Call It A Comeback
Eric suggests we should have a networked system to give us immediate results—no, no, no,
One of the points of not using a network is the system is far more secure and many, if not most systems have been rfp’d to not be networked for that very reason. Once the systems on a network–it becomes far more vulnerable.
So, don’t worry, there’ll always be a chance to bloviate.
County/City Sites are the best for immediacy, for cross jurisdiction races, you should rely on the media—State Board of Elections does not have a centralized count. Go here for urls to many counties
Media will provide the best combined reports.
So go over there for the fastest stuff–I’ll be checking in an linking
Just got off the air and of course when I refreshed, Lake County was up.
Giannoulias up handily
Seals 2-1 (Lake County Portion Only)
Oberweis at 40
Judy at 33
McSweeney 40
Salvi 30
Churchill 20
(all partial and ONLY Lake County)
For today, the important numbers are 60% Democratic approval, 36% Disapproval. That might well mirror his results today.
Another interesting set is that for pro choice individuals with a 49% approval and 47% disapproval. This is why the choice of Republican nominees is so critical to him—if it goes to Brady or to Oberweis he gets a huge jump on them by solidifying that group. They may not like him, but they’ll vote for him .
Scroll down for new posts.
Tell me what’s happening out there–bunches of schools closed in Central Illinois—Southern Illinois shouldn’t be too bad if the weather is the same as here in Saint Louis–a good covering, but roads are fine and it isn’t that cold–some danger it could ice up later in the day.
What’s the pace like at your polling place?
Candidate sightings?
Bizarre occurrences?
This “Bush Math” appears to be the only kind of math that I have learned. Perhaps you should take a closer look at the accounting. The $34101.16 is listed as an offset to Operating Expenditures. This means it is a rebate or refund. This amount is added to the contribution amount. You really should make sure you are correct before you start talking about “Bush Math”. It really discredits everything you say.
This just posted as I did the last post, but let’s take a look at the fine report Kelly and apparently the Sean commenter
The problem is apparent when you read the summary, but only gets worse after that.
The summary lists $43,900 in contributions.
Then it lists $34101.16 in Total Offsets to Operating Expenditures
Then it lists -34,101.16 in Net Operating Expenditures
Magically, the Cash on Hand is $78,001.16
Care to explain the math Sean? I’d love to know that if you spent $34,101.16 and raised $43,900 you end up with more money than you raised. It reads like a Shrub Budget.
Refunds v. Returns
A refund occurs when the committee has actually deposited a contribution in its bank deposi- tory and then pays it back to the contributor by issuing a check. When a committee refunds a contribution to a donor, the committee must include the refund in the total for the ap- propriate category of refund on the Detailed Summary Page (Line 20(a), (b) or (c)). If the committee previously itemized the incoming contribution on Schedule A, then it must itemize the refund on a Sched- ule B for the appropriate category of refund. 104.8(d)(4). (See example, top right.) Alternatively, a committee may return a contribu- tion to the donor without depositing it, although the return must be made within 10 days of the treasurer?s receipt of the contribution. 103.3(
So again, it’s a little bit difficult to figure out how returning money actually increases your cash on hand unless the magical money tree in your backyard is producing cash pretty fast.
Rebates are money you get back on a purchase–so it’s kind of hard how that could almost be as much as Kelly raised since he reports not spending anything.
Most bizarrely, Kelly doesn’t report any disbursements. Funny. But when you look at his receipts you see all sorts of things that look like disbursements, but have been added together to be receipts.
walter wogtowicz apparently contributed $3500 for campaign fee and wages. Now, in some cases one might think that could be an inkind contribution (even though it breaks the limit), but there is no disbursement as you are supposed to report on the report for in-kind donations. In-Kind donations don’t add to your cash on hand, they add to receipts and they subtract from disbursements.
In his receipt category we find entries from corporations–illegal, refunds–by definition not a receipt, a sign company for $15,000–the limit for a primary campaign is $2,100 even for in-kind (though it’s most like a disbursement in receipts), and all sorts of goodies.
So, if the good commenter Sean would care to explain this to me and how the math is correct and how there aren’t violations of the law from a plain reading of the contributors, I’d love to hear it. But I’d especially love to know what I said that is incorrect and how I’ve been discredited. So have at is Sean.
I wonder why someone would take note of the post? hmmmmmm….
Congress Daily (at National Journal wrote this about the IL-03 race:
Now, Lipinski faces John Kelly (D), who “blanketed the district with” 5 “direct mail pieces focusing on” Lipinski’s ’04 election
They also wrote that Kelly raised $78,000—-he actually raised about $43,000 including $15,000 he loaned to his campaign.
It’s unclear given that he spent $15,000 on mail that he could have had 5 blanket mailings. It’s pretty unlikely he could afford it since if properly done, he’d report about $7,000 on hand at the end of the pre-primary.
ArchPundit
