New FEC report: Franken campaign has $3.5 million on hand

What an amazing graphic! Thanks so much for including this link.  Although Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer’s numbers only went through the end of December (and I understand from his campaign that they have doubled the contributions since then), it was still an amazing contrast.  Some candidates took more PAC money than others.  Some candidates did varying degrees of self-financed campaigns.

Only Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer’s campaign was 100% financed from individual contributors.  Every single dollar.  It was nice that the graphic was green, a nice green circle without even a single slice of special interest contributions.

There wasn’t a breakdown for in-state versus out-of-state contributions, but I  understand that Jack’s campaign leads there as well, approaching close to 100%.  Whereas Franken’s campaign was bringing in about 80% from outside Minnesota, according to MPR last week.

That big green Minnesota circle graphic is what grassroots looks like, I guess.

A very expensive endorsement race I just did another bit of magic with this website.  According to the link, Franken’s campaign has spent $5,836,714 through the end of March.  Assuming that there are a total of 1,355 delegates and superdelegates (which is close, but probably not exact) and assuming that Franken has every single vote on the first ballot, that means that he has spent $4,307.54 for each vote.

If you assume that he has only about half the delegates (which I believe is still WAY too high), then you would have to double that per-vote amount.  The number I have heard floating around out there is that Franken’s campaign has spent around $12,000 per pledged delegate.  That has been one expensive endorsement race for the satirist.

A couple questions for Charley In what way does an inability to raise PAC money help JNP beat Norm Coleman or make for a fair general election?  Is Norm Coleman refusing PAC money too?

In what way does relying more heavily on Minnesota Donors during the early  part of the election campaign help the JNP campaign beat Norm in november?  Is Norm refusing money from “special interests” like the RNC and other groups?  Will JNP also refuse national party support, or don’t you think that the national parties are “groups” with “special interests”?  I think Al will be able to raise more money from MN voters after the endorsement than JNP would.

And since JNP wasn’t mentioned in the article and all the comments about him are therefore irrelevant, could we talk about policy difference between the two as well? 

I know Charley from his work during the 2006 campaigns as an eloquent and devoted voice of the anti-war movement here, and I mean no disrespect to his work or his opinions.

But JNP’s position for precipitous withdrawal from the war, wisdom or foolishness from a policy point of view aside, means that he will not win voters from the first, second or seventh districts like Al’s position of a slower responsible drawdown based on information from the field will.

JNP’s position for universal single payer federal healthcare, again, regardless of whether it is a better or worse solution from a policy point of view, cannot win in one, two, three six, seven, or eight.  “Socialized Healthcare” is a rallying cry that will bring re-election to Coleman and possibly will bring the presidential election to McCain.  In my view.

Al’s position, which gives states more power and responsibility to try to find solutions, resulting in 50 laboratories where we can find out what works, and where states aren’t forced to adopt policies with which the citizens do not agree, is a much better solution for Minnesotans, from a policy point of view, with the special bonus of being possible to enact in congress and get signed by a democratic president, in stark contrast to JNP’s “canada care or bust” mentality.

But back on topic.  Al is raising a fortune more than JNP, but doesn’t have as much on hand as Coleman already.  And the suggestion is that delegates should switch from Al to JNP, because why again?  Did the correlation charts change, and now the one who spends the least is elected more than 80% of the time? 

Let’s rephrase Jack had no “inability” to raise PAC money.  He made a conscious decision to rely on individual contributions.  That is a decision which reflects his values.  You may or may not agree with them.

On healthcare, again, you may or may not agree with single-payer, but it is disingenuous to claim that it is somehow not practical, either in terms of money or in terms of the politics.  Quite a few polls these days indicate that a super-majority of Americans feels ready to move to this sort of solution.  The system is clearly broken, and the duplication in payment administration is affecting our entire national system.  Recent polls indicate that even doctors are moving to favor single-payer by a majority these days.

Again, you may be a states-rights advocate.  But don’t try to excuse the recalcitrance of a few politicians by claiming some lack of popular support.  The system is broken.  Most people know it.  The politicians haven’t figured it out yet.

As for the war, we certainly can be much more “thoughtful” in leaving that we were in getting in, as Franken says.  Of course, that “thoughtfulness” is costing $12 billion a month and about 500 Iraqi lives every day.  I am frankly surprised that anyone watching U.S. policy in Iraq over the past 5 years would still pretend that there is some military solution there.  The U.S. has about the same chance of “winning” the war in Iraq as the Soviet Union had of “winning” the arms race during the Cold War.  Please note that the Soviet Union doesn’t exist any more, since they spend all their money so foolishly.

As for inside-Minnesota money vs. outside-Minnesota money, it obviously doesn’t mean everything.  I will note, however, that 80% of Franken’s contributors can’t legally vote for him.

Support who you want, Justin.  If you actually favor a “50-state solution” to the healthcare mess, then support Franken by all means.  If you want a more prolonged occupation of Iraq, then support Franken.  If you want a greater electoral influence by PACs and outside money, then support Franken.  It’s a free country.  Maybe you like coal-fired electric plants and nuclear energy as well.  Then Franken’s your guy.  We just happen to disagree.

What an amazing graphic! Thanks so much for including this link.  Although Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer's numbers only went through the end of December (and I understand from his campaign that they have doubled the contributions since then), it was still an amazing contrast.  Some candidates took more PAC money than others.  Some candidates did varying degrees of self-financed campaigns.

Only Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer's campaign was 100% financed from individual contributors.  Every single dollar.  It was nice that the graphic was green, a nice green circle without even a single slice of special interest contributions.

There wasn't a breakdown for in-state versus out-of-state contributions, but I  understand that Jack's campaign leads there as well, approaching close to 100%.  Whereas Franken's campaign was bringing in about 80% from outside Minnesota, according to MPR last week.

That big green Minnesota circle graphic is what grassroots looks like, I guess.

A very expensive endorsement race I just did another bit of magic with this website.  According to the link, Franken's campaign has spent $5,836,714 through the end of March.  Assuming that there are a total of 1,355 delegates and superdelegates (which is close, but probably not exact) and assuming that Franken has every single vote on the first ballot, that means that he has spent $4,307.54 for each vote.

If you assume that he has only about half the delegates (which I believe is still WAY too high), then you would have to double that per-vote amount.  The number I have heard floating around out there is that Franken's campaign has spent around $12,000 per pledged delegate.  That has been one expensive endorsement race for the satirist.

A couple questions for Charley In what way does an inability to raise PAC money help JNP beat Norm Coleman or make for a fair general election?  Is Norm Coleman refusing PAC money too?

In what way does relying more heavily on Minnesota Donors during the early  part of the election campaign help the JNP campaign beat Norm in november?  Is Norm refusing money from “special interests” like the RNC and other groups?  Will JNP also refuse national party support, or don't you think that the national parties are “groups” with “special interests”?  I think Al will be able to raise more money from MN voters after the endorsement than JNP would.

And since JNP wasn't mentioned in the article and all the comments about him are therefore irrelevant, could we talk about policy difference between the two as well? 

I know Charley from his work during the 2006 campaigns as an eloquent and devoted voice of the anti-war movement here, and I mean no disrespect to his work or his opinions.

But JNP's position for precipitous withdrawal from the war, wisdom or foolishness from a policy point of view aside, means that he will not win voters from the first, second or seventh districts like Al's position of a slower responsible drawdown based on information from the field will.

JNP's position for universal single payer federal healthcare, again, regardless of whether it is a better or worse solution from a policy point of view, cannot win in one, two, three six, seven, or eight.  “Socialized Healthcare” is a rallying cry that will bring re-election to Coleman and possibly will bring the presidential election to McCain.  In my view.

Al's position, which gives states more power and responsibility to try to find solutions, resulting in 50 laboratories where we can find out what works, and where states aren't forced to adopt policies with which the citizens do not agree, is a much better solution for Minnesotans, from a policy point of view, with the special bonus of being possible to enact in congress and get signed by a democratic president, in stark contrast to JNP's “canada care or bust” mentality.

But back on topic.  Al is raising a fortune more than JNP, but doesn't have as much on hand as Coleman already.  And the suggestion is that delegates should switch from Al to JNP, because why again?  Did the correlation charts change, and now the one who spends the least is elected more than 80% of the time? 

Let's rephrase Jack had no “inability” to raise PAC money.  He made a conscious decision to rely on individual contributions.  That is a decision which reflects his values.  You may or may not agree with them.

On healthcare, again, you may or may not agree with single-payer, but it is disingenuous to claim that it is somehow not practical, either in terms of money or in terms of the politics.  Quite a few polls these days indicate that a super-majority of Americans feels ready to move to this sort of solution.  The system is clearly broken, and the duplication in payment administration is affecting our entire national system.  Recent polls indicate that even doctors are moving to favor single-payer by a majority these days.

Again, you may be a states-rights advocate.  But don't try to excuse the recalcitrance of a few politicians by claiming some lack of popular support.  The system is broken.  Most people know it.  The politicians haven't figured it out yet.

As for the war, we certainly can be much more “thoughtful” in leaving that we were in getting in, as Franken says.  Of course, that “thoughtfulness” is costing $12 billion a month and about 500 Iraqi lives every day.  I am frankly surprised that anyone watching U.S. policy in Iraq over the past 5 years would still pretend that there is some military solution there.  The U.S. has about the same chance of “winning” the war in Iraq as the Soviet Union had of “winning” the arms race during the Cold War.  Please note that the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, since they spend all their money so foolishly.

As for inside-Minnesota money vs. outside-Minnesota money, it obviously doesn't mean everything.  I will note, however, that 80% of Franken's contributors can't legally vote for him.

Support who you want, Justin.  If you actually favor a “50-state solution” to the healthcare mess, then support Franken by all means.  If you want a more prolonged occupation of Iraq, then support Franken.  If you want a greater electoral influence by PACs and outside money, then support Franken.  It's a free country.  Maybe you like coal-fired electric plants and nuclear energy as well.  Then Franken's your guy.  We just happen to disagree.