buying" corporatist Dems. For a cheap district the candidate could be offered a deal where grassroots money will be provided equal to what was raised from corporate money last time in exchange for a pledge to follow the populist social positions.
In this way the 15 CAFTA supporters, for example, could be gotten to change their positions on similar bills in the future.

This is a lot more practical, and cheaper, than trying to displace an existing Dem.

by rdf 2005-08-01 05:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Directory of all the districts

We've got that over at http://actblue.com/directory/federal

If someone would like to help by collecting the filing deadlines, just let me know and we'll post it. (E-mail brahn at actblue dot com)

by brahn 2005-08-01 05:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

unlimited resources...

I've read your (and Chris's) rationale for contesting every election, and I think it's important for morale reasons to have a (D) for which voters in otherwise "hopeless" sections of the country can vote. I also think it helps higher up on the ticket for statewide races to have all the (D)'s filled in with a name in all races (in all regions). But I don't think that the rationale for sucking Republican funds away holds up.

Republican funds (and funding) is essentially unlimited compared to Democratic funding. So what if we suck funds from an infinite pot?

I don't at all agree that what's going on with the Hackett campaign is "obvious(ly)... work(ing) quite well." The actual poll results will tell whether or not that's so, and this site (esp. you, Jerome) is notorious for getting everyones' hopes up about strong showings in the polls, only to have them dashed when the ballots are actually counted. HELL, I'm hoping for a WIN, but our track record is pretty low for Congressional long-shot Blog-buddy races (zero percent so far).

In fact, I'd argue that the Hackett campaign has sucked a quarter of a million bucks from a bunch of people who can't afford to give it... giving us pie-in-the-sky hopes for the impossible. A quarter of a million bucks could have funded 3 state executive salaries plus operating expenses from now until the 2006 elections.

I sincerely hope he wins, because I'd love to know that if you 1. love a guy enough, 2. blog about him enough, 3. perform every single action requested from the campaign h.q., and 4. give 50 bucks here and there... that the impossible can be done, and we can win in these "impossible" districts. but something tells me that ain't gonna happen, and once again, we're gonna lose by double digits and have a quarter million bucks vaporize instantly into the hands of a bunch of media conglomerates.

There needs to be some give and take here. The DCCC needs to have a 50-state, fill-all-seats with a candidate strategy. However, bloggers also need to realize that they're going to burn themselves, and permanently dash all hopes of their readers, if they don't start picking (and funding) some favorite candidates with realistic chances of winning something. The DCCC would love for us to pick up their slack, and fund their "hopeless" candidates, and take all the credit for the wins in "swing districts". I don't want to cede them that. We're not going to have any real say-so in governing if we don't actually start electing some people.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 05:26AM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Re: unlimited resources...

Republican funds (and funding) is essentially unlimited compared to Democratic funding. So what if we suck funds from an infinite pot?

This is no longer a true notion. If anything, the reverse is true. If Kerry had deined matching funds in the general, he would have outraised Bush by probably $50M.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-08-01 05:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: unlimited resources...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5158433,00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats raised $86.3 million in the first half of this year, beating their total for the same period in 2003 by more than 50 percent... Overall, the GOP still held a sizable fundraising edge, taking in $142.7 million from January to June of this year, according to Federal Election Commission figures released Thursday.

You caught me. I stand corrected. Democratic fundraising is 60% of that of Republicans... Given that "infinity" divided by 86.3 million is "mathematically undefined"... If we define "essentially ulimited" as "infinity", then I'm wrong, by definition.

But certainly, the reverse is not true. Democrats do not raise an "unlimited" pot of money compared to republicans. Republicans currently have almost double the fundraising capacity of Democrats.

I stand by my original "thesis", that bloggers may be doing a disservice to themselves and to their readers by focusing our collective monetary "wealth" (sic) on unwinnable pie-in-the-sky races, and ceding the winnable elections (and therefore governance) to the DCCC.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 06:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Those totals are for official party committee only

They don't include dollars raised by individual candidates, and that of course is the strength of the netroots.

And I don't suggest we cede anything to the DCCC, nor do I see anyone else doing that either. If your district is winnable or even a Democratic lock by all means give money. The more independent your Congressperson is the better. Its the DCCC that needs to be putting money into marginal or even losing districts, we are just showing them the way.

by Bruce Webb 2005-08-01 08:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

money

Money raised by the "netroots" is two orders ( of magnitude lower than that raised by DCCC, DNC, and other official party-sanctioned groups.

Furthermore. If you want to include "individual candidates"... Republicans win that contest hands-down as well.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 08:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: money

Well we have Hillary raising $6 million in the last quarter - I dont think that hurts our numbers.

But you also have to remember, we are the party out of power right now and that doesnt help our fundraising as much.

The DSCC outraised the NRSC by over $4 million the last period. The DNC raised millions more in the last period then it ever did in an off year. So its not like we are dying. The DCCC on the other hand - pathetic.

by novademocrat 2005-08-01 10:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

and furthermore

sucking literally (and I do mean "literally" not "figuratively") hundreds of millions of dollars from the pocketbooks of progressive organizations and progressive people who couldn't afford it (i.e. If Kerry were to have denied matching funds)... would have been even more catastrophic to progressive causes than was Kerry's final election result. Besides, the jerk ended up with millions in the bank after having the nerve to hit us up for even more at the last second. I spent hundreds of dollars on Dean, and hundreds of dollars on Kerry, and all I got was a few seconds of advertising in states that I couldn't vote in... and an incomplete IRA contribution for 2004 to boot.

No thanks. Time to spend my cash where it will count.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 06:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: and furthermore

o.k. i meant figuratively. I was just being John Kerry.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 06:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: and furthermore

If this was a vote to replace Howard Coble, wouldn't you be excited? Let's say Joe Schmoo loses to the Coble clone. Doesn't that mean we have a much stronger party in that district? Doesn't that mean when 2008 rolls around and Dole comes up for election we stand a better chance of ousting her? Not to mention President?

by Robert P 2005-08-01 06:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Stronger party

It doesn't take much money to build a stronger party in every district. Massive media-buys do not build a stronger party. The initial seed-money already went for that. We're way past that now. I don't think it's that big of a deal now, because it's the only election happening, but this kind of cash on unwinnable elections would be devastating to blog causes and our collective pocketbooks.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 06:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stronger party

it's the only election happening

not so

by Alice Marshall 2005-08-01 07:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stronger party

you guys are the biggest out of context quoters...

"The only election happening" tomorrow.

there.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 08:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: unlimited resources...

I was under the impression that a lot of the money was being used for door banging. To me, the worst case scenario is that this district is extremely well organized for the 2006 election, which will lead to an even more organized district come 2008 (when every vote counts).

by Robert P 2005-08-01 06:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: unlimited resources...

Door-banging is cheap. Door-banging is the first thing funded by campaigns. Door-banging we can do. We should spend seed money on door-banging and organization. After a point no more seed money is needed, and it all goes to into corporate advertising and media-consultant hands. That's where this campaign is, now, and that's where your money is going.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 06:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: no district an island

I'm glad that ads for a Democrat
are now running on TV in Cincinnati
and Huntington, West Virginia.

those stations cover both ends
of a district hugging the Ohio River.
of course, our ads are being seen
by many voters outside it.

besides other Ohio districts, and
part of West Virginia, the TV ads
will go into households in 8 or 10
counties in northern Kentucky, and
a few in S.E. Indiana.

how inefficient !!! to put our message
in front of the eyeballs of voters in
parts of four states, when aiming at
only one Congressional district.

but Democrats lost ALL four states in
2004. now these voters are hearing
from a Democrat again. this time
our message can stand out and not
be lost in the blur of ads ahead of
a national election.

so how is that bad?

sometimes being a Democrat can be
like it was growing up gay in a small
town -- you think you are "the only one."
learning there are others is liberating,
empowering, and changes the future.

I sent $100. I'm getting my money's
worth from this effort. if it went to TV,
and most viewers of the campaign ads
are outside the one district voting --
this time -- I'm O.K. with all that.

by Woody 2005-08-01 08:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Dear Turnerbroadcasting spawn,

You lose some sight here. This is a reverse case of "tragedy of the commons". Your $100 at this point didn't do anything. It was worth literally a couple of seconds on a single advertisement that over 99% of the population didn't see, and of that 1% of the population, it didn't sway 99.9% of them either way. 2/3 of your $100 went straight into the pocketbooks of the t.v. networks... and the other 1/3 went into the pocketbooks of advertising consultants.

After the initial seed money, there is no point in spending your hard-earned $100 on this crap. Donate to your local party's organization efforts, or donate to a local charity and see something tangible from your investment...

by NCDem 2005-08-01 09:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dear Turnerbroadcasting spawn,

I'm going to agree with you to a point. I think (in 2006) the DNC should give money to the primary winner to get the ball rolling. Then, I think the money should come from the local constituents. The DNC money should be shifted mostly to the tight races, away from the safe races, and slightly to the no chance races. What the no chance races do after that initial push will determine whether they get more money later in the election. Imagine a Hackett race in 2006 that runs similar to this one, slow start with some DNC seed money, grassroots (or bitroots in this cases) support making things close, which brings back the DNC $$$.

by Robert P 2005-08-01 09:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dear Turnerbroadcasting spawn,

I totally agree. Making all races "competetive" is a losing proposition. If the netroots wants to make all races "competetive" we're wasting money. We've done all we can in the Hackett campaign. We spent too much cash. If we're gonna blow lots of cash in 2006, we need to focus it where we can actually get a couple of winners.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 09:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: unlimited resources...

To NC Dem:

I live in the 6th District of Alabama, about as Republican a district as there is. The last two elections saw no Democrat running for Congress. Democrats are invisible here.

I have considered spending the $3,000 for the filing fee and putting my own name on the ballot in what would surely be an uphill battle. And though I would surely be written off as a "hopeless cause" by pragmatists such as yourself, I would, at the very least, give people someone with a D by his name to vote for. In 2004 our choices were the RW incumbent (Spencer Bachus) and his primary opponent, Roy Moore's lawyer. Ideally I would get to spread a Democratic message at every Kiwanis and Lions Club lunch meeting that will invite me. Somebody has to do it.

By your reckoning, it would seem, anyone who contributes to my campaign would be wasting his/her money. Your argument reminds me of the folks who criticize money spent on NASA while there are so many problems on Earth that need money -- as if it were an either/or choice. But you never know what's out there until you suit up and take a look. You'll never know what you might inspire unless you first try to inspire.

Don Quixote wasn't entirely wrong in attacking the windmill. He just didn't have the right equipment.

by Quaoar 2005-08-02 04:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

The $ to Challenge Everywhere?

Contesting all 435 seats will no doubt force the Republicans to spend more, and to shift funds to endangered districts... But the flip side of this is that the Dems would have to be able to raise a ton of money to challenge everywhere, and we would not be able to concentrate our efforts on defeating the vulnerable incumbents.

by gypo 2005-08-01 05:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The $ to Challenge Everywhere?

Running for every seat doesn't mean the national party has to spend tons of money. It would seem to me, they just have to spend enough to energize the local Democrats.

by Robert P 2005-08-01 06:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

bingo.

Yet this race has exceeded 300 (400?) thousand bucks. Much more than seed money.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 06:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Bingo?

I think that you just made the other's point.

This campaign has a roughly 400 k$ boost from what? Energizing the base.

The Dem Party kicked in about what, 150 k$?

That's the point... now, that's the NATIONAL base that got energized. I gave... $20. Obviously I cannot afford approx. $900 for the 2006 election. But... I never gave money in the other Cong. races here in OK... you can bet that in '06 I'll be much more active, both with my time and my coin.

So... yeah... the 'Hackett model' won't work for a 435-seat strategy, but... there are lessons to be learned. Ricght now, its about this ONE race. It is FAR more important than its single vote.

The national media will be reading thetea leaves from this single election. A loss is UNACCEPTABLE.

Of course, that will all be decided by OH-2.

by teknofyl 2005-08-01 08:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

A loss is...

no... a loss is not unacceptable, and that's the point, because a loss is (and always was) "IMMINENT"... The problem here is spewing hundreds of thousands of dollars to these races, fattening up the corporate media fat-cats who want to see a race so their advertising revenues go up... and your 20 bucks didn't do jack shit but waste 2 hours (if you have the same salary as I do) of your work-time and fatten up your local abc network's profits. Give the 20 bucks to your local democratic party so they can pay somebody a half-day's wages to enter voter lists into a data base. Otherwise, just make a check out to ABC.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 09:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Doesn't matter

$20 is, of course chump change. But my $20 rolled in w/ the other $400,000 is something to be factored.

And no loss is unavoidable.

Sure... when you cede the whole nation, you're gonna get your ass kicked.

Look... it's somewhat analagous to streetfighting. The bigger, more experienced, faster person is gonna win a lot of times. But crazy shit happens in the middle of a fight that neither person planned. If you fight, sometimes that stuff goes in your favor. Sometimes not. If you curl up into a ball, it will nver go inyour favor because your opponent can control the whole situation clinically.

As the minority party, we have to kick up dust and create a little Havok(OK OK... I'm a big X-Men fan!). Factors already aid an incumbent, so when we kick up dirt and make shit crazy, chances are it will benefit us.

Besides... Schmidt is a total loser. SHe has no TV appeal, no message, and less charism than a wet fart on a hot day.

I just don't understand why you wouldn;t think that this race is important , especially given the media focus it has now (light, but national). When Hackett wins, it'll become a BIG story.

Besides... what does anyone's donation every 'amount to' anyway? If I gave my $$ to a local organization... you'd just say "You're money didn't buy shit. A few packages of paper and a stapler... in a county that is going to vote Republican anyway"

By your logic, unless I'm Bill Gates, it's best to just stay home and cry into my mixed drink.

by teknofyl 2005-08-01 11:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

my point...

"If I gave my $$ to a local organization..."

and herein lies the difference...

I am advocating "local organization". not a "local organization"...

20 bucks to "local organization" is money a hell of a lot better spent than money given to media conglomerates to spend on one second of a commercial that everyone's already seen anyway.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 11:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

So you think that I could have done WHAT?

I'm not sure I'm following you, NCDem.

If I didn;t contribute to a local organization, how would this hypothetical donation to local organization work?

Would I buy some paper and pens and set them out on the sidewalk? Yes... that would be SO much better than contributing to an actual candidate campaign.

At this point you don;t seem to be advocating a damn thing except not giving to longshot candidates. I've looked at so many of your posts, and that's about the sum total of your argument.

Giving money to candidates that aren't a lock is stupid. Better to use it for something else.

So... you say that it's bullshit to give our money to 'media conglomorates' but we should give it to Wal-Mart?

Come on man... you're just being contrary or throwing water on the Hackett campaign. Seriously... your advice really sounds like its been crafted by Buchannans. I mean... the advice is always 'don't do anything.'

by teknofyl 2005-08-02 09:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

I think a major part of the problem...

...is finding somebody willing to run in, say, a 70% Republican district. Running for office is hard work, to quote our president.

by Geotpf 2005-08-01 10:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Jerome

I wrote a diary on the economic viabiliy of the 50-state strategy. I don't know it you read it, but here is the link

http://bonddad.mydd.com/story/2005/7/29/14931/0502#readmore

by Bonddad 2005-08-01 05:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

You're asking the wrong people,

candidates are nominated by their local committees. If all 435 local congressional district committees nominate candidates then we will contest all seats, if not, not.

Instead of running to the DCCC or anyone else the netroots crowd should join their local committee and run for office if no one else will. It really is that simple.

What do you think Dean meant by you have the power?

by Alice Marshall 2005-08-01 05:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You're asking the wrong people,

That's the point. Just give us the deadlines and dates.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-08-01 05:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

The deadlines and dates

are a matter of public record. Anyone can go to their local Board of Elections and get that information. You don't need the DCCC for that.

That is the sort of thing you learn from becoming active in your local committee.

by Alice Marshall 2005-08-01 07:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The deadlines and dates

I think Jerome is saying that there is value in having the info. centralized and centrally maintained. I would add that even the nominal endorsement of such a strategy that would be implied by the DCCC taking Jerome's advice would make the whole idea that much more viable.

by Frontier PAC 2005-08-01 08:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You're asking the wrong people,

That's absolutely, completely, totally, and utterly untrue. I've lived in four states (TX, OR, NC, and GA). I've been a precinct chair in three of the four (the 1st 3), and am actively involved in the 4th (GA). In all of those states, individual candidates are required to file for candidacy in person (and pay the required fee, which varied depending on the state) for the primary. If nobody runs for the primary, then nobody will be nominated for the Democratic party, period. In some instances (NC for instance), the committee chairs are responsible for filling an untimely vacancy in a state house or state senate seat (happened once in NC for me when Wib Gulley left the state senate to accept a corporate job)... but this generally doesn't happen for U.S. congressional elections. Other states may be an exception, but you cannot rely on all district committees to simply nominate a candidate, if no candidates run. State law often doesn't allow for that.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 06:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You're asking the wrong people,

but you cannot rely on all district committees to simply nominate a candidate, if no candidates run.

No, you cannot rely upon them. But if you are a member of the local district committee, or even just the county committee, you can ask them to recruit a candidate. It is a lot more to the purpose than going to DCCC.

by Alice Marshall 2005-08-01 07:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You're asking the wrong people,

Ask who to recruit a member? You're "them"... on the committee!

by NCDem 2005-08-01 09:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Nope, candidates need a jump start

Starting fundraising from your kitchen table is just too difficult. A political campaign benefits greatly from a little seed corn. An office, a phone line or two with fax, a couple of ethernet equipped PCs, a web site with some tech support, names of volunteers and Democratic voters from earlier campaigns. The DCCC is exactly the right people to supply a basic tool kit for candidates in difficult districts.

by Bruce Webb 2005-08-01 06:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

pick and choose

It makes NO sence to go after lock safe seats. We need to use our money wisely. We are not Republicans!!

Trillin
http://www.mnleftyliberal.blogspot.com

by trillin 2005-08-01 06:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: pick and choose

Well, it makes SOME sense, but I argue that it makes no sense for bloggers to focus mainly on those unwinnable seats.

by NCDem 2005-08-01 06:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: pick and choose

There are Dems in Every district. I think it makes sense to energize Dems in every District, every county, every city and town. I think it makes sense to knock on the door of every Dem, Ind and unregistered voter and ask the question, "I'm running to represent you in Congress against the Republican special interest machine - can I have your vote?"

If you have someone running for office, the local Dems will naturally be more excited than if there was no one. If you have someone running for EVERY office, then they are likely to be MUCH more excited. Remember, that every person who runs has family, friends, neighbors, clients, patients, etc that can then vote for the whole ticket. If you run for city council in 2006, are there not some people who would vote for you that might not have voted at all otherwise? Might they not then vote for other candidates like you?

by Robert P 2005-08-01 06:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Disagree

It makes lots of sense to siphon off their dollars defending a seat. it makes lots of sense to be able to raise issues that the incumbent Republican has to respond to. It makes lots of sense to lay the ground work for the future by energizing the base and organizing local Democrats.

Think long term. Resources are only limited if no one runs. Look at what's happened with Paul Hackett. Fighting Democrats energize the base and raise contributions that weren't there before.

by michael in chicago 2005-08-01 08:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Disagree

Look at the Morrison-DeLay race. Morrison raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and got good exposure. Yes, he lost, but DeLay won by 10% or more percent LESS than he did previously. And he had to put several thousand dollars into his own race. He looked vulnerable enough that Nick Lampson is running in 2006, the congressman who had half his district moved into Delay's district--so he is known already by a significant portion of the electorate. He will do even better than Morrison and pin DeLay down in his own district, maybve win if DeLay is under even more of an ethical cloud. Or look at Marilyn Musgrave, who had to spend millions of fundamentalist money to counteract Stan Matsunaga, who put a campaign together at the last minute so she wouldn't be unopposed. Both Musgrave and DeLay are weaker now.

This is a long-term strategy. Although I agree that putting money into local organization is important, just having someone run at least a shoestring campaign in every district is worth it.

by Mimikatz 2005-08-01 02:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Project 435

I think all of the deadlines and info is available at The Green Papers election site. It would be time consuming for a handful of people to compile the dates and times for every district but I think if you, Chris, or Bob did a handful of districts as example and posted a "Do your own district" Diary on Kos then it would be done very quickly. People could do their own district in comments or by email or whatever you think is best.

I found the filing deadline and form for filing as well as campaign disclosure info in about 3 minutes.

Check it out and see what you think...

FL page - http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G05/FL.phtml

by joejoejoe 2005-08-01 06:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

PLEASE,

I would love to see the bloggers lead the way for the Democratic party on this. God knows the inside the beltwayers (Biden, Lieberman and Fienstein) don't have a clue as to who or what the base is or how to win an election. You all do great work for us and this would be one more example of gov. for and by the people....

by oakland 2005-08-01 07:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Don't know how to win an election?

I find it ironic that you chose to highlight three sitting senators, all of whom have relatively high approval ratings, as people who "don't have a clue as to who or what the base is or how to win an election." Obviously, all three of them do know how to win, and have repeatedly. What's more party strategy comes from the strategists, not the elected officials, for the most part. Elected officials are largely concerned with governing and their own campaigns, which is why the party hires people to work on strategy for the the rest... people who, by the way, did get us over two hundred house seats, forty-four senate seats, and a number of governorships, state legislative seats, and other positions. These people are good (although sometimes just not as good as the GOP's people); they went to school for this, and they've devoted their lives to it. Let's give them a little respect.

by LaX WI 2005-08-01 09:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Agree

I agree with Jerome here, and I am not suggesting that we promise each candidates a 100,000 dollars, The problem with letting people run unopposed is that it destroys your party in that place. One of the main reasons Kerry lost was that in Certain Counties in Ohio, he had 70% dropped on him, and part of that is there just we not enough Democrats in the Community, I also think as a party if we encourage people to run,and make it a priority, those with real drive ambition who think if they run a good race, and get people's attention might well end up with a ton of money and a chance to win[See Hackett] This is the strategy, and also a little money can scare incumbents into a lot of money. Club for Growth spent close to 3 million in Defense of Delay, when we put in a compareable 500,000. This is how you win, nationally. Go Hackett.

by Democraticavenger 2005-08-01 07:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

A list

Democrats did not challenge in the following 32 Republican seats:

FL4,FL7,FL9,FL21,FL25
GA1,GA6,GA7,GA10
AL6
SC1,SC3
TN7
VA1,VA6
KY5
TX10,TX13,TX14,TX29
LA4
OK14
KS1
AZ3,AZ6
CA22 (bill Thomas)
PA5,PA10,PA19
NY25
NJ5 (Ann Wolfe "an Independent" got 41%)

A minimalist campaign in each district would cost about $310,000 (or 10 K per). A serious campaign would cost about $5 million or far less than the amount Kerry had in his bank account.

This would fund a Christine Cegellis level challenge in all these districts.

by David Kowalski 2005-08-01 07:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

How many districts...

...did the GOP not run a candidate in?

by InigoMontoya 2005-08-01 08:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How many districts...

Hey, didn't some guy with six fingers kill your father?

by michael in chicago 2005-08-01 08:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How many districts...

I suspect zero. Nancy Pelosi is my Rep, in what is probably the safest Dem seat in the country, and there was a Republican on the ballot.

by paperwight 2005-08-01 08:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How many districts...

They ran someone against Barbara Lee (my district) as well.

by Mimikatz 2005-08-01 03:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How many districts...

23 Dems ran unopposed in 2004 (at least by Republicans) including FL3, FL 17, FL 19, GA 6, GA 13, Arkansas 4, Texas 30, OH 6, OH 11, CA 32, CA 38 PA 11, PA 12, PA 14, IL 2, WI7, NY 6, NY 11, MA, MA 2, MA 6, MA9, and NJ 10.

So more Republicans got free rides than Democrats.

Nine of Florida's seats were unopposed at least by a major party. Six seats in Pennsylvania (three a piece) were unopposed.

by David Kowalski 2005-08-01 09:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Thank you.

by InigoMontoya 2005-08-01 02:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How many districts...

How many districts... (none / 0)

...did the GOP not run a candidate in?

From what I've heard, not sure if this is actually true, but the last time one of the parties ran candidates in all the CD's was in 1994, by the REpublicans.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-08-01 02:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Gee, something happened during that election

That certainly boosts support for the run-in-every-district theory, doesn't it?

by Geotpf 2005-08-01 04:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A list

A minimalist campaign in each district would cost about $310,000 (or 10 K per).

Ken Longmyer spent all of $80,000 dollars running against Tom Davis in Virginia's 11th district and he got 39% of the vote. He did not start running until June and nobody had previously heard of him. But he tied Tom Davis down and kept him from doing any harm on a national level.

You don't need $300,000, you need a name on the ballot, some brochures and the volunteers to distribute them. Just that is enough to tie down and entrenched incumbant. You don't even need money from outside the district.

by Alice Marshall 2005-08-01 08:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A list

300,000 is for the whole country not one district. Cegellis spent 186,000 in suburban Chicago and ran a highly respectable campaign against Henry Hyde, a nationally known figure and local fixture. Hyde isn't running in 06 and Cegellis has a really good chance to get the seat.

A minimalist campaign costs 10,000 per district. That gets your name on the ballot, a few posters, a web site and not a whole lot more. The losing Dem in my district spent under 9,000 and it showed. But he was on the ballot. State Assembly candidates are told to spend $100,000 here by the state Democratic party, Assembly seats cover one third of a congressional district. "Serious" challenges to Nj House seats cost a ridiculous 800,000 and up and just got 40 to 45%.

by David Kowalski 2005-08-01 09:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Florida 21st

We've got a challenger in the Florida 21st, Frank Gonzalez: www.electfrank.org/ He ran as a third party candidate in the district last time and did better than the Democrats when they even bother to run a candidate. He's running as a Democrat in 2006.

by LoganFerree 2005-08-01 10:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

'04: Wolfe/NJ5 ran as Dem, I believe

In NJ5, I'm 99.999% sure that Ann Wolfe ran as a Democrat, not as an Independent.

Boy would it be great to get rid of Scott Garrett in that district. What a disaster he is.

by bcamarda 2005-08-04 04:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Morale Booster

I agree with the money side of the 50 state strategy, but I think the morale boost side of the strategy is an even greater argument in its favor. As others have pointed out, the failure to field a Dem candidate in a CD can be a blow to the morale of the Dems living in that district. Just having a name to vote for, even if it is a "hopeless" cause, can be enough to activate a few Dem voters who might otherwise not even bother to vote.

And if they are activated for the "hopeless" cause they will also be activated for the more "hopeful" causes of other state wide Dem races (Gov., Senate, ballot measures, etc.) and the Presidential race.

When we fail to run in a Dem in a congressional district because doing so is a "hopeless" cause we are essentially telling the Dems in that district that they are less important then the Dems in other districts. Great way to treat the base guys!

by Chris Andersen 2005-08-01 07:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Another reason: a good measure of Dem support

One reason we should run Dems for House in every last district is to develop a better measure of true Democratic support in the nation as a whole, and in each individual state, that is independent of the charisma of a particular Presidential candidate.

But the numbers will be meaningless if we fail to run candidates in 30+ districts: in that case, of course we will get way less than 50% of the House vote nationwide. If we give people in every district a Dem to vote for, plus maybe $20K per candidate and a basic toolkit on turning that money into an actual campaign, we'd get a better idea of just how close we are (or aren't) to majority status.

Also, the strongest argument against recent GOP gerrymandering would be to demonstrate that we're winning >50% of the vote in House races, but that their gerrymandering turns a GOP minority into a GOP majority. With 30 seats uncontested, there's no way we can make that argument.

by RT 2005-08-01 08:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

$$$$$$$$ is NOT votes

Its important to run a campaign in every state.

In losing states we should fovus on our values and on winning over long term voters more than on the candidate who is gonna lose anyway.

But it is very important to have a registered democrat in every race with the organisation necessary to mount a valid campaign.

But use the GOP tactics of making a scandalous ad and then not running it to get free press etc.

You can run a very good campaign on the cheap as Jerry Browns presidential run proved a while back.

But the $$$$$$ of which we have very little should be spent on the races that we have a prayer of winning.

But the 80 20 rule probably applies where you get 80% of the return for 20% of the money. We should get that 80% in every state even if it is for party PR not candidate PR.

But as always if the message sells you don't need ANY funding. If our message is more popular we will win with a single mailing of our positions which costs maybe $0.10 per person.

I am pretty sure we have $30-40 mill so the problem is primarily one of message. How many maililngs does it take to convince people that they support gay marriage?

Focus on MESSAGE not MONEY!!!!

by donkeykong 2005-08-01 08:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Republicans always challenge

Until we do the same, they win.

Not challenging gives the bully a sense of confidence, and further emphasizes the "Democrats are weak" meme.

They've got to challenge everywhere, even if it is just a gorilla campaign that is lightly funded. Earned media and a website do not take a great deal of money.

by michael in chicago 2005-08-01 08:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Republicans always challenge

Republicans left 23 Democratic seats unopposed including one in Illinois (IL 2). Nonetheless, they run more challenges than Democrats.

Having somebody on the ballot makes sense if something happens (the Congress person is convicted of a crime, etc.). Plus you can strike lightning and find a real opponent.

John McCormick, the long time Speaker of the House back in the Kennedy and Johnson days (maybe Nixon, too) decided to run for Congress the first time when he saw the local congressman stumbling out of a bar and looking like s**t (my term, not the Speaker's). At the least, we ought to see what health these people are in and run against the sick puupies.

BTW, McCormick lost that race but won on the second go around.

by David Kowalski 2005-08-01 09:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Republicans always challenge

Difference is that registration in those 23 is usually 90-10 D. In the unchallenged R districts, there's always at least 25% D registration, sometimes as much as 48%.

There's almost no way for the Rs to retaliate in kind.

This was also Project 90 research, but not in the report Jerome had.

by privatewl 2005-08-02 04:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Targeting That is Flexible and Agressive

I do not agree with a 435 seat strategy. There will be 100 or so Democratic seats that we can ignore because we have a popular incumbent and another 100 or so Republican seats that we can ignore because there will be a popular incumbent in a very red district. What is the advantage of dissippating our efforts in a district just so the popular Republican incumbent gets 85% of the vote instead of 100%.

But I have always believed in "agressive" targeting. By that I mean contesting hard in all districts where you have a chance to win or that you can make competitive (anything closer then 60-40)with a good campaign.

The important thing in agressive targeting is flexibility. For example, in many election cycles you would not want to have any national effort go into a district like Ohio's 2nd CD. But a flexible approach which requires an in-depth analysis of every CD in every election is required. You need to be flexible enough so when you do have factors like a historically unpopular governor, an unpopular president nearing his 6th year in office, and a weak opposition candidate, you can spot the opening and push for a win even if the district is typically one you would ignore.

What I am getting at is that we should not go into any election cycle with an iron clad number of seats that we are going to contest. We should contest every one in which we either have a good chance to win or which our effort will force a larger effort by the opponent (i.e., the DeLay race last year). This is likely to be a very large number of seats. But I dont see any reason for the national party or the netroots to contest a seat just to say that we have done so. Making a great effort to push some candidate from 15% to 25% seems like a waste of time.

My only exception to the rule above is that I think opposition party leaders should be contested every election cycle regardless of the chances of success.

by Andy Katz 2005-08-01 09:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Targeting That is Flexible and Agressive

challenging safe R seats drives statewide democratic voting totals up, gets the message out to every corner of the nation, and gets candidates and activists experience. even if you're getting slaughtered in a safe seat race, a 500 to 1,000 vote increase for your side because of seemingly futile GOTV might be what it takes to flip a race for governor or president.

by wu ming 2005-08-01 09:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

There are two goals here, I think

It allows somebody to go Dem across the board. That counts for something. I live in a district where sometimes my only choices are a R and a Lib.
If the incumbent is caught with a live boy or a dead girl, you've got a chance to pick it up.

Now, I don't agree with spending boatloads of money in loser districts. But a warm body and ten or twenty grand in each is money well spent, even if there are fifty loser districts and you luck out and get one of the fifty.

by Geotpf 2005-08-01 04:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: There are two goals here, I think

As was really said better then i can above, resources are not unlimited. The 10k we put in the 50 worst races is 500k we cant spend in a better race. Let me put it this way, Hackett may lose a race that he could have won if he had an extra 500k (I hope he wins, we will know tomorrow).

By all means, I am in favor of a candidate running in every seat. But, neither the netroots nor the DCCC should, in my opinion, take a mechanistic approach that favors a national assisted effort in every race.

by Andy Katz 2005-08-01 05:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Challenge all races

I agree that we need to challenge all races. Right now the policy of challenging selected races is a god sent to Republicans.

The Republican noise machine is giving a free ride to their message of hate.

If no one is out there with the Democratic message then the public only get the Republican hate-sound bites.

We must use their web sites and the information they post against them. Expose the public to the real meaning of the Republican messages and desired goals as stated in own words on their sites.

Expose the secret agendas of the conservatives and file charges against them in every state. Charges of treason and conspircy to destroy Amercia government and institutes by gaining control of the American political system of government.

No jokes on this. This is their new manual:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15483

"The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement"
by Eric Heubeck, for PAUL WEYRICH, ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT, CALLS FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY-- one of his onw sites is http://www.freecongress.org/media/040130.asp.

Rove meets every Wed with these guys at Paul's institute.

by EasyRider 2005-08-01 10:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

If money grew on trees...

"Yet, inside DC, that's still a foreign concept"

It's a foreign concept out here in fly-over country.

There are seats we will simply not win. I would consider it a waste of the DCCC money to challenge certain seats.

Spending money on some seats simply takes away from truly winnable seats that desperately need the $$$.

by tlongpine 2005-08-01 11:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If money grew on trees...

Maybe the terminology is the problem here. CONTEST every seat means run a candidate with a minimalist budget. $20,000 per. For the 30 some odd seats that were not CONTESTED last time, that is just $600,000 more than last time, plus whatever is raised locally.

Then CHALLENGE (meaning fight to do serious damage, if not to win) all the seats where there is a registration or 2004 presidential vote differential that would put the race within reach.

TARGET 30-50 R incumbents and R retiring incumbents, plus vulnerable D's with all-out warfare.

by Mimikatz 2005-08-01 03:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

We must at least show up in every district

That is one of the conclusions reached in our book "Rebuilding The Democratic Party From The Grassroots"

http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-35620-6

by odonnell2006 2005-08-01 11:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: We must at least show up in every district

Project 90's name came from the Woody Allen line that "90% of life is showing up."

by privatewl 2005-08-02 04:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

How to Campaign every Race School Brd to President

Here are some links to the GOP dirty tricks as they are practice. These are the GOP sites for training candidates and compaign workers and managers.

http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/index_flash.cfm
http://www.campaigntips.com/contactus.asp
http://www.campaigntips.com/index.asp
http://www.campaignfundingdirect.com/referals.cfm
http://www.usnetads.com/view/adId/16604.html
http://www.campusleadership.org/
http://www.cambodiaelection2003.com/result.php?Keywords=election+campaign&host=www.cambodiaelect ion2003.com&cat=1
https:/www.completecampaigns.com
http://politicalresources.com/Library/Opposition.htm (How to Get Your Opponent to Do Your Opposition Research)

I have most of these site captured on CDs. But this is how they organize themselves to attack all who oppose them for election at any level, from dog catcher to U.S. President.

by EasyRider 2005-08-01 12:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Jerome Nails it

435 every cycle. Bleed em dry. We can easily make them outspend us 3 to 1 by fielding strong candidates and getting them local support. Even when many lose, it energizes the local county parties and helps down ticket races - it also helps build a bench for the future.

Nothing is static, but you have to act to make changes.

by Pounder 2005-08-01 12:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Jerome Nails it

Both this comment and RT's comment about it boosting the overall Dem vote totals are good.

Run someone in every district. Everyone after the primary gets a minimum amount ($20,000) and a kit explaining the basics, sampel press releases, tried-and-true and core Party positions, and then they are on their own. The DCCC can chose which races to concentrate on, we can do that too.

I gave a lot of money to losing races last time, but several of the candidates are going to run again in a better climate. I would rather show that some progressives can raise significant money. Next time I do agree there should be a little more vetting of the candidates so that I'd feel more confident giving significant early money, but I don't think the effort was wasted last time. And we won the specials in KY and SD, and it was uphill in a presidential year. I do think 2006 will cut our way, probably 2008 as well.

by Mimikatz 2005-08-01 02:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

My thoughts

Although it would be wasted resources to try to compete with the goal of victory in all districts, I think putting a name on the ballot serves a purpose in every district. For example, we all knew Utah was safe for Bush in 2004. Why even bother to have Kerry on the ballot there? Of course he lost in Utah. However, the vote total shows that he got 26% of the vote. A total of 241,199 in Utah, the reddest of red states, voted for John Kerry. It will not always be about winning, but the strategy will offer Democrats in red districts an opportunity to record their vote instead of being lost in the process.

by Matt42 2005-08-01 02:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Win or lose you don't build constituencies

Every district must be contested in every cycle because its the only way to build and maintain organizations from the ground up in each and every district. How does the state and national organization learn of the interests and priorities in the districts if they don't have local organizational representation? How does the state and national organization take advantage of the random off cycle political opportunities that present themselves if there is no one in the district with a finger on the pulse? Every day.

Win or lose you don't build constituencies at the street level by hiding in state houses and the halls of congress.

by aahpat 2005-08-01 08:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Well said.

by InigoMontoya 2005-08-01 11:05PM | 0 recs