<p>Looks like Howard Dean could use a little fundraising for the DNC from Florida and Michigan.</p>
<p>From the Wall Street Journal political blog:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, not exactly. Not even close, actually.</p>
<p>Terry McAulliffe has been Chairman of the Clinton campaign since she announced her candidacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The credit for 2006 should go where it rightfully belongs, the DCCC under Rahm Emmanuel and the DSC under Chuck Schumer. </p>
<p>Both fought Dean every step of the way, especially on fundraising and allocations of money to candidates. Both used outside resources instead of the DNCs voter database.</p>
<p>Both committees are enjoying record fundraising this cycle, while the DNC under Dean flounders and is all but broke.</p>
<p>The DNC certainly blew it on the FL and MI primaries. That’s a lot of voters to disenfrancise. I also have thought that Howard Dean was a poor choice because he is so devisive. The internal Democrat politics are a big mess.</p>
<p>Swatparent, anytime I read someone describing the voters in Florida and Michigan as "disenfranchised’ I discount whatever follows on the basis that it’s just a repetition of patently false talking points. What makes you think those voters are “disenfranchised?” And who fed you the term?</p>
<p>doctormom50:</p>
<p>Again. Terry McAulliffe has been the chairman of the Clinton campaign since it was announced in January, 2007.</p>
<p>Here is the earliest media quote from McAulliffe the week Clinton’s campaign committee was announced:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The NYTIMES references McAuliffe’s position as campaign chair in a March 2007 article:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/us/politics/31clinton.html?scp=7&sq=Terry+McAuliffe&st=nyt[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/us/politics/31clinton.html?scp=7&sq=Terry+McAuliffe&st=nyt</a></p>
<p>"Swatparent, anytime I read someone describing the voters in Florida and Michigan as “disenfranchised’ I discount whatever follows on the basis that it’s just a repetition of patently false talking points. What makes you think those voters are “disenfranchised?” And who fed you the term?”</p>
<p>Um, why would someone “feed” me anything. I may throw up if I was fed some of the garbage that the DNC puts out.</p>
<p>The DNC made a poor decision about not using votes in Michigan and Florida. The states wanted early primaries and there was no reason to deny them that. Then Obama snubbed these voters and went along with the DNC. So much for his independence!</p>
<p>These voters do feel snubbed. I think that Michigan will go for McCain over Obama, if he is the candidate. Florida may also. The Democratic Party and Obama looked really bad in all of this.</p>
<p>And no one feeds me my words. Do you ever eat your words?</p>
<p>"I would think you and anyone honest would want to disassociate with him, not claim a stronger connection.</p>
<p>Do you know how many times a minute he blinks his eyes, and why?"</p>
<p>Um, what’s the above mean, doctormom50. I must be missing something? I never knew interesteddad to be dishonest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I don’t imagine that you do. </p>
<p>BTW, Penn was never a campaign chair. He was the campaign’s pollster and strategist.</p>
<p>At least based on who is signing the strategy memos now, it appears the strategist title has been taken over by Harold Ickes, who has been a strong “unofficial” presence in the campaign structure all along. Some guy name Bill Clinton is pretty active in the campaign strategy as well.</p>
<p>The Clinton campaign has seen lots of internal turmoil and dissension among the troops. No real good commander in chief.</p>
<p>
Well… let’s take this one step at a time. The states have been on a helter-skelter race to “go first” in recent years, and if the national committees didn’t do something, the first 2008 primary would have been held in 2007 - if not 2006. There was a very, very good reason to make and enforce a schedule, and “deny” any state which decided it should go earlier than the schedule that option. Both the Republican and the Democratic parties elected to “punish” states which broke the rules, they just differed on the nature of the punishment. The people who screwed their voters were the state parties which decided to go forward anyway, with plenty of advance notice of exactly what the consequence would be. Can’t blame this one on the DNC - the state parties decided to break the rules knowing the consequences. </p>
<p>As for Obama snubbing the voters - all of the democratic candidates agreed ahead of time that the votes from the Michigan and Florida primaries wouldn’t count. All of them, including Clinton. As to why Clinton decided not to take her name off the Michigan ballot after making that commitment like the other candidates did, I don’t know.</p>
<p>But as a Californian, my primary vote has never “counted” before this year, and that fact didn’t drive me into the arms of the Republicans. Are you claiming that the delicate flowers of Florida and Michigan who would otherwise have voted for a Democrat in November will vote Republican because they’re just so distraught over “Obama’s snub?”</p>
<p>Puhleeeze. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>One of the reasons the DNC has raised less than the Republicans is that Democrats are giving money by the bucketful to our candidates.</p>
<p>As of March (the most recent compiled figures that I could find since the April numbers aren’t out yet):</p>
<p>McCain has raised $80 million</p>
<p>Clinton has raised $195 million</p>
<p>Obama has raised $240 million</p>
<p>Since it is difficult to send the same money two different places, the Democrats seem to be choosing to send their money to the candidates and not to the Committee. </p>
<p>Furthermore, if you look at the Senatorial Committees:</p>
<p>DSCC raised 4.6 in April, 18.3 this year, and has 6.6 mil cash on hand</p>
<p>NRSC raised 2.1 in April, 9.1 this year, and had 3.4 mil cash on hand.</p>
<p>If you are going to fault Dean at DNC, you might want to take a close look at Elizabeth Dole over at NRSC. </p>
<p>I can’t find the figures for DCCC vs. RCCC (the congressional campaigns) but whatever the figures, the RCCC must find bodies for and compete in 27 seats due to a historically high number of Republican congressmen either retiring or choosing not to run for re-election…27 at last count. That’s an awful lot of territory to run ads and create on-the-ground GOTV in.</p>
<p>Exactly. Every Democrat and Democratic committee under the sun is raising money by the bucketfull, except Howard Dean who has the DNC on the verge of insolvency. What’s that tell you.</p>
<p>And, I might add, using Libby Dole as a measuring stick for Dean’s performance is setting a breathtakingly low bar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh my God. You are so right. She should have been sipping a nice crisp Chardonnay, not too fruity with just a hint of oak.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>only professionals. This is Appalachia, local is better and cheaper.</p>
<p>The real irony of the Crown Royal is that it’s Canadian. ;)</p>
<p>But come on, doctormom50 - Obama did exactly the same thing but with beer. Both candidates are working pretty hard on their pandering.</p>
<p>After this election the Democratic Party will be permanently fractured, and I’m afraid it can’t be put back together. Folks, we are looking at a Republican and independent majority for a long time. </p>
<p>I have finally realized how incompetent the leadership of the Democratic party is. I wish the Republican party changes it stands on abortion, gay marriage, worker rights, etc. Despite all the turmoil in the Republican party, the leadership is still strong. They are even raising more money than their presidential candidate.</p>
<p>I give the Republican party credit for championing the causes of big business, at least, it is doing something. The Democratic controlled congress lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is the only entity in the country with a lower approval rating than Bush. Even Walmart, a company that won’t see a penny from me, has a higher approval rating among labor activists than congress. This whole leadership is very incompetent, they have not done anything useful in congress since they came into power. They have been having a lot of fun at the tax payers expense, and basically competing very hard for the all looser team.</p>
<p>I got emails and phone calls from the DNC. I said I would not give a dime until a candidate had been chosen. The DNC has been spineless.</p>
<p>“Are you claiming that the delicate flowers of Florida and Michigan who would otherwise have voted for a Democrat in November will vote Republican because they’re just so distraught over “Obama’s snub?””</p>
<p>No I think that the white working class voters will not vote for Obama, but would vote for Clinton. If Obama is nominated, I think that Michigan will go for McCain. If they had the Michigan and Florida primaries again, I think they would still go for Clinton.</p>
<p>All of the Reverend Wright craziness is taken very seriously in that group, plus the William Ayers connection, etc… </p>
<p>And yes, many average Democrats in Michigan are very annoyed about their votes not counting. There are lots of “Reagan Democrats” who will vote for McCain over Obama. Obama is an embarassment in some areas.</p>
<p>“But you do not have the age, wisdom, and longevity of living in the US to totally comprehend what is really occurring in this election. It can’t be taught by your parents or professors, or acquired by your innate intelligence.”</p>
<p>I don’t think that trying to discredit a college student’s opinion due to his or her age is legitimate. I am quite old, and agree with 1of42.</p>