Challenger Money, Incumbent Money
In a debate over whether progressive money should go to Lamont or other races, Atrios makes the point that the real question is why millions of bucks are going to the reelection of safe incumbents like Hillary Clinton and Marty Meehan.
But that incumbent money isn't progressive money that cares whether Dems control the Senate-- it's money by special interests looking to buy access and influence with those with potential power.
Look at this graph of where Hillary's money comes from the finance industry or lobbyists, with very little from labor or ideological PACs.
Compare that to Clair McCaskill in Missouri whose getting a much more serious amount of money from the ideological PACs and labor concerned about progressive control of the Senate. This is even more pronounced with a strong progressive like Sherrod Brown in Ohio.
So the issue for labor and ideological groups is not whether to give money to Hillary or Lamont-- almost none of them are doing so now. The groups interested in progressive control of the Senate are choosing between Lamont and Brown and McGaskill. Talking about lobbyists giving money to Hillary has little to do with the choices progressive groups are making in deciding which challengers to fund to increase progressive power.
There are two reasons to donate to a political campaign - to get something in return and to get a candidate you think should be elected elected. The lobby groups will do the former, the little guys donating $25 at a time will do the latter, and the special interest groups, be they labor, women's groups, progressive groups, or whatever do both. I think that summarizes your article.
There certainly is no good reason to lavish money on a candidate who can't lose, but some people do it to be associated with a winner. Just as volunteers tend to flock to the sure winners and shun the probable losers. I watch Congressional races in my area and see, repeatedly, that the safe seat candidates have all of the volunteers they can use, but the candidates in really tight races, where volunteers could be a difference, have a much more difficult time finding them.
Now that we seem to have a golden opportunity to take back the Congress this year I'm hoping the volunteers will apportion their time to make the best possible use of it. Here in my area, there are two races where doubling the number of volunteers could make all the difference in the world - Bill Durston vs. Dan Lungren and Charlie Brown vs. John Doolittle. Money is crucial, but volunteers are almost as crucial.
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 19, 2006 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Despite my disability, I'm going to start volunteering as much as I can on a local Democratic Committee. What I would like to suggest is that all of us list the candidates we'd like to see money go to here.
Let's find a good place for it and some sort of format. I'd suggest giving us the name of the candidate, party affiliation (for those progressives who aren't Democrats), contact information and what you believe they need.
For example, if I were the Democratic nominee for our one House seat, I would list the following:
John Stapleford - House of Representatives (DE - at large distric)
Democrat
(address of my campaign HQ)
(website for my campaign)
need volunteers, donations and name recognition
This might help us get the right help to the right races whether local, state or federal. Unfortunately, I don't know the name of our candidate who will probably lose to Mike Castle. When I find that stuff out, I'd like a place to post it. My own weblog space doesn't get enough traffic.
John
For more go to my online journal.
August 19, 2006 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you insist.
You're crazy!
August 19, 2006 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the circular firing squad comment that kind of neutralizes the value of DK's opinion, in my mind. It only makes sense if you see Lieberman and Lamont as twin sons of different mothers, so to speak.
August 19, 2006 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DCCC has a site where you can figure out who is running. Unfortunately, not every race has all the proper info and some don't have links to candidates web sites. But it's a start.
The best way to find out what volunteer opportunities exists is through county Parties.
August 19, 2006 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Maryland, Donna Edwards seems much better than Mr.Wynn.
August 19, 2006 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is the one comment in the entire exchange that really sticks in my craw. It equates Lamont's victory with Lieberman's "scorched earth my way or go to hell". And it makes me very skeptical about DK. It is not equivalent who gets elected in Connecticut; and the criticism I have of Lieberman is very much the same criticism that I have of the Republican neocons. If it is all the same to DK, either he is or I am in the wrong place.
August 19, 2006 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I knew that I could get a name by looking it up. What I am asking is slightly more. I'm asking people to evaluate candidates based on their local observations. Even if I could remember Mike Castle's opponent, I doubt I'd list him here anyway. Castle has just been too popular to beat.
I am going to join my local Democratic community and may have access to new information. If Castle looks beatable, I will toot the challenger's horn here and ask others to support him.
There must be more "Ned Lamont types" (intentional oversimplification) who face vulnerable Republican opponents. If only the netroots knew about them to solicit money and other things needed for a campaign. Someone more versed than I in election law would have to make sure we avoid even the appearance of coordination.
We will have another election in two years so we can spend time after November organizing for 2008.
John
For more go to my online journal.
August 19, 2006 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two questions: Doesn't money sent by individuals to candidates with fewer "big interest" contributions send a message to both the candidates and the DNC? Then too, doesn't it make sense for individuals like you and me to search out the Dem or Progressive challengers to Charlie Cook's 27 Republican incumbents-in-bad-shape and send those challengers our contributions?
The only reason I'd pull a lever for Hillary (and I really don't want to!) would be strategic. I would never ever contribute again to the Democratic Party, but do contribute to individual candidates who are abler and cleaner and freer. Enough of us do that and the Party leadership begins to get the message -- they're losing membership and will continue to do so until they represent us.
August 20, 2006 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Democrats were progressive, wouldn't they concern themselves more with chasing the 1/3 non-voting electorate rather than fighting over party campaign contributions? As long as Democrats equate campaign dollars with electoral bliss then we are doomed to repeat Republican-like scandals under "different management" on an embarrassing basis.
August 21, 2006 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat.
August 22, 2006 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink