This $15 million nest egg left in Kerry's campaign account is troubling

[WI_DEM]

That is not a small amount of change. I don't know if it would have made a difference in Kerry's presidential race (after all he did spend a fortune as it is in Ohio), but it might have made the popular vote less daunting and given more legitimacy to the problems with the polling machines in Ohio and other states.

What if Kerry had spent some of that cash in the south--could he have closed the popular vote gap there? could he have made it a contest in Missouri and Arkansas?

What about the closely contested senate races? We lost Kentucky, Florida and South Dakota by small margins. Could a Kerry contribution to those races have made a difference--we wouldn't have had the majority but three extra seats will come in handy in the next four years.

Now many people are speculating that he kept that money so he would have for a possible '08 run!! I don't know if that is true or not, but I think his campaign should give an explanation as to why it didn't use all of its resources in such a crucial and close election.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Maybe he was saving up for lawyer fees?

[Leilani]

6. There is a separate legal account

which has been written about here at DU.

GELAC???

[JI7]

8. yes, but i think they said he could use that money for legal fees

he wasn't able to spend it on his own campaign since he accepted public funds.

[ClarkUSA]

16. $10 million in the "recount fund" in addition to the $15 million

All for 2008. Gee, I know alot of Congressional races that needed some that $15 million in this past election. In fact, there are two races the DCCC keeps sending pleas of money for now in Louisiana that could use some of that money now.

I think alot of people want their money back. :grr:

[willysnout]

21. I Don't Want My $ Back

I gave $10,500 this year, which is 10x more than in any other election. If we back out $3,500 that went to 527 groups, it was $7,000 for Kerry and the DNC. I am thrilled that they've got $25 million left over. I really am. I just hope they'll put it to good use. Come on, children, look to the future. There are plenty of battles to fight. Hasn't anyone here ever lost an election before? What babies you are!

[saracat]

24. This wasn't just an ordinary election.Kerry himself said this was the

"most important election of our lifetime!" And he doesn't "appear"( I hope he is!I really trusted him) to be fighting for it! And we didn't just lose the presidency but almost every state and local office as well! And we are "babies'? Everyone knew what was at stake. It was democracy itself! What makes you think there will be another election? Because there always has been? This election broke all the rules! I don't trust them not to misuse my money. I donated to Kerry and it ended up in the coffers of the DNC. I deliberately didn't send money to the DNC because I have seen how they spend it. I had earmarked that money for Kerry and resent that it was not spent. And BTW, as usual, the DNC had the worst trained staff of complete idiots I have ever seen. And I would have never authorized their paycheck!

[willysnout]

25. We Didn't Lose That Badly

"Almost every state and local office as well?" Could've fooled me. I'm sitting here in Seattle looking at the re-election of Patty Murray. Colorado elected a Democratic senator. There are more Democratic governors now than there were before Nov. 2, although in WA we might get a Republican depending on how the recount goes.

This election didn't "break all the rules." Yes, it was extremely important, and that's why I gave as much as I did. But now I want the Democratic Party to move forward because there's a shitload of work to do. And I, for one, am glad there's some money in the bank. Here's a thought: Instead of going batshit about this, maybe the thing to do is agitate for the Democratic National Committee to become more businesslike in its operations.

And here's an even wilder idea: Agitate for the Democratic Party to rebrand itself. Yeah, I know how much everyone will hate that idea. Way too corporate. But I think the Democratic Party has a problem. We lack a unified, self-generated identity. When that happens, you're begging your opponents to make the label and it's not going to be a nice label.

Hate to break the news to you, but the things I've suggested take money to plan and especially to execute. What? You'd be happy only if the Democratic Party were broke? Think about it!

[saracat]

28. We did in Arizona. And we had a chance of going blue before they

pulled all the decent people and cut the air time. You don't have a comparison in a blue state such as Washington. Try a red leaning swing state like Arizona and tell me how happy you would be with their spending habits! We were two percentage points behind and climbing. Three weeks later, ten point spread. We were celebrating two school board elections at our state committe meeting! We were "told" that everything was "pulled " because we were a "shoe in" as we had the best ground force in the nation! And we didn't have to spend the money here! Right. In 2000, Ed Rendell asked them to send Clinton here because we would have won and not need Florida. They refused. He asked for an influx of money and they refused. This is the second time this has happened. We need to reassumme our mantle as the party of the people. We need to ditch the DLC and move left. That is how we need to rebrand ourselves!

[willysnout]

30. DLC Isn't About Tactics

I don't see how you can blame tactical blunders on DLC influence. I suspect you and I might agree on plenty of things. When I say "rebrand" the Democratic Party I assure you that I'm not wanting Lieberman to be the brand. My point is that our party doesn't have a self-generated core identity, and the lack of one allows the Republicans get away with slapping any label on us that suits their whim.

If someone can't answer the question, "Why are you a Democrat" in a single sentence, then we have a problem. And I would wager that if you picked 100 Democrats off the street not five of them could do it.

[saracat]

34. Choke. Have you ever talked to Al From? Or read anything by the DLC? They

are all about tactics. That is why they exist. They frame the Democratic Party! They are the ones that dreamed up Republican Lite! I agree 100% with your other comments though. We need a clear message. I say go back to Roosevelt and study what he did right!

[willysnout]

35. The DLC Is About Policy

They're a group that wants to pull the Democrats toward the center. They have had some useful ideas. I remember one of them from the 1980s that really made a lot of sense at the time. They said that the Democratic Party had come to represent people who didn't work for a living, i.e., too much reliance on welfare, too much emphasis on entitlements. It was a difficult message to hear but there was a lot of truth in it, and you'll note that Clinton won by appealing to people who "work hard and play by the rules." I've got no doubt they tested the hell out of that one in focus groups, and it was a great line.

But there can be too much of anything, and to me Lieberman represents the DLC mentality gone amok. I listen to that guy and wonder what the hell makes him a Democrat anyway. If for no other reason than having put a silver stake through Lieberman's national ambitions, I really appreciate Dean even though I didn't support him.

Now, back to the core message. I submit the following. "I am a Democrat because Democrats care about the people who make this country work." The slogan? "Democrats Care." If I were running the show, every single message and program from the Democratic Party would be directly connected to that message and that slogan. I wouldn't be subtle or elegant. I'd be so cheesy about it that people would drip in it. "Democrats Care."

If they tried that one on for size, I think they'd like it. Among other things, it has the advantage of telling everyone you think the Republicans are a packing of slimy assholes without having to say it directly. And, if I had $25 million in the bank to implement that re-branding and make the nuts-and-bolts changes that need to be made in the bowels of the organization, I'd be overjoyed.

Why anyone other than a Republican would want the Democratic Party to be flat broke is beyond me!

[willysnout]

36. One Other Thing

If the Democrats are going to do a re-branding, the absolute worst thing in the world would be to do it halfway. Frankly, they should immediately amass a huge war chest for the rebranding. There ought to be an ad campaign running in the hundreds of millions for it. You know, like a corporate image campaign. Because that what this would be.

[L84TEA]

2. Iowa margin was super small too...

I can also say... that I don't know about your area, but it was hard as heck to get any campaign signs for Kerry around here. I don't know if it was popularity or just simply underfunded.

[Kolesar]

3. Was that primary-only money?

You do know that he accepted public funding for the general election.

[JI7]

4. i believe it was the money from the primary

he accepted public funds so he could not use the money after the convention. if it's the public funds then he would have to return that to the government.

i think it was in case of legal fees since i remember reading something about how he could use some money from some account towards that.

[willysnout]

5. Troubling? Are You Nuts?

It's fantastic that there's $15 million left over. It's seed money for next time. This wasn't a matter of not buying enough advertising. Both campaigns ran plenty of ads. What happened is that our voters didn't show up in sufficient numbers. The youth vote didn't materialize to the degree it should have, nor did the minority vote.

The Democratic Party operates in too much of an ad-hoc fashion. Between elections it doesn't do anything, and when the elections roll around you have all these people searching for a magic bullet that will kill off the other guy. "If only we had talked about (insert favorite issue here)" or "If only we had run an ad that said (fill in the concept)."

The Democratic Party needs more stability and continuity so it can develop its constituencies and unify its various messages into an overarching theme. Every product has a brand image whether you realize it or not, and today the Democratic Party's image is one of disorganization. Here's hoping Kerry deploys the $15 million, and raises more on top of it, in such a way as to make much-needed repairs to the party's foundations.

[MrUnderhill]

9. "Seed money for next time"????? I didn't send him my contribution so that

he could save it up for next time!

Frankly, I don't WANT him to run next time... I didn't particularly want him THIS time, but he won the nomination.

I gave him money I'd rather not have thrown away.
I gave him money that would have been better spent with my favorite charities.
Heck, I gave him money that would have bought me a star.


If it's seed money for "next time" - I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

[willysnout]

12. Tough Luck

... no politician ever returned a contribution. Hey, I gave $10,000 and if there's anything I'm pissed off about it's that they didn't spend any of it in August to go after the Swiftliars. I also heard that they were staying in some pretty swanky hotels and paying more than they should have for advertising.

[MrUnderhill]

13. Bull! Politicians HAVE, in fact, returned contributions.

Yeah... I'm suuure you gave $10,000 (especially with the legal limit being $2,000).

Can't afford a star then? Just a few bucks?

Hope you've enjoyed your stay here at DU.

[willysnout]

17. About the Limits

There was a $2,000 limit to Kerry-Edwards. But that didn't keep me from writing a $1,000 check to the DNC when a canvasser showed up at my door. It didn't keep me from donating $4,000 to the DNC when Kerry spoke in Seattle. Didn't keep me from giving $2,000 to Move On and $1,000 to the Media Fund. Didn't keep me from giving $500 to Texans for Truth, either.

Politicians only return contributions when someone finds out that they came from an illegal or embarrassing source. I doubt I qualify as either of those, and I doubt you do either. But hey, give it a shot. Write for a refund, but don't hold your breath. :-)

[MrUnderhill]

19. They ALSO return contributions that were solicited under false pretenses.

Like Jeffords returning contributions to all of those republicans who gave him money to run as a republican - until he changed parties.

And politicians have returned money (when it was demanded) when they used money raised for one office to run for another.

[willysnout]

20. O.K., Then Write To Kerry's Campaign

... and ask for a refund. Do let us know how it goes.

[JI7]

15. he could not use money you gave in august since he accepted public money

he accepted public funds so after he convention he was not able to use money he raised himself for his own campaign.

[KittyWampus]

11. Democrats, Youth & Minorities Most CERTAINLY DID TURN OUT

a lot of them either had to stand on line for 4 hours, had their vote challenged, voted into a black box that is easily hackable or used punch cards that are scanned by electronic machines that are also easily hackable.

Please read up on the facts and stop spouting GOP talking points.

[willysnout]

14. Look At The Numbers

Youth and minority turnout rose, but so did everyone else's. There was much more potential for youth turnout than was realized. Long lines at the polls were outrageous, but they weren't the reason for inadequate youth and minority turnout. The Democrats need to study why they couldn't get more of their young and minority supporters to cast votes. It's not because they had to wait in line.

[saracat]

29. If we had used the money to win, we wouldn't have to rebuild

or make as many repairs. I would rather have less money and win!

[willysnout]

31. Yeah, But We Lost

Now get used to it. I just can't get on board with the idea that there's something horribly wrong with having $25 million in the bank. Look, if the Democratic candidate couldn't win New Mexico or Nevada, he probably wouldn't won in Arizona. And from everything I was told, there were already too many ads on the air in Ohio.

I can tell you this: If Democrats sit here and carve each other to pieces over stuff like this, the 2006 and 2008 elections are going to make '04 and '00 look like a day at the beach. There's work to do.

[saracat]

32. If they weren't well placed and they weren't effective in Ohio

that is also incompetence. You are apparently not familiar with the Arizona situation or you wouldn't be so quick to assume a NM or Nevada comparison. But nevermind .We were also close instates we shouldn't have been. The day Of the current DLC and the DNC is past and the power block of people who supported us won't give money again. Don't you read this board? Get used to it. Our base is gone and so are the new recruits. They aren't going to reup. And there might not be any 2004, 2008 elections. You get used to it! No more money from the little folks!

[willysnout]

33. Don't Be So Histrionic

I don't know how old you are. Maybe this is just a difference in experience talking. This was my eighth prez election, and then 10th that I watched closely. (I was one of those precocious kids, so I was really interested in the '68 and '72 races even though was 11 and 15 years old, respectively.) Yes, this one was the most important of the bunch of them in my opinion, which is why I gave so much money and worked my heart out.

But: We will have an election in 2008. Our base is not gone. We won 48% of the vote. Hell, with the fraud it was probably more. Bush won by the narrowest margin given to any wartime president, for chrissakes, and you're spazzing out and declaring the Democratic Party to be dead. Jesus Christ, is that a backbone or a noodle?

Now, if the Democratic Party wants to get guys like me to give them $10,000 next time around like I did this time around, here's what they will have to do: They will have to focus their message so we can have a concise (one sentence) idea of what it means to be a Democrat. And I am NOT talking a Lieberman message here, so if you're thinking of accusing me of being a corporate suck-up don't go there.

The other thing they have to do is show competence. I want to see stories about an overhaul in the party's operational tactics. And I want to see them do some analysis of how to motivate a whole lot more young people and minorities than they motivated this time around. One thing we ought to know is the following: Rap videos are fine 'n dandy but you'd better have some other tools in the tool chest.

[saracat]

51. I assume that I am around about your age. And I am insulted that you

term my analysis "histrionics". I was one of those precocious kids as well. I marched on Washington against the Vietnam war when I was thirteen and I have been involved ever since! Our "base" is eroding if not gone. The operative word is "won" past tense. These people are NOT going to work their butt off and donate again with little result. I like parts of your re branding idea, but it is going to take more than just money. The turnout and enthusiasm this election was not just generated by traditional Democrats. We were a composite of many factions that united. We were Greens and Deaniacs and DK supporters. We were new supporters who had never been involved before, and that is what I mean by our "base." Our traditional base is much smaller and perhaps more loyal, but they aren't 48% of the vote.And we didn't even get all of them. The Union vote wasn't solid and we sure split the Hispanic vote. The Blacks were our only unified base. What we need is to reach out to the voters that supported us and they, by a large majority, are angry, and this time they are angry at us for how we spent their money. We have to re infuse their spirit and cater to their needs ,not go haring off after "centrist" votes we will never get as per the DLC advice. But that being said, I still would not guarantee a 2008 election. If there is one, The shape we re in, It might only be a front. But, There go my "histrionics"!And here I thought that so many people, including Kerry, were concerned as this was the most "important election of our lifetime." I thought democracy was at stake. Silly me.

[willysnout]

52. Just Be Calmer

... that's all. Believe me, I feel just as bad as you do about losing the election. I only want to have a clear head about it. The Democrats have not lost their base. That was an issue in 1972, 1980 and 1984, but it was not a problem this year. Our biggest issue was the turnout of our base having been inadequate. For all the talk of the youth vote and the minority vote, the sad fact is that the Democratic Party does a woefully inadequate job of mobilizing these voters. Still, though, if we had lost our base there is no way on earth that Kerry would have gotten 48% of the vote.

Now, the union vote is a problem not because we're losing percentage support but because unions have failed to organize workers and therefore organized labor has become less massive for us. The Republicans have been highly effective at using religion to attract, keep and mobilize mostly non-union, low wage workers in suburbs and small towns. These people are their labor unions, and their unions are growing while our unions are shrinking.

This is a significant strategic issue, and Democrats who think they can solve it with a Clinton clone are engaging in the usual Democratic magic-bullet fantasies. The Republicans have actively pursued this vote for decades, while the Democrats have acted like a lady at the opera who's just seen a mouse anytime anyone mentions anything even tangentially connected to religion. We're not going to solve it overnight, but I'd argue that "Democrats Care" would be a good start.

As for the DLC, I think I've conveyed my mixed feelings about them. People on this board seem to regard them as some sort of enemy. I don't. I think they had a bunch of good things to say in the 1980s, and I don't think we'd have ever had Clinton elected but for the DLC's involvement. I'm more liberal than Clinton, but I have to give him credit for an old-fashioned college try on health care. People here seem to forget the shellacking he took in the 1994 off-year elections, after which point it was very much in doubt as to whether he'd be electable in '96.

If you want to piss and moan about Kerry having exited his campaign with money in the bank, I can't stop you but I'm not going to join in. I know DU is just a website but I also think there's a lot of energy and commitment here and I hate to see it dissipated on pointless intramural spats. While I don't think all is lost by any stretch, I'd also say that the Republican Party is more unified, cogent and politically ascendant than at any time in my memory.

Democrats had better shape up, stick together and adopt a spirit of pragmatism. We really don't have the luxury to slash each other to pieces over fine distinctions, boutique issues or looking in the rear-view mirror.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Is it possible it all came in too late to be used?

or most of it anyway?

[MrUnderhill]

10. No. It isn't possible.

Because it's either the general election funds that he received from the government (he couldn't take contributions for that), or it's money from the primaries (which he couldn't spend during the general election, but he COULD transfer to other party activities)

[ohioan]

18. Kerry was barred BY LAW from spending this money on his general election

campaign.

[MrUnderhill]

22. But he was NOT banned from giving it to other groups that COULD spend it.

The money could have been transfered to local races.... or to the DNC...

Or he could have simply done what Bush did... when he didn't need any more money, he kept raising it for the party and for local candidates.



It's like a football coach running the no-huddle at the end of a game, but never using any of his three time-outs.

[JI7]

23. he did give a lot to others

but he saved some in case of legal fees which they said could be used from his primary campaign money.

from what i heard he will now be giving it to people who run in 2006.

[ohioan]

38. Can you imagine if Kerry had spent all of this money and had nothing

left over right now - people would have been BLASTING him for depleting his funds and having nothing to help build up the coffers for 2006.

Lord save us from know-it-all-cand-can-never-be-satisfied Democrats!

[willysnout]

39. Bravo! Bravissimo!

I absolutely agree with you!

[ohioan]

37. LOL! You think Kerry was supposed to stop campaigning and go on

the fundraising circuit in the middle of the campaign?

[MrUnderhill]

50. Bush did. And it wasn't the "middle of the campaign"

We're talking about the couple months leading up to the nominating conventions when Bush had already raised all he needed and continued to fundraise (AS he was campaigning... not "instead of") for the party. Kerry was doing a masterful job of catching up in the fundraising... but apperently was raising money he couldn't spend.

With a month to go, Kerry surely knew how much money he had and how much time was left to spend it... yet he was raising money right up until the convention (a not very successful convention I will point out).

There were a couple Senate races that could have benefited from a few million extra dollars.

[ohioan]

55. Yes - and Kerry could have done that too, if he weren't SO BUSY RUNNING

in his primaries, putting together a campaign team, planning his general election and picking a VP nominee, things that Bush had more than three years to do!

But since you and some others here are so certain you know so much more about how a national candidate should run his campaign, perhaps you can step up and run a presidential campaign in 2008 and, thus, ensure that the candidate gets the benefit of the perfect advice, strategy and scheduling you can no doubt provide them.

[Red State Rebel]

26. Why? I've never heard of that....

This wasn't the fund for recounts, etc. Donna Brazile said he should have spent it on his campaign or given it to other democrats.

[JI7]

27. they said he could use the primary money for legal fees

but he could not use it for campaigning since he accepted public funds.

he did give a bunch to other democrats. but the money he kept was most likely in case of need for legal fees .

i'm sure he will give the money to candidates running in 2006 now unless he uses it for any legal fees.

[RinaJ]

44. Yesterday people were bitching about $50 million

Now that more facts have come in, they're still bitching. It's been two weeks since the election. I could only imagine the hell that would have broken loose around here if we had needed to do legal challenges right away two weeks ago, and Kerry was out of money from spending it all on the campaign.

Looking at this from all sides, he just can't win either way. People are bound and determined to blame him one way or the other. More likely than not, he'll quietly do what he was going to do with the money anyways if it wasn't needed for post-election legal fees, and help out other Dem candidates in 2006. God forbid people here actually show some patience.

[ohioan]

45. She was partly wrong

He could have given it to the DNC or state parties. He could not have spent it on his own campaign, since the general election is funded by public money. The same goes for Bush.

[zulchzulu]

43. Bingo! We have a winner (not a whiner)...

Perhaps we should wait for the report to be released before we have to hear from proven failures like Donna Brazile to "expose" this info.

Maybe Kerry should have spent the money so that we could have a controversy on that...

She wants the DLC seat and hopefully can do as great a job as she did with Gore's 2000 run. By the way, she would love to roll over Dean for the spot too. :puke:

[ohioan]

46. Great point

There wasn't enough money to spread around effectively to everyone who needed, so he would have had to pick and choose. Can you imagine the second-guessing, bitching, and moaning that would have resulted had Kerry given it to some and not others? Or what if he had given it all to the DNC - he would have been BLASTED for lining the coffers of the "DLC/DNC, blah blah blah."

As I said, there's nothing like a bunch of armchair novices who think they're not only experts on political strategy, but also seem to believe they are experts on campaign finance and funding.

[Larkspur]

40. I'm so glad that I did not donate to Kerry's campaign

This story makes me gladder that I also refused to donate time to his campaign. If I did, I'd be demanding a refund big time.

Kerry is a snob and this story confirms it.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

41. He really got slammed by Donna Brazille (CNN)

Donna siad if he knew "It's inexcusable" and if he didn't know - the campaign was "very sloppy."

Bay Buchanan (NOT that she has that much credibility) said if he knew about the money - he should be run out of the party.

[zulchzulu]

42. Donna Brazille should talk...she wants the DLC gig

I mentioned about her yesterday on this issue:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=999572&mesg_id=999891

If she gets the DLC gig, we are screwed.

[ohioan]

47. And, of course, we should all look to Bay Buchanan for guidance

[GumboYaYa]

48. I have been reluctant to criticize the campaign, but this is an

unforgivable error. You simply do not leave powder in the keg before an election. There is such an incredibly long littany of things that the money could have been used for that I don't have the time or inclination to even begin to start.

During the primaries everyone told us that Kerry is a fighter, a strong closer, one of the best campaigners ever. Well that is just pure bullshit. Anyone who elects to save money for next time in a close election is not playing to win.

I am disgusted by this news. I did not like Kerry in the primaries, but I becamne asupporter when he was chosen as our candidate. Now I regret all those hours walking the streets in the rain and cold trying to get votes for him. He sold all of us volunteers up the river by holding back this cash.

[Richardson08]

49. I read it was $45 million with another $7-8 million set aside for lawyer

fees

[Walt Starr]

53. Man, think of what could have been done with $15 million in August

When Kerry was getting slammed by the Swift Boat Liars for Bush!

:eyes:

No wonder we lost.

:grr:

[willysnout]

54. That Wasn't About Money, It Was About (Lack of) Will

It was about Kerry and his people not saying anything. The Swiftliars were all over the free media and Kerry's side of the story was nowhere to be seen because they weren't telling it. They wouldn't have had to spend much money at all.

[shance]

56. Answers are needed. Campaigns never have money left over, much less THAT

much money.

Somebodys not being straight with the public.

57. In the market system one dollar equals one vote.

15 million dollars could of perhaps purchased enough ads to get the 130,000 voters needed in Ohio to win. In the one dollar equals one vote election market system we have he who has the $ to buy the votes gets the votes. Not a very democratic system but that's for another thread topic.

It does seem kind of odd to me, in most of the stuff I get from the Dems in the mail it says they need more money because they are running short on funds so that they can in short buy more votes excuse me I mean so they can buy more ads in swing states then the Republicans can buy.

[Native]

58. This has got to be like the 25th thread on this topic...

Can we give it a rest?