« Denver is the Perfect Spot for the Dem Convention | Main | Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In? »
Friday, October 14, 2005
MT-Sen: Tester Hauls in $324K
Posted by DavidNYCOur man Jon Tester just announced his third-quarter numbers via e-mail, and he did well, raking in $324,000. Some 2,580 people contributed to the campaign, including the awesome readers of this blog. (Jon even took the time to thank us with a phone call. Total class act, not that there was any doubt.) Three quarters of Tester's contributors are from Montana, which is nice to see.
I'm also hearing that Tester materially outperformed his main opponent for the Dem nomination, John Morrison. That would sure as hell be interesting. The National Journal's Chuck Todd took a few unfair shots at Jon Tester recently, based largely on the fact that Jon taught bass to Pearl Jam's Jeff Ament and the two are still friends. Todd thereby concluded that Morrison is the better candidate. Two days ago, Todd retreated somewhat, reducing his preference for Morrison to the following calculus (sub. only):
We're going to stick with our philosophy on Senate races and assume the guy with the most money is the best answer.
So if money - and not friendships with popular musicians - is what matters, and if Tester's better at raising more of it, is Chuck Todd gonna switch horses? I await his answer.
Posted at 08:22 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Technorati
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/1835
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MT-Sen: Tester Hauls in $324K:
» Testersterone! from Majikthise
DavidNYC of Swing State Project reports that Senate hopeful Jon Tester (MT) raised $324,000 in the third quarter. [Read More]
Tracked on October 14, 2005 09:56 PM
Comments
Thanks for the info, but how much has Tester raised in total? Seems to me that Morrison is still leading in total campaign funds raised and in cash on-hand.
Further, if you subtract the $85,000 Pearl Jam raised for Tester from the $324,000 total, you come up with slightly less than Morrison raised during the same reporting period. So Tester's fund-raising power hardly seems enough to justify your petulance toward Chuck Todd, unless you think Pearl Jam is going to play a concert for Tester every quarter, and you think that people will keep going to hear them, quarter after quarter.
I'm not championing one Dem candidate over another at this point (like your Bob Brigham, I was born and raised in the state, but I left a while ago), I just want the state free of Abramoff's crony Conrad Burns.
But I certainly don't think swingstateproject.com has been persuasive on the question of Tester's alleged superiority to Morrison. The factual slimness of this latest post doesn't make SSP any more convincing this count.
Best wishes,
swag
Posted by: swag ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.swingstateproject.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 14, 2005 10:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Okay, we have some more fundraising facts:
"As of Sept. 30, State Auditor John Morrison had raised $643,753 since he entered the race in April and had $527,324 in the bank. Jon Tester, a Big Sandy farmer and president of the state Senate, had raised $381,788 since he announced his candidacy in May and had $141,811 cash on hand.
Tester raised more than Morrison in the past three months, partly due to an August fundraiser that featured the band Pearl Jam. Tester raised $324,049 between July 1 and Sept. 30; Morrison raised $242,912 during the same period."
Posted by: swag at October 14, 2005 10:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ok, I really like what I have read about Tester and I think he would be a great Senate addition. Although I'm familiar with the no bull Dem governor there, is Conrad Burns beatable? Someone let me know...
Posted by: OH-09Dem at October 14, 2005 10:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Wow, I'm shocked by the the wide disparity in fund raising for the Montana Senate challenger postion ... in real dollars, from real donors to real money on hand.
Let's start with real dollars ... 643k to 324k ...that's a huge lead for Morrison. He has raised twice what Tester has raised.
Let's move to real donors ... I read from today that Morrison has received contributions from more than 2,000 individuals ... which doesn't include a big group at the Adams Field House who paid because they liked grunge music.
Sen. Tester's number appears(like all his numbers) something less than projectable because of his dependence on a one-time trick ride on the backs of Pearl Jam. How many people who attended that concert are now listed as contributors?
OK ... even if I'm willing to concede that all the people who attended that concert did so because of their dedication to Jon Tester .. still I'm struck by the real numbers ...which is cash on hand.
How much money does each candidate have to run a race against an incumbent who promises to raise north of 6M?
I read that Tester's number is in the mid 100's ... like 130 or so. That means he's raised 324 but only has 100 something to show for it. Adn that's after 6 months ... or an average of about 20k per month (and that includes a 240k bump for the concert).
Morrison, on the other hand, has raised 643k ... has 520 something on hand. That's an average of about 100k per month. At the very least I like how Morrison saves money. He doesn't spend all his money on a rock concert. At the most, it's clear that here that Morrison is the only candidate that has shown appeal outside an inner circle.
Thanks for taking the time to show your favoritism by trying to write something positive about Tester's performance. It made me stop and think about Morrison's performance ... which makes me feel great about his chances to unseat Burns.
Posted by: montanajack at October 15, 2005 01:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Great news that the campaign is moving forward. When you are running against the entrenched establishment it isn't as easy to raise coin so this is a great sign. The haves always try to attack a candidate for not having money when they don't have issues. So as Tester starts getting the money support the focus can move to the actual strengths and vision.
Posted by: Bill Section 147 at October 15, 2005 09:31 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Montanajack:
I think that it is a mistake to consider Morrison the more candidate just because he has so much cash on hand. Don't forget, Morrison is the party's man. The Democratic machine here in MT crowned Morrison as the heir apparent shortly after the 2004 elections, and they were pushing Tester to run for the House (a losing battle for any candidate). The money flowed earlier for Morrison because he could rely on the already established Democratic network. Tester had to build his network from the ground up. Now that he has had some success, the money should flow more easily.
As a Montanan, and having talked to other Montanans, it is very hard to get excited about Morrison, or any of the other Democrats entrenched in the state party leadership. I am now and will always be a Democrat, but the current group (and I am including Schweitzer here) is less than inspiring. They are good people, but party politics in Montana is currently so venomous that almost nothing for either side was passed in the last legislative session. Tester's leadership is generally considered to be one of the few bright spots of that ugly episode.
One shouldn't forget that the main reason that the Democrats took the governorship and half the legislature was not due to their own appeal. Rather, it was due to the complete (and righteous) disgust that Montanans felt for the Republican party after scandals like Touch America and Martz's complete incompetence. Nothing in last year's elections results should be read as approval of the entrenched Democratic leadership. While the Dem leaders are good people and could be good leaders, they have been tainted by past ugliness in the minds of many Montanans.
This is why Tester would make a good choice for the general election, and why he will have a good shot at the Dem nomination. Primaries are open here, and people understand that Tester is not the party's man. That will greatly increase his appeal, and will help Montanans get excited about him when he faces off against Burns. If Morrison wins the nomination, the only thing he has going for him is the festering resentment Montanans have been cultivating against Republicans and against Burns. I don't think that will be enough for Dems to bank on.
Posted by: mullymt at October 17, 2005 12:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
MullyMT:
I am confused; maybe you can help clear some things up for me.
You stated:
“but party politics in Montana is currently so venomous that almost nothing for either side was passed in the last legislative session. Tester's leadership is generally considered to be one of the few bright spots of that ugly episode.”
Tester was the President of the Senate. The fact that nothing was passed by either side would seem to be a detriment to his abilities as a leader.
You also mentioned:
“and people understand that Tester is not the party's man. That will greatly increase his appeal, and will help Montanans get excited about him when he faces off against Burns.”
Really the only current or former state party leader to endorse a candidate thus far is Bob Ream the chairman of the Democratic Party until about a month ago. The man who was largely responsible for the political atmosphere that you described as “venomous”. Ream was pressured out by party members that were looking for a new direction for the Montana Democratic Party. Lets also not forget that, being the President of the Senate makes you one of the main leaders of the party. It would also appear that you would have to be deeply entrenched in the party to be appointed one of the leaders of the K-12 education committee. Which by the way has been political wedge issue thus far.
So I guess I am not sure why Tester is not entrenched in the party. Tester was endorsed by the former chairmen of the party and held the very partisan opposition of President of the Senate. On the hand John Morrison was the State Auditor. The State Auditor position is not nearly as high profile or as politically polarizing as the positions Tester held.
Lets summarize what we have learned in these comments so far:
First: John Morrison is a more effective fundraiser than Tester and he hasn’t had to rely on one time money produced by celebrity friends.
Second: Unlike Tester, Morrison has not blown two thirds of all the money people donated to him before the real campaign has even started. It seems to me that it would hard to fundraise in the future when people know that $.66 out of every $1 disappears before the campaign heats up.
Third: Tester is deeply entrenched in the party. Held numerous positions that are likely to discourage past Burns voters from jumping ship. By the way these voters will make the difference in an off year election.
I am sorry but I can’t support Tester because he is a nice guy. I want Conrad out of office. Morrison is the candidate that can do that. Morrison will represent the base value of democrats while appealing to swing voters.
Posted by: Andy_Duphrane at October 17, 2005 04:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here's the point: Tester had proven that he can raise money. That's what he needed to do and he has done it.
Everyone agrees, money aside, Tester is the better candidate. Tester can get votes in the rural parts of Montana; Morrison can't. The only thing that Morrison has going for him is his ability to raise money. Tester just proved that he has that ability too.
But let's face it: Burns will significantly out spend whoever wins the primary, Morrison or Tester. Which candidate do you think has the appeal to win when they are out spent? Morrison's only strength in any race is that he has always been able to out spend his opponent, sometimes by 20 to 1. That won't be the case this time. So what other game does he have?
We know Tester has game. And he proved with this report that he has the fundraising ability to be competitive with Burns. That was all he needed to do.
Posted by: Lisa Seitz Gruwell at October 17, 2005 05:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
wow, you look at that report as a positive sign for Tester? He had a one time dog and pony show that doubled his warchest. He can't rely on that in the future. He has spent two-thirds of every dollar he has raised, and on what!? The campaign hasn't started yet. Saying that this proves something for Tester, is like saying a burger king employee that won $40K in the lottery and bought a $27K car is now financially secure. This just shows me campaign mismanagement and an example of someone squandering a great opportunity.
As for Tester winning rural voters. Do you vote for people with similar occupations? It is important factor when I vote, when prioritizing my list of important characteristics in a candidate in comes right after "a candidates with a similar shoe size". The voters that are going to decide this election are voters that voted for Burns in the past and are fed up with his corrupt ways and are looking for an alternative. These voters will tend to be conservative. The more moderate democratic candidate will appeal to these voters. Morrison is portrayed as the more moderate candidate.
The blogoshere is so caught up in ideological rhetoric they fail to realize that change happens slowly. That steps need to be taken. Step 1. in Montana, get rid of Burns. In order for that to happen the candidate needs to exhibit three characteristics. He needs to be able to raise enough money to be competitive against Burns, he needs to have strong base of support, and he needs to appeal to moderate conservatives (ability to manage a campaign properly doesn't hurt either). Morrison, Morrison, and Morrison. One man can win this race, Morrison.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but everyone does not agree that Tester is the best candidate. "The Washington Post's Chris Cilliza writes that the "smart money is on State Auditor John Morrison," noting that he's "the stronger general election candidate." Ron Brownstein from the L.A. Times calls Morrison the "favorite" in the primary. And the well-respected National Journal, ranking the race 6 in the nation and possibly moving up, writes, "Morrison is the Democrats' best bet to keep this race competitive."
Posted by: Andy_Duphrane at October 17, 2005 11:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
ok, $144K on hand for tester? I'm sorry but most House challengers have more than that on hand.
also, can someone please give me a reason, other than really big semi-trucks and being a hippie-food farmer, that tester is the savior of america? if there is going to be an affair with this man, lets at least give some reason other than "his campaign announcement was really cool, man"
Posted by: anisozet at October 18, 2005 01:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here you go. Take a look at how Tester does in rural Montana where most Democrats get their clocks cleaned:
Chouteau County:
Tester 2002: 69%
Gore 2000: 25%
Kerry 2004: 33%
Hill County:
Tester 2002: 73%
Gore 2000: 45%
Kerry 2004: 46%
Liberty County:
Tester 2002: 71%
Gore 2000: 24%
Kerry 2004: 34%
Also, Tester beat an incumbent Republican in a very tough district to get into the Montana Senate. Morrison has never beat an incumbent Republican before. In fact, he barely beat Republican Joyce Schmidt in 2000 in the open State Auditor's race. She raised less than $6000 and got 45% of the vote to Morrison's 50%. Morrison outspent her 50 to 1 and still only got 50% of the vote.
The only good reason to support Morrison is to keep the seat open for Schweitzer to take it in 2012, when he is termed out as Governor.
Posted by: Lisa Seitz Gruwell at October 18, 2005 05:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am again dismayed that, data are being selectively used to support the site's preferred narrative: that Tester electable and Morrison isn't. If you have a case, you are not proving it here.
I would contend, Lisa Seitz Gruwell, that you're not only comparing apples and oranges in mixing house district and national races, but you're also leaving out Morrison's recent election results in those counties entirely. And you're continuing to pretend that nobody in the more urban parts of Montana ever votes.
Let's compare statewide races, and how two Democrats did both statewide in the 2004 elections and how they did in Choteau, Liberty and Hill Counties.
We'll compare the results of State Auditor John Morrison with those of Governor Brian Schweitzer from the 2004 election:
HILL COUNTY
Morrison 67.64%
Grimes 32.36%
Schweitzer 61.75%
Brown 38.25%
LIBERTY COUNTY
Morrison 53.75%
Grimes 46.25%
Schweitzer 44.23%
Brown 55.77%
CHOTEAU COUNTY
Morrison 52.86%
Grimes 47.14%
Schweitzer 44.31%
Brown 55.69%
STATEWIDE
Morrison 55.87%
Grimes 44.13%
Schweitzer 52.29%
Brown 47.71%
Morrison not only beat the Republican in each of those counties and statewide, he also outpolled Schweitzer.
You may fall back on your argument that Morrison has never beaten an incumbent, to which I would respond that Tester has never run in, let alone won a statewide race.
I don't object to the fact that swingstateproject.com so ardently supports Tester, but I do object to such a selective and deceptive use of facts.
I think you can do better. Tell us on what specific issues you prefer Tester to Morrison, for example.
Best wishes,
swag
Posted by: swag at October 18, 2005 09:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Andy Duphrane:
If you are going to start posting newspaper quotes, don't cut and paste them DIRECTLY FROM MORRISON'S WEBSITE. It's kind of tacky, and makes you look like a plant.
Swag:
Comparing Morrison to Schweitzer is not really relevant. Schweitzer is not the great hope of the Democratic party in MT. While a great guy, he simply rode the anti-Republican sentiment into office. Burns was very beatable in 2000, and Schweitzer didn't capitalize. Remember, Montanans do not really like Democrats, they just hate the state Republican party more. This is why Bush did so well here while the local Republicans did so poorly.
Somebody said that since Tester was the president of the MT Senate, he must be the party's man, and he must be responsible for the legislature's poor performance. These comments are either disingenous or show a lack of understanding of MT politics. The reason that nothing was passed last session was because the Republican party had a boot camp before the session and said "Any bill from a Democrat will be obstructed." Tester was able to keep the tone from becoming explosive, which, under the circumstances, was no small feat.
Morrison has been groomed for quite a while by the Democratic bosses. It is almost impossible not to see that he has been annointed by party leadership. Montanans are sick of the party bosses from both sides trying to control the election, and are responding to Tester as an exciting alternative.
Posted by: mullymt at October 19, 2005 12:08 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks for the post, mullymt.
A few notes in reply:
Comparing Morrison to Schweitzer (both in statewide races) in the same election year strikes me as more relevant than comparing Tester (in a state house race) to Gore and Kerry (in national races) in different election years. Note also that the post was made to refute the skewed stats and assertions in the post preceding it in the thread.
"Remember, Montanans do not really like Democrats, they just hate the state Republican party more. This is why Bush did so well here while the local Republicans did so poorly."
Quite a sweeping generalization, that, (it contradicts the Seitz Gruwell assertions; though if accepted, it explains her skewed statistics).
I spent November 1, 2004 in Helena, November 2 in Fort Benton, and November 3 in Havre. I certainly got all sorts of perspectives from all sorts of people in that election season.
I was born in Glasgow, attended elementary school through high school in Havre, and enjoyed college in Missoula. Nobody's going to convince me that there is anything monolithic or settled about Montana voters.
As I have said before, I'm leaning toward neither candidate, but the total lack of issue discussion on this race (on this site, which apparently made up its mind long ago), the shaping of statistics and "facts" by posters on this blog to support a predetermined conclusion, the name-calling ("DLC", "anointed," "big city lawyer"), and the unsubstantiated generalizations about the Montana electorate are cause for distress.
I'm glad some people are excited about Tester, but I wish somebody would explain clearly and substantively why he is superior to Morrison.
Last statewide poll I saw, Montana voters were evenly divided between the two. Maybe some actual discussion of issues would assist them in making a good choice.
Posted by: swag at October 19, 2005 12:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Swag:
What you fail to mention in your comparison is that Tester gets more votes in rural Montana than Morrison!
Plus, the more telling predeictor of how well Morrison will do is looking back to a candidate who had a similar profile as Morrison, i.e. an attorney from an "urban" area. Look at how well Jack Mudd did against Burns in 1994. It was ugly.
We need candidates in Montana with ag. backgrounds that look more like Brian Schweitzer. That's Tester, not Morrison.
Finaly, no one can tell me how Morrison wins when he losses the only advantage he has ever had in a race: the abily to significantly outspend his opponent. Burns will out spend him significantly . . . then how does he win?
Posted by: Lisa Seitz Gruwell at October 19, 2005 01:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Plus, dude, what is Morrison's excuse for 2000? When he almost lost to Joyce Schmidt despite outspending her 50 to 1. Answer me that.
Posted by: Lisa Seitz Gruwell at October 19, 2005 01:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks for the reply, Lisa Seitz Gruwell.
"Tester gets more votes in rural Montana than Morrison!"
Surely I don't need to explain that a state house race has a completely different dynamic than a state-wide race. Or maybe I do, since your first comparison was of a state house race with two presidential races.
And again, you are acting like rural Montanans are the only ones who vote.
"Burns will out spend him significantly . . . then how does he win?"
One could say the same thing about Tester.
"We need candidates in Montana with ag. backgrounds that look more like Brian Schweitzer"
Interesting. mullymt disagrees with you above by saying that Schweizer "simply rode the anti-Republican sentiment into office." I wonder which one of you is right.
"he almost lost to Joyce Schmidt despite outspending her 50 to 1."
I don't mean to be rude, but the way you use of numbers does not enhance your persuasiveness. I would love to see your source on for this "50 to 1" ratio. Thanks in advance.
I'm glad some people are excited about Tester, but I wish somebody would explain clearly and substantively why he is superior to Morrison.
Last statewide poll I saw, Montana voters were evenly divided between the two. Maybe some actual discussion of issues would assist them in making a good choice.
Posted by: swag at October 19, 2005 03:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here's the source:
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2000/11/28/export48740.txt
And you still haven't answered my question: What is Morrison's excuse for almost losing to Joyce Schmidt despite ourspending her 50 to 1?
This article also notes that all Schmidt did in her campaign was make a strange Annie Oakley style video of her targeting shooting and then send it to the press. Still, 45% of Montanans perfered her over Morrison. Explain that one to me.
Posted by: Lisa Seitz Gruwell at October 19, 2005 04:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Lisa Seitz Gruwell, thanks for the source on that number.
Apparently Morrison gained some knowledge between that race and his second state-wide race where he fared much better against a more formidable opponent, beating Grimes handily, (and besting Schweitzer's numbers) even in rural Montana.
And apparently Jon Tester has learned to check his fan-belts now, since he is getting around the state so much better now.
Experience is such a good teacher.
Best to you.
Posted by: swag at October 19, 2005 04:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment