Someone tell me why Kerry left $15 million in campaign money in the bank?

[MikeG]

In a close election?

Here's the link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_re_us/democrats_kerry

[kwolf68]

1. This has to be a joke

Why not empty the cuppard? 15 mill? Ya think 15 mill pushed into Ohio would have made any difference?

[lcooksey]

23. That was money from the primary campaign

He couldn't spend it on the election after the Dem convention. He actually had $45 million left over after the convention, and he gave $30 million to the DNC. There are limits on transfering money, so I don't know if he could have given them more or not. Maybe if the Dem Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC) had a few more million, we might not have lost those really close races like Kentucky and Oklahoma. But who knows?

[DianeG5385]

2. He thought he had it won

and didn't need to spend it?

[rooboy]

3. Because the US dollar is appreciating in value so fast?? :) n/t

[JHBowden]

4. We could have dumped $15 million in Ohio.

I don't know why Kerry has $15 million left over. This isn't as bad as Dean blowing 40 million, but still, it doesn't look good.

[ohioan]

11. What would an additional $15 million bought in Ohio?

[JHBowden]

13. Hundreds of Thousands of Voters.

Republican 527 organizations spent 30 million dollars during the entire three weeks before the election. These Republican groups spent 6.6 million of this in Ohio. Imagine if *we* dumped 15 million in just Ohio! We wouldn't have just rebutted the swiftboat ads; we would have nuked them.

[ohioan]

16. How would this have created more voters? Be specific.

Oh, and by the way. The Bush campaign spent tens of millions organizing in Ohio over the past 2 1/2 years, expenditures that Kerry could not have made in advance since he wasn't the nominee. The carefully seeded, well-staffed Bush organization made the difference, not a few million dumped into the state at the last minute.

But please tell us how exactly that $15 million would have resulted in more votes for Kerry.

[JHBowden]

19. Television advertising, of course.

I can't give you a physical reduction of how television advertising works in terms of protons and energies. Nevertheless, I know that television advertising works, and this fact is all we need to know.

Note that Kerry was leading Ohio before the swiftboat ads came out. I would have preferred to fight back instead of grabbing our ankles and breaking out the Vaseline. Kerry did a lot of things well in his campaign, but he dropped the ball on this one.

[ohioan]

22. You think MORE television ads would have made more Bush voters

vote for Kerry?

You may know that "television advertising works," but campaigns are considerably more complicated than that. Here are a couple of things you probably don't know:

1) Local politicians (who regularly win races in Ohio, so they would know) strongly advised Kerry NOT to spend all of his money on media in Ohio since it has proven not to be as effective in Ohio as in other states;

2) Despite this - obviously hedging their bets - the Kerry campaign bought up so much airtime in the state that the television and radio stations had to start turning away their commercial advertising because there was no room left. They COULDN'T have bought any more media.

3) Voter turnout in Democratic areas was record-setting, so obviously Kerry's approach worked - at least to the extent of substantially increasing his voter turnout. The problem was not with Democratic turnout - the problem is that Bush turned out his base, largely because of his incredible advantage due to his incumbency: The Bush campaign started organizing it's GOTV ground game years ago - something that Kerry could not have done, regardless how much money he spent.

I know it's tempting and easy to second-guess everything the campaign does when things don't go the way we want. But we don't know all of the facts and circumstances and just aren't in a position to judge many of the decisions the campaign made. And as someone who was on the ground and integrally involved in the GOTV effort and the post-election recount battle in Ohio, I find it very frustrating to have every move we make second-guessed by people who just don't have all the facts.

[LittleClarkie]

49. Speaking from a battleground state

We were saturated. You couldn't have put more ads on unless you wanted an infomercial. People were so sick of the ads, the phone calls, the flyers, everything. And we had the volunteers and resources to put on an unpresecidented GOTV. I don't know what else we could have done.

How was it in Ohio? Ohio people, shout out.

But then we didn't have Republican FEC people either. We had Dems who fought the undersupplying of ballots the County Supervisor tried to pull. Ohio had Blackwell to deal with, regardless.

[KittyWampus]

35. No, Actually Illegal Voter Suppression, Challenges * E-Voting Made The

difference.

Kerry could have spent 20 million and it wouldn't have mattered.

[merh]

47. Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner here!

Thank goodness there are some sensible folks that appreciate that we could have spent $15 million in each of the states and still we would not have won the election!

THEY STOLE IT!

Now, quite blaming the victim of the theft for the theft. Or rather, quite blaming the rape victim for the rape.

[LittleClarkie]

51. "She wanted me to, I tell ya. Besides, I bought her dinner"

Election translation:
"He wanted to lose, he's one of dem Bonesmen, ya know. Besides, I contributed to the campaign. I bought the right to attack the victim."

[merh]

54. I personally believe that the rapist should be the subject of the

attack! Damn, why can't people see that it is just stupid to attack the person that took the chance on our behalf.

[LittleClarkie]

61. I know, I agree

in case it wasn't clear through the sarcasm.

I'm getting quite disgusted.

[merh]

63. I understood your post and sarcasm and I share your disgust!

:shrug: :argh:

[Eric J in MN]

71. More Get-out-the-vote cavassers (nt)

nt

[Tacos al Carbon]

39. There's a big difference

between spending money trying to win and losing and not spending money that was meant for campaigns. Say what you want about Dean, but he tried his very best and left it all on the field. It looks like Kerry left some on the field and some in the bank account.

I wonder if that $15,000,000.00 would have helped Tom Daschle or Christine Gregoire or Betty Castor or any one of dozens of Democrats who were in close races around the country. But hey, he has his 2008 seed money and ought to do great in the early caucuses!!

[zmdem]

5. Chump change ? n/t

[Fear]

6. There might be a whooooole lot more to this election story I'm afraid.....

[autorank]

9. Scare me Fear, like what?

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.
Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

[Fear]

76. well.......that too, but this scheme goes a bit beyond what we can see at

the moment, or can hold posibly true.

[autorank]

77. I hope you're right. Thanks.

[ugarte]

7. A head start on 2008?

nt

[ohioan]

8. To make sure his bills get paid?

Just because the race ended on November 2, doesn't mean the bills stopped coming in on that date.

It would be insanity for a campaign as large and complicated as a presidential race to liquidate its funds the day after the election - it takes months to complete the accounting and make sure that everything is paid.

[lebkuchen]

12. That would be my guess

Typically after a campaign, there remain a lot of unpaid expenses. Maybe he wants to be sure nobody gets caught holding the bag, expecially if he wants to run again in 2008 (not that he'd want the fucked up mess Bush will be leaving behind).

[LittleClarkie]

53. Bless him

for wanting the fucked up mess BEFORE the election.

[xray s]

14. apparently the bills were already paid

From th elink..

His final report is not due until next month, but officials close to Kerry said he has $15 million to $17 million in that account, with no outstanding debts, after giving the DNC about $23 million and state parties about $9 million since the mid-October report.

In addition, the report showed that Kerry had about $7 million on hand in a legal and accounting compliance fund that he could use for legal expenses in a 2008 campaign. Officials said he raised several million more for that account since the filing.

[ohioan]

17. The current debts are paid up

but debts and bills for campaigns roll in for months after an election.

[xray s]

20. good point

All this seems to be part of the inner struggle for control of the party. Some back stabbing going on for sure. Can't trust anything you read right now.

[LittleClarkie]

52. Not to mention the lawyers on the ground in Ohio

They're not volunteering, are they? I assume they still need to be paid.

[AngryAmish]

10. Paralysis by analysis?

too many cooks?

[benburch]

15. Victory parties are expensive, and we're gonna need a big one soon! nt

[AP]

18. Brecause, like the bar exam, the goal isn't to get 100%. It's just to pass

Any money he didn't spend now, he could spend on 2008 for his reelection campaign.

I know it sounds crazy -- I know that everyone should really campaign like Clinton did (in almost EVERY state and for a landslide). But it seems like there might be some wisdom in blowing just the resources it takes to win.

Having said that, I think if a southern candidate had run, like Clark or Edwards, you would have seen them campaigning in swing states and southern states and they would have spent every last penny doing that, and they would have won by an EV landslide (or not at all).

[JNelson6563]

24. Interesting point

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1363682&mesg_id=1364809

Contrary to a previous stance I see. Change your mind did you?

[AP]

31. JNelson, read both of those posts closely.

I'm saying that if Edwards or Clark were the PRESIDENTIAL candidate they would have campaigned in the south in this post. In the other post, I'm saying that regardless of who the VP candidate was, Kerry probably wasn't going to campaign in the south.

[JNelson6563]

34. Ah, okey doke

I contend that if someone else was #2 on the ticket (especially someone from South, like Clark) maybe they would have argued for going into the south. Maybe someone decreed that the Kerry camp was skipping the south and maybe Edwards didn't argue otherwise. We will never really know I suppose. :shrug:

Thanks for the PM AP. :-) Peace.

Julie

[AP]

36. Well, that explains it. You were projecting.

Never mind what I actually said. (Which included in that other thread a discussion about not thinking that any Democrat on the ticket as VP would have changed Kerry's stated, long-standing strategy of not running in the south.)

By the way, I like that spin: it's Edwards's fault Kerry didn't run in the south. That's the second time I've heard that at DU. Edwards, who said that he would run in the south if nominated for president, didn't speak up.

Kerry said he wasn't going to run in the south in the fall of 2003 in the debates. Kerry's people were running the show. It's Edwards's fault that Kerry didn't run in the south. OK.

Your welcome for the PM. When someone so egregiously misreads my posts, I like them to see the post where I correct the misimpression.

[JNelson6563]

44. Looking in mirror again?

Where did I say it's Edwards fault Kerry lost south? I am of the opinion that most mistakes in this campaign were due to shitty advisors being heeded, even over candidate gut feelings.

In my opinion if Edwards disagreed with foregoing the south he was disregarded. But we don't know do we? Perhaps Clark as VP may have been more adamant about what a STUPID idea ignoring south was. Maybe not. I'm sure in your mind you believe you know for a fact exactly what would have happened. I am more the type to admit, we can't really know, we can only guess. I understand your issues with that sort of dialogue though, it's a very common affliction actually.

As my earlier post in this thread, frankly this is all supposition and speculation. You state what you think coulda, shoulda, woulda happened and then post something a hint different in a different thread. I see the difference but really now, I am still working almost full time hours for my local party and really didn't want to go to the mat with some self-righteous poster over what could have possibly happened if this or that detail was different. I see you are still pounding away, ready to split hairs and go to the mat over it. Have at it. I figured I'd end discussion with some grace and a wish for peace but apparently that doesn't suit you.

I am afraid you will have to find another poster to brawl with. Someone with as much time on their hands as you. At least now I know that if I dance with you, I'll come armed because it's conflict you are after. Happy hunting.

Julie

[AP]

46. If you don't want to "brawl" then why were you so quick to misread my...

...posts?

It's interesting that you characterize debating the issues as "conflict."

Your first post above shows that you're interested in a conflict with me personally based on either an intentional or a very misinformed reading of what I said, and your last post shows that you want to have a conflict with me based on conversations you imagine between Kerry and Edwards and hypothetical discussions between Clark and Kerry.

By the way, if you want to argue about the stupidity of ignoring the south, have that debate with Will Pitt and not me, since he's most vociferous defender of tha strategy.

And do you really want to have an argument that that choice of strategy entirely depended on whether the VP nominee had a strong enough personality to force Kerry's entire campaign to change his firmly held, and repeatedly stated strategy? Do you really want to debate that? Or do you just want to keep planting that seed without having to defend it? -- which is what you're doing above.

[sendero]

25. There's only one problem with that idea..

.... given his dissapointing post-election performance, I'm not contributing to him again. I gave more money to him than I've contributed to all other politicians combined, and I don't feel particularly satisfied in how he chose to spend it.

I will actively fight against Kerry's nom in 2008. He had his shot, if anyone deserves another chance it would be Gore who actually won for certain.

Given the way this campaign was run I would rather nominate any number of other people, people who know better than to let the Reps define them. For X sake, Clinton figured that out over a decade ago.

Kerry has made the most egregious mistake in politics, he has alienated about half of his base by acting like the elections were above-board when there is plenty of evidence they weren't. He'll make a fine senator but he won't be president, sorry.

[AP]

32. There are a lot of problems with that strategy. But my guess is that if

you have 45 million, that can go a long way to buying a change in perspective. Even if you feel the way you do now, being so far ahead of everyone else with the money will make it much easier to buy a different opinion from the public.

[DrWeird]

21. Why did the 1919 White Sox lose the World Series?

nt

[robbedvoter]

26. 2004 was just a dry run? He was in on the BFEE joke? Mock election?

The possibilities are endless. Look for another mock election next time, where Kerry will have a leg up to the competition. Boy, am I proud of myself for not being fooled (except for voting)

[ScreamingMeemie]

27. To pay off his mortgage?

:shrug:

[mtnsnake]

28. Great. So some of the money we donated may go to his next campaign

No wonder they kept emailing us every other day asking for more money.

Here I thought they were so broke that they couldn't make a couple negative attack ads themselves on TV. The swift boat liars and Bush, himself, were running their mouths right up until the end, and I was waiting for some blistering counter-attack ads to come from the Kerry camp aimed at Bush, yet nothing ever came. They had so many ways they could've attacked this pathetic president with an effective TV commercial or two, and they didn't. Unbelievable.

[Walt Starr]

29. I keep thinking about what $15 million could have done in August

fighting against the Swift Boat Smears.

Mayhaps the reason this thing was rigged is because somebody's campaign decided to throw it?

Nahhhhhhh...

:tinfoilhat:

[merh]

48. Refresh my recollection please.

Wasn't the campaign almost out of money in August and it wasn't until after the repuke convention that they were allowed to collect donations again?

Regardless, we did not lose because of the swifties, we lost because they stole the election and, if you do not believe they stole the election, then understand that we lost because we are at war and folks don't "like to change horses in mid stream" -- a vote against * was a vote for Usama and against our troops in many folks minds. Swifties were not give as much credence as you chose to believe.

[ohioan]

55. He COULDN'T spend this money in August

As soon as Kerry accepted the nomination, he could no longer spend the money he raised prior to that date.

[merh]

56. Thank you for that reminder - I knew there was something!

I do appreciate it.

[ohioan]

58. No problem. It's all very confusing.

[merh]

59. Do you think you could start a thread with that info

Kerry couldn't spend money in August -- against the FEC laws, something of that nature?

[ohioan]

60. I can, but I doubt it will make any difference - people have been posting

that information over and over and it doesn't seem to matter to people. I guess if you're intent on bashing Kerry, it really doesn't matter whether you've got your facts straight. (I mean "you" figuratively, not personally.)

[merh]

62. I understand, thanks though. Why they have to attack the man

who sacrificed 600 days to campaign and his own money, is beyond me.
:shrug:

[ohioan]

64. Me and you both . . .

Some of these people remind me of those folks who talk the loudest about their religious faith and then, the second they hit a rough spot, what's the first thing to go? Their faith!

We're seeing the same thing here - some of the people who scream the loudest about being hardcore Democrats are the first to turn on other Democrats the minute things go bad.

One good thing about adversity - brings out the true colors.

[merh]

66. LittleClarkie shares our frustration. eom

[LittleClarkie]

65. "Swifties were not give as much credence as you chose to believe."

I've had to deal with way too many people here in Freeperland to believe that. People who thought it was funny to poke each other in the arm and say "Ow, now should get a Purple Heart too, right?" or who repeated the lies as if they were the undisputed truth. How could anyone look at the evidence and NOT see how thin it was.

Some will never get what Kerry was trying to say in his testimony. But if one more freeper says that one of the turning points in the election was when the "gallant" SBVT came out and told the "truth" about John Kerry, I'm going to snap.

I don't know if he could ever repair the damage. But I think a few Navy veterans would like to see him try. This daughter of a Navy veteran would like to see him try.

[merh]

67. Freepers are going to believe everything they are told

Nothing could be done to change their minds. Its just like those who still believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 or is the alter ego of Usama.

Kerry's reputation is better than shrubs, he has well over 55 million that we know of (gosh knows how many were stolen) and the entire world was for him (or at least 90% of the world). Nothing Kerry could have done would have stopped, slowed or prevented the SBV smear.

[LittleClarkie]

68. You're right of course

It was interesting having a veteran candidate, watching progressive campaigners get all hot and bothered about the lies. And that testimony of his will be invaluable as we deal with our own version of Vietnam. In some ways, having these issues brought up added to the dialogue.

That said, I thought about your comment about there being nothing Kerry could have done or said. Even when he did have things to say, we'd all watch as outlets like CNN covered them inadequately or not at all. Bush could announce a major address and say nothing new. Kerry could hit one out of the park, as with Temple Univ., and suddenly CNN was having technical difficulties. In a perfect world, with a level playing field, he might have gotten his message out. As it was, you almost had to become a student and research him to get the big picture, Kerry-wise. Damn corporate media.

[merh]

72. Don't forget, he did get his message out to 55 plus million

"In a perfect world, with a level playing field, he might have gotten his message out"

Just imagine if the fairness doctrine was still in effect and if the FEC was comprised of a majority of dems and if Powell wasn't over the FCC, how his message would have been heard and what a landslide that would be.

For all of the hindrances, he was heard and more voters than those that elected St. Raygun into office voted for my President, John Kerry.

He has nothing to be ashamed of and neither does the party or any of us on DU. It was like he was sent into the ring with both arms tied behind his back and blindfolded, yet he fought like hell and whooped up on the weed, only problem was, the weed had bought and paid for the ref and the judges.

Hold your head high - I am a very plump lady that has had laryngitis since just before the election. I am still trying to recover my voice, but I cannot quite yet sing, therefore, the fat lady has yet to sing!

[GumboYaYa]

30. Kerry has that money b/c he cares more about John Kerry than

Dem victories. He could have passed some of that money to the KY Senate race. A few million would have swung that race for the Dems. He could have dumped money into the OK Senate race and made a big difference. There were about six Congressional races that could have been swung by that money.

Here in MO we had no support from the Kerry campaign. They pulled out a month before the election. I was copying Kerry flyers and news articles myself to hand out when I canvassed. A little of that money certainly would have helped in MO. It might not have meant victory for Kerry in MO, but it may have swung some of the down-ballot races to the Dems. The Govenors race here was lost by a slim margin.

I have controlled the purse strings on campaigns in the past. One fundamental rule is that you don't end the race with untapped resources. If you overshoot your budget, you can always raise money after the election to cover it. Kerry wanted to do just enough to win, but preserve the ability to fight another day if he lost. I am disgusted by this tactic.

Everyone kept telling us that Kerry was a winner and a strong closer during the primaries. He won over several more solid progressives based on the mirage of "electability." Well that is obviously not true.

I held my tongue after the election, refusing to criticize and instead focusing on fixing the party going forward, but this $15.0 million of unspent money has me beside myself.

Kerry sold out all the people who worked tirelessly for him during the campaign, some like me, despite their own doubts about the candidate.

[UpsideDownFlag]

33. so that he could go back in time and use it to respond to the swifties...

:shrug:

[Fleshdancer]

37. For $15 Mill, we should just start our own electronic voting machine Co.

That way, at least we can steal half the election instead of allowing the right wingers to steal all of it.

[WI_DEM]

38. so Teresa won't have to fund his entire '08 primary effort

[fishwax]

40. He was saving money for the legal battles

That was my assumption anyway, since most were assuming beforehand that the election would drag out for weeks, as it did in 2000.

[Eric J in MN]

69. No, there was a separate fund for legal battles, GELAC. (nt)

nt

[fishwax]

74. Thanks, I didn't know they were separate

In that case, wtf?

[Larkspur]

41. He needs to pay off his $6.4 million mortgage on his half of his mansion

To refinance his ailing campaign, Kerry, with the help of his wife's banking contacts, took out a mortgage on his half of his Beacon Hills mansion. He can use campaign contributions to pay it back and that is why I vowed not to donate to Kerry's campaign.

[Eric J in MN]

70. Kerry took that money back months ago. The $15 million

at the end of the campaign has nothing to do with the mortgage money he loaned his primary campaign, and then took back.

[robbedvoter]

42. because it was all about John

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage8.asp
Spare the country—spare me. Are we so fragile we can’t handle the delay that exactitude might require in the most important Presidential campaign in a generation? "Spare the country": You see that meme in a number of poorly thought-out editorials and columns praising Mr. Kerry for his cop-out. Noble John Kerry "sparing the country." Not being a "sore loser." Maybe not a sore loser, but a loser—that’s for sure.

He made it all about him. All about how he’d look, about his image, perhaps about his future, his pathetic dream of running another inept campaign. What about his followers, who put their hearts into the campaign and were cheated of certainty so Mr. Kerry could bask in the goo-goo congratulations of the sappy and wrong-headed "spare the country" editorialists.

[Mick Knox]

43. I dunno but I'm not donating ONE RED CENT to recounts

Thats a scam. He can pay for his own if he wants it.. if he don't, then that can be on his conscience.

[JPZenger]

45. Hopefully Will Be Used to Pay off Demo. Congress. Debt

The Demo. House and Senate Campaign committees went into over 10 million dollars of debt in the final month of the campaign. Hopefully Kerry's money can be used to pay off those loans.

If Kerry stashes the money away for his 2008 campaign, we should all demand a refund. We need a new candidate in 2008 who can appeal better to the border states.

[trogdor]

50. FWIW, it's the Greens and Nader's Raiders paying for the recounts.

Not the Kerry campaign. Lots of DU'ers are pitching into this effort, and if JK is as disinterested in uncovering election fraud as I hear from this message board, doing so would have the effect in casting shame where it is richly deserved, IMO. Even if this is not the case, it is a noble effort.

[ohioan]

57. How can you be hearing from this board what Kerry is or isn't interested

in? Has he posted any messages sharing his personal views? Or are you relying upon the guesses and suppositions from a bunch of Democrats who mean well but have absolutely no clue what Kerry's motivations are?

[Demobrat]

73. So he doesn't have to mortgage his house again

in 2008.

[Fabio]

75. Because it had to be spent by the convention.

That money is a function of the business plan for the campaign not being as successful at growing as the finance activities were in June and July. still should have been used though.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

78. Why does the value keep changing?

Yesterday we were told it was $45 million. Earlier I saw stories he had $45 million left to be used for legal challenges.

Is this the last we've heard of this story or is it going to change again tomorrow? No wonder few people trust the media.