MyDD :: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5%

Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5%

by Jim in Chicago, Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 01:57:08 AM EST

also posted at DailyKos

Well, the FEC reports are in and they tell a very interesting story:

Itemized Contributions from District:
1.5% Duckworth
64% Cegelis

Percentage of Individual Contributions under $200:
18% Duckworth
49% Cegelis

more after the flip

For all those who complained about Cegelis's burn rate (cough, Adam B, cough), check this out:

Burn Rate:
61% Cegelis
96% Duckworth

This helps explain why, instead of campaigning in the district, Duckworth is flying to NY this weekend to be at a fundraiser headlined by Hillary Clinton.

Not that Duckworth is having trouble raising money from NY: The above numbers don't include Duckworth's 48-hour filings, which saw 47% from NY, 27% from Chicago, and 0% from the district.

Read all about it here: http://www.soapblox.net/chicago/showDiar y.do;jsessionid=AF31B5006FFFA338807567B9 17943773?diaryId=1358

These figures make yesterday's endorsement of Cegelis by Dick Simpson, the former Chicago alderman whose anti-machine political battles and government reform initiatives are legendary, resonate even more. As Simpson wrote:

It's difficult to be competitive when the party bosses are supporting their own hand-picked candidate, but Christine's independence from those political pressures ensures that the voters will have a strong representative whose only loyalty is to them.

MyDDers, please ask yourselves which candidate is truly "Crashing the Gate" and consider supporting Cegelis: http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contri bute

Thank you.

Tags: Cegelis, Duckworth, IL-6, FEC (all tags)

Permalink :: 82 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

This is an excellent and rigorous diary. I applaud you for your insight and your acumen. Particularly egregious is the 1.5% contribution rate from within the district for Ladda "Tammy" Duckworth. Also egregious but not necessarily surprising is the donation rate from New York state. But Tammy, similar to one of the Senators of New York state, is an unabashed carpetbagger, an interloper, an empty skirt with no credentials imported from without. But as Mitch Landrieu, Mary Landrieu's brother, said of Suzie Haik Terrell during the 2002 Louisiana Senate runoff, "With $15 million you can transform any strawwoman into a politician." Why such words come to mind unbidden should be of no surprise to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

And Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama desire to discuss ethics and lobbying reform?

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 02:51:43 AM EST

Stop Bashing Fellow Dems (1.00 / 1)

You sure arn't going to win my support attacking a women who lost two limbs in the service of her country.

Honestly I do not think I have heard one possitive thing about Cegelis...only negative things about Duckworhth. Focus your fire on the real enemy.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 03:19:00 AM EST

Re: Stop Bashing Fellow Dems (3.00 / 1)

Clearly Cegelis has convinced a lot of people to campaign for her without having to make promises of political favors. (No one donating their time or giving $75 expects personal favors). And last time out she got 44% of the vote - not too bad given the district.

I agree with you that the criticism of Duckworth dominates -- but this is the primary. It's a proving ground to see where the candidates are vulnerable and the strongest remains standing at the end of the day. If the criticism of Duckworth's being a handpicked outsider gains traction in the primary, it most likely would also hurt her in the general.

By the way, what was criticized was not her being a wounded war vet. You seem to suggest that her military service was being criticized, which it clearly wasn't.

John McCain: Fund Iraq? No problem! Kids Health Insurance? Screw 'em.

by PeterB on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 03:38:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Bashing Fellow Dems (none / 0)

If the criticism of Duckworth's being a handpicked outsider gains traction in the primary, it most likely would also hurt her in the general.

That's precisely why this negative campaigning is so irresponsible. You are all just giving Roskam ammunition in the general. Not that he wouldn't pursue this line anyway, but you guys are just making it easier for him.

And I'm not even a Duckworth supporter. I have no dog in this fight. I just want to see somebody come out of this primary and take Roskam down. Although, I have to say that that the people here are making it much less likely that I will be sending any money to Cegelis after the primary. I'm thinking more and more that I would rather spend it in, say, PA07/08 or MN01 or OH06 than have the possibility that some of it would find its way into Michael's pocket for more door hangers.

by Jay on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 06:20:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Full Disclosure - Now (none / 0)

Jay:

What does your comment at the end mean. " ....some of it would find its way into Michael's pocket for more door hangers?"

I happened to get in the mail yesterday a campaign piece from the Cegelis campaign. I have to say that the piece read like a lot of the same phrases I read in these blogs and comments from Michael from Chicago and his twin brother Jim. Are you saying that Michael and Jim have a financial stake in Cegelis as opposed to just a political stake?

Do the rules of the internets require full disclosure? Take for example, comments from "illinois 062006" also sound a lot like "ilyayavitz". I happened to notice the same identical disparaging remark about Duckworth from this person under two different names and on different blogs.

Perhaps there are some ethical challenges facing these folks?

by riverred on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 08:45:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Full Disclosure - Now (1.00 / 1)

Not that he would have ever voluntarily disclosed it, but Michael has received over $6K from the Cegelis campaign for graphic design work.

Details are, for example, here

As far as ethical standards go, none would seem to apply here. I mean, he doesn't have any professional obligations here or anything like that. He does come across as kind of an asshole when he starts spreading derogatory sh*t about a candidate without disclosing that he is on the payroll of her rival.

As far as "Illinois062006", I am pretty sure that that is another psuedonym for "ilyayavitz," who was also "metonym" and is really an Art History grad student at UC named Kenneth Brummel

by Jay on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Full Disclosure - Now (none / 0)

Not trying to get into the middle of anything here but I was sure I had read this about Michael in Chicago having done some graphic designing for the Cegelis campaign. A quick search didn't find it. Maybe I dreamed it. Anyway, you'uns can go back to fighting now.

by Demo Dan in Dayton on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 01:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

for what it's worth (none / 0)

Another $2710 over the past two months.

by Adam B on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 05:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: for what it's worth (none / 0)

And $2,100 of the grand total is an in-kind donation, including $965 last period.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 05:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoa. (none / 0)

It took me a bit to realize this might be an issue -- there may be a real legal issue regarding your corporation's provision of free in-kind services to a campaign, unless you're organized as a single-member LLC, in which case there's another set of rules.

To understand the problem, think of a parallel example: Wal-Mart providing $2100 worth of copier paper to every Republican candidate in the country.

by Adam B on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 04:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Full Disclosure - Now (none / 0)

No, I reside in the district. U of C is not in the district.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 07:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, it would never occur to the Repugs (3.00 / 2)

to challenge Duckworth on her lack of ties to the district if Christine didn't do it first.

Is that what you're going with? Really?!

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, it would never occur to the Repugs (none / 0)

Yeah, it would never occur to the Repugs to challenge Duckworth on her lack of ties to the district if Christine didn't do it first.

Are you learning impaired? Go back and read the part of my post where I say

Not that he wouldn't pursue this line anyway, but you guys are just making it easier for him.

Why are you helping Roskam out here? Shouldn't you be on our (by which I mean the Democratic) side of the fence and not his?

by Jay on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 02:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe it's actually a legitimate criticism (none / 0)

or are only criticisms of Cegelis legit in your book?

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 05:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe it's actually a legitimate criticism (none / 0)

Actually, I would prefer that neither candidate criticize the other. What is the matter with running a campaign along the lines of "Cegelis is a progressive. She is progressive in these 19 ways. If elected, she will do these 27 things." You can run a campaign like that without mentioning Duckworth's name at all.

Or, if you must contrast yourself with the other candidate, you could do it on the issues rather than attacking the candidate's character or motives or supporters, as so many people around here seem wont to do.

by Jay on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 05:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's hard to contrast against a blank slate (none / 0)

Duckworth has no history of taking positions on the issues, and the ones she's taking now are very cookie-cutter.

As for never criticizing an opponent in a primary -- what planet do you live on? In any seriously contested primary, candidates and their supporters will criticize the opponent.

As Harold Washington used to say, "Politics ain't beanbag!"

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 08:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Bashing Fellow Dems (none / 0)

Quite the Republican manner of quelling debate. No dissent is allowed, for you are "aiding and abetting the enemy." Rahm Emanuel aided and abetted the enemy by intervening so aggressively in the district. Regardless of the outcome of the primary, although we all know Cegelis will win, the enemy has already been delivered a ton of ammunition to use against the winner. Write Rahm or the DCCC (dccc@dccc.org) if you want to complain about emboldening and buttressing the Roskam campaign.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 08:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Bashing Fellow Dems (none / 0)

You know that Kerry Got 47% right? I mean Hyde seemed to me like a weak Incumbent but i suppose 44% isn't that bad when going up agenst a Incumbent but than again wasn't Kerry going up agenst a Incumbent..

Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.

by Liberal on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 01:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hyde's constituent services got him votes (none / 0)

In my canvassing today I met a guy who says he normally hates Republicans but voted for Hyde because Hyde helped his family with something. Bush didn't have that advantage. This is why the district as an open seat is potentially winnable now.

Look at the spread between Clinton and Gore's vote totals in the district vs. whoever went up against Hyde in their years and you will see that the spread is usually a LOT more than 3 percentage points!

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 05:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This Isn't Attacking Duckworth (3.00 / 3)

It's not about Duckworth as a person. It's about who's supporting her and consequentially where her allegiances lie.

It's those who are using her as a candidate in a district where she doesn't have deep roots and local support who should be ashamed of themselves. Not those who are supporting a homegrown candidate who has worked hard, paid her dues, and who continues to support other progressive candidates at the same time that she herself is in a difficult race.

I've never heard anyone here who supports Cegalis criticize Duckworth personally. And I've heard plenty said positively about Cegalis, so I can only conclude that you aren't listening as well as you might. If Duckworth were to run in a more appropriate district, I'm sure that many of who support Cegalis would also support her. I know that I would.

We simply refuse to be manipulated. It's bad enough when Republicans try to do it. But when Dem leaders try the same BS, that just adds insult to injury.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 04:11:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Isn't Attacking Duckworth (none / 0)

Well stated. Especially when we are attempting to expose the culture of corruption and the insertion of lobbyists in the political process, we should be very suspicious of anyone, especially a Democratic challenger, who is courting lobbyists in the first stage of their fundraising.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 08:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Bashing Fellow Dems (none / 0)

No one is immune to criticism, especially if they are a self-fashioned "leader" who is a "fighter" and a "decision maker." Your comment wins the award for being the most sanctimonious and LAME.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 04:56:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Bashing Fellow Dems (3.00 / 2)

Has it escaped your notice that this is a primary election??? Where you have to vote for one democrat and against the others? Where responsible campaigning necessarily involves pointing out the differences among the candidates?

When people enter a new candidate into a race where two others have already been running, this is what happens.

by Feh on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 12:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two points (3.00 / 0)

1. What's wrong with a strong contested primary? Not a damn thing. Especially when we're talking about an open seat. That seat doesn't belong to Duckworth just because the party bosses say so.

If Cegalis has enough organization to get this far, then it's time for Duckworth to prove her mettle.

2. Who says the real enemy isn't within the party?

Even as a relative moderate/conservative Dem, it pisses me off to see the supposed moderates (many of whom are merely adjusting their positions, not their beliefs) decide to start ramming their views down the throats of voters.

by jcjcjc on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 05:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Bashing Fellow Dems (3.00 / 3)

And how many people are posting positive comments about Duckworth - aside from her being a wounded war vet?

I see lots of post from supporters of the Duckworth campaign sneering at Cegelis for having less money than they do, but none of these people ever seem to speak up about their candidate and her own merits, only about the superiority of their own fundraising.

by Feh on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 07:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Duckworth Supports (none / 0)

Have never, to the least of my knowledge, attack another candidate.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 10:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bashing Fellow Dems (none / 0)

So no supporters of either candidate are bashing the other candidate.

Fine.

Then why all the constant complaints about bashing, when the fact is that people are discussing the tactics, strategy and probable success of their respective campaigns? Here, on this blog, where such discussion is entirely ontopic:

MyDD.com is a political blog. The bloggers, Jerome Armstrong and Chris Bowers, with guest blogs by Matt Stoller and others, provide their own analysis and commentary on campaigns, elections, and world affairs

by Feh on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 11:21:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (3.00 / 1)

bashing other Dems. Just stop it - its sickening.

by kelvinchapman on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 07:37:27 AM EST

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (2.00 / 2)

Almost $6000,000 of Democratic money is presently being spent in order to eliminate a Democrat named Christine Cegelis from the political process.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 08:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (none / 0)

$600,000

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 08:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (none / 0)

NO. It's being spent to attempt to elect a candidate you don't like. Period. Obviously there are many people obviously think the candidate you don't like is more electable in the General. That's all.

You have the perfect weapon to disprove them: win the primary. If your candidate is as wonderful as so many say....then you have a good shot.

But do you have a good shot in the General against an even better funded Republican where money is even more important?

I just can't wait until that damn thing is over. It is sucking the life out of this and other blogs when there are so many other races to work with and on.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:09:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (none / 0)

No, you are wrong. $600,000 of Democratic money is being spent on a primary, not a general election, and I imagine that money is better spent in a district such as NM-01 or CT-02, where Nancy Johnson has a two million dollar warchest. But no, $600,000 must be spent on television commercials to bolster the nonexistent reputation of a woman who has no connection to the district she desires to represent. And her status as a carpetbagger already calls into question her "electability."

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (none / 0)

It's just another primary. Jesus you can't be that Blind. Two groups disagree. Get out of the way and let the voters settle it.

Hell here in CA the 34 STATE Senate race will run over 750K on the primary alone. And that's a state seat.

Get over it.

Ever think someone's smart enough to build their general election funds now while they are hot news? Just because it was raised in the Primary doesnt' mean it will be spent in the Primary.

Who ever wins will need big money.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (none / 0)

You have no idea how Duckworth is spending her money. It's is absurd to make such assumptions.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 10:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (none / 0)

She is spending it before the primary. I therefore believe the interpretation that it is being spent against Cegelis, Scott, and, by implication, the Democratic voters of the district, can be sustained.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 10:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (none / 0)

How do you know she isn't spending that money, targeting voters for the general. I'm sorry but even Cegelis supporters must admit that she is a long shot to win the nomination.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 10:14:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (none / 0)

No, we must admit no such thing. There is no sign of support for Duckworth in the district - which happens to be where the voters are, unlike the money. Almost no one here is contributing to her campaign. I have seen no letters to the editor in the local papers supporting her. There are no Duckworth yard signs to be seen.

Whenever I canvass my precinct, I run into people who tell me: Oh, Cegelis, yes, I voted for her the last time. I'll vote for her again.

No one, not one single living soul, has ever expressed the slightest intention of voting for Duckworth.

by Feh on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 03:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP WASTING TIME/ENERGY and AMMUNITION (none / 0)

Yes, we do. Here's a link to the campaign finance reports.

http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/pml1_sql_ efview.exe?DoFn=C004185252006&server =PML2

Duckworth has spent nearly $400,000 already and you can bet that she will spend as much as she can before the primary to have a chance.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 09:57:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

I just wish that all of this energy was directed at the Repuke in the district.

by dataguy on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 08:55:44 AM EST

misdirected energy (none / 0)

So you're saying the DCCC should not have dropped a third candidate into the primary right at the end of the filing deadline, or is it your view that Christine was just supposed to step aside for this juggernaut?

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:45:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: misdirected energy (none / 0)

No. I imagine he meant that is that this should be a typical normal primary where someone wins and then the loser pledges their support to the winner.

He's objecting to the daily Discussion and energy spent fighting about the goddamn thing. Let the district vote. Then it's over.

Until then can we concentrate on other races?

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (3.00 / 3)

I never understand why pointing out the differences between Duckworth and Cegelis is always interpreted as a "criticism" or disparaging of Duckworth. Duckworth supporters seem easily offended, and turn rude very fast -- at least on pro-Cegelis posts on blogs. No one disparages Duckworth's service to our country, or her disability -- but we can look at her support of the war, and her stands on other issues and say: no thank, I'd rather have a true progressive. And why is it offensive to point out that most of her cash and support is coming from outside the District?

In a primary those differences are paramount. In the general, there are more similarities between Democrats and differences with Republicans. Frankly, if Duckworth wins the primary, I will throw a little cash her way and let her run her campaign the way she's been taught: by throwing money at it -- and I will hope and pray she wins. If Cegelis wins, I will throw what little money I can afford her way, and be actively engaged in the race.

Roskam is the evil lurking out there, and of course it is paramount to defeat him.

by Maven on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:52:53 AM EST

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

Oh, yes, and in the interest of full disclosure: I live in Chicago, I post under other names on other blogs, and while I have given money to the Cegelis campgain I've never taken money from it for any reason.

by Maven on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (3.00 / 2)

Jim, thanks for the info. Don't get disheartened by people who don't understand the difference between a primary and a general election. Rahm Emanuel gets away with his bag of tricks against progressive and grassroots candidates because too many knee-jerk Democrats don't bother to look into it before assuming an attack on Rahm Emanuel is an attack on Democratic Party values and ideals (instead of a defense of them). Duckworth has every right to run-- and she's far from the worst candidate Emanuel is foisting on a district and trying to use as a cat's paw for his own ambitions. I have spoken to grassroots challengers all over the country who are sick at heart to have to spend their time and resources fighting their own beloved party because of Emanuel, instead of concentrating on Republicans (who often vote the same way as Emanuel, especially when it comes to supporting corporations over consumers).

by DownWithTyranny on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 01:30:55 PM EST

This crap pissed me off (none / 0)

Do any of your realize that the reason Duckworth gets such a small percentage from her district, is because she has attracted a nation-wide following? I would be interested in what percentage Paul Hackett got in his '05 race.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 01:34:40 PM EST

Re: This crap pissed me off (3.00 / 2)

Click to enlarge:

by Tim Tagaris on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 02:08:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This crap pissed me off (3.00 / 1)

And I post that with absolutely no comment on the race itself, Christine, or Ladda -- just to answer your question. Those close to me know exactly how I feel about IL-6. And since we are talking full-disclosure, I too was paid by Christine (I think 1.6k total), back in early 2005 to help with an initial online push via the blogs. I guess I can't avoid controversy with the people I've worked for online (Chuck/Casey -- Hackett/Brown -- Christine/Ladda)

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 02:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ROTFLMAO (3.00 / 1)

You forgot to mention cheering Victoria Wulsin. ;)

by blogswarm on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 02:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ROTFLMAO (none / 0)

I started laughing when I saw the map and then totally cracked up with your comment right after Tim's. You guys rock!

by Demo Dan in Dayton on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 02:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ROTFLMAO (3.00 / 3)

Yeah, Tim rocks, we all know that. But before most of the world realized that Hackett was a big deal, Tim had already figured out why -- it came from the ground up. It started with the people in district, which got the statewide people like Tim. Sure coordination of the big blogs was huge, but it started on the ground with people in the district -- the exact opposite of what Duckworth is doing in IL-06.

by blogswarm on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 03:05:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Those close to me know exactly how I feel... (none / 0)

...about IL-6."

Care to share your thoughts with the rest of us? Please.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 08:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This crap pissed me off (none / 0)

And let us remember that the fundraising for Hackett was for his race against a REPUBLICAN named Jean Schmidt. Duckworth, who is not from the district she desires to represent, who was never from the district, who never had any connection to the district, and who never will have any connection to the district, is running against an independent, progressive Democrat named Christine Cegelis. Hackett also ran during a SPECIAL ELECTION, the only special election at the time when his candidacy for the House received national attention. Comparing Duckworth's fundraising to that of Hackett simply does not hold up to scrutiny, as the circumstances of their candidacy are so different. And Cegelis is no Jean Schmidt. That should be obvious.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not All Created Equal (3.00 / 1)

You're overlooking the basic fact that a nationwide top-down following is a far cry from a nationwide bottom-up following and proves very different things. Nobody doubts that she's got a nationwide following--following Rahm, Hillary and all sorts of other folks who don't necessarily represent the district either.

Still, I'd be equally suspicious of a "grassroots" candidate who couldn't seem to raise any money in their district. I'd think, "Do the activists there know something I don't know?"

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 02:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Burn Rate (none / 0)

You miss the point in a few ways:

(1) You're supposed to spend all your money at the end of the cycle.

(2) You fail to consider money raised before this period. Yes -- Duckworth spent what she raised during the first two months of 2006. She also still has 120K on hand. That's why she's been able to be on tv two weeks before the election, yet Cegelis, to my knowledge, still isn't. Duckworth has about a 3:2 cash on hand advantage right now.

by Adam B on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 04:57:16 PM EST

Somehow I KNEW you'd come up with (none / 0)

an excuse for Duckworth doing exactly what you criticized Cegelis for.

You didn't disappoint!

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 05:13:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Somehow I KNEW you'd come up with (none / 0)

Read what I said again. The problem with Cegelis' burn rate was that she didn't have enough left to spend in the last two months of the campaign. And, so, she doesn't. Why isn't she on tv yet?

by Adam B on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:11:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

TV TV TV (3.00 / 1)

To you that's the be all and end all of politics.

Even with all her money, I'm told Duckworth can only afford cable channels like CNN and MSNBC in the middle of the day. Even if she could afford the networks, any available spots were probably bought up by the well healed Republican Gubernatorial candidates (like Oberweis) long ago.

In any case, we'll see if this is really a better use of resources than having hundreds of volunteers canvassing the district on a regular basis.

In "Crashing the Gate" Kos and Jerome argue that Democrats need to move away from their reliance on TV in order to build a real and lasting connection with voters, which is what Christine is doing.

In my canvassing yesterday (Saturday), I had people tell me how refreshing it was to have a real person come to their door and ask for their support -- that no Democratic candidate had ever done that. I got several complaints about all the calls (including robo calls) they are getting from the Duckworth campaign, as well as the excessive number of mailers (at least 7 different pieces according to Duckworth's own people).

My favorite was the elderly woman who could not read my Cegelis T-shirt. She squinted and said "You're not with that Duckless woman who keeps calling me are you?" I assured her I was not.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 02:01:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TV TV TV (none / 0)

That is precious: the Duckless woman who incessantly calls and harrasses the Democratic voters of District 6.

by illinois062006 on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 03:03:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TV TV TV (none / 0)

Indeed, we'll see. TV is not the end-all or be-all, but it is necessary to reach voters. And focusing in CNN/MSNBC makes sense -- that's where the primary voters are.

by Adam B on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 10:03:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Going to disagree (none / 0)

I'm told the spots are running during the day, during the week. I'm not sure how many primary voters are home watching CNN/MSNBC during the middle of the day. Certainly primary voters will watch these channels more than others as you point out. But in the middle of the day during the week viewership isn't what it appears when just saying CNN/MSNBC.

I suspect that due to Duckworth arriving late, most of the major network spots were bought or that the daytime spots on cable were all she could afford.

And I'd also guess that any primary voter who is tuned in enough to watch CNN/MSNBC during the afternoon already knows what is happening on the ground between Cegelis and Duckworth.

It may make sense in conventional wisdom approach, but we'll see how effective it is. I agree with Jerome that TV is less and less effective, especially from a cost/benefits ratio.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 10:33:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Going to disagree (none / 0)

We'll see. Mid-day, mid-week is where you reach older voters who follow politics, and it's a good, cost-efficient place to start. Networks don't make a lot of sense for Chicagoland congressional races; you're paying to reach a lot of people who can't vote for you.

by Adam B on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 10:35:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Local media shift (none / 0)

Adam, just as an FYI, this has been the tone in the local papers over the past week. There is a definate shift in their coverage lately. From the Daily Herald:

Cegelis may be short on funds, but not supporters

Couple paragraphs that seem to be the theme that is repeated in the local newspapers (even the Sun Times) this week:

Enter Duckworth, who so far has filled mailboxes in northeast DuPage and northwest Cook counties but appears to be still trying to connect with the district's Democrats on a personal level.

Still, Cegelis seems to be caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place: if she loses, all she's worked for the past three years will be for naught. If she defeats Duckworth, she's irritated the candidate backed by Emanuel and U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama and might be left hanging in the fall by the national party.

A spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said that won't be the case, contending Republican candidate state Sen. Peter Roskam's ties to the GOP establishment -- Vice President Dick Cheney comes to Addison for a fund-raiser on Monday -- make the seat winnable.

"When it comes to the race in November, regardless of who the nominee is, it's an open seat and we'll support our nominee against the Republican," said Jen Psaki, a DCCC spokeswoman.

It's local media. But the point I want to make here is that this type of media report is catching on and being repeated more and more - a week out from the election.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 01:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Local media shift (none / 0)

Here's the odd thing, though: the "underfunded grassroots outsider v. party-embraced candidate" narrative is an easy one for the media to understand and convey. Had Cegelis done a better job on COH, I don't know what story they'd tell, then.

by Adam B on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 02:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Local media shift (none / 0)

I hear ya.

But the odd thing to those of us on the ground is that they didn't seem to be interested in such a simple narrative earlier on. It's almost like no one believe what they were seeing on the ground and then they suddenly woke up. I wonder why they've suddenly changed their focus and started reporting the race as it is actually happening.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 10:56:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you bother? (none / 0)

Look, if the Lamont numbers come in and are even close to being reversed in distribution, the same people whill swap positions. Adam B will be screeching about the percentage of out of state donors, and others will using Adam's arguments here.

Duh.

by ElitistJohn on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 05:25:11 PM EST

That's why Lamont insisted on signing up (none / 0)

1000 volunteers IN CONNECTICUT before agreeing to enter the race.

If Duckworth made a pledge like that even on a much smaller scale -- say 100 volunteers in the district -- she could never have entered the race.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 08:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's why Lamont insisted on signing up (none / 0)

Yep, and I'm for Lamont. But the fact remains that those who suck up to the DCCC/DSCC will flip to the opposite argument in a heartbeat if it's an outsider candidate, and vice versa.

by ElitistJohn on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's why Lamont insisted on signing up (none / 0)

Nice try on the anticipated hypocrisy, but no. I'm sure much of Sen. Lieberman's money is national, anyway.

by Adam B on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:13:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's why Lamont insisted on signing up (none / 0)

It is hypocritical, for Lieberman is exposed on the first page. In fact, all the arguments made here by Duckworth's (paid?) apologists are hypocritical.

by illinois062006 on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, again again. (none / 0)

Unpaid by anyone -- Duckworth, DCCC, etc. Unlike some of Cegelis' defenders.

by Adam B on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 10:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

Here's the deal,folks in the district:

Come election day Vote for whoever the hell you want!

Until then please give the whole topic a rest. There are 434 other races too.

Like real potential pickups like: CA-50! and LA-1 (which you will begin to hear about soon)and many others.

We need 17 seats at minimum. Maybe we could put some of this energy into productive use.

You already have the perfect solution. Vote on election day.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:02:00 PM EST

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

But those of us who are affected by the outcome of the DCCC's unfortunate and unethical intervention in our district will continue to discuss this problem, because we refuse to allow the labor of local candidates to be exploited by an apparatus out of touch with local voters and local values.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

Then discuss it on a LOCAL blog and leave those interested in other races to work on them.

BTW...if you are spending this much time on blogging when do you precinct walk for your candidate? Or any of a million other tasks more useful than this.

Simply win the primary and you prove your point.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

But this is a national problem. Tammy Duckworth's candidacy is a symptom of a broader, national problem with the Democratic Party.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:42:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

I have helped the candidate. And I plan to walk for her once I finish a few pressing errands.

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If people weren't interested, these diaries (none / 0)

wouldn't zoom to the top of the recommended list every time.

This race DOES have national implications because Illinois is an early primary. If Cegelis wins, the DCCC will have to think twice about stepping on local toes the rest of this year, and Rahm et al. will have a LOT of explaining to do to all those people whose money they used to try to take Christine down. (I'm sure Kerry wasn't the only one raising money under the pretense that it was for the general election against a Republican, not a Democratic primary.) Many local politicians here in Chicago who should be Christine's natural allies let Rahm and Durbin talk them into supporting Duckworth. They will likewise have to answer to their most active supporters who are incensed by their actions.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 02:11:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If people weren't interested, these diaries (none / 0)

While this may or may not have national implications...and I have no opinion...the howling at the MOON syndrome here helps neither candidate and detracts from other races.

The district voters will tell us who they like best.

Personally I think both better start working on big war chests for the General. And I see only one doing that.

If Ms Cegelis, bless her I really don't care, wins...and can't raise any real money...she's cold meat. And that would be true of any candidate...not just her. ANY CANDIDATE!

I wonder if either can win, which is another reason all this bs just drives me crazy when there are other races to be concerned about.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 02:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

96% burn rate (none / 0)

How do you translate that into building a war chest for the general?!

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 04:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

Why LA-01? Will Tallistch topple Jindal? Please tell. What is happening in LA-01?

by illinois062006 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 09:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LA-1: The New Orleans Rebirth and Dem Victory (none / 0)

The anti-incumbent feeling is tremendous. The destruction in that District was horrible and the relief minimal even now.

That whole subject will come into much sharper focus as we begin to get things working in the next couple of weeks. The Candidate, Stacey Tallitsch, has lost everything too and is returning to LA-1 only next week after finally finding a home for his family. He has support but has been marooned near Chicago since Katrina. His fundraising is just now starting because of the terrible and strange circumstances.

Imagine a District where you don't even know how many people are left, where the refugees were taken and your well-developed donor list is now composed of people who are either gone, dead, in refugee status in an unknown location or busy rebuilding their lives.

We have already built a strong professional team, with a couple of spots yet to be filled, to start the real campaign even though he began last August and we know the anti-Republican incumbent feeling is thick. We will also likely have to have outposts around the US as we find the areas where the refugees from the flood were taken. That info will eventually be forced from FEMA by the State.

It will be the most unique Congressional Race in History. Yet as Democrats, the maladministration of Katrina and the unneccesary deaths and destruction that FOLLOWED Katrina, we believe to be Bush's greatest domestic Achilles Heel. Even now little has been done to rebuild the City. Only the French Quarter is really operating.

We intend to keep the spotlight on New Orleans which will help all Democratic candidates everywhere.

The new website will launch Tuesday and Stacey heads back to the District on Wednesday. We already have two Union endorsements and expect to pick up all of them.

I will be moving to New Orleans as soon as some fundraiser here in California are finished. Or at least that's the current plan.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 02:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

Good work. Thank you for actual evidence instead of conjecture and emotional allegations. It confirms what I've assumed all along but I'm glad to see someone actually put in the time to present the proof.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:49:16 PM EST

Re: Conribs from IL-6: Cegelis 64%, Duckworth 1.5% (none / 0)

I think you wrote a great diary, and your point amount the party bosses is right on. You know, their arrogance might even be OK if they ever won. They keep on failing, but they never lose their jobs. Instead, they fail - we lose our jobs, health care, pensions, etc. We don't hold Bush accountable, and we don't hold the Dems accountable. We really need all the Ceglis we can find. Lets keep our fingers crossed for Lamont, too.

by oakland on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 03:22:42 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.