Tag: contributions

This diary is in reaction to the diary about former Democrat Joe Lieberman giving more money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) than most Democratic Senators. It’s also a try to get another “use it or lose it” campaign going.

All numbers below the fold.

UPDATE 8/13/2008:

When I looked through all the numbers I was surprised that several Senators did not have a PAC. I now learned that Sen. Schumer does have a PAC (Impact). For some reason it’s not listed on Open Secret’s Chuck Schumer page. His PAC has contributed to the DSCC and individual Senate candidates. I’ve updated the numbers below.

Listed below are all the members of the Democratic Caucus in the U.S. Senate with their current cash-on-hand numbers of their campaign accounts and their PACs. Listed below are the amounts given to the DSCC through their campaign accounts (not sure if there are any legal limits) and through their PACs (I think the legal limit here is $15,000 per quarter, not sure though). Also listed are contributions either through their campaign committees or their PACs to individual Democratic candidtes for the Senate in 2008.

I researched the numbers using the FEC homepage and the list of leadership PACs provided by Open Secrets.

Daniel Akaka (2012):

current CoH: $101k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $50,000

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $0

total given: $50,000

Max Baucus (2008)

current CoH: $5,457k

current PAC CoH: $309k

DSCC: $585,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $75,000

total given: $690,000

Evan Bayh (2010)

current CoH: $10,634k

current PAC CoH: $572k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $0

2008 Sen candidates: $12,000

total given: $12,000

Joe Biden (2008)

current CoH: 2,000k

current PAC CoH: $49k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $35,000

total given: $65,000

Jeff Bingaman (2012)

current CoH: $759k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $250,000

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $29,000

total given: $279,000

Barbara Boxer (2010)

current CoH: 3,547k

current PAC CoH: $427k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $79,500

total given: $109,500

Sherrod Brown (2012)

current CoH: $768k

current PAC CoH:64k

DSCC: $150,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $91,000

total given: $271,000

Robert Byrd (2012)

current CoH: $110k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $0

total given: $0

Maria Cantwell (2012)

current CoH: $81k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $10,000

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $1,000

total given: $11,000

Ben Cardin (2012)

current CoH: $195k

current PAC CoH: $32k

DSCC: $105,000

DSCC through PAC: $20,000

2008 Sen candidates: $6,600  

total given: $131,600

Thomas Carper (2012)

current CoH: $903k

current PAC CoH: $174k

DSCC: $350,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $92,000

total given: $472,000

Bob Casey (2012)

current CoH: $92k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $10,000

total given: $10,000

Hillary Clinton (2012)

current CoH: $278k

current PAC CoH: $5k

DSCC: $100,000

DSCC through PAC: $0

2008 Sen candidates: $0

total given: $100,000

Kent Conrad (2012)

current CoH: $2,067k

current PAC CoH: $77k

DSCC: $200,000

DSCC through PAC: $45,000

2008 Sen candidates: $92,500

total given: $337,500

Chris Dodd (2010)

current CoH: $123k

current PAC CoH: $115k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $0

2008 Sen candidates: $0

total given: $0

Byron Dorgan (2010)

current CoH: $1,430k

current PAC CoH: $89k

DSCC: $75,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $16,500

total given: $121,500

Dick Durbin (2008)

current CoH: $8,145k

current PAC CoH: $121k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $150,000

total given: $180,000

Russ Feingold (2010)

current CoH: $2,277k

current PAC CoH: $369K

DSCC: $45,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $46,500

total given: $121,500

Dianne Feinstein (2012)

current CoH: $2,697k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $500,000

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $0

total given: $500,000

Tom Harkin (2008)

current CoH: $4,109k

current PAC CoH: $21k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $20,000

2008 Sen candidates: $85,000

total given: 105,000

Daniel Inouye (2010)

current CoH: $1,206k

current PAC CoH: $21k

DSCC: $175,000

DSCC through PAC: $30k

2008 Sen candidates: $120,000 (plus $10k for Ted Stevens)

total given: $325,000

Tim Johnson (2008)

current CoH: $2,724k

current PAC CoH: $58k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $0

2008 Sen candidates: $11,500

total given: $11,500

Ted Kennedy (2012)

current CoH: $5,657k

current PAC CoH: $130k

DSCC: $250,000

DSCC through PAC: $15,000

2008 Senate candidates: $49,500

total given: $314,500

John Kerry (2008)

current CoH: $8,829k

current PAC CoH: $80k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Senate candidates: $27,000

total given: $67,000

Amy Klobuchar (2012)

current CoH: $504k

current PAC CoH: $73k

DSCC: $50,000

DSCC through PAC: $43,500

2008 Sen candidates: $48,300

total given: $141,800

Herb Kohl (2012)

current CoH: $15k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $0

total given: $0

Mary Landrieu (2008)

current CoH: $5,515k

current PAC CoH: $23k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $78,500

total given: $108,500

Frank Lautenberg (2008)

current CoH: $1,290k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $0

total given: $0

Patrick Leahy (2010)

current CoH: $1,121k

current PAC CoH: $180k

DSCC: $110,000

DSCC through PAC: $15,000

2008 Sen candidates: $100,000

total given: $225,000

Carl Levin (2008)

current CoH: 4,341k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $28,000

total given: $28,000

Blanche Lincoln (2010)

current CoH: $526k

current PAC CoH: $289k

DSCC: $100,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $68,000

total given: $198,000

Claire McCaskill (2012)

current CoH: $78k

current PAC CoH: $19k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $28,300

total given: $58,300

Robert Menendez (2012)

current CoH: $824k

current PAC CoH: $267k

DSCC: $110,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $72,500

total given: $212,500

Barbara Mikulski (2010)

current CoH: $658k

current PAC CoH: $51k

DSCC: $10,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $39,000

total given: $79,000

Patty Murray (2010)

current CoH: $2,047k

current PAC CoH: $108k

DSCC: $200,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $108,500

total given: $338,500

Bill Nelson (2012)

current CoH: $1,817k

current PAC CoH: $26k

DSCC: $150,000

DSCC through PAC: $20,000

2008 Sen candidates: $63,500

total given: $233,500

Ben Nelson (2012)

current CoH: $296k

current PAC CoH: $211k

DSCC: $90,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $25,000

total given: $145,000

Barack Obama (2010)

current CoH: $122k

current PAC CoH: $96k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $15,000

2008 Sen candidates: $68,000

total given: $83,000

Mark Pryor (2008)

current CoH: $3,606k

current PAC CoH: $90k

DSCC: $200,000

DSCC through PAC: $15,000

2008 Sen candidates: $52,400

total given: $267,400

Jack Reed (2008)

current CoH: $3,788k

current PAC CoH: $87k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $112,500

total given: $142,500

Harry Reid (2010)

current CoH: $2,511k

current PAC CoH: $685k

DSCC: $105,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $200,000

total given: $335,000

Jay Rockefeller (2008)

current CoH: $3,336k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $350,000

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $4,000

total given: $354,000

Ken Salazar (2010)

current CoH: $1,838k

current PAC CoH: $60k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $55,000

total given: $85,000

Chuck Schumer (2010)

Updated!

current CoH: $10,309k

current PAC CoH: $150k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $210,000

total given: $240,000

Debbie Stabenow (2012)

current CoH: $347k

current PAC CoH: $71k

DSCC: $60,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $88,000

total given: $178,000

Jon Tester (2012)

current CoH: $62k

current PAC CoH: $31k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $35,000

2008 Sen candidates: $4,000

total given: $39,000

Jim Webb (2012)

current CoH: $171k

current PAC CoH: $67k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $20,000

2008 Sen candidates: $11,000

total given: $31,000

Sheldon Whitehouse (2012)

current CoH: $41k

current PAC CoH: $28k

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: $43,500

2008 Sen candidates: $90,000

total given: $133,500

Ron Wyden (2010)

current CoH: $1,266k

current PAC CoH: $186k

DSCC: $100,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $18,000

total given: $148,000

Independents caucsing with Democrats:

Bernie Sanders (2012)

current CoH: $55k

current PAC CoH: none found

DSCC: $0

DSCC through PAC: n/a

2008 Sen candidates: $0

total given: $0

Joe Lieberman (2012)

current CoH: 2,011k

current PAC CoH: $489k

DSCC: $100,000

DSCC through PAC: $30,000

2008 Sen candidates: $22,500

total given: $152,500

These numbers vary from the Lieberman diary cited above because any contributions after June 30 were not included in the totals.

Notes:

All amounts above are for the 2007/2008 cycle up until June 30, 2008. Any money contributed to the DSCC or individual candidates by these Senators since July 1 is not included in the totals! So, there may have been some changes in the past few weeks.

Also, please take each Senator individually. Some have very low Cash-on-Hand numbers, so they wouldn’t be able to give much. Others have millions and are sitting on it. Others have competetive races this year. Some are Freshmen, some are recuperating from their presidential campaigns.

Anyway, there clearly are a couple of people who should be targeted by another “use it or lose it” campaign. What do you think?

Cross posted at Daily Kos, MyDD & Open Left

TheUnknown285 proposes ( http://www.swingstateproject.c… ) that Carol Shea-Porter, NH 1, is a good investment and I want to second that.  Her campaign is going to be real hand-to-hand combat – the R’s and their 527s see her as vulnerable and have targeted her with ads that have been running for months already – but she is well armed.

First, she just tells the truth and people can see that.  She inspires confidence by refusing to cop to the easy political summary of an issue.  She sees it as her job to educate, unconstrained by conventional wisdom.  She seems to find the underlying realities of an issue and communicate that in a way that people understand.  An example is her explanation of her FISA vote in today’s Portsmouth (NH) Herald: http://www.seacoastonline.com/… .  

We’ll see in November how well she’s bringing the whole district along, but anecdotal signs are good. Regular folks who don’t necessarily follow politics all that closely say, “Oh, yeah, I’m going to vote for her.  She’s really working hard down there.” Or “I’m proud to have her representing me.”  What they really end up saying is that, whether or not they agree on everything, they can see how serious and honest she is and they buy into that.  All this is independent of their party affiliation.

Second, she’s a professional legislator and politician, in the best sense of the word.  She actually attends her committee hearings, works her issues, shephards legislation through the process.  Then, in Unity, NH last Friday, she reached rhythmic rhetorical heights before 4,000 people and a wall of media, improvising and creating real excitement.  A few hours later, she converted a room of 40 people by telling stories from the front lines of committee work.

Finally, although she won last time on a viral campaign and no budget, she looks to be fully committed to both on-the-ground organizing and serious fundraising in this campaign.  Recently, she cold-called a business person who follows the issues in a middle-of-the-road sort of way but has never been politically active.  After a half hour discussion of issues, he proposed hosting a house party that, two weeks later, raised serious money.

So there’s nothing inevitable about the outcome of this race.  National Republicans are going to invest in winning back this seat.  We need to do the same.  Carol’s had good fundraising results so far, but will need major support from every direction before it’s over.

I’m very disenchanted right now.  Somehow, we’re still in Iraq, don’t have universal healthcare, don’t have stem cell funding.  We’re seeing pushes for offshore drilling.  And this week, our party assumed the position when it comes to FISA.

What was even more infuriating is to see candidates that many candidates heavily supported the grassroots and the Netroots (both in the more limited sense that includes the page DailyKos, Swing State Project, etc collaborate on. and the broader sense to include all of the liberal websites such as Democracy for America and MoveON).  It’s both heartbreaking and infuriating to see people like Patrick Murphy, Kirsten Gillibrand, Nancy Boyda, Jim Webb, and Jerry McNerney, people we thought would be the vanguard of the coming progressive era, vote they way they do, with the likes of Murphy and Gillibrand joining the Blue Dogs!

I learned about reductionism in research methods.  This is the flawed logic of looking for THE cause of something instead of looking for all causes.  So, maybe we were had.  Maybe (probably?) the Netroots endorsement lists and frontpage diaries need to be more selective.  Maybe (hopefully) these are all still pretty progressive people who are just getting bad advice from their advisors and fellow Democratic caucusmembers.

But I think another cause is worth noting.  Because many are freshman, many won narrowly, and many represent competitive districts, many of these people are in close races.  That goes for the likes of Boyda, McNerney (although that one is looking better), Altmire, etc.  And considering that money, unfortunately, plays a big role in elections, these vulnerable incumbents need money to remain competitive and be re-elected.

This is where, I think the Netroots fail. I do not see one incumbent on the Orange to Blue list.  There wasn’t a single one on the Netroots List from the last election.  Democracy for America lacks incumbent members of Congress on their page.

I know many say that our incumbents are doing brisk fundraising.  Yes, but at what cost?  Let’s look at Patrick Murphy.  I see $11,750 from Comcast Corp and $10,000 from Credit Union National Assn, for example.  

So, I’m starting a fundraising page called “Protecting Our Asses.”  This page is designed to provide positive reinforcement for current, vulnerable Democratic legislators.  You vote the right way, you get support.  You throw you lot with the Blue Dogs are the corporatists, then let them bail you out.  

This will hopefully send a message that the Netroots will have watch your back if your watch ours, provide positive reinforcement for good behavior, give much need campaign funds to good but vulnerable Democrats, and dilute or possibly even replace contributions from less than progressive sources.

The first addition to the list is Carol Shea-Porter.  Shea-Porter won in what is, in my opinion, the second-most surprising, positive (because there are some negative surprises, ie. Christine Jennings) race in the country, second only to Nancy Boyda’s defeat of Jim Ryun.  Despite representing a light red district and facing a spirited challenge, Shea-Porter has been a progressive through and through.  Shea-Porter had a 98% Party Unity Score in 2007. She has a a 95.7% Progressive Punch score, making her the 29th most progressive member.  She gets A’s (above 90) in all but two categories and B’s in all.  She has perfect scores on the environment, corporate subsidies, government checks on corporate power, and labor rights.

Carol Shea-Porter voted the right way on stem cell research, Iraq funding, the Iraq escalation, timelines for Iraq, the minimum wage, prescription drug prices, and FISA.  Let’s reward her for taking the high road.

http://www.actblue.com/page/pr…

The Democratic field is cleared for State Senator John Unger (campaign site) to challenge Foleygate/Page Board scandal star and incumbent Wall Street Journal Republican Shelley Capito for West Virginia’s Second Congressional District seat.

The Democratic House leadership seems to be lining up behind Unger’s bid to unseat the increasingly vulnerable Capito, hopefully giving Unger vital early support in a district the Democratic leadership dreadfully under-invested in the 2006 cycle. Unger has even been honored as one of Rahm Emanuel’s “Six Pack”, one of only six candidates to whom he has donated so far in this cycle.

It is a very encouraging sign that Monday evening six of the leading House Democrats (including Hoyer, Emanuel, and Van Hollen) will host a big old fundraiser (info) for Unger.

In 2006 Democrats picked most of the low-hanging fruit in regaining the House majority. Seats in which we have a legitimate takeover opportunity are few and far between (and we have several seats we won in 2006 we are going to be hard-pressed to hold and need to offset).

John Unger’s campaign in 60-some percent Democratic registration WV-02 offers us a chance to pick the GOP’s pockets of a seat which traditionally belongs to us. Read on for the who, how and why.

OK, with the formality of condensing my verbose but incredibly persuasive arguments into few enough characters to fit into the Main Text, let me now indulge in my customary Faulknerian self-indulgence.

THE DISTRICT

First off, WV-02 is not a seat any Republican, even the daughter of beloved but convicted former Governor Arch Moore, should ever hold for long.

As noted, Democrats retain over 60 percent of voters by registration. This figure has dropped from the 2-to-1 edge held for generations. Two factors account for the GOP’s small gains over the years.

FACTOR ONE:
The Eastern Panhandle has grown remarkably quickly. And most of the new arrivals have been Republicans. The 2000 and, especially, the 2004 Bush campaigns did a fantastic job getting these newbies registered and out to vote. Capito has benefited enormously from this. In fact, without this influx of Republicans, she never would have won the seat in the first place. The Panhandle, particularly Berkeley County (the most populous and fastest growing of the Panhandle counties), provide Capito’s margin.

WHY UNGER WINS

John Unger’s State Senate District includes Berkeley County. And his electoral success there, despite his Democratic identity and generally progressive politics, is quite impressive.

In 2006, Unger simply pounded his GOP opponent in Republican-friendly Berkeley County, clearing 63 percent. In the rest of the district, Unger did even better: clearing 67 percent.

Unger can compete with Capito in her base region. Unless Capito can rack up big majorities in the Panhandle, the math just does not work for her in the rest of the district… especially as she continues to lose ground each election in the other major population center of WV02 (Kanawha County).

Capito’s vote percentage has fallen in each of the last three general elections (60% in 2002; 59% in 2004; 57 in 2006). Had anyone from outside the district itself invested in Mike Callaghan’s energetic but underfunded challenge in 2006 until the weekend before the election, Capito would have dropped well below the 55 percent figure which redflags vulnerable incumbents.

Unger is uniquely suited to chip away or (Lord willing and the DCCC actually writes some checks before election day) actually reverse Capito’s margin in the county she has to win big. He’s a proven vote-winner in the region key to unseating Capito.

FACTOR TWO

The erosion of Democratic support among values voters has converted a lot of previously reliable Democratic voters into tacit Republicans when it comes to federal elections. We simply have lost a lot of our old pro-labor base on the abortion issue. They can’t in good conscience vote their economic self-interest at the expense of their moral code. In a district in which a plurality of Democratic primary voters self-describe as pro-life (let alone the general electorate), the identification of the national Democratic party’s rigidly pro-choice stance has created for the Republicans the wedge they have used to keep Capito in office.

WHY UNGER WINS

Remember I said GENERALLY progressive politics?

John Unger is pro-life. And I don’t mean the heartless, calculating kind of pro-life that seems to fill the ranks of GOP office-seekers. Unger spent a year working for Mother Teresa (I kid u not.check pix as a college kid.

Just as an aside, is there any better way to annoy Christopher Hitchens than to back a guy who worked for Mother Teresa?

His position on abortion is a matter of deeply held faith rather than political calculation. And, when you check out his websites and see all his charitable and relief work, you will realize this is a man of compassion in action. His concern for future generations does not end at the moment of birth.

Contrast Unger’s position on abortion with Capito’s twists and turns over the years on this vital issue.

Capito spent her early career as a pro-choice Republican. When she decided to run for Congress, she began to morph into a pro-lifer. By the time she filled out her NPAT form for Project Vote Smart for the 2004 cycle she was checking off on opposing abortion except in the cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the woman, voted for the Global Gag Rule, and rated a 30 percent from NARAL.

Attempting to keep her feet in both camps, Capito spoke one way to choice groups and another to lifers… effectively blurring the public perception of her true position and allowing folks to see what they wanted to see.

However, Capito made a rather uncharacteristically overt and unambiguous move in the wake of the GOP losing control of the House: she joined the GOP House Pro-Choice PAC.

I can only spitball as to the logic behind her decision. Perhaps she decided in the wake of the loss of the House, the wind was blowing in the other direction (and in the word of Mayor Quimby, let it not be said that she did not also blow).

In any event, she has made an enormous strategic blunder. Abortion was the only thing holding her up among fundamentalist voters. At the very least this will suppress their turnout. More likely it will seriously erode her margin among values voters. Almost certainly it will hurt her at the polls in a district where pro-choice is not an edge in a Democratic primary… let alone a general election.

Now imagine the following scenario:

THE MANCHIN AND GIULIANI FACTORS

Governor Joe Manchin will be heading the ticket. And running as a pro-life candidate. With his favorability and job approval ratings in the 80s and facing only a sacrificial lamb GOP challenger, the only real question is if 70 percent is a ceiling or a floor for his vote. Manchin is going to have long coattails.

This is going to happen. It will boost Unger across the district. Republicans will be demoralized. Indies will trend heavily Democratic. And wayward Dems will come home even if just to jump on the winner’s bandwagon.

But imagine the scenario if Rudy Giuliani is on the GOP ticket. The voters of WV02 will have a choice between pro-life Democrats and a Republican federal ticket headed by a Planned Parenthood Contributor and seconded by someone who flipped to the other side on the pro-life majority.

The Republican edge on values issues evaporates and possibly reverses. Capito will be bleeding lifers all over the district while facing Unger popular in the region she has to rack up even bigger majorities than ever just to survive.

THE PANHANDLE DEPENDENCY:

The math does not add up to a majority for Capito without the Panhandle margin. Berkeley County alone accounted for 14.74 percent of her total 2004 vote (think that’s the best year to use as it was the last Presidential election year). Her dependence on huge winning margins in Berkeley has  grown and continues to grow over the course of her terms in office.

In the 2002 off-year cycle, Berkeley County accounted for 11.05 percent of her vote total. In 2006 the figure swelled to 13.29 percent. Extrapolating from this and the 2000 to 2004 change, just to stay even from her a natural erosion elsewhere, she would need to boost her Berkeley County numbers to 17 percent of her vote total.

Now what that means in performance on the ground is Capito would have to boost her percentage of the Berkeley County vote from 68.5 percent in 2004 (which was rung up with the massive Bush exurban GOTV effort deploying enormous resources there virtually unopposed) to 79 percent in 2008. She would have to raise her vote total from 21772 to 25105 in a county which only saw 31768 votes in a record-turnout year for the GOP.

Does anyone think she can do that against a guy who pulls 63 percent of the vote AGAINST the tide?

CONCLUSION: UNGER BEATS CAPITO

John Unger is uniquely suited to win this race.

Why do you think the DCCC recruited him to run? Why do you think West Virginia’s Congressional delegation took the unprecedented step of endorsing a candidate before the filing deadline?

John Unger is the only dog we got who can win this fight. Capito has left her flank open on social issues. Unger can exploit this. Capito has become too reliant on unsustainable margins from the Panhandle to hold her seat.

MONEYBALL

With the GOP having lost control, Capito can’t raise money like she did when she was in a position to reward her corporate benefactors. Despite moving back to the Finance Committee (usually a gold mine as financial services firms line up to throw money at its members) after the 2006 thumping, Capito’s fundraising is lagging (309K cash on hand in her last quarterly versus 472K at the same point in the last cycle).

And her peril is greater than it appears. With the majority, she could raise vast amounts quickly. With Democrats holding the majority, there is very little incentive for business to up the ante for Capito. She simply can’t raise two millon in the last months before Election Day 2008 now because it is no longer a prudent investment for big business. She is no longer positioned to give them a good return on the money invested.

My guess is she will max out around a million and a half dollars in 2008.

This sounds like a lot, but one has to consider what she had to spend to survive Mike Callaghan’s energetic but underfunded 2006 challenge to Capito.

WHY HER 57 PERCENT IN 2006 WAS AN UNDERPERFORMANCE

As I whined earlier, the Callaghan campaign got almost no institutional support from the national party apparatus and campaign committees. While Callaghan did a fantastic job raising 600K from a less than wealthy district (in comparison, the 2004 nominee raised less than 100K), the total is somewhat inflated as most of the money did not arrive until it was too late to do anything with it.

After a bruising three-way primary against two essentially unelectable opponents, Mike Callaghan’s campaign was essentially broke. With the noticeable lack of outside-the-state financial support, Callaghan had to take valuable time away from the stump in a district which has historically rewarded retail campaigning to focus on personally raising from small donors enough money to keep the offices open and the phones on.

Callaghan had no choice. There simply aren’t enough max or even high amount donors in WV02 to raise enormous sums of money without a lot of time-intensive effort by the candidate.

Meanwhile, Capito was raising money in increments of hundreds of thousands as leading Republicans willingly trekked to the state on her behalf. It is truly shameful that Capito was able to raise $2.44 million to add to the million she had salted  away from past campaigns with out breaking a sweat because her party gave her backing while Democrats left our nominee twisting alone in the wind.

And so we arrive at Labor Day 2006. Capito starts her media campaign. Fully aware that Callaghan does not have the funds to go on air, she unleashes a relentlessly upbeat series of ads in a massively heavy rotation. She doesn’t mention Bush. She doesn’t mention she’s a Republican. She’s just this nice lady you shouldn’t fire.

Then the Mark Foley scandal breaks, Capito is a member of the Page Board. She takes the tack that no one told her, conveniently ignoring her job was to provide oversight and her own responsibility to keep herself informed. She panics and goes negative. And I mean, she goes viciously, relentlessly, personally, and dishonestly negative against Mike Callaghan. She drops a million and a half dollars on negative ads (and at West Virginia rates, that is an enormous number of gross rating points). She keeps this up for weeks. Until the week before the election, West Virginia’s radio and TV is wall-to-wall Callaghan-bashing ads.

Meanwhile, Democratic nominee Mike Callaghan doesn’t have enough money to respond… unless he wants to miss a payroll for the campaign staff. It is to his credit that he chose to take the punches rather than short his people. He goes on the road and tries to fight back as best he can.

I said this district rewards retail ( and it does, as the last three flips have gone to the candidate who outworked on the ground the opponent who relied on an air war alone). West Virginians expect to know or at least meet the folks for whom they pull the lever. But no district rewards retail enough to overcome a $3,000,000 to none edge (especially when a radio spot costs twenty bucks a run).

And so it goes. Capito spends all the 2.44 million she raised for the 2006 cycle and the million or so she had stashed away for a future statewide run. Perhaps realizing her unceasing negativity is building to the point of backlash, in the last week and a half, Capito shifts to an (arguably…and weakly so) humorous TV spot where she’s saying she’s busy and scurries around in fast-motion silent movie style.

A late poll shows Callaghan closing. The national party throws in enough money for a small buy the weekend before the election. That is all Mike Callaghan had to fire back at three million bucks of mostly vicious, personal, and fallacious attacks over the course of three months.

Despite this utter lack of support for a promising young challenger, Callaghan actually knocked Capito’s percentage down a couple of points… nearly below the 55 percent vulnerability trigger.

With any backing at all, this would have been a much closer race. With substantial backing in the wake of the Foley scandal and Capito’s ridiculously incoherent rationalizations of her irresponsibility, Callaghan would have beaten Capito.

If this is an unreasonable conclusion, why did Capito spend it all? She’s been saving for a statewide for years. I see no other reason than she saw the possibility of a defeat which would derail her political future. Kudos to Mike Callaghan for making her spend it all (“make him spend it all, Arch” was the unofficial motto and slogan on the most popular bumper sticker of Capito’s father’s run against Jay Rockefeller, my fellow West Virginians of a certain age will recall).

WHY AM I RANTING THEN?

I am terrified we will let let another golden opportunity pass. In John Unger we have another viable candidate with a winnable race against a vulnerable incumbent in a Democratic leaning district in a swing state.

Face it, folks. The way Congressional districts are drawn these days, there are very few seats left where we have a reasonable chance of a Republican-to-Democrat flip. WV-02 is one of the best chances we have.

And we are going to need it.

We caught the Republicans napping in 2006. And Foleygate broke just at the right time to derail their counteroffensive. They were about to start waving the bloody shirt right when the Foley/Page Board scandal shifted the environment (remember we were falling fast in the generic preferences the three weeks before the Foley story broke).

The GOP is doing everything they can to force into retirement any of their folks who carries a whiff of scandal. They are cutting loose from President Bush.

Simply put, we can’t count on them making mistakes again they way they did in 2006.

And now we are playing defense. In politics, like a knife fight, it is always easier and more productive to attack than defend. We have to be smarter and tougher than we were in 2006 just to break even.

We simply can’t afford to pass up opportunities like the one John Unger (campaign site).

It is encouraging to see Members from the leadership showing early support for Unger and his race in WV-02. I truly hope this is one they shortlist for special attention.

And I beg anyone who reads this to contact the DCCC, their unions and professional associations, friends, neighbors, and anyone they bump into on the street to get involved.

Check out Unger’s bio and record. This is a good man with a great shot at winning a crucial seat.

The campaign e mail is info@ungerforcongress.org