Blue Commonwealth Logo

Advanced Search

Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

Become a Supporter
Like Blue Commonwealth? Want to help keep it running?
Contribute Today, and help keep our blog ad free!

Blog Roll
7 West
Albo Must Go
Anonymous is a Woman
Article XI
Assembly Access
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Blue Ridge Data
Blue Virginia
Byrne-ing Up the Internet
Central VA Progressive
Coarse Cracked Corn
The Daily Dogwood
Dem Bones
Equality Loudoun
Fairfax City Dems
WaPo - The Fix
Getting Around
Great Blue Heron
The Green Miles
Heartland of Va
Leesburg Tomorrow
Left of the Hill
New Dominion Project
Not Larry Sabato
Ox Road South Blog
Penning Thoughts
Powhatan Democrats
Renaissance Ruminations
River City Rapids
Rule .303
Shad Plank
Southeast Virginia
Star City Harbinger
Too Progressive
United States of Jamerica
VB Dems
VB Progressives
Virginia Dem
The Virginia Democrat
WaPo - Virginia Politics Blog
Vivian Paige
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll

McAuliffe 4.2 million, Moran 800,000 - the money race

by: teacherken

Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 07:14:12 AM EDT

( - promoted by Admin)

Anita Kumar of the Washington Post has a piece entitled McAuliffe Reports Sizable Money Lead Over Moran.  Let's put some figures she provides in context about fundraising for the first 3 months of the gubernatorial election year:

McAuliffe '09     4,200,000
Kaine '05          2,600,000
Warner '01        1,400,000
Moran '09            800,000

No figures yet available for Deeds, who of course could not raise money during the 2 months of the legislative session.  

A bit more below the fold.      

teacherken :: McAuliffe 4.2 million, Moran 800,000 - the money race
To date, McAuliffe has outraised Moran 5.2 million to about 3 million, with Moran having been in the race far longer.  

McDonnell has not yet released his 1st quarter figures, but reported 1.6 million for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008.

Cash on hand should raise some eyebrows:  McAuliffe has about 2.5 million to Moran's 825,000.   For point of comparison, Steve Shannon has well over 900,000 cash on hand, and he is (a) not running in a contested primary, and (b) does not have the ongoing expenses that Moran does.

The Moran campaign has tried to argue that money will not be a problem.  Key figures have pointed out that Warner and Kaine were both able to raise substantial total funds to successfully compete with their Republican opponents  And the Kumar piece offers this

We expect to be outspent, but we also expect to win,'' said Mame Reiley, Moran's campaign chairwoman. "Virginia Democrats have long confirmed that money in and of itself does not sway them to a candidate."

But keep this in mind:  

Democratic rival Brian Moran raised $800,000 during the same period this year -- more than he raised in the previous six months.

note of something I am adding:  According to article, about 90% of Morans money is instate, while only about 1/5 of McAuliffe's is.  That would make the instate comparison Terry 800,000+ to Brian 720,000.  I suspect at some point the Moran campaign will try to make an issue of that (end of addition)

Money is certainly not everything, but lack of money can cripple a campaign.  Think how different the landscape of Virginia would now be had Creigh Deeds been able to spend 50-100,000 in the last week in Northern Virginia.  Might not a couple of ads been enough to enable him to overcome the less than 400 votes  by which he lost to McDonnell?  Might then we not have a Deeds v Bolling contest before us?

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
That's a pretty sad haul for Moran
I'm saying this as a Deeds supporter with Moran as a second choice. I thought he was supposed to have more fundraising power since he resigned from the GA.

I am going to put this into diary:
Kumar says that 90% of Moran's funds were from instate, but only about 1/5 of McAuliffe's.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
Commence Moran Excuses
This is just a pitiful haul by Moran.  
As they try to paint out of state money as some sort of negative, consider that McDonnell will have unlimited national funds, while Moran just won't be able to compete.

of course, you are supporting Terry
so this is something about which you would be expected to gloat.

The differential in COH is quite staggering.  It will be interesting to analyze the financials to see where each side is devoting its spending.  That might be even more significant than the raw numbers.  Having 10 offices open and almost twice as many field staff as Moran has total staff may be even more significant.  Moran to some degree is depending upon preexisting party organizations to help him.  But field organizers can help in expanding the primary electorate.  

We shall see.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
And of course TMac
went to fundraise in San Francisco, for example?
He bad, he nationwide?
With his connections on the Beltway far exceeding any ties he has to the Commonwealth, this is a surprise?

[ Parent ]
do you have a preference in this race?
I noted that Josh does, and not everyone reading his comment might note that.  You make clear your antipathy to McAuliffe.   But do you also have a preference for one of the others about which casual readers might not know?

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
Yes, I do in fact
I tend to swing toward Creigh.
Couple reasons for that:
1) I trust his ability to make the sale outside NoVa a bit better than Moran's
2) I know the guy slightly, and I think the world of him.

You make clear your antipathy to McAuliffe.

"Antipathy" is a euphemism.

[ Parent ]
Creigh is a fine man
and I consider him a friend.  I was pretty sure you were leaning towards Creigh, but was not positive, unlike knowing absolutely Josh's position.

In the near term, since not everyone who comes here know everyone posting, it might be helpful to simply mention when posting on the Gov's race that you have a horse.

strictly speaking it is not necessary for a comment, but we feel that when people post diaries on contested races, if they have a horse in the race it should be disclosed, at least in passing.


This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
Well, I'd like to ask you
Do you also have a preference for one of the others about which casual readers might not know?

the same question, if I may.

Do YOU have a preference among the three Dems in the race that we should be aware of?

[ Parent ]
No - I will decide when I vote
I made that decision a long time ago.  I have worked with all three campaigns to help on education in particular, and on other items as they see fit.  I keep what I do with one campaign separate from the other two.  I respect all three men, and will happily support the nominee in the Fall with no reservations.

I do support Mike Signer for Lt Gov, but similarly would support any of the the other three in the general.

And Steve Shannon, whom I endorsed early on, will be unopposed in the primary.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
Oh, and by the way
This is just a pitiful haul by Moran.  

I can be chickenshit too.

[ Parent ]
Assuming a bit much, are we?
To make this comment valid one would have to assume that the ONLY candidate to whom Democrats outside of the state would contribute is T-Mac.  Wow, is he really that popular, that they wouldn't even consider supporting any other Democratic candidate for the governorship of Virginia?  Is it "give us T-Mac or give us McDonnell, we'll take nothing less"?  That makes it sound as if they'll only give to the person and not the party.  Sounds kind of cult of personality-ish.

McAuliffe is nationally known and has a lot of chits with a lot of people and he's calling them in.  In spite of this orgy of donation he's still struggling and in fact has far fewer endorsements than Moran.  Teacherken points out that McAuliffe has 10 offices open and twice the field staff of Moran (that's what big outside bucks will get you, I suppose), but what's significant is that in spite of this overwhelming presence and saturation of some media markets T-Mac is lagging behind Moran in in-state donations.  Maybe Virginians prefer the Democrat they know to the Democrat they don't know.  All I know is that all those outside Democrats writing the big checks to McAuliffe aren't going to be able to vote for him.  In June the only people who'll count are the ones who can walk into a voting booth in Virginia.

[ Parent ]
Does it really make a difference?
The money I mean.  Where the donors come from.  There's no way in the world that any of the candidates would not take that money if it were given to them.  That's why the uproar over getting money to run for governor from someone who might live in Arizona, Colorado, California, Texas, or anywhere else is laughable.  I have friends in all of those states and more who contributed to Tim Kaine in '05 and Jim Webb in '07.  There money isn't tainted.

To be upfront, I now support Terry McAuliffe.  In the beginning, I supported Brian Moran.  I know two of the three well and always admired and liked them.  I think that McAuliffe can win the race against McDonnell and facilitate some good changes for the state.  His nationwide connections do not alarm me - they comfort me instead.  I'd rather have a leader with a broad network at his disposal than a person restricted to our borders and critical of anyone who has more vision.

This primary is important and the election is more so.  The catcalling and backbiting needs to calm down so we can focus on making a wise decision on June 9.  The animosity is only going to benefit Mr. McDonnell.

[ Parent ]
Meant Jim Webb in '06, of course.

[ Parent ]
Too bad Terry's cash
haul isn't buying him much in the way of support.

But I guess people are who they are - McAuliffe was ALWAYS a prodigious fundraiser and someone who spent all that money on losing efforts.

[ Parent ]
actually, not sure you can say that
because (1) there is still a large undecided, (2) the current margins are not that significant, (3) all three Dems have their share of negatives and problems when one goes inside the Dkos poll

If I look at the Dkos poll, the one with the best spread on favorables and unfavorables is Creigh, and the only reason he is not doing better is because of how poorly he does in the Black community.  Were he to make inroads there, the entire nature of the race could change.

And regardless of what you might think of Terry and his money, Creigh (1) has significantly more cash on hand than Brian, and (2) has a much lower overhead rate to maintain

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
That is not really true....
McAuliffe raised a lot of money for many candidates over the years, and while some did not win, they over all increased awareness of Democrats and that is what matters.  The rise of Democrats nationwide, and in Virginia in particular, has been largely due to the efforts of McAuliffe, and many like him who worked ceaselessly to promote Democratic candidates with the best chance to win.

Governors Warner, Kaine, Senator Warner, President Obama, Congressman Connolly are a few recent successes that McAuliffe intensely supported. Earlier, Clinton's second term was a McAuliffe supported success.

We all know that we will have only one Democratic candidate for Governor in just a short 7 weeks.  Many of us enthusiastic good Democrats will not have supported the winning nominee. Does that make us any less? Once we are through this phase, we will support our nominee and God willing, he will win. Does that make McDonnell's supporters any less?

Let me quote from one of the oldest scriptures in the world, the "Bhagavadgita":  

"Thy right is to work only, not to the fruits thereof"

Therefore, the fact that some candidates McAuliffe supported did not win the election does not matter, and it does not change anything.  The questions are:

did he do a good job,
was he sincere,
did he work tirelessly,
was he loyal,
was he considerate of his co-workers,
did he make enemies with in his team,
was he abusive of any one in his team,
was he racist,
was he responsible with the funds entrusted to him,
did he work well for the campaign, and the team?

I believe McAuliffe did, and any one who has demonstrated that over 80% of his life, the last 40 years, is a pretty good candidate to be the next Governor of Virginia.

Do all the good you can
By all the means you can
In all the ways you can
In all the places you can
At all the times you can
To all the people you can
As long as ever you can
John Wesley

[ Parent ]
Good money after bad.
If there's any way McAuliffe is defining his role in this race as anything other than the big-money candidate, I'd like to hear about it.
A reminder that McAuliffe has the highest negatives by a large piece of any of the three Democratic candidates.
Anbd with his attacks on Obama, his negatives have the potential to soar. Radio ads comparing himself to Obama on urban and gospel formatted stations notwithstanding.
And what is Terry getting out of this war chest? Not much I'd want to have. He spends and spends and his negatives just keep rising.
Also, polling of independents would seem to show that McAuliffe is the weakest candidate in a GE matchup against McDonnell. And just think of the oppo the Republicans will use. All Clinton, all the time.
And look at the numbers in NoVa. McAuliffe is in low single digits. The 8th is 40% of the NoVa vote, where, for example, Brian Moran is above 50%.
And where's the vetting?
Oh...wait. Should McAuliffe win the primary (God forbid) the republicans will do that for us.

Do. Not. WANT.

your argument on 8th CD is weak
in fact, it is precisely the same argument used by PUMAs and other diehard supporters of Hillary, claiming that because she did so much better among whites in Penna, she could carry the state while Obama couldn't.

For most people a strong preference for one primary contestant does not indicate a total unwillingness to vote for an opponent once you get to the general.  And I would point out that so far that kind of rhetoric has been heard only from advocates of one of the three, and it is not advocates of Moran.

One more point is the issue of whether being totally savage in a primary is not in fact doing the work of the Republicans for them.   Factually based presentations are fine.   Each of the three, and probably all 4 of the LG candidates, has things on which they could rightly be challenged.   But that is different than insisting without appropriate evidence that the other(s) cannot win in the general and thereby justifying the total negativity that sometimes thereupon flows.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
because she did so much better among whites in Penna, she could carry the state while Obama couldn't.

No, it is not precisely the same argument. No issues of color here, except those brought to the table by McAulliffe's attacks on Obama.

One more point is the issue of whether being totally savage in a primary is not in fact doing the work of the Republicans for them.

It wouldn't be happening had not the master of the savage attack in the primary not decided to throw his monkeywrench in the spokes hat in the ring...

[ Parent ]
afraid you are not going to get agreement
blaming McAuliffe for entering.  The nastiness started earlier.  And was unnecessary.  People were having a somewhat cool response to what they saw as somewhat over the top campaigning b Terry at JeffJack, but then Brian ended with his "We need a fighter, not a fundraiser" remark and that brought a number of people, including some strong Brian supporters, up short.

Other than irresponsible posts early on by James Martin, there has been no nastiness from Creigh's side of the triangle.  Supporters of the other two both have gone a bit far, but I think a neutral observer would say that more of the nastiness has come from Moran's side, which is one reason a number of people I know who were originally supporting him or leaning in his direction now absolutely will not vote for him in the primary.

I called out Terry for his "an ass named Joe Trippi" remark, and I will challenge anyone I think is over the line or over the top.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
I'm throwing a flag here
It is taken as gospel on this site that James Martin put up "irresponsible" and "nasty" posts.

I recall those posts as certainly being pointed in their criticism of Brian Moran, and riling up Todd Smyth, but they were neither irrresponsible or nasty, and it wrong to continually offer James as some moral equivalence to the genuine nastiness and crap that has been hureld at McAuliffe, mainly, though not exclusively, by supporters of Brian Moran.

And I say this as someone who supports Creigh and frankly, doesn't think too much of McAuliffe's candidacy.  

The Virginia Democrat

[ Parent ]
James and Todd both told to tune it down
neither did, and both were removed from front page of previous version of BC, and removed from the discussion group.

In saying what I did, I cited James as the sole example on behalf of Creigh to which anyone could point.  There were multiple examples of things leading to finger pointing among supporters of the other two.

Sorry if I was not clear about that.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
Without getting into whether it was approrpiate to tell them that
My point was that James posts (at least insofar as his diaries were concerned -- anyone can get into it with anyone else in a comments section) were neither "irresponsible" nor "nasty."

They were critical, and seemed to really bother Brian Moran supporters, who disagreed strongly with his assertions, but that doesn't make them irresponsible or nasty.

I think it is grossly unfair to publicly characterize his work like that, simply in order to have an example of a Creigh supporter who was more zealous than other Creigh supporters in how he phrased things.  

The Virginia Democrat

[ Parent ]
Are we going to start this crap again?
Seriously, is there any particular need to talk about who was nasty and how much were they nasty and why everything is somehow the fault of the Moran campaign because - Oh my God :0 - Brian uttered his immortal phrase at the JJ?  A phrase so very over the top that it has to be repeated over, and over, and over, and over?  Sorry if I'm not feeling the horror anymore.  Once two or three months go by I get that way and start wanting people to talk about something new.    

When BC shut down it was because the nastiness on BOTH sides had gotten out of hand, although I have my own take on just who was ramping up the nasty when it all finally hit the fan.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that when BC restarted it was with the agreement of all concerned that they were going to stop talking about who shot John and who insulted who at this or that event or that time in January or whatever.  So what is it?  Are we all supposed to dust off the old diaries from the other BC and commence arguing again about who's to blame and who's the nastiest?  Is there any point, teacherken, to you pointing out - yet again - that it's your personal opinion that the Moran campaign was nastier than the McAuliffe campaign?  Do you have anything that occurred less than a month ago, or are you just going to keep talking about what happened in January or February?  If the answer is yes, then what was all the drama about a few weeks ago?  

[ Parent ]
Blue Commonwealth was shut down
because one consultant to the Moran campaign improperly outed the name and employment of someone associated with the blog.  That is the reality.  And of all the things done in the back and forth, that was the most unforgiveable.

Were there faults from both Moran and McAuliffe supporters?  Yes.

Does it matter who started it?  Perhaps not.

Are we moderating what happens here to prevent similar things  You betcha.

But anyone who has been around blogging knows outing someone is an absolute no-no.  That action by itself turned off several dozen people I know who were leaning towards Moran against voting for him, particularly because there has been no apology by the offender, nor any action from the Moran campaign, despite repeated requests from numerous people, which leads some to believe that at least some involved with that campaign were happy to see the previous incarnation of BC shut down.

I was there.  I have been in on the exchanges and conversations.  That is not crap, that is reality.

Despite that, we are trying to move forward.  The core group of this current version includes a wide range of opinions on all races.  We have and will continue to frontpage pieces by advocates for all candidates, if well written and if they refrain from unnecessary and unsupported attacks on opponets.  We are much more lenient in what is posted in diaries and in comments.

This blog is neutral.  I am neutral in the Governor's race.  I call it exactly as I see it.  I have criticized both McAuliffe and Moran at various times.  You may not agree with my assessment, but it is an honest assessment.

I talk candidly with people within each campaign.

I have made clear that I consider both Creigh and Brian friends over a number of years.   In comparison I barely know Terry, although I know and respect a number of people working for him.

I have friendships with people in high positions in campaigns of both Moran and Deeds.  I have no intent of destroying those friendships.

I am also known for speaking my mind bluntly when I think it appropriate.  Take it for what it is worth.


This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
The shutdown occurred
weeks after the outing, which for the record I have also been very critical.  It came on the heels of something else entirely which no doubt arose out of the bad feelings occasioned by the first bad act; however, it is often said that two wrongs don't make a right, and this is where I saw a distinct double standard apply which seems still to apply.  The actions immediately preceding the shutdown looked calculated to elicit the response upon which the blog was shut down, and then more fingers were pointed saying "See?  Look what you made us do."  I saw you criticize the reaction, but I did not see you criticize the thing which caused the reaction.  Rena called for you to do so and I never saw a response.  The blog was just shut down.  

If indeed the point of BC is to move forward and put all this ugliness behind us, then that's the way it should be, but it's hard to do when participants are still talking about old offenses and what should have been done about offenses committed months or weeks ago and which are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[ Parent ]
no - you are thinking about the first incident
when emails sent applying for a job with Moran were leaked to another blog to discredit the applicant, who had just endorsed McAuliffe.

Later that person posted a frontpage story going through a lot of not so nice things the person who had received the emails had said during the primary cycle, whereupon in a comment on that thread, said consultant (very insistent that such is the role) put up a comment which outed by name and employment the person then most responsible for running the site.  BC was taken down fairly quickly after that.

As far as the post that offended the consultant to the Moran campaign, under the rules with which we were operating at that moment, that post did not have to be vetted to be put on the front page.  Under the rules we had operated on before that, at least for a while, because it involved the gubernatorial campaign  and it was written by a partisan, it would have had to be vetted by someone uncommitted, which usually meant me.  The poster and others know I would not have put it on the front page, even though it was totally factual, because it was a pissing contest between two people who were not principles of the campaign.  Nevertheless, the conduct of the consultant to the Moran campaign was in the eyes of many people who were not and are still not committed in the gubernatorial race, far more egregious.  

It was then I took the lead in organizing people to reconstitute BC on a different platform, and operate under different rules.

Sorry, but your facts are quite wrong.

As far as now invoking Rena, she and I had a long discussion, she is an early registrant here, and will soon be posting something advocating for Moran which will be front paged.

And what you don't know is what was said offline to quite a few people.

Sometimes people bring up things which because they are said in public require further response.  Your facts are wrong.

As far as this site, the ground rules were put up in a diary fairly early on, in my role as EIC, which you can read here  You will see that no one - not even the EIC - posts directly to the front page.

Meanwhile we have had frontpage posts by advocates of Moran (Eileen) and Deeds (aznew) since we came to soapblox.  We expect to have more, and we have invited the campaigns to bring their candidates over for an unfiltered conversation, and are flexible about how that will be done.

It is impossible to completely ignore what has gone before, but we do not spend a lot of time rehashing it.  When the issue comes up, we will correct inaccurate statements as to the nature of what happened.  Hence the length of this comment.

And for now, this is sufficient.  It is off the thread,   Feel free to start a separate discussion in the diaries, which is the proper venue for this, not on the front page.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
You are the voice of reason
When I heard Moran at J&J - "We need a fighter, not a fundraiser", my heart stopped for a moment, and then my brain said "Tell that to the guys who lost their jobs and need money to put food on the table"

The comedy club show was so inappropriate, and I was blown away by the reference to "an ass".  That was in poor taste, and in my opinion needs an apology - which I hope was made at least in private.  On the other hand, it was so cute to say: "... when he asked how he can help my campaign, I said - Go work for Brian"  

When I expressed my horror at this, my teenage son, more tuned into politics than I, said this level of being rowdy is not unusual.

Do all the good you can
By all the means you can
In all the ways you can
In all the places you can
At all the times you can
To all the people you can
As long as ever you can
John Wesley

[ Parent ]
Of significance to me
is that Brian doubled his take in this quarter from the last 6 months of 2008.  Moreover, in spite of T-Mac's massive intake of funds from out of state and his heavy spending he still hasn't cracked this nut and pulled ahead of Brian in the race.

"Sad haul"?  What is all this spending getting T-Mac anyway?

10 offices with 44 field workers
which gives him the ability to develop support that might not yet be showing up in polling, and/or draw from the very high undecideds.

Brian does not need as much money, given his institutional support.  But it is worth noting that his fundraising lags behind what Warner did unopposed 8 years ago.  That should be somewhat concerning to his supporters.

There is no reason he cannot ramp up his fundraising.   And money is not always a determinant -  four years ago Chap substantially outraised Leslie but she outorganized him.  

Money, number of contributors, number and quality of staff, number and importance of endorsements - these are all used by the press to evaluate the horse race. Brian has the advantage in individual endorsements in Virginia, Terry seems so far to have the advantage from labor.  The fundraising in-state is fairly level, but for some people the total fundraising is an indicator of who will be better able to fund off a national Republican onslaught.

The figures are newsworthy, which is why this is on the front page.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
Leslie out-organized Chap?
In Northern Virginia, maybe. He definitely had more boots on the ground in Hampton Roads, and was there much earlier.

Chap's problem in 2005 was the same ultimate problem Creigh faces now--a substantial portion of the base saw him as too socially conservative to pass muster, and the base drives primaries whether it's organized or not.

(Disclosure: I've committed to Brian, though it was a very difficult choice for me between him and Creigh. And I'd certainly have no problem supporting McAuliffe against any Republican, either.)

[ Parent ]
I don 't think you realize how many women
were out knocking on doors and making phone calls for Leslie.  That plus the fact that she was considered progressive especially in comparison to Chap and Puckett is what put her over the top.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
oh, and Chap is a friend
I supported him in 2005, and worked a conservative precinct for him in 2007.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
Disagree about the significance of these figures
First, as you noted yourself Mark Warner was running unopposed and if I recall correctly he did not have a primary opponent - or at least a serious one.  On the other hand, the Republicans were split between Earley and Hager, with the troglodyte faction of the Republican party supporting Earley to eventual victory in the Republican primary.  Many moderate Republicans supported Warner even before the primary because they could not see Hager winning and liked Warner.  So there was Warner, getting ALL the money available to a Democratic candidate and some Republican money on top of it.  Brian's running in a field split between three candidates, one of whom has two decades' worth of national connections to call upon.  How would it make sense to expect him to do as well or better than Warner did?  

Second, not all the endorsements are in.  McAuliffe has three labor endorsements, at least two of them fairly large, while Moran has four smaller endorsements.  It's hardly McAuliffe running away with labor.  On the other hand, Moran has an extremely deep field of endorsements from other sources which outnumber McAuliffe's endorsements substantially.  

Third, it doesn't make sense to me that the focus should be on which of these candidates can fend off a national Republican onslaught.  It's Virginia.  Let's talk first about who can fend off a Virginia Republican onslaught.  What's the Virginia Republican argument against either Moran or Deeds?  Neither one is a radical.  Pick an argument Virginia Republicans have against Brian or Creigh which isn't the same as the arguments used against Warner or Kaine.  Looking at Terry, however, Virginia Republicans will be able to paint him as a carpetbagging outsider who just woke up one day and decided to run for governor of Virginia.  They will paint him with a very broad brush as a radical Democrat and will use all the arguments against him which have only been hinted at thus far in the campaign.  They will exploit his negatives.  It's all well and good to urge the Democratic campaigns to run on a positive message, but does anyone doubt for a minute that the Republicans aren't going to run on every negative thing they can find.

[ Parent ]
Warner running unopposed
raised more money before the Republican primary than Moran has in a competitive primary.  That is worth noting, especially given the difference in buying power over 8 years.

And I note that Creigh put out an email today where he points out that despite being unable to raise $$ during the two months of the General Assembly Session he has 41% more cash on hand than does Brian.   That is also noteworthy.

Will ultimately the money differential make a difference in the primary?  That remains to be seen.  Will the fact of the huge $$ differential make a difference in the minds of some voters?  I suspect that it will, because the press is focusing on it, which gives McAuliffe a bit of a win on those grounds.

Will it be enough to overcome the advantages with which Moran starts in terms of party and elected officials?  Again, unknown.  We are in totally new ground with a contested primary at the top of the ballot.

Having more offices gives visibility.  Having more paid field staff can be offset if Brian has more volunteers.  

Oh and one other point -   you cannot fend off a Virginia Republican onslaught if you do not have the funds to get on the air.  Ask Creigh Deeds what difference 50-100,000 in the last week in NovA advertising could have made.

Will Brian or Creigh have sufficient money should they get the nomination?  This state is priority number 1, and our Governor is head of DNC.  That is the argument from people around Moran - that he will have sufficient resources.  If you accept it, then McAuliffe's ability to raise funds becomes less important.

But what about his ability to get support from national labor unions, who can provide something even more important than money, which is boots on the ground?  It is not just that unions have given him over 400K, but the manpower they potentially can offer.

I was interviewed on the radio yesterday by Coy Barefoot down in C'Ville.   He asked who I thought McDonnell most feared.  I said it is too early to determine that until you see the damage that the Dems do to one another in the primary.  He also asked who I thought was the favorite.  Tell me the size and distribution of the turnout and I can answer that.  If the turnout is over 250,000, then many are going to be people who are relatively low information, and will respond to what they see on TV and hear on radio and perhaps read in newspapers or get in the mail.  Then the money disparity makes that advantage McAuliffe.  if the turnout is below 150,000, it should be more traditional Dem voters, which should be advantage Moran, but so far it is not clear that his campaign is organized well enough.  As for Deeds?  He has now been back on the trail for only a month.  I think at the end of April we will have a much better idea of how this could play out.  Then the polling data might have some meaning.  Now partisans of each candidate spin the polls for all they can.  

The point of this post was to present factual information about the financial situation and provide some comparison with previous races.  I draw no conclusions.  I point at some possible meanings, but am usually pretty consistent in pointing out the limits of the analysis.

AND For What It Is Worth - I have no idea at this point for whom I will vote in the primary.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
The problem with this analysis is the apparent assumption
that labor unions will not support Moran.  I don't know where this comes from since Brian is by no means anti-labor, but that's what the argument is predicated upon, that unions will support McAuliffe but not Moran.  Seems to me the national labor unions will support whomever is the Democratic nominee and are going to put boots on the ground because they just don't want another anti-union Republican in office.  

As for the argument about not getting on the air without the funds, once again this assumes that Creigh or Brian would not be able to marshal the kind of donations from national Dems as McAuliffe in spite of the high profile of Virginia through Kaine's leadership of the DNC.  This also does not make any sense to me.  Let's say Terry loses the nomination.  What's he going to do then, take his rolodex and go home?  Sit out the election?  Or will he campaign for the candidate no matter who?  And if he IS campaigning for the candidate, then why would he not be able to tap into that vast supply of donors we keep hearing about to promote that candidate?

[ Parent ]
we are talking about the primary
and so far Brian and Creigh have endorsements, in Creigh's case from public safety employees in Fairfax.

The argument about being on the air was directed at the primary, not the general.  I suggest you go back and reread.

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
Your post started out about the primary
But when you started talking about the Republican onslaught I assumed you'd moved on to the question of whether the  Democratic candidate would prevail in the GE.  Maybe I'm mistaken, but in rereading your post I see not only the discussion of a Republican onslaught, but a move on to the question of what would happen "should they get the nomination."  

[ Parent ]
Of course the GE Campaign will turn negative...
and that is to be expected.  It is just that we do not want to turn off Democrats by infighting and we do not want to eat crow in 7 weeks and support some one we tore apart until the previous day.

I am sure every one has something to explain, something to clarify, and in most cases, there will be a perfectly innocent and harmless explanation.  Let us remember that perception is sadly more relevant than even performance and generally every candidate should be confident that his/her past is reasonably clean and any skeleton in the cupboard should be easily explained.  That is why folks write books telling all, so there is very little to bring out later in life.

We Americans expect saints to be our leaders. That is unrealistic when we so often find lesser than saints in our places of worship.  We have laws in the land, and any one who violates one, should be punished in accordance with the law. But it is not realistic that some one who turned cheap and used $49.95 software to prepare his tax returns and made mistakes (there is a reason why good professionals charge $200 to $5,000 for preparing personal tax returns)which were subsequently corrected and penalties paid should be misfit for any responsible position. In fact, the Department of Labor is very clear that you hire the person best qualified for the job and all considerations not directly related to the job description should not be considered.

This is like the guy with most speeding tickets is not necessarily the worst driver - he is just the one who got caught the most times. As the good Lord said: "Let him that hath not sinned cast the first stone"

Do all the good you can
By all the means you can
In all the ways you can
In all the places you can
At all the times you can
To all the people you can
As long as ever you can
John Wesley

[ Parent ]
Like it or not, this is coming across as a victory for McAuliffe
Just from browsing various headlines on multiple websites.


Money, Money, Everywhere
First off, I have no dog in this race (as an e-board member of a big local Dem. party I'm not permitted to support one candidate over another in a primary).  With this said, the way our state politicians have evolved into campaign "money devouring" machines, it's almost poetic justice that McAuliffe is on the verge of sweeping into office on a wing and a large bank account.

Certainly, sites like VPAP are awesome resources for us to follow the money and to keep track of who is bought by whom, but it would be really great if someone in Richmond had the guts to truly reform our legalized system of graft.

To me, though I'd prefer for our candidates to be "bought" with in-state money, at the end of the day, most large campaign contributions are made with the expectation of some type of return on the investment.  

The sooner big money can be taken out of the process, the sooner the politicians will be willing to place the people above all else.  I don't fault McAuliffe for doing what the system allows him to do, and certainly Moran or Deeds would be happy to have similarly sized bank accounts.

All cats are grey in the dark
and so money from within the state or from outside the state makes little difference.

In fact, it is very unlikely that folks outside the state have much to gain by supporting the Governor of Virginia - unless they want to invest in Virginia and get favors.

Hey, is that not what we want?  We want folks to invest in Virginia and if the Governor will grant them tax holidays, low priced land in areas where land is plentiful, and develop infrastructure to increase manufacturing, more power to the Governor.  He has my vote for sure!

My challenge to McAuliffe is that he needs to bring investments to Virginia in excess of one thousand times the money he brings to his campaign from outside Virginia.  So every million in campaign funds should translate to a billion in industrial investment.

I can live with that.  I hope every one else can as well.

Do all the good you can
By all the means you can
In all the ways you can
In all the places you can
At all the times you can
To all the people you can
As long as ever you can
John Wesley

[ Parent ]
Since there have been comments about organized labor
Yes, both law enforcement public safety is behind Creigh as well as their International (I.U.P.A.). Now, I know I have heard that there was a lot of surprise that the firefighters endorsed Terry over Brian because he has always been a devote support to them.  I would also note that the SEIU has made a VERY strong push into Virginia as everyone probably saw this last election cycle and pumped a lot of money into the Fairfax BOS races.  I don't believe they have endorsed anyone yet for Governor, but I'll be curious to see who they to towards.  

In regards to a candidate not getting the support of the Naional union's I don't believe that argument holds and here is why.  With the Democrats holing strong majorities at the federal level this is organized labor to get a right-to-work state in their corner.  I thin this will be important in all the races. Governor is obvious, Attorney general is important because he'll be responsible for drafting an opinion about whether VA will have to comply through it's constitution.  I argue that Lt Gov will be important too in case there is collective bargaining legislation at the state level and there is a tie breaker possibility.  This may hurt Jody with her recent support for right-to-work.

Organized labor will support any of the Dem candidates because they are substantially friendly than any Republican in the races!

Creigh's numbers are out $600k n/t

and 1.2 mill COH n/t

This is my world and welcome to it

[ Parent ]
Recent Comments

Blue Commonwealth is a community forum for the discussion of political issues of interest to Virginians.
The opinions expressed by users of this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Blue Commonwealth or its editors.
Powered by: SoapBlox