Tag: DNC

• DNC/RNC: The RNC seems to win the fundraising month for March, in a bit of a split decision. The DNC reported $7.57 million in contributions last month, while the RNC pulled in $6.7 million. However, $2 million of those Democratic dollars were transferred from the Obama campaign. More ominously, the RNC is sitting on $23.9 million cash on hand and no debt, while the DNC has $9.7 million cash on hand and $6.9 million in debt.

• IL-Sen: Hot on the heels of his $845 fundraising quarter, the new Rasmussen poll shows Roland Burris might want to make some post-2010 plans. 4% of respondents say they will “definitely” vote for him and 54% will vote against, with 39% saying it depends on who’s running. 62% think he should resign, with 24% believing he should remain in the Senate. (The poll doesn’t test Burris in any head-to-heads.) The poll also finds Jesse Jackson Jr. looking badly tarnished in the wake of the Blagojevich implosion: his favorables are now 32-63. One other tidbit that makes Lisa Madigan’s job harder if she runs for IL-Gov: Pat Quinn’s job approval is a surprisingly high 61-37.

• AR-Sen: Blanche Lincoln has drawn at least one legitimate challenger for 2010: state senate minority leader Kim Hendren has announced his candidacy. Hendren has self-funding abilities and a strong base in northwest Arkansas (the traditionally Republican part of the state), which at least gives him a leg up in the primary. Hendren, however, is old (71)… old enough that one claim to fame is that he lost a race to Bill Clinton (the 1982 gubernatorial primary, when Hendren was still a Democrat)… and promising to serve only one term. Lincoln defeated state senators in both her 1998 and 2004 bids.

• NV-Sen, NV-02: GOP Rep. Dean Heller says that “his plan today” is to run for re-election, but he’s also refusing to rule out a run against Handsome Harry Reid. (J)

• IL-14: After getting their pants kicked in by Democrat Bill Foster in two consecutive elections, the Illinois GOP may turn to the Name You Know in 2010 — Dennis Hastert’s son, Ethan. 31 year-old Ethan Hastert, a Chicagoland attorney, says that he’s “exploring” a run for his dad’s old seat, and is already polling his name against Foster in a trial poll. Ethan’s previous claim to fame: serving as assistant to Lewis “Scooter” Libby. (J)

• FL-05: Jim Piccillo will be challenging Ginny Brown-Waite in this light-red district. Piccillo has an interesting backstory: no previous political experience, and was a Republican until last year when he was driven away by the tenor of the campaign, but the recipient of a lot of media exposure after being profiled by the NYT in a feature on Florida Republicans abandoning the party. At least he sounds better than this guy.

• DE-AL, FL-10: Our top-shelf Democratic recruits have launched new websites: John Carney and Charlie Justice. (D)

• Polltopia: Our friends at Public Policy Polling are once again letting readers decide which Senate race they’ll poll next. The choices: Georgia, Illinois, and Oklahoma. Get busy voting and then tell us which race you picked in the comments. (J)

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties — starting in 2012 — might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable — at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan — one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes — and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

– The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates’ margins of victory in the preceding general election — with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina — and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

– The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

– Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they’ll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

– Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren’t held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

– This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

– By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

– Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

– Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However — should that not happen — states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

– Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions — the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

– All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

– Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

– Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state — Virginia or Maryland — is closer to its own margin of victory.

– American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad — not having Electoral votes of their own — will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.

Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri

North Carolina

Indiana

Florida

Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio

Georgia

Virginia

Colorado

South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota

Arizona

South Carolina

Iowa

New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Texas

Nevada

West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi

Wisconsin

New Jersey

New Mexico

Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas

Nebraska

Oregon

Kentucky

Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington

Maine

Louisiana

Arkansas

Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut

California

Illinois

Delaware

Maryland

Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska

Idaho

New York

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah

Oklahoma

Wyoming

Vermont

Hawaii

It’s the third year that Democrats control both chambers of the Iowa legislature as well as the governor’s chair, and party leaders want to seize the opportunity to pass some good labor legislation. In 2007, Democrats controlled the Iowa House 53-47 but couldn’t find enough votes to pass a “fair share” bill that would have forced individuals represented by unions to stop being “free riders.” In 2008, Governor Chet Culver angered labor activists by vetoing a bill that would have expanded collective bargaining rights. That prompted several major labor unions in Iowa to stop giving to Culver’s campaign committee.

This week a “prevailing wage” bill dominated debate in the Iowa House. It’s one of organized labor’s top legislative priorities for this session. Democratic leaders want to pass this bill, and Culver, who wants to heal last year’s wounds, has spoken out strongly on the issue.

Although Democrats now have a 56-44 majority in the lower chamber, they were unable to find a 51st vote for the prevailing wage bill during five hours of debate on Friday. Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy now plans to keep the vote open all weekend, sleeping in the chamber, until some Democrat’s arm can be twisted on this issue.  

I don’t want to wade too far into the Iowa weeds here; I’ve written more on this mess at Bleeding Heartland.

I’m bringing this to the attention of the Swing State Project community because it underscores the cost of the inadequate get-out-the-vote effort last year on behalf of our statehouse candidates.

Last summer Barack Obama’s campaign took over the “coordinated campaign” role from the Iowa Democratic Party and promised to work for candidates up and down the ticket. But staffers and volunteers in the unprecedented number of Obama field offices didn’t even collect voter IDs for our state House and Senate candidates. Our legislative candidates weren’t usually mentioned in scripts for canvassers and rarely had their fliers included in lit drops. After the election, Rob Hubler, the Democratic candidate in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district, took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the GOTV effort.

In the end, Obama carried this state by 9 points, but we lost several excrutiatingly close races in the Iowa House (more details on that are at Bleeding Heartland). If even one of those races had gone the other way, we would have the votes to pass the prevailing wage bill without the fiasco that is now unfolding.

The Iowa Democratic Party must run a better coordinated campaign in 2010 and must insist that the GOTV in 2012 is about more than re-electing President Obama. Even Obama’s general election campaign director in Iowa, Jackie Norris, admitted that more could have been done for the down-ticket candidates:

I also think that a lot of the people who voted were new voters and while we educated them enough to get them out to support the president they need to now be educated about the down ballot races.

I have stopped donating to the Democratic National Committee for now, because I am concerned that new DNC chairman Tim Kaine plans to replace efforts to strengthen state parties across the country with a 50-state strategy to re-elect President Obama.

We need better coordinated campaigns to GOTV in 2010 and 2012, because even if Obama remains as popular as he is now, support for him will not magically translate into votes for other Democratic candidates.

As the fate of the prevailing wage bill in Iowa shows, lack of attention to down-ticket races will affect what Democrats can achieve long after the election.

WaPo:

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine will become chairman of the Democratic National Committee later this month, serving as the top political messenger for Barack Obama’s administration even while he finishes his final year in the governor’s mansion, several sources said.

Kaine, who emerged as one of Obama’s vice presidential finalists this summer, will operate from Richmond in a part-time capacity until January 2010, when he will become the full-time DNC chairman. Kaine is constitutionally barred from running for reelection.

Brownsox points out that the current governor of Virginia is going to become chairman of the DNC, while a former DNC chair is trying to become governor of Virginia (Terry McAuliffe, of course).

From the Politico:

Hoping to maximize congressional gains,  the DNC is taking out a $10 million line of credit to split equally between the House and Senate campaign committees, according to a top Democrat familiar with the move.

The decision to go into the red for the DCCC and DSCC comes as party operatives see more races coming into play, especially in the House. The goal: To take advantage of what is shaping up to be a Democratic wave by picking up as many seats as possible, giving the party a massive governing majority and making it more difficult for the GOP to recapture power in future cycles.

So where will this money be felt? We didn’t see any major expenditures filed yesterday with the FEC by the D-trip, but I expect tonight will be a lot busier.

This week, I had the opportunity to participate with my fellow 5th district candidates in a forum sponsored by WPSU TV to discuss job creation and economic conditions in the 5th Congressional District.  As we fielded questions on the various issues, I paid close attention to how my views on job creation and retention along with overall economic development strategy differed from my opponents.   What I heard from my Republican opponent was numerous statements about “incentives” and “tax credits” to entice businesses to locate or expand in the 5th district.  

When government provides “incentives” they give funding to a business through grants / loans, while “tax credits” grant certain exemptions that allow a business to omit paying some taxes by writing off eligible expenses.  Regardless of what form they take, “incentives” spend federal government funds and “tax credits” decrease revenue coming to the federal government.   While this may be a reasonable plan when the federal government is fiscally strong with a surplus, it is impractical to suggest at a time when the federal budget has a $482 billion deficit and $9.6 trillion in debt is owed to foreign countries including the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.  

Throughout this campaign, I have made the case to the voters in the 5th district the federal government cannot help revive our failing economy, much less deal with other important domestic issues, until the federal budget is balanced, a surplus is growing and the debt to foreign nations is paid down.   It is irresponsible when a candidate for federal office proposes creating new “incentives” or offering “tax credits” to corporate America while we have record deficits and debt at the federal level.   Sadly, this is more of the same failed fiscal policies we’ve seen during the last 8 years.

The same day as the WPSU forum, the Centre Daily Times printed a story about the recent unemployment rates released by the PA Department of Labor and Industry.  Throughout the 5th Congressional District, unemployment and economic conditions are some of the worst in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.   In fact, the 2 counties with the highest unemployment rates in the state were here in the 5th district with Cameron County at 7.6% and Forest County at 8.4%.   Perhaps even more troubling was the fact that 15 of the 17 counties in the 5th district are above 5% unemployment with the only exceptions being Warren County just slightly under at 4.8% and Centre County at 4.2%.

Not only do we have the highest unemployment rates, but the US Census Bureau reports that median family incomes in the 5th district are, on average, almost $12,000 less than the rest of the nation.   The US Census Bureau — 2006 American Community Survey lists the Median Family Income for the 5th Congressional District of Pennsylvania at $46,863 versus the U.S. average of $58,526.   Worse yet, while we are averaging significantly less in income than other areas of the country, we are paying the same rising costs for food, gas, energy, automobiles, clothes and other necessities that we need in daily life.  During the WPSU forum the issue of young people leaving the 5th district after graduating from high school and college was discussed.   It is obvious the difference in income levels plays a huge role in the departure of our young people from rural central Pennsylvania.

Of course, the question still remains, how do we create jobs, lower record unemployment rates and increase income levels in the 5th Congressional District and spur the economy at the national level?   The federal government isn’t going to fix this for us because they don’t have the financial resources to do so.   The time has come for certain sacrifices to be made by those who have profited in recent years.  

We need our business leaders to realize there are no more handouts for them if they are running a profitable business.   Too often, businesses on solid financial ground want the government to provide incentives and tax credits before they will expand and create new jobs.  We need corporate America to voluntarily reinvest their profits to rebuild our nation’s economy without the expectation of incentives and tax credits.  

And to the wealthiest citizens, the time has come to stop complaining if you have to pay a little more in taxes to get us out of the fiscal mess from the last 8 years.  To accomplish this, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans must expire as scheduled in 2011.  Once we get the fiscal mess straightened out, then a new set of tax cuts for poor and middle class, roughly 90% of the working population, can be put in place.

At the federal government level, a strong, stable fiscal policy that balances budgets, builds surpluses, pays down the debt and stops borrowing from foreign governments will eventually allow the federal government to get back to supporting economic development and job creation.   This can only be accomplished if voters send fiscally responsible people to represent them in Washington.  Contrast my message of fiscal responsibility to that of my opponent who continues to voice support for failed fiscal policies that will continue to threaten our national security through higher deficits and more debt to foreign sources.

2008 Continues to be Historic

When I decided to enter the race for the US Congress, I did so with a slight thought in the back of my mind that, in some small way, I might be involved in an election that was historic.   Now, with September upon us and just over 2 months until Election Day, it is obvious that history will be made in 2008.  We could see the first African American elected President of the United States in Barack Obama, whom I support,  or we could see the first woman elected Vice President in Sarah Palin (as part of the McCain ticket, I’m not so excited about that prospect).  At the DNC Convention in Denver, the speech by Barack Obama on Thursday was one of the greatest presentations I’ve ever watched.  He was flawless in his presentation and he showed the country and the world that he is the strong, articulate leader we need to solve the problems facing our country.  

And the announcement on Friday by Senator John McCain that his choice for a running mate was the first term Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin was a gutsy call to say the least.   It will be interesting to watch the rest of the campaign and learn more about Governor Palin.  

Happy Labor Day and Prayers for the Gulf Coast.

On behalf of the McCracken for Congress campaign, I want to offer a Happy Labor Day to the working people in the 5th district.  People in rural Pennsylvania are known for their strong work ethic.   All they ask for in return is a fair wage and benefits that will allow them to care for their families and put food on the table.

Finally, we all need to be sending our prayers to the people and communities on the Gulf Coast as Hurricane Gustav moves across the Gulf of Mexico.  We never want to see a replay of the destruction and despair that we saw during Hurricane Katrina.

Please help in any way you can to help the residents of the Gulf. You can donate to the Red Cross at this link:

http://american.redcross.org/s…

Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

This diary is cross-posted at McCracken’s campaign blog, PA’s Blue Fifth

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

You all knew it was inevitable: at some point, Democratic donors, exhausted by the finally-concluded presidential primary and looking into their empty wallets, would take a little breather from giving, allowing the GOP to play catch-up.

Fear not, though, fellow downballot enthusiasts: most of the damage occurred at the DNC vs. RNC level. The DSCC and DCCC had still slightly better months of May than their Republican counterparts, and they maintain towering edges in cash-on-hand.

Committee	May Receipts	May Disbursements	May Cash-on-Hand	May Debts & Obligations
DSCC (est.)	$5,920,000.00	$4,950,000.00	$38,530,000.00	$0.00
NRSC (est.)	$4,890,000.00	$2,700,000.00	$21,560,000.00	$0.00
DCCC	$6,091,737.14	$4,192,275.05	$47,174,105.00	$0.00
NRCC	$5,017,140.54	$5,096,869.15	$6,654,801.50	$0.00
DNC	$4,795,890.97	$5,263,698.72	$3,965,886.11	$6,306.93
RNC	$24,377,740.11	$11,513,030.77	$53,508,001.57	$0.00
Total Democrats	$16,807,628.11	$14,405,973.77	$89,669,991.11	$6,306.93
Total Republicans	$34,284,880.65	$19,309,899.92	$81,722,803.07	$0.00

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t worry too much about the DNC/RNC chasm: the DNC has consistently lagged the RNC lately. That points to one of the most remarkable things about the Obama campaign: for most people, the Obama website has become top-of-mind for direct giving, leading to a bypass of the DNC.

One potential warning sign I see on the horizon, though, is the RNC turning around and allocating a lot of its money to Congressional races, as it realizes that its last best shot at preventing Democratic hegemony is in the Senate by holding GOP losses to 3 or 4 there. If polling continues to go south for McCain along the same trajectory as the last couple weeks, it’s not out of the question that the RNC will consider writing down the McCain campaign as a casualty loss, in order to bolster the likes of Gordon Smith and Roger Wicker.

The party needs unity and money, so I am trying to organize a fundraising effort – a moneybomb – for June 3rd.

June 3rd is, as most readers here will know, is the day that Montana and South Dakota will hold the final elections for the Democratic presidential nomination.  When the nomination campaign come to a close, many people will be focusing on who's winning and who's losing, but I thought that date would be a good day to focus instead on party unity.  No matter who we supported for the nomination it would be a perfect time to come together and show support for the party.

And because this race has been so long and so expensive, it has diverted a lot of money that would have otherwise found  it's way to the national party.  And right now, the DNC is badly trailing the RNC in cash.  The party will need money to support the eventual nominee and to continue it's fifty state strategy.

I've created a website to promote this effort:

  http://www.dncmoneybomb.com

I'm just getting this effort started, but I'm hoping this is something the netroots can get behind.  (I figure if the Ron Paul people can pull it off, surely dems can too!)

I've been puzzled lately as I watch netroots activists support old school, DLC type Democrats. 

 

I thought the point of the netroots movement was to elect progressives.  To “crash the gate” with new candidates.  To bring fresh ideas into the Democratic Party.   

I can't count the races I've seen already where there is some state senator or state rep who is now going to run for Congress with the urging and blessing of the DCCC and DNC and state Party's.  And it seems our netroots activists are flocking to them.  Even though these candidates are much closer to DLC Dems than they are to being Progressive Dems. 

Look how disappointed we have all been over FISA, Iraq, etc.  We want to know why the Dems never stand up.  Well it is because we keep putting the same people — or people just like them — back into office. 

 

I'm not advocating we start a bunch of challenges against Dem incumbents ala Lamont/Lieberman. 

But in those seats where there are incumbent Republicans, why aren't there more netroots, grassroots, progressive candidates?  Why aren't we out recruiting them?  Supporting them?

And when there are those candidates, why are netroots, progressive activists supporting the old school Democrats?

If we really want change, then we have to change who is in office.  

I liked the votevet initiative last time.  Those guys weren't old school Democrats who had worked their way up the party structure and were just running for Congress because it is the next step on their resume.

It was an effective initiative.  It matched candidates with their districts.  

The electorate is ready for change. If we keep running the same old school Democrats who sound exactly like Republicans (except for maybe stem cells and abortion) then what is the point?