DSCC Trounces NRSC in $$$ Race and Other News
The Democrats' fundraising gains were most evident on the congressional level. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $13.7 million to the National Republican Senatorial Committee's $7 million -- taking in more money in March than the NRSC did in three months. The DSCC also ended March with nearly triple the money in the bank -- $9.5 million to $3.45 million.The DSCC's March featured roughly $8.8 million raised! More than the NRSC's entire Q1 of $7 million and putting to shame its March take of roughly $3.7 million. Wow. And, for cash-on-hand, the DSCC already has an advantage of more than $6 million, which covers for the existing debt carried over from the wildly successful 2006 cycle. The NRSC is in a world of hurt. Senator Ensign has been Chair for a whole quarter, so when is he going to kick the fundraising into high gear? We know he hasn't had much (or any) success so far recruiting candidates. Pretty rough for the NRSC.
The best news for the NRSC was that it erased the $1.3 million debt from the 2006 election. The DSCC carried $6 million in debt at the end of March.
"We couldn't have asked for a better start to the 2008 Senate elections," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the DSCC chairman. "The support for Democratic candidates and ideas is enormous and is propelling us to a big lead in fundraising."
Former Nebraska Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey recently tested the waters for a possible U.S. Senate bid, but he said Thursday evening that there was only a 1 percent chance that he would run again - and only if GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel didn't run for re-election next year.Kerrey says that a run is "extremely unlikely," that he'd only run if Hagel didn't, and that his decision will come "very quickly." But, hey, a 1% chance is better than a 0% chance. Another opportunity to look forward to - as though the NRSC needed its meager resources stretched thinner. (HT: PW)
Kerrey asked his longtime political adviser, Paul Johnson, to gauge public opinion on him. That led to Democratic pollster Harrison Hickman's sampling Nebraskans' views with some telephone calls. Hickman didn't conduct a full-fledged poll, Kerrey said.
posted by Senate2008Guru | 11:51 AM
28 Comments:
DSCC:
9.5M CoH - 6M debt = 3.5 million
NRSC:
3.5M CoH - 0 debt = 3.5 million
Hmmm.
Wow, va blogger, is your analysis really going to be that two-dimensional?
The DSCC raised more in March than the NRSC raised in their entire Q1.
The DSCC started off with more debt left over from 2006. Now our cash-on-hand advantage cancels that out, but the DSCC is still far outpacing the NRSC in new money raised.
Hmmm.
By the way, the NRSC cash on hand was reported at $3.45 million, not $3.5 million. Please don't lie about the figures that are clearly listed in the post.
What analysis? I didn't reach any conclusions or make any judgements, like you always do. I was just point out facts that you omitted from your post that shines a somewhat different light onto the subject.
And I was using a base one counting system and rounded up 3.45 to 3.5. So fucking sue me.
"I was just point [sic] out facts that you omitted from your post that shines a somewhat different light onto the subject."
Another lie! Wow.
My post clearly includes in the second paragraph of the blocked quote: "The DSCC carried $6 million in debt at the end of March."
And my post clearly includes in the post-quote paragraph: "And, for cash-on-hand, the DSCC already has an advantage of more than $6 million, which covers for the existing debt carried over from the wildly successful 2006 cycle."
I include not one but two mentions of the DSCC's debt. So please don't lie and say that I omitted it from the post. Seriously, stop lying.
And you conveniently "round up" to try to present the NRSC's figures in a more positive light. I thought you didn't like it when people "spin" the facts... I see, it's OK when you do it.
And, again, please watch the gratuitous profanity.
The DSCC raised $8.7M in 3/07 compared to $3.65M for the NRSC, with total 1stQ receipts at $13.7M and $7M, respectively. That leaves the DSCC with $9.5M CoH (and $6M debt) while the NRSC has $3.5M CoH and no debt (Hotline reporting, 4/20).
Damn the National Journal, and their obvious lies. Such a right-wing publication.
Should we expect you to draft a letter to the editor of the Hotline, bitching about the fact that they reported 3.5 million CoH, and not the proper "3.45"?
What if it was 3.472 million, S2G? Then that makes you a liar for "rounding down" to put a "negative spin" on the numbers by reporting it as 3.45. Or maybe you're just being irrational.
What va blogger ignores is that the DSCC is on an accelerated pace. In another three months, the net gap between the DSCC and NRSC will be much wider than $0.05 million.
This is by all measures a fantastic indicator of what's to come.
I'm not ignoring it. I wasn't making any claims or judgements about the current state of fundraising by either organization. I was simply pointing out that, when you take into account the debt that the DSCC has yet to pay off, the DSCC isn't that far ahead of the NRSC. When you don't pay attention to all the facts, though, you may conclude that they're "trouncing" the NRSC is the money race.
Erm, no. They are trouncing the NRSC. This is the clearest indication that the DSCC has more fundraising pull, and a much greater ability to amass a large warchest for the 2008 campaign. Sure, when you account for debt, they're both in similar positions right now, but that's like looking at a 400 meter dash in the first 40 meters of the race, with one opponent (the NRSC) starting from blocks that are further ahead of the DSCC's. You've gotta look at the pace to tell who's gonna win the race.
va blogger - Straight-forward question time for you:
Yes or No. Given that the DSCC raised more in March alone than the NRSC raised in all of Q1, and that the DSCC more than doubled the NRSC's take in two of the last three months, is it fair to say that the DSCC is beating the heck out of the NRSC in fundraising? Yes or No.
In first quarter fundraising, sure. There's no way to read the numbers differently.
But as James pointed out, the DSCC was starting from in a hole, and when that's taken into account, the two organizations are at a similar position in the money race.
Whether they remain on the same pace throughout the second quarter remains a question that won't be answered until the next month's totals are released.
Uh oh - it sounds like va blogger is "qualifying his answer" - I guess he couldn't give a straight-forward answer! Sounds like a hypocrite!
Yes or no vablogger? you havent answered the question
No, I'm not. I answered your question, and then I moved onto another topic.
If you like, I can from now on create a seperate post for each topic I discuss so you're not confused any further.
I can also use MS Paint and other programs to create visual aids if you have trouble understanding anything else.
BTW, DeFazio's out.
Blue south, yes I have: The DSCC has raised more money in the first quarter than the NRSC, as the numbers clearly indicate, and as I stated clearly in my earlier post.
How is this hard for you to understand?
(Oh no! I posted more than one thought in a post! S2G is going to be confused now!)
va blogger, another lie - you didn't just move on to another topic. You started your next sentence with "But..." and continued on the same topic.
It was a yes or no question and you couldn't just give a yes or no, you hypocrite. And you wonder why you're not taken seriously. You can't even measure up to your own standard of "straight-forward."
In case you were wondering what va blogger's standard of "straight-forward" was, here are his own words:
QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE
And here is va blogger's recent answer to my question:
QUOTE
In first quarter fundraising, sure. There's no way to read the numbers differently.
But as James pointed out, the DSCC was starting from in a hole, and when that's taken into account, the two organizations are at a similar position in the money race.
Whether they remain on the same pace throughout the second quarter remains a question that won't be answered until the next month's totals are released.
UNQUOTE
That sounds like an amazingly qualified answer to me. I guess va blogger is a hypocrite.
Your question was:
is it fair to say that the DSCC is beating the heck out of the NRSC in fundraising?
In fundraising, for the first quarter, the answer is yes, which I've answered for the third time now.
The rest of my post was talking about the money race, in reference to the title of the post. You can tell, because I say "the two organizations are at a similar position in the money race." Also, because I talk about existing debt and cash on hand, neither of which has anything to do with who is did better in fundraising.
So I've answered your question, in a straight-forward manner, three times now. What are you going to whine about next?
Waaaahhhhhhh!
You're absolutely right, va blogger. Existing debt and cash-on-hand are completely separate topics from fundraising.
You have zero credibility here.
They're not completely seperate topics, which is why I never said that they were. Good job with that whole "reading comprehension" thing, though.
I said that existing debt and cash on hand doesn't affect who did better in fundraising.
Did I use small enough words for you to understand?
The DSCC beat the NRSC in fundraising in the first quarter (BTW, for those keeping track, that's four times I've said it). The money race, when you take into account debt, is even.
Again, I can break out the visual aids if that was too much for you to grasp at once.
Yeah, va blogger, break out the visual aids, cuz I think it might help you.
When you cancel out the DSCC's debt, the two committee's current financial status is about even.
What about at the end of 2006? Where were they?
NRSC:
Cash-on-hand: $110,000
Debt: $1.3 million
In the hole: Roughly $1.2 million
DSCC:
Cash-on-hand: $63,000
Debt: $6.6 million
In the hole: Over $6.5 million
And at the end of Q1 2007:
NRSC and DSCC are both roughly at $3.5 million when debt is cancelled out.
The NRSC, by your metric, va blogger, went from a $5.3 million advantage to about even.
So, yeah, make a visual aid, you condescending idiot - draw the trend line and, even by your own measure, watch the DSCC outpace the NRSC. Moron. Any other condescending comments you want to make to hide the fact that you have no grasp of the facts?
You're looking at a trend over a period of three months. You're welcome to think that the trend will continue; I'll wait for the numbers to come in. The last time you prematurely talked about fundraising, you said the Senator who raised the most was "languishing".
After debt, the DSCC has roughly $3.5 million. The NRSC has roughly $3.5 million. In the money race, they're even.
Do you want to go round and round even more? What are you going to complain about next?
va blogger, you hypocritical ass, on fundraising, you want to wait another quarter because it looks bad for the GOP, or, as you put it, "I'll wait for the numbers to come in" -- but when it comes to say, a Senate election in Idaho or Alabama, then you're happy to jump to the conclusion that there is absolutely zero chance of a turnout other than what you expect, and there's no need to wait for, say, the votes to come in.
The difference is, we haven't seen one LaRocco v. Craig or hypothetical Sparks v. Session poll, much less three or four to determine a trend. On the other hand, we have seen three months of DSCC v. NRSC in the '08 cycle, with the DSCC kicking the NRSC's behind consistantly, and the biggest month being the most recent. Sounds like a trend.
You are a total hypocrite, va blogger. I'm done with you on this string, too.
It would take somebody as horribly inept at political analysis as you to think that fundraising numbers and polling numbers are comperable. Good job, champ.
okay break it up everybody
va blogger, when you go on and on about how stupid, inept, incompetent and all-around wrong the guru is and continue to check his personal blog to contest every niggling detail several times an hour it doesn't makes you look like a sad sad man. it's his blog. it's partisan. it's democrat-friendly. he's going to see what he wants to see and you can't expect him to do otherwise. he posts fundraising data and explains why it's good for democrats, you can complain all you want but he's not going to make a post extrapolating anything else from it. give it up and either respectfully disagree with the man's opinions or leave, but don't expect him to change them.
and the guru, stop lowering yourself to his level. no matter what he complains about, and no matter how guilty he is of doing something one week that he ridiculed you for doing another week, he is incapabale of conceding a single point, no matter the relevance. that doesn't make him a good debater, that makes him an idiot. when someone can't even laugh at himself with an "aw shucks" for quite obviously not following his own convoluted stream of logic don't expect to get him to budge on anything else. anyone giving a cursory glance to this blog can see he's an partisan jackass trying to rile you, if you try to debate him on particulars he'll just use every response to chip away at your credibility. just dismiss him and move on.
sorry to play kindergarten teacher here but your back-and-forths are just getting ridiculous and it's getting hard to take this blog seriously
can't we get snowe to switch to democrats? you know? Finally? Because holy shit I would vote for her.
Defazio can serve oregon better as a house member? That's a laugh-riot. we should tell him run or we've got a primary challenge waiting. I LIVED back home in portland when gordon ran. so I have some say I think as I WAS BORN THERE.
every other day I have a debate with someone like VA Blogger. Welcome to the internet debate. Logical fallacies be damned. I think we should start removing fingers for every violation of standard debate club rules and start at the balls if it's a non sequitur. The endless challenges, the lack of response to a statement of personal rather than logical attack while continuing on even after they've already been noted to be hypocritical not just by your but by their own standards. It's maddening. These people, it's like god is a factory that keeps spitting out idiots. Please...please...please, go back where you came from, your mothers womb and don't come out. and for an example of a non sequitur - my spelling does NOT affect the validtiy of my statements.
Its funny that you say that at the end, because S2G has been the only one to criticize others about the spelling of words.
Its okay for you guys to have your fun and gang up on the only one that doesn't think along the same liberal guidelines as you do. I honestly don't mind, and I really don't mean to be the one to interrupt a liberal circle-jerk. Its just when the main poster tries to get away with obvious leaps of logic, and then prefers to carry on a debate about the least important points of a post instead of tackling the merits of the challenge brought before him, that things get out of hand.
But every side needs a cheerleader, and even though if S2G weren't here there would be ten people waiting to take his place as the shameless cheerleader for the Democrats, he's the one that earned the right to spin all news, and "opine" all comments, to build a case for why the Democrats are always right, and Republicans are always wrong. So let's let him enjoy his endless amount of spin.
Post a Comment
<< Home