July 2004
ArchPundit
So What’s Weird About Lemond?
I, in fact, will argue with it, but it’s not weird. 1986 was the year he had to fight off his own teammate Bernard Hinault to win the race so he had far less support than other winners.
However, his BS about Lance is still inexcusable without any actual evidence.
How Does One Reconcile
Criticism of Bush’s reckless budgets and supporting Blagojevich’s attempt at reckless budgets?
I generally like Jones, but as Howard Dean has said, you can’t have social justice without balanced budgets because if you spend too much now, you have to cut later.
When Campaign Aides Make News
Via Kos.
It’s almost never good:
“Why don’t they get new jobs if they’re unhappy — or go on Prozac?” said Susan Sheybani, an assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt.
Having a Very Good Cycle
Is David Axelrod who is doing media for Barack and John Edwards.
I’m still amazed about how simple yet powerful the Barack ads were.
Hull Was the Party Leader’s Choice?
errr…Matt Yglesias argues this, but it is a gross misreading of the Illinois political scene and the national party in the state. The myth has grown that Hull was the frontrunner and had the organizational support because he had the ability to self-fund. Certainly some looked at that as a positive, but I think I’m a reasonably good analyst for Illinois politics and I had Hull in the third position up until the last few weeks. The reason was he had some organizational support including Mell and behind the scenes, the Governor. But the candidate most friendly to national party leaders was Dan Hynes who has a father who is a national committeeman and was tied into the party hierarchy.
Even then though, Barack was always considered a strong contender. I dare say no one thought he’d win the race with over 50%, but no one argued that the organizational preference of the party was for Hull.
The organization isn’t a single thing in Illinois for one thing. Hynes was tied to the old ethnics. Barack had the ascendant black leadership headed, but not ruled by the Jacksons and Hull had the Governor’s folks. Adding to it both Pappas and Chico had elements of the leadership supporting them.
Hull himself followed a Corzine like strategy, but he did it solely on his personal fortune, not at the behest of the DSCC which largely stayed out of the deal.
In short, national blogger doesn’t get Illinois politics.
I’m Going to Puke
Some clown on Randy Rhodes show is saying how great Blagojevich is.
Netroots and the DCCC
Kos has an interesting post up on the DCCC’s methods of weeding out credible candidates. Kos puts it as more opposed to each other than I think they may be–though I wasn’t involved in the discussions, I’m not sure the difference can’t be bridged.
Since there is little way to weed out candidates who won’t work hard except fund raising, it is almost always the tool decide where to direct resources. This works generally for several reasons. First, it shows someone is working hard. Lazy candidates aren’t going to make it so weed them out by how much money they can raise. With a good personal friend running I can tell you how brutal the whole dialing for dollars deal is. Kos puts the number at 8 hours, but that just includes calls and not followups plus all of the events you have to attend. And if you write thanks yous that open up the wallets the second time, its even more brutal.
Second, it tells you that someone has some kind of support out there. Not all candidates are appealling and as a general rule, the appealing ones can raise cash if they work hard.
I’m not worried about the netroots boosting marginal candidates too much, because even if you can raise an amount on-line, the only way it’ll continue is if big donors open up. Kos makes this point so maybe I’m more with him, but the concern isn’t misplaced, it just assumes that raising cash is easy on the net.
You’ll notice when I talk about Democratic challengers in Illinois, only three are mentioned. It isn’t that I don’t like the others–Tim Bagwell in the 19th is great, but he can’t raise any cash and he isn’t going to be able to get his message out without it. Bean has fantastic numbers given her position. Renner is doing decently, but needs to pick up, and Cegelis needs to leverage her relative web success with big donors now. But they all show promise. Other candidates haven’t been able to raise that money and if they can’t charm money out of someone, I don’t know how they are going to charm votes out of more people.
The DCCC is right about needing to focus on candidates who are strong and fundraising is the key measure available. On the other side, they shouldn’t be reluctant about the net roots because surprises happen and the net is only an entry way to being taken seriously. You still have to work hard to get to the next level.