Ah, it begins again…
Last year the Virginia body politic in general and the Tenth congressional district in particular was assailed repeatedly by claims of what damage Judy Feder would do to Congressman Frank Wolf in November 2006.
Judy Feder is going to raise money, she’s getting money from the national committees, she’s is a targeted candidate, she is raising more money than any democrat has raised in the 1oth! The list of superlatives was almost endless. Blogs beat on Wolf for running a “stealth campaign”, and Democratic cheerleaders at Raising Kaine seized every chance to trumpet her chances. It was the coming of the Jubilee!
With all this, and in the most toxic year for GOP candidates since the Watergate elections, Ms. Feder barely broke 40%. Some Jubilee…more like smoke and mirrors. Even the good folks at RK were stunned, and could not imagine what happened.
Ms. Feder began the 2008 cycle the same way…filing with the FEC back in December 2006 to be a candidate in 2008, and then refiling in May 2007. Why? Presumably because she didn’t get the hoorays and huzzahs she expected. Refiling to get press…more smoke and mirrors.
Now the second set of fundraising numbers is in. Judy Feder raised $110K, and RK is again crowing about how great this is, raising this money in month! Surely with greater name ID and greater grass roots support the jubilee will come in 2008!
Let’s ignore for the moment that Congressman Wolf outraised her by more than 30%, and let’s move beyond the fact that she showed almost no expenses…despite the fact that she has staff and almost certainly had to use “paid for” resources to raise her nest egg-which means she likely has far less actually on hand than she claims.
The truth about her fundraising and what it shows is a little bit different than the smoke and mirrors routine again being deployed…in fact, she is again running down the line she used in 2006.
Politicalmoneyline.com shows that in 2006 Ms. Feder received 64% of her funding from out of state donors , while Congressman Wolf received 79% of his funding from in state donors.
Perhaps this suggests how it is that she did so well at the bank and so poorly at the polls.
The same trend continues now. Did she raise $110K? More to the point is what kind of money came in, and from where.
Of the $110K, less than $3,000 came in from non-itemized donors. She had 148 itemized contributors, with only 32 contributors from Virginia and only 13 of them readily identificable as being from the 10th district.
That means that less than 25% of of her contributors came from within Virginia, and less than 10% of her donors came from within the Tenth District. Moreover, less than 3% of her donations came from small donors.
Other sources are seeing the same numbers and reaching the same conclusions.
Consider these totals in light the claims of the Federian partisans that she has garnered greater grass roots support in the 10th. Just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
The truth? Ms. Feder has not made inroads beyond the party elite in the 10th, she has established no realiable donor base in Northern Virginia, she has not shown appreciable grass roots support, and is still clearly reliant on out-of-state money…
…and her claims of greater support in the 10th?
Just more smoke and mirrors.
[...] says Bwana, and he’s right. I can’t imagine why any Democrats are taking her campaign to unseat [...]
By: BLACK VELVET BRUCE LI : Feder Campaign All Smoke And Mirrors on July 17, 2007
at 8:47 pm
[...] north, Bwana at Renaissance Ruminations has a particularly insightful (what else is new) post about the truth behind Judy Feder’s campaign both in 2006 and [...]
By: Bearing Drift » Feder campaign far from solid on July 18, 2007
at 9:34 am
“Let’s ignore for the moment that Congressman Wolf outraised her by more than 30%”
Actually, let’s not ignore it, if we’re going to be intellectually honest, shall we? Wolf raised roughly $160k in three months, compare that with Feder raising $114K in 30 days and I can imagine why one might want to ignore it. Whether Feder can beat Wolf in 08 is questionable, I agree. But let’s not pretend that her money isn’t green and that a whole lot of it wouldn’t significantly raise her chances for winning. It does and it will.
And this isn’t 2006. Lots of poeople like to make the argument that “gee if Feder couldn’t win in 2006 when things were as bad as they could get for Republicans, how could she pull it off in 2008?” The truth is things are currently worse for Republicans than they were in 2006. At the time of the 06 election it had only been about a month or so since the Great Republican Meltdown of 06. At this point, we’re well into a year of what has been an unbelievable meltdown for the Republicans who are nationally, and locally (particlarly in the 10th), more divided than ever. Iraq is a mess, Bush’s approval ratings are as low as they can get…and we’re likely to see Mark Warner at the top of the ticket in VA in 2008. I have no idea if Feder can pull a win, but anybody who doesn’t clearly see that the odds are definitively better for Feder in 08 then they were in 06 is just flat out smoking crack.
“and let’s move beyond the fact that she showed almost no expenses…despite the fact that she has staff and almost certainly had to use “paid for” resources to raise her nest egg-which means she likely has far less actually on hand than she claims.”
Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just making shit up again? I mean, seriously Bwana, you’re better than this…you’re just making this stuff up. She has staff? Really? How many? And she had to use “paid for” resources to raise her nest-egg? Really? You mean beyond just the cost of a phone (which is by the way, all one needs to raise money)? You’re basically claiming that Feder is lying about her expenses…with no evidence. C’mon, you’re bigger than that.
By: Wolf Sucks on July 21, 2007
at 9:27 pm
I have never said she lied about her expenses. However, it is a well known practice to have campaign vendors bill after a campaign report is due…and which Ms. Feder and others did at the end of the last cycle so as to show as much cash on hand during the final report.
Does she have staff? Of course she does. Feder released a press release over the name of a new campaign manager. I doubt he is in the game for free. She has taken down her website for retooling. It was done professionally last time around, and she reported the cost in her finance reports. Is it logical to think she will go with amateurs this time around? Doubtful. I guess we will see in the next campaign finance reports…because such work should either show up as a paid for service or an in-kind contribution.
Feder backers are fixating on this one month thing. The fact is she filed for the 2008 campaign in December 2006, then refiled in May 2007. I think she raised the money in the intervening time period between one campaign finance submission and the next…which is about three months.
You may point to dates listed on the itemized campaign finance reports as proof of the one month thing…however, as long as you report all that you received in a period, you can put whatever date you want on the report for receiving the submission. If you take a look at her reports from the last cycle, her report always shows a huge amount of money at the end of a reporting period. Again, there can be-and often is-a difference between when funds are actually received and when they listed on a finance report. It’s just the way the system works and can be worked.
I don’t accuse Ms. Feder of lying about anything. However, I think it disengenuous to believe she is not taking advantage of the leeway that exists in the campaign finance system.
As far as your ad hominem suggestions about drug usage and political analysis, I trust that when November 2008 rolls around and Ms. Feder has again barely gotten over 40%, you will be rolling around to this site and rejiggering your analysis.
I’ll leave the light on for you…
By: bwana on July 22, 2007
at 10:39 am
“Feder backers are fixating on this one month thing. The fact is she filed for the 2008 campaign in December 2006, then refiled in May 2007. I think she raised the money in the intervening time period between one campaign finance submission and the next…which is about three months.”
Actually, she raised the money in one month (June) and has said so publicly. Either you believe her or you don’t, but if you’re choosing to say she didn’t raise the money in one month as she has stated, let’s not pretend you HAVEN’T CALLED HER A LIAR.
“As far as your ad hominem suggestions about drug usage and political analysis, I trust that when November 2008 rolls around and Ms. Feder has again barely gotten over 40%, you will be rolling around to this site and rejiggering your analysis.”
No, actually I won’t, as my analysis had nothing to do with what the outcome would be. It was about what her chances are in 2008 given the political environment relative to 2006. I made the point only because I haven’t yet heard anyone make a logical political argument about why Feder can’t win. It’s always “gee if she didn’t win in 2006 how will she win in 2008?” As I stated above, that’s an analysis that is illogical. And, in fact, you’ve made no refutation of it.
The better argument is simply that the district is too Republican and it doesn’t matter how good a campaign Feder runs or how bad the situation is for the Republicans, there simply aren’t enough Democratic votes in the District to get it done. But this BS about how the environment was better for Democrats in 2006 than it is in 2008 is completely detached from reality.
There’s no question the environment is better for Feder now than it was last time. Last time she ran most of her campaign without the Republicans being in trouble. Last time any help she got from the top of the ticket didn’t come until very late in the campaign. Last time she had no name recognition.
This time, the Republicans will have been in trouble for the duration of her campaign. This time, assuming Mark Warner runs, it will be beneficial from very early on. This time, her name recognition is much higher.
If somebody’s got an argument about how the above doesn’t make 2008 better than 2006, I’m open to hearing it. But as of yet, haven’t heard a single Wolf supporter come up with one.
By: Wolf Sucks on July 22, 2007
at 7:28 pm
Yep, she said so. She and her backers also say she filed for election in May, when she actually did so in December 2006. I think it is fair to say that sometimes the Feder campaign gets their dates mixed up.
The GOP was in trouble the entire 2006 campaign, leading to the worst GOP year since the Watergate elections. To suggest otherwise is partisan myopia.
The Democrats won the 10th district in the 2006 Virginia Senate race, yet Ms. Feder ran 20000 votes behind in a big democratic year. Sounds like plenty of help from the top of the ticket, yet she couldn’t capitalize. Fundraising support from Hillary Clinton, and she couldn’t capitalize. Being moved into the targeted category late in the campaign, and as a result getting money from all types of folks who are not the norm for donating to Virginia congressioanl races (NY labor union locals, for example), boosting her fundraising-and she couldn’t capitalize in a hugely democratic year.
The 2008 environment hurts Ms. Feder in the nature of capital hill. Now the Democrats will be fighting to hold their majority, and winning seats they hold or are close to will be a priority. Those late season dollars Ms. Feder got last time will likely go elsewhere this year…like perhaps a presidential campaign, or the Mark Warner campaign you seem to sure is going to happen.
Let’s not forget also that Speaker Pelosi is by all reports one of Congressman Wolf’s best friends on capital hill…she has hailed him as the “Conscience of the Congress” for his humanitarian work. In a year where the Dems are working to hold their majority, Wolf does not sound like the person the democrats will target in the first, second, or even third cut.
In your posts you put a great deal of weight in a Mark Warner candidacy…and that candidacy that may not happen. I suggest that a Mark Warner candidacy is a mixed bag for Ms. Feder, and likely a minus. First, that will leave two races up ballot from her that will draw money that might otherwise go to her. Second, if Mark Warner makes the race, it is likely he is in because John Warner is out…and if John Warner is out, it is likely that Tom Davis will have given up the 11th district seat to run for the GOP nomination. A Democratic candidate in an open 11th district seat is a much more attractive fundraising opportunity for Democrats than a Democratic challenger to a GOP veteran who has already beaten her convincingly…again, making 2008 a less hospitable environment for Ms. Feder.
Feder’s name ID has to be higher, and that will benefit her. But the better known a public figure becomes, the higher their negatives likely go…so we will have to see if her higher name ID is a plus or a minus.
And all that is before you get to matters like the current composition of the 10th district, the fact that Frank Wolf gets extremely high marks on constituent service, that by 2008 Congressman Wolf will have had two more years in office, two more years of outstanding constituent service on the day to day matters that impact people’s lives…something that will accrue to his benefit on election day.
Nope, the environment for Ms. Feder will not be better in 2008.
By: bwana on July 23, 2007
at 7:01 am
Money, money, money. While it’s necessary to run a campaign, it’s not guarantee of a win. Bloomberg is there right now. Lots of money. Could by lots of airtime. But he can’t win, even with $10b. Feder is the same, but worse. She’s unelectable. Let’s take a look see:
- Appearances. She looks smart, (and she is, supposedly, tho most PhD’s I meet in various fields are bright, but dim in common sense) but she’s not 10th material. Perhaps in a few areas of Reston or Mclean she fits in but for the rest of the district, no way. Take a look around outside of your field of view.
- Job. Let’s see works in DC at GT. How much more liberal can you get? I’m waiting for her to go duck hunting with Hilary. You can’t hide that, and people know it. No one wants a left-wing, DC policy wonk with tenure at a liberal monied university representing them. Not when 108K is the ceiling for housing assistance in Loudoun.
- Issues. One issue she chose last time was the price of gas. Not sure what she’s going to do about that, unless she hands out priuses to everyone in the district. Why did she pick that? no clue, but more than likely it was popularism, and it felt like something she had a hook into. Nevermind she has no connections with big oil or any energy committee members.
Next one was the war. Now that Hilary has nailed her compatriots down on the fact that you can’t just order the troops home and have them back on US soil within 6 months, it sorta lets the cat out of the bag for the far lefters who think that you can just flip the war’s on/off switch and bring everyone over to Starbucks for a latte to review our feelings. We all want the troops home, but most of us want them to win and do the job right, not run away. Being a wussy always makes you a loser. Look at Spain’s elections…
So what’s left for her to plank about? Frank’s got transportation, jobs, illegals, families and suburbanites covered. Heck, even the WaPO endorsed Frank last go around. What’s left to argue?
By: reescher on July 24, 2007
at 9:05 am
“Yep, she said so. She and her backers also say she filed for election in May, when she actually did so in December 2006. I think it is fair to say that sometimes the Feder campaign gets their dates mixed up.”
Actually, the Feder campaign was very clear, they filed in December. Paperwork was re-filed in May and it got reported. But the Feder campaign never pretended it was anything other than it was.
“The GOP was in trouble the entire 2006 campaign, leading to the worst GOP year since the Watergate elections. To suggest otherwise is partisan myopia.”
The GOP, after being in power some time, had the much lower approval ratings than they had had for some time. The Foley scandal put districts in play that never would have been otherwise, the scandal broke in late September…hardly a huge windfall for Feder. Things are MUCH worse for the GOP now, than in 2006. They national party is divided, the Presidential candidates are so dysmal in poll after poll “I don’t know” and “none of the above” are winning a majority. The political environment for Republicans in much worse now, than it was a year ago. To suggest otherwise is partisan myopia…and wishful thinking.
“The Democrats won the 10th district in the 2006 Virginia Senate race, yet Ms. Feder ran 20000 votes behind in a big democratic year. Sounds like plenty of help from the top of the ticket, yet she couldn’t capitalize.”
Late breaking help. As I said. Even the Webb people will tell you they didn’t start to out perform Allen in NoVa (the 10th in particular) until October. Let’s not re-write history and pretend that Webb was always a help at the top of the ticket.
“Fundraising support from Hillary Clinton, and she couldn’t capitalize. Being moved into the targeted category late in the campaign, and as a result getting money from all types of folks who are not the norm for donating to Virginia congressioanl races (NY labor union locals, for example), boosting her fundraising-and she couldn’t capitalize in a hugely democratic year.”
None of that is disputed. Again, my point is this year is better for her than 2006. Her chances are better. Can she capitalize on it? Dunno.
“The 2008 environment hurts Ms. Feder in the nature of capital hill. Now the Democrats will be fighting to hold their majority, and winning seats they hold or are close to will be a priority. Those late season dollars Ms. Feder got last time will likely go elsewhere this year…like perhaps a presidential campaign, or the Mark Warner campaign you seem to sure is going to happen.”
hmmm, really, with the Dems outraising the national GOP by $100 million, you don’t think Feder can get another $75,000 (which is all they gave her by the way) from the DCCC? My sense is she’ll get it pretty easily, and maybe then some. Feder is on her way to raising a million more than she raised last time. I suspect if she needs $75,000 from the d-trip, they’ll give it to her.
“Let’s not forget also that Speaker Pelosi is by all reports one of Congressman Wolf’s best friends on capital hill…she has hailed him as the “Conscience of the Congress” for his humanitarian work. In a year where the Dems are working to hold their majority, Wolf does not sound like the person the democrats will target in the first, second, or even third cut.”
Pelosi won’t weigh in on targets. And if Feder can take out Wolf, what do you think is going to happen, Nancy will save him so she can have her “best friend” stick around? THat’s almost laughable. But gee, now that you mention it, perhaps some of the more conservative voters in the 10th (who will now have another choice in this year’s Republican Primary) would be interested to hear all about how Congressman WOlf and Nancy Pelosi are BFF.
“In your posts you put a great deal of weight in a Mark Warner candidacy…and that candidacy that may not happen.”
He’s all but said it would happen. In fact, he’s stated publicly that he’s 95% for Senate or Gov. Bottom line, Warner will be campaigning in 08, just depends for which office.
“I suggest that a Mark Warner candidacy is a mixed bag for Ms. Feder, and likely a minus. First, that will leave two races up ballot from her that will draw money that might otherwise go to her. Second, if Mark Warner makes the race, it is likely he is in because John Warner is out…and if John Warner is out, it is likely that Tom Davis will have given up the 11th district seat to run for the GOP nomination. A Democratic candidate in an open 11th district seat is a much more attractive fundraising opportunity for Democrats than a Democratic challenger to a GOP veteran who has already beaten her convincingly…again, making 2008 a less hospitable environment for Ms. Feder.”
Not if Warner runs for Gov. And I’m not sure I agree with your assessment. Remember, aren’t you the one always talking about how Judy’s money comes from outside VA? Warner at the top of the ticket and a strong race in the 11th will probably increase donations from NoVa for Feder.
“Feder’s name ID has to be higher, and that will benefit her. But the better known a public figure becomes, the higher their negatives likely go…so we will have to see if her higher name ID is a plus or a minus.”
Right, but Feder isn’t going after Republicans who will never vote for her, it’s the Wolf voting Dems. Much less of a chance that her negatives go up once they get to know her.
“And all that is before you get to matters like the current composition of the 10th district, the fact that Frank Wolf gets extremely high marks on constituent service, that by 2008 Congressman Wolf will have had two more years in office, two more years of outstanding constituent service on the day to day matters that impact people’s lives…something that will accrue to his benefit on election day.”
Perhaps. And perhaps the voters will start to notice that Wolf is not quite the young buck he used to be. In fact, perhaps some of the will start to notice that he appears to be going slightly nuts with each passing day. He rambles incoherently, and he does it often. His age is showing. And with a long campaign season, a primary fight, and more than one debate he’ll have to get through…the more likely it is that things start to go badly for Wolf.
The only way one can actually argue that the environment isn’t better for Feder in 2008 would be to ignore reality. Seriously.
By: Wolf Sucks on July 25, 2007
at 7:36 am
We shall see!
By: bwana on July 25, 2007
at 11:26 am
Agreed! Enjoy the rest of the week and have a nice weekend…
By: Wolf Sucks on July 25, 2007
at 2:59 pm
Just an update…seems that we’ve got some confirmation that things are indeed worse for Republicans than they were in 2006:
July 31, 2007
GOP Facing Another Wave
Democracy Corps recently conducted surveys in key battleground districts for 2008 “and the results look like a rerun of 2006 — an election when Democrats lost no incumbents and swept the competitive seats.”
Key findings:
In the battleground of the 70 most competitive congressional districts (35 Democratic and 35 Republican-held), the Democratic incumbents, including the big class of freshmen, have quickly moved into dramatic leads in the named congressional ballot (52% to 40%.)
In the 35 Republican battleground districts, the named Republicans trail their generic Democratic opponent by 5 points, 49% to 44%.
In a poll across seven Republican-held U.S. Senate seats, the named U.S. Senators had a vote to re-elect of only 37% and were garnering only 44% of the vote against a generic challenger.
The overall image of the Democratic Party has fallen back from the honeymoon post-election period to essentially where it stood for the whole 2006 election period — and that has been stable since April. On the other hand, the Republicans have weakened in the current period since April to their lowest thermometer score in the past half century.
By: Wolf Sucks on August 1, 2007
at 9:25 am
Again, we shall see…I imagine I might have more faith in the objectivity of the findings if it did not come from a firm headed by Stan Greenberg and James Carville…or if the downloadable memos actually listed the “70 most competitive” districts.
By the same token, since the 70 most competitive include the 30+ new democratic seats won in 2006, I have a hunch that Va-10, where Ms Feder lost by over 16%, was not among them.
Again, if only the downloadable memo included the district list…
By: bwana on August 1, 2007
at 10:52 am
Of course VA-10 wasn’t on the list, didn’t mean to imply there was. This was intended only to answer one source of disagreement between us: whether the invironment was worse for republicans in 2008 or not. I believe you said the following:
“The GOP was in trouble the entire 2006 campaign, leading to the worst GOP year since the Watergate elections.”
Well, welcome to 2008 where the Republicans approval ratings are as low as they’ve been 50 years. Perhaps you can ignore it based on the pollsters, but that seems rather short-sighted to me. I’m not at all saying Feder can or will win. But seriously, it’s ridiculous to continue to suggest that the political invironment isn’t worse now than it was a year ago for the Republicans.
On the other hand, I really hope you’ve got Scandling’s ear, becuase there would be nothing better for Feder than for Team Wolf to write her off becuase of the 16 point gap last time.
By: Wolf Sucks on August 1, 2007
at 2:47 pm
For those who wondered how this ended…Congressman Wolf again crushed Mrs. Feder in 2008.
By: bwana on October 18, 2011
at 7:01 am