Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races

Keeping a close eye on developments in the 2008 U.S. Senate races

Monday, April 16, 2007

Afternoon Quick Takes

  • Deepest condolences to the entire Virginia Tech community regarding today's tragic events.

  • Colorado: Congressman Mark Udall officially files for the 2008 Senate victory race. He starts off with a $1.5 million bankroll, including over $330,000 raised in Q1.

  • Virginia: MyDD's Singer notes that more than one-third of Virginia Republicans want John Warner to retire. Judging by Q1 fundraising numbers, they may get their wish.

  • New Mexico: White House spokesperson Dana Perino can't confirm whether or not Pajamas Pete Domenici and Bush had a conversation about firing former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias because she hasn't bothered to ask Bush if such a conversation took place, though she notes that she can't rule it out. Call me crazy, but this seems like a topic on which the Oval Office would want complete clarity. In the Bush administration, it really seems like the title of Press Secretary should be changed to Obfuscator-in-Chief.

  • Louisiana: Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, brother of Senator Mary Landrieu, has announced that he will not run for Governor in 2007. While further strengthening Republican Bobby Jindal's position in the gubernatorial race, it probably also helps out Senator Landrieu's 2008 re-election chances by preventing "Landrieu fatigue."


    Blogger Blue South said...

    what is the likely price tag for the colorado senate race? Im sure that it will be extra expensive since it is an open seat, but I know little about costs of things like TV in Denver and Colorado Springs.

    What do past races indicate?

    7:23 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    2004's Salazar-Coors general saw spending at $17.2 million, with Salazar (D) raising $9.8 million and Coors (R) raising $7.8 million.

    2006's gubernatorial race between Ritter (D) and Beauprez (R) saw both candidates around the $4 million mark each.

    If there is a GOP primary, the eventual GOP nominee's resources will be somewhat sapped, but, if the nominee is Schaffer, the Club for Growth will be right there with independent expenditures.

    Udall has $1.5 million on hand right now. Depending on the state of the possible GOP primary, I'd like to see Udall around $3.5-4 million on hand by the end of 2007.

    8:15 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger Blue South said...

    So we are probably looking at between 8 and 14 million total, probably around 11 or 12.

    1.5 is a good start on that, but he didnt really take in much this quarter which is so very odd.

    8:22 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Quick Question: Looking over the nifty chart that SSP posted concerning fundraising and the Senate races, it looks as if Senator Dole's $1.7 million raised in the 1st quarter is one of the top fundraising quarters for any one, incumbent or challenger, running for Senate in 2008, perhaps only rivaled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Given that, would you agree with the assessment made by the Washington Post, Cook Political Report, and Daily Kos that this is an impressive amount of money to raise?

    8:54 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Apologies, I meant Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

    8:55 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger James L. said...

    Our chart at SSP left off a ton of incumbents, though...

    9:19 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    It left off Pryor's 1.7 million, McConnell's 1.7 million, and Levin's 1.5 million. I'm not sure who else would have raised that much. Maybe Sununu, Smith, Durbin, or Cornyn. I'm also obviously not counting Joe Biden.

    Any way you slice it, though, Dole is at the top of fundraising this cycle. Funny how some people thought, because of the NRSC's involvement, that her fundraising was "languishing".

    9:36 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger Blue South said...

    "I must raise a million month to protect my seat in 2008"

    Those are the exact words of Senator Dole in a letter sent out in January. She is behind her goal.

    I did a fairly detailed look at Santorum who spent a ton of cash, and knew he was gonna need it this early in the cycle, and found that in no later quarter did he raise double what he had raised in the first quarter. For Elizabeth Dole to meet her own goal she would have to raise double what she raised in the first quarter EVERY OTHER QUARTER. Now, if she doesnt need 20 million to protect her seat then there is no issue. But she is telling her core supporters that is how much she needs. She is off pace to do so.

    9:43 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    You didn't answer my question, not that I expect either of you to.

    Regardless of what you think her fundraising goal was, would you call her 1.7 million dollars, which is near or at the top of all candidates running for Senate in 2008, impressive?

    9:47 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger Blue South said...

    No. Your statement implies that she is running against all the other incumbents as if fundraising was some sort of competition amongst them.

    She has to raise enough to win. Her numbers can only be judged in that light.

    10:00 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - once again you demonstrate how empty your commentary is and how you're happy to twist others' words around.

    What did I actually post about Dole's $1.7 million? Did I say $1.7 million was a bad take? Did I say that $1.7 million was a lackluster haul compared to other incumbents? No, I did not. But that doesn't matter to you. You want to trash anybody that doesn't praise the Republican.

    What did I actually say?

    I cited Dole's actual fundraising letter where she clearly says that she wants to raise "nearly $1 million a month" - her exact words. And then I compare her actual take, $1.7 million, to her clearly stated goal of $1 million a month - or, for the three-month quarter, $3 million.

    And, because you simply don't like the conclusion that I draw, you accuse me of lying despite the fact that I clearly use Dole's exact words.

    I never said $1.7 million is good or bad. I only said that it fell considerably short of Dole's personally-stated goal. And you, va blogger, flipped out.

    10:25 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    You're exactly right, you never said whether Dole's fundraising total is good or bad. You did, at one point, call her fundraising ability "languishing", despite the fact that the fundraising cycle wasn't over yet, but I digress.

    This is your golden opportunity to make a judgement on whether Dole's fundraising, which was near or at the top of all other candidates this cycle, was good or not.

    And blue south, no I'm not implying that she is in competition with other challengers. I'm using other campaigns as a reference point.

    Again, let me reiterate that I don't actually expect either of you two to answer a direct question that's asked of you when it can't be spun into something negative against Senator Dole. However, I will continue to ask it, just in case.

    10:48 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - you don't care about facts - all you care about is how something can be spun.

    But, since you asked a question, I will do something for you that you haven't done for anybody on this blog and give a straightforward answer, demonstrating an ounce of undeserved respect.

    In a vacuum, $1.7 million is a very solid number. With no other factors to consider, $1.7 million is a quality haul for a Q1 the year before an election.

    Unfortunately, Dole isn't running in a vacuum.

    1) She was the Chair of the NRSC, so she should have every top GOP donor in the country on her speed dial.

    2) Her overall polling has looked very bad, so she'd need an amazing money showing to overcome the bad polling.

    3) She herself set a goal of around $1 million a month.

    $3 million would have been very impressive. I would have even been impressed with $2.5, even though it was short of her own explicitly expressed goal.

    $1.7 million, while a solid number in a vacuum, is not so impressive to me given the above three factors for Dole. That, va blogger, is my opinion. Other people have other opinions. And the world continues spinning.

    Now, as I clearly said in my original post, which you were happy to twist and misrepresent for your partisan bent, Q1 for an incumbent often represents the low-hanging fruit. A new year, a new cycle to hit up previous donors. If this $1.7 million represents Dole's low-hanging fruit, I don't see how she would manage to get to her explicitly stated goal of $20 million.

    Further, as I say verbatim in the original post, "Her take next quarter will demonstrate how much low-hanging fruit and new donors are left - will her quarterly take for Q2 increase, showing some vitality, or drop off, showing imminent weakness?"

    I'd argue that if her Q2 is below $2.5 million, she is in very rough shape. We will see.

    va blogger, now that I've answered your question (with my answer contradicting nothing that I've previously posted), please stop misrepresenting what I've posted, please stop lying, please stop whining, and please try to stop misspelling lots of words.

    And, again, va blogger, don't forget, this isn't CNN and it isn't the daily paper. This is my blog where I post my opinions about current events. I have never posted a statement of fact that wasn't accurate. If you don't like my opinions and can't stand that they differ from yours, stop reading the blog.

    And, also note that while Senator Dole couldn't exceed her own goal of $1 million a month for Q1, I managed to exceed your expectation regarding answering your question. Maybe I should run for Senate in North Carolina...

    11:48 PM, April 16, 2007  
    Blogger Blue South said...

    So vablogger, let me ask you this. Are her poll results good or bad? Dont be afraid to spin them.

    6:55 AM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Her poll results are bad.

    See how I was able to give you a straightfoward answer without spending 10 paragraphs qualifying it?

    And S2G, you blatantly lied when you said that Senator Craig's chief of staff insulted veterans. There was never any proof or support for that, yet you posted the claim anyways, even after I showed that there was no proof or support for that. So you have, in fact, posted a statement of fact that was inaccurate.

    6:59 AM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - you criticize me on several occasions for being "two-dimensional" and then criticize me ("spending 10 paragraphs qualifying it") when I offer a three-dimensional, real-world response. You just keep proving that your only purpose here is to criticize - not contribute ideas. Because whether my answer is succinct (or "two-dimensional" as you call it) or lengthy and nuanced ("spending 10 paragraphs qualifying it" as you call it), you're only going to criticize.

    As for the situation with Senator Craig's Chief of Staff (for which I have yet to see an apology from Craig or his Chief of Staff), as I have said repeatedly before, look at the soldier's own words:

    "It’s probably the most unprofessional thing I’ve ever heard from a chief of staff of a U.S. senator," Soltz said. "I told him it was rather unprofessional to yell at a soldier who fought for our country."

    Unprofessional and yelled at. I take that as awfully insulting. You can disagree and have a different opinion or interpretation. But you happily harp on it and twist it and call it "lying" (while happily disregarding, for instance, Susan Collins' lie about serving only two terms or creating your own lies about Mike Ciresi's position on self-funding). So, once again, quit whining and quit misrepresenting what I post.

    When you were called on saying that Ciresi "pledged" not to self fund (which is a lie with no other interpretation - "pledge" means "promise," and Ciresi never promised to not self-fund, period), you retorted that it was just a word choice with many interpretations. Now I describe a Chief of Staff "unprofessionally" "yelling" at a soldier home from Iraq and interpret that as "insulting" and you spend months calling me a liar. va blogger, can your hypocritical head be any further up your ass?

    10:56 AM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    I contribute ideas all the time. You just happen to ignore them on every occasion, because its more convenient for you to get into a fight with me over something insignificant than to engage in a discussion that challenges your skewed outlook.

    I didn't criticize you at all for your response, I just don't consider it to be "straight-forward". If I ask you a question that could be sufficiently answered with one word, and you give me over 100, that's not straight-forward. Its an attempt to recognize the magnitude of her feat (since it is undeniable) while at the same time finding a way to put a negative spin on it. However, since I didn't expect a straight-forward answer from you, then I'm obviously not going to criticize you for not giving me one.

    As I pointed out in the comment thread, you can be insulted all you want. The veteran never said that he was insulted, and never said that Craig's chief of staff insulted him. Therefore, your claim was completely made up. The burden is not on me to prove a negative (that the veteran was not insulted), the burden of proof is on you to prove that he was. There is nothing to support such an accusation, other than how you were personally affected emotionally.

    And as I explained to another commenter in a previous thread, my question about Ciresi was an honest inquiry with no intentional political undertones. In contrast, your accusation against Craig was entirely intentional, and a partisan smear attempt against the Senator. Moreover, I backed off my use of the word "pledge", while you continue, to this day, to assert a blatant lie. The two situations aren't comperable.

    12:10 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    "If I ask you a question that could be sufficiently answered with one word, and you give me over 100, that's not straight-forward."

    What if the question could not be answered sufficiently with one word?

    Or, in other words, what if I give you an answer that you don't like (oh, the travesty!)? Do you want my answer or your own answer parroted back?

    va blogger, accept that other people might see things differently from you, or don't bother participating in discussions. Which brings me back to the question, why do you even bother to read this blog with such frequency?

    12:28 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    I believe one word could have been sufficient. In your 10 paragraph qualification (oh no! I criticized you again!), you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know or that you've already said. You could have simply said "no". The amount of text you put into justifying your opinion doesn't make it any more persuasive to me. Though I will admit I was surprised that you would even go as far as saying the amount was a "solid" number. I didn't expect you to say anything that would contradict your horribly premature claim that her fundraising was languishing. So, kudos.

    And I've told you dozens of times by now, this is the only blog I've found dedicated solely to the Senate races. You update frequently, and with many articles I don't get from other sources (granted, the vast majority of them are diary posts from liberal blogs, but every so often you post a legitimate news story). There are more posts that don't have comments from me than ones that do.

    2:08 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - one word would have been sufficient if you're happy with a two-dimensional analysis. But, woah!, weren't you just criticizing me for offering analyses that were too two-dimensional? I guess you're just looking to criticize no matter what. And, in offering a lengthy answer, I'm not trying to persuade you - I don't care what you think. I am simply trying to offer a full and complete answer to a question posed to me. This is my blog where I share my thoughts on current events I find interesting. Why you expect anything else is beyond me. But since that's the appreciation I get for answering your pressing question, perhaps I'll just disregard them in the future, since you obviously don't care what the answer is - you just want to criticize. So, really, quit whining and grow up.

    2:26 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - oh, by the way, you're very welcome for the invaluable service I provide for you, updating frequently with links to many articles you don't get from other sources. Your gratitude warms my heart.

    2:28 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    Where did I criticize you, at all, for the answer you gave? Please point that out to me, because I'd really like to know.

    And how many times are you going to whine about a response that I give you, then turn around and say that I'm whining, and can't handle a difference of opinion? I don't agree that Dole's massive fundraising number is unimpressive. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but eventually, you'll have to learn to live with that pain.

    2:55 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - Where did you criticize my answer? Do you even read your own comments? Well, let's see, you complained that I spent "10 paragraphs" "qualifying" my answer and then said it wasn't straight-forward because it wasn't a one-word response. (Though it's good to know that that is where your attention span punches out.)

    You're whining because you pose a question and then say you don't expect an answer; and then I answer it and you complain about how the answer doesn't meet your standards of brevity or straightforwardness. Instead of just saying "OK, I disagree" you complain and moan and find any way possible to criticize, if not outright call me a liar on occasion after occasion.

    And I don't care about your opinion on Dole's fundraising. When you say "I don't agree that Dole's massive fundraising number is unimpressive. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but eventually, you'll have to learn to live with that pain." you evidence that you were that kid in second grade who couldn't think of a comeback fast enough when another kid called you a jerk, so you just said "No, you're a jerk." Very creative.

    You're the one who comes onto my blog seemingly every 10 minutes to read what I have to write. Want to show me what's what? Quit reading the blog - that'll show me! Or start your own! I can't wait to not read your blog.

    3:12 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    I didn't complain about anything. You did spend 10 paragraphs qualifying your answer. I fail to see how an objective and accurate assessment of the situation counts as criticism in your book.

    I had no standards of brevity. I didn't expect you to be straight-forward (and let's be honest, you weren't) for very simple reasons. A straight-forward answer from you would either have to 1) contradict what you had previously posted about Dole's fundraising, or 2) deny outright that 1.7 million is a large amount of money for her to raise in the first quarter. I knew you wouldn't be able to do either, which is why I didn't expect a straight-forward response. That, however, isn't criticism of you, unless you consider being predictable a flaw, which is your problem, not mine.

    You seem to have this fixation on turning every thing I post into an attack on you, and responding with extreme hostility. I'm frankly not surprised that you ignore valid points that I bring up in favor of exchanges such as these. But to do this, then turn around and say that I am whining and can't handle disagreement, is a bit much.

    4:33 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger Senate2008Guru said...

    va blogger - this is why you can't be taken seriously.

    My answer was completely "straight-forward." There was nothing disingenuous or dishonest about it. You just didn't like the answer.

    Whatever conditions you list as to what constitutes a straight-forward answer are asinine. You're basically saying that if I don't answer the way you want me to, then my answer isn't "straight-forward."

    You've demonstrated time and time again, you're only purpose here is to baselessly criticize. So, I'm done with you on this string now. Feel free to have the last word and misrepresent your heart out.

    5:21 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    You seem to not understand what I mean by "straight forward", which I suppose could cause confusion.

    An answer that you would have to qualify (at any length, just so you don't think I'm imposing an arbritrary parameter here) is not straight-forward. You answered, ultimately, "no". But you couldn't reconcile that with the enormity of the amount of money she raised, thus the need to explain how you discounted her fundraising to the point where you could categorically dismiss it as "unimpressive". That's not a straight-foward answer. Its your opinion, yes, and its one way of looking at the situation. But it would be impossible for you to provide a straight-forward answer without contradicting anything you've previously said.

    Please understand, its not a matter of like and dislike. Its a matter of your opinion not reconciling with the facts. I was simply seeking clarification.

    I don't envy being in that position, but then again, I'm not the one who made the kinds of claims that you did.

    You've still yet to point out where I criticized your response, so I haven't demonstrated anything to that extent. If you could please point out my criticism of your response, I'd love to see it. I'm asking nicely here, so it would be great if you would oblige me.

    6:10 PM, April 17, 2007  
    Blogger Blue South said...

    but if we say "yes" or "no" then you will complain that we arent explaining our positions, and that we are wrong.

    11:10 AM, April 18, 2007  
    Blogger VA Blogger said...

    No, I wouldn't. I was seeking a straight-forward response. On what ground would I then say that you didn't provide enough explanation?

    And blue south, I notice that you haven't taken the plunge either. Is $1.7 million an impressive amount of money or not?

    12:00 PM, April 18, 2007  

    Post a Comment

    << Home