Fundraising Key to Hackett Departure

[OzarkDem]

If he couldn't raise enough money to beat Brown in the primary, how was he going to raise enough to beat DeWine. Bottom line he picked a very, very expensive and tough race for a newbie who had no campaign chest. The only mistake Brown and other Dems made was in letting Hackett think he could run in a Senate race, though they were really in a lose/lose situation. Maybe its time for Hackett to have a talk with fellow Marine John Glenn who ran and lost numerous times before winning a senate seat in Ohio about how to take responsibility for your own campaign.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/isope/1140006767212100.xml&coll=2


In a telephone interview, Hackett said he realized early this week that he probably couldn't raise enough cash before the May 2 primary to pay for enough advertising to defeat his primary opponent, Democratic U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown of Avon.

He had nearly kept pace with Brown on fund raising since entering the Senate race last fall but still lagged far behind.

“Here’s my take on it,” Hackett said. “I’ve got six weeks to raise 3 million bucks. And the hard-core reality is I’m probably not going to do that. That was my analysis.”

[Gman]

1. So why did he cry and blame the boogie DSCC

and the Democratic Party in general?

[earthside]

6. Because, duh ...

... Schumer and the other bosses were actively telling donors NOT to contribute to Hackett's campaign.

Nice set-up, uh? The DSCC says Hackett should get out because he couldn't raise enough money, but we're going to keep you from raising enough money.

No matter how you look at it, the pressure from the party bosses in Washington, D.C., have denied Ohio Democrats a choice they should have had.

[1932]

10. In Freakanomics by Steven Levitt he says that the correlation between

money and winning raises isn't causal. You don't win races because you have money. He says the relation is correlative.

You raise money because people believe you can win. No amount of money can turn an unappealing candidate into a candidate who can as Forbes and Golisano can attest to.

I'm sure there are enough donors out there who don't do as they're told by chuck schumer, and even if Schumer asked them to donate they wouldn't do it unless they believed the guy could win.

The reason Hackett didn't have money probably has more to do with the fact that even with a high profile he was only polling 2:1 behind Brown.

[Gman]

13. Exactly. The DCCC and DSCC are looking at polling data

starting in the fall before the election. They have complete reports on each and every race. They know which races are winnable and by who. They also know who can't win and why. It is a science.

Except for the small donors who give for ideological reasons, nobody wants to throw good money after bad with a candidate that can't win. That was Hackett's problem. He stood no chance of winning. Nobody forbade people from giving him money. People that give big money (as in he needed $3 million real quick) like to back a winner. Why? One word... ACCESS!! ... which is the root of the problem with our entire system.

[mzmolly]

2. How dare you post something logical!

I want to piss and moan, pleasssssssse.

;)

K&R

[wakeme2008]

3. DCCC was calling donors and telling them NOT to donate to

him.

WHAT do you think Dean was so mad about.

[MrBenchley]

9. Really?

They were calling the grassroots?

[ruggerson]

14. They were calling the people who give seed money

and they had every right to do so. But, as Mixner notes, the only thing that makes it slimy are these are the very people who urged him to get in in the first place.

[Aaaargh]

4. John Glenn only lost once - in an actual CONTESTED PRIMARY!

"In 1970, John Glenn entered politics and represented Ohio for the Democratic Party in the Senate from 1974 until retiring in 1999. In 1964 he announced that he was running against incumbent Senator Stephen M. Young in the Democratic primary, but was forced to withdraw when he suffered a fall in his bathroom after attempting to adjust a heavy mirror. It fell on him, causing him to fall backwards and hit his head on the bathtub. He sustained a concussion and injured his inner ear. Recovery left him unable to campaign at that time.

In 1970, Glenn contested for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate; however, Glenn lost in the primary to fellow Democrat Howard Metzenbaum, who went on to lose the general election race to Robert Taft Jr. In the bitterly-fought 1974 Democratic primary rematch, Glenn defeated Metzenbaum. Metzenbaum had been appointed by Ohio governor John J. Gilligan to the other Ohio Senate seat to fill out the term of William B. Saxbe, who had resigned to become U.S. attorney general. In the 1974 general election, Glenn defeated Republican Mayor of Cleveland Ralph Perk."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glenn

[DancingBear]

5. And look! - here's the rest of the quote!

"Hackett said he also was influenced by intense pressure in recent weeks from Democratic Party leaders urging him to leave the race and by frequent calls from donors saying they were being urged by top Democrats not to contribute to his campaign."

But you probably just forgot to put in that part, right?

I guess it just didn't fit.

<yawn>

[MercutioATC]

7. Ya know...I'm getting closer and closer to not voting for Brown.

I realize that it's not fair to blame a candidate for his supporters' actions, but I've lost respect for him anyway and this guy sure isn't helping.

[DancingBear]

11. Well, if I lived in Ohio I'd vote for him

But to think he wasn't privy to what other "top" Democrats were doing to clear the field for him is just foolish.

I just hope like hell he wins, but I am deathly afraid that southern Ohio is going to run away from him like a scalded dog.

[Kukesa]

8. Brown's had years to amass his campaign war chest,

considering he's been in politics since the 1980's (BTW,he hasn't won an election since 1992).

And Hackett's had only months; he did pretty good for the new guy in town, doncha think?

[OzarkDem]

12. ..

[welshTerrier2]

15. i think your premise is wrong ...

per the article you cited in the OP:

He had nearly kept pace with Brown on fund raising since entering the Senate race last fall but still lagged far behind.

The two candidates raised very similar amounts ... Brown had a huge bankroll from a prior run ... and Brown had far more name recognition to start with ...

My argument is NOT which one was the better candidate or better for the party but i think it's illogical to conclude that Brown was a more effective fundraiser than Hackett ...

if we keep comparing start-up campaigns from "fresh new faces" against "old tried and trues", we might as well make a rule that only incumbents need apply ... not a whole lot of democracy in that idea ... new campaigns take time to catch on ... now we'll never know what might have been ...