November 12, 2005


Democrats Losing Race For Funds Under Dean (Chris Cillizza, November 12, 2005, The Washington Post)

The Democratic National Committee under Howard Dean is losing the fundraising race against Republicans by nearly 2 to 1, a slow start that is stirring concern among strategists who worry that a cash shortage could hinder the party's competitiveness in next year's midterm elections. [...]

Now, the latest financial numbers are prompting new doubts. From January through September, the Republican National Committee raised $81.5 million, with $34 million remaining in the bank. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, showed $42 million raised and $6.8 million in the bank.

"The degree to which the fundraising has not been competitive is obviously troublesome," said former congressman Vic Fazio (D-Calif.), who is now a lobbyist here.

All of their big donors got their clocks cleaned betting on the euro against the dollar.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 12, 2005 9:08 AM

Via The Professor:

Talk about negative feelings, but according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, this is the first time since 1994 that a majority of Americans as a generation proposition want to dump their individual Member of Congress. Question: In the 2006 election for U.S. Congress, do you feel that your representative deserves to be reelected, or do you think it is time to give a new person a chance? Answer: Re-elect My Incumbent - 37%,. Elect a New Person - 51%.

1994, eh? Maybe if the Republicans in Congress stood for something, they'd have more support.


Doesn't matter how much money they have if I don't vote.

I received a solicitation and survey in Sept from the RNC. They asked if I intended to vote in 06 and 08.

I think the long message written in big letters gave them a clue.

Posted by: Sandy P at November 12, 2005 10:14 AM

Yes, if the midterm were held today they'd lose some seats.

Posted by: oj at November 12, 2005 10:18 AM

As is often noted the only poll that matters is the one on election day.

The GOP and Bush look pretty low now. The GOP debacle over spending cuts and ANWR this past week was especially troubling. But as OJ notes the election isn't being held today.

Bush's speech yesterday might be a sign that the WH is getting back on track. We'll have to see if this is true and if the spineless GOP congresscritters get their act together. And if things improve with Iraq, gas prices, etc. things will look up.

As for the money issue we kept hearing in '04 how the GOP was cleaning the DNC's clock but then outside orgs like Moveon and others made up the difference. The same will probably happen in '06.

Posted by: AWW at November 12, 2005 10:25 AM

i would like to see gwb stop backing gutless wonders and start backing more conservative candidates in the primaries. he won't of course, and so 2006 will be a down year for the party, which will of course cause the current crop of pansies to wilt even further. such is life.

Posted by: lonbuds toe at November 12, 2005 11:35 AM

The handpicked guys have stellar election records.

Posted by: oj at November 12, 2005 11:49 AM

and vote just like john kerry. they are also turning off huge swaths of the electorate. but hey, "realism" isn't about results just appearances, so let the good times roll.

Posted by: lonbuds toe at November 12, 2005 2:13 PM

Thune? Coleman? etc.

Posted by: oj at November 12, 2005 2:30 PM

Martinez? Coburn? DeMint? The newbies aren't the problem, it is the old timers like Specter, Warner, etc who have seniority and prefer collegial relations in the Senate club to getting stuff done.

Posted by: AWW at November 12, 2005 2:37 PM

The MSM is worth several tens of millions to the Dems, at least.

Sandy: In 1994 how many incumbents lost? Not even close to half, of course. Polls ain't reporting--they're an attempt to make news and drive an agenda.

Posted by: b at November 12, 2005 2:54 PM

What effect has the MSM had on any races in the past thirty years?

Posted by: oj at November 12, 2005 3:03 PM


Evan Thomas ranked the media's impact against Bush at 15%, and then revised downwards to 5%.

At even 5%, Bush carries WI, MN, PA, NH, perhaps MI, and maybe even NJ.

Not only that, but the stories the media DOESN'T cover are the ones that are the most obvious examples of bias - like the NJ Court ruling on Toricelli, Schumer's link to the DNC folks who lifted Michael Steele's SS number, the whole Sandy Burglar mess, the questions about Able Danger, the avoidance of Kathleen Blanco's ineptitude, etc.

And in very close Senate races, the media certainly influences - look at Ashcroft's loss in 2000, Thune's loss in 2002, Boxer's first win in 1992, Landreiu's first win in 1996, etc. The GOP is not going to win any Senate races by 524 votes, nor will the question ever be asked "why not?".

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 13, 2005 12:59 AM

Who won?

Posted by: oj at November 13, 2005 9:10 AM

The media clearly attempts to influence elections by changing popular perceptions.

Maybe the best example is the Thomas-Hill case. At the time of his confirmation polls showed a majority of the people believed Thomas' side of the story. A year later, thanks to a constant media drumbeat, the majority believed Hill. This shift was one of the explanations for 1992 being the so-called year of the women, which gave us Boxer, Murray, and Feinstein.

Looking ahead, the daily reporting of every Iraq casualty and the almost daily publication of the total war dead can't help but play to the Democrats' favor in 2006.

It can work the other way, as when Cronkite ended his 1980 newscasts with the number of days the hostages were being held in Tehran. That almost certainly hurt Carter's chances for re-election, but such examples are very rare.

Posted by: George B at November 13, 2005 12:15 PM

He's on the Court, no?

Posted by: oj at November 13, 2005 1:26 PM

You were the one predicting 50-0; it wasn't just the war that kept it at 32-18.

I ask again, will we ever see a GOP Senate victory by 524 votes? I rest my case.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 13, 2005 2:06 PM

Yes, it was just the war.

Posted by: oj at November 13, 2005 2:13 PM

The explanation for the gap between the Fair Model projection of Bush's 04 vote (which was about 57%) and reality was the Evan Thomas 5% that Jim refered to above.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 14, 2005 1:14 AM

It's delicious to see the party of left-liberals falling so far behind in the funding battle, since it was mainly liberals who backed the idea of "campaign finance reform" (the NYT editorial page, etc). Beautiful.
(Yes, McCain pushed it and Bush signed it, but that was to try to get good press from the MSM.(That sure worked well!))

Posted by: Tom at November 14, 2005 5:05 PM