New MT poll!!! (none / 0)

Real Politics is reporting a new Rasmussen poll shows Tester is opening a big lead over Burns(52%:43%). Last poll they were tied at 47%

Wow, I can not believe the accuracy of my own prediction. Remember, we had this primary forecast thread, and I predicted the following:

AZ-08: Graf

MD-04: Wynn, by 4 points

MD-Sen: Cardin, a squeaker

RI Sen: Chafee, a relatively comfortable win.

WI-08:  Kagen

wow, I nailed every race, especially MD-04 and RI.

MD-04: actual Wynn:Edwards 50%:46% and I predicted a 4-point win.

RI Sen: I predicted a comfortable win by Chafee which nobody had forecasted.

MD-Sen, the final tally is Cardin 44% : 40%(Mfume), which is not exactly a squeaker, but much tigher than 7 points spread by SurveyUSA's last poll.

I will throw out two predictions today. I predict PA will definitely go D even Casey is such a horrible candidate. RI seat will be retained by Chafee. I'll explain more when I get the chance.

'Pathetic' Duckworth(D, IL-06) is speaking out on Iraq
by firestorm, Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 07:08:55 PM EST

Duckworth, the Iraq war veteran who's engaging in a tough battle in a GOP district, is speaking out.
I am wondering whether puritist Matt Stoller will continue to brand her as 'pathetic', 'xenophobic' 'loser' after reading the following?

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/search story.asp?id=227496

"Democratic 6th Congressional District candidate Tammy Duckworth said Wednesday the Iraq conflict is not part of the war on terror, taking the opposite view of President Bush and her Republican opponent.

"I absolutely do not agree that Iraq is part of the war on terror," said Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran, at a news conference in Oakbrook Terrace. "I think a very small percentage of what's happening in Iraq is terrorist activity. I think most of it is sectarian violence. It's Sunni fighting Shiites."

That view drew a raised eyebrow from her Republican opponent Peter Roskam.

"The notion that theater of conflict (in Iraq) is de-coupled from the war on terror, I just disagree with that," said Roskam, a state senator from Wheaton. "I'm actually surprised she would say that."

Roskam agrees with Bush, who stressed in his Monday speech commemorating the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that Iraq is a key front in the war on terror.

"Al-Qaida and other extremists from across the world have come to Iraq to stop the rise of a free society in the heart of the Middle East," Bush said. "They have joined the remnants of Saddam's regime and other armed groups to foment sectarian violence and drive us out."

But Duckworth, a Hoffman Estates Army reservist who saw combat action in Iraq, disagreed.

"I think that to try to tie Iraq into the war on terror is a disservice to the real work that has to be done on the war on terror," she said.

Duckworth lists capturing Osama bin Laden, finishing the job in Afghanistan and enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations on homeland security as the "real work."

Duckworth favors bringing U.S. troops home as Iraqi troops are trained. Roskam backs the Bush administration's stand that the nation needs to stay the course.

The two will debate for the first time next Friday in a WBBM radio/Daily Herald forum that will be broadcast at 9:30 p.m. Sept. 24 on 780-AM.

You forgot that Dewey Square consulted on the LIEberman campaign.

Yep, nice summation.

They contribute to these guys because their contributions get them access.

Some do, quite deliberately and cynically. Other do just because it's "the Establishment"; they don't know the story behind the scenes, or they don't have the ability to find/organize an alternative.

It's like socially responsible investing, right? If an alternative is known to be more ethical, and performs just as well, there are a lot of folks who will choose it. A lot more in politics, probably, than in investing.

Oh and by the way: Damn, Stoller, you're on a tear!

Slowly but surely, I hope.

It might take a while, but things are at least changing somewhat.  For example, Feingold has been using and continues to use some kickass consultants, and now his Progressive Patriots Fund has sent staffers to various campaigns all around the country to work on field, rather than just put up commercials.  Ned Lamont showed people how to win an election against a well-respected incumbent with the state's entire Democratic establishment behind him, by having smart people run his campaign.  Once Ned gets elected, I'm sure people will notice such a huge upset and take some cues on how to win a race.  Some other candidates this time around have really good ads, too, like Menendez's port security ad, or the Vote Vets anti-Allen ad.  I'm still undecided on Webb's Raegen ad, but I can definitely see it being very powerful in getting crossover votes (and it is certainly).  Also, MoveOn's ads this time around look really strong, and they even backed up their effectiveness by polling districts before and after and showing the improvements.

The point is that, while the establishment is doing their status quo garbage, there are candidates and groups out there being smart, and hopefully if they are successful, others will start to catch on.

I thought Wholey was genius in orchestrating Kerry's primary Iowa win.

Several weeks ago, I heard that Hillary and the DLC were building their own organizations to parallel and in fact replace the DNC, because they don't trust Howard Dean. Is this long accounting of long time party functionaries part of the same story?

Frankly, my biggest concern is that NOBODY's using their money to go negative on the Republicans.

Negative works and it's about time some Dem group, ANY DEM GROUP, starts kicking Republican ass.

So far, the only hard hitting ad I've seen is the one the Vets are putting out against Senator Maccaca.

Someone on the Dem side has to do opposition research and absolutely start eviscerating some of their candidates.

I don't care who does it; but it needs to be done and fast.

The Dems have been wusses for too long.

"And of course, Tony Coehlo really takes the cake.  Coehlo more than any individual is responsible for the decline of the Democratic Party - he literally has his fingerprints all over every moral and political debacle of the last twenty five years, from the introduction of rivers of business PAC money into the party in 1982 to the Congressional loss of 1994 to Gore's snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory in 2000.  In the process, Coehlo had to leave Congress under a cloud of scandal, and became a millionaire almost instantly after he left.  Hmm."

Hold on now. I don't think Coelho is a hero, but he's certainly no villain. When Carter was elected in '76, he brought with him a pathetic 1-seat gain for the democrats in the House. In '78 and '80 the democrats lost huge numbers of seats. The DCCC chairmanship was a thankless and career-killing position, and the republicans outspent the House democrats in 1980 by an 8 to 1 margin. Coelho leveled the playing field and helped get the democrats 27 seats in 1982. When Reagan took every state in the country except Minnesota, Coelho limited democratic losses to 16 seats, and he regained five for the democrats in 1986. As Majority Whip, Coelho presided over the most successful congressional session since 1965-67, the 100th congress of 1987-89. When he  was accused of improprieties, he resigned quickly out of loyalty to the party instead of dragging it out.

It would be easy to blame Coelho for 1994, but there are others far more culpable. Tom Foley, Dick Gephardt, George Mitchell, Hillary and above all Bill Clinton are more responsible for '94 than Coelho. And you are badly misrepresenting his stint as Gore's campaign manager. He built the machine that crushed Bill Bradley in the primaries, but he's not responsible for Gore's loss. He resigned in June, 5 months before the elections. It's absolutely false to say Gore lost because of anything Coelho did.

As a congressman, Coelho was liberal on economic issues, moderate on social issues and a party-line democrat on foreign policy. His numerous ethical improprieties, his courting of business PACs and his failure in '94 are legitimate marks on his record. But he's not responsible for the decline of the democratic party.

This would be the same Harold Ickes that contributed to John Sweeney?

These are interesting points, but I don't track all the individuals and projects enough to know whether to agree or disagree with you. I follow MyDD religiously, and read CTG, but if I don't recognize your points, what about people who aren't as "up on things" as I am?

So, be more specific. What exactly is wrong with the "disastrous Datamart voterfile project". Don't we want investments in micro-targeting and marketing? Also, it may be interesting whether the project is succeeding (we only have your adjective "disastrous"; no references...), but the more interesting point is that several different groups or power players in the party have realized how important voter data files are, and are making investments in that area.

And, H. Clinton. Well, she isn't my candidate, but I don't see her as evil or bad. I assume she is smart, (obviously) well-connected, and a significant player in 2008. That makes her important, and we should know what projects she is investing in. Three years from now we will want to understand why her candidacy is doing well (or not).

Kerry did not lose because of the ground game. He lost because he performed absolutely terribly on the campaign trail. All he had to do was maintain the standard Democratic edge among women, and he's President. But he "voted for it before he voted against it".

I hope Kerry gets embarrassed in the '08 primaries. He made a mockery of the Democratic brand, and killed the Senate candidates down South.

Seriously, donors need to be retrained.

This must be some new meaning of the word of which I have yet to be informed!

The guy above is right: donors give to folks they are familiar with. I'm not sure to what extent effectiveness is factored in as a consideration.

The Dem Party is too big an organization to command the sort of loyalty that separates big donors from big denominations: they need to feel comfortable, and guys like Matt lists are - their political blankies.

What do they think they're buying? Perhaps Soros thought he was buying success in 04, and was genuinely pissed off when the efforts he funded turned out to have been - not so successful.

Perhaps they like to feel like bigshots; the swanning round shmoozing with Bill Clinton and stuff...

Like so many aspects of the Dem predicament, a root cause of (we'd say!) wayward donor behavior is a belief that Dems are on the brink. They can taste it; one more heave; all that jazz.

By contrast to the 94 GOP, the House Dems are only 12 years and 15 seats away from being the majority.

After having been the natural party of Congressional majority for so many decades, Dems simply haven't got used to the idea that the old ways won't work again.

And - paradox - the better the polls are for the Dems going into the stretch, the less likely is it that big donors (or anyone else in the Dem establishment) will want to rock the boat.

Oh, and

Coehlo more than any individual is responsible for the decline of the Democratic Party - he literally has his fingerprints all over every moral and political debacle of the last twenty five years...

It is a terrible shame that all of these funds aren't going to Dem candidates in tight races. Sheesh.

I'm glad to see these people raising and spending money on behalf of Dems. All campaigns waste money, but some of it will make an impact.

All the guys you mention, who are my age or even, if possible, older, have won some famous victories in their time. Please give them (us) our due, for you will be our age some day, as someone else's campaign season opens, hoping that

Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with gods.

Please go back and read Bob Shrum's Come Home America speech and think of what it meant to us. Think of our feelings and his, and don't always be such a tough guy.

I say wish these greybeards well for the next few weeks, and don't forget that not one of us can take on Karl Rove without allies.

Remember, too, that the push-back against ABC's travesty worked pretty well because it worked across the board, DNC, Capitol Hill, Netroots. It did some damage anyway, but it could have been a Swift Boat arrow through the heart of our fall campaigns.

Please. I know what division in the party does. I lived through it. I saw Gene McCarthy's left-wing Democrats walk away from Hubert Humphrey I saw right-wing Democrats betray George McGovern, the best man I ever worked for. I saw Nixon and Reagan profit from our division.

I don't think the Reps can beat us this time. But we can for damn sure beat ourselves.

-Steve

Michael Whouley does not deserve to be listed in your diatribe.  The guy succefully ran the field operation that got Clinton elected.  He correctly stopped Al Gore from conceding the election in FL and he turned out more voters for John Kerry than any other Democratic Presidential nominee in history.

Just when I was hoping to listen to itunes and coast through this Friday, there you go again Matt.  

Come on, Kerry lost because he had no message, no decision making ability, no identity.  People like Michael Whouley did their jobs - they overcame the obstacles that this deeply flawed candidate created to give him a fighting chance.  

Kerry lost because of Kerry.  

Michael Whouley is a guy you take to war with you.  And guess what - thats what 2008 is going to be.

I don't know the guy personally, and I certainly don't have a horse in this race, but to claim that Whouley is the Bob Shrum of field is just wrong. Michael Whouley is the reason that John Kerry was our 2004 nominee, period. It was Whouley that came in around Christmas of '03 and completely re-organized the Iowa operation, leading to Kerry's complete come from behind win (he was dead last), that gave him to the big 'mo needed to pull it off.

Now, you can certainly say that Kerry wasn't the right candidate, but that had nothing to do with Whouley. Likewise, the 2004 field program beat every expectation, yes even in Ohio they beat every vote goal in every county. The Republicans just beat their vote goals by even more.

Important to remember that Whouley came onto the national scene back in '92, running the field program of a certain other 'comeback kid.'

I'm not going to say that he doesn't have corporate questions with his group, but common, in terms of his ability to get it done, he ain't no Bob Shrum.

Donors have to stop giving just to candidates and campaigns that run from cycle to cycle. They have to start funding infrastructure and long term projects like what Courage Campaign is doing in California and Progress Now is doing in Colorado: creating long lasting coalitions, building tools for activists to use locally, working to smash the traditional "inside the party" system. But they won't do that because there's no immediate quid pro quo. Long term ain't sexy but that's how we win.