Outspending grassroots candidates: Montana

I don't think I'm the only one who is spending today wishing they would have done more to help Christine Cegelis in IL-06. The race was close and offers many lessons moving forward. I think that pre-postmortem, worried about 2006 and crisis of faith are each right. We will never know if a strong push from the blogosphere could have made the difference, but we also need to realize that this was an early primary and we have plenty of time to refine our game before the Connecticut Primary in August.

The Montana Senate Primary is the perfect opportunity. There couldn't be clearer contrast between the Democratic candidates. One candidate is a straight talking, authentic leader who will make us proud (read about him in Crashing the Gate). The other candidate is the darling of DC,  backed because his profile fits the DC matrix: blue suit, red tie, willing to spend his own money, won't rock the boat. It isn't surprising the DLC is pushing Morrison, he impressed DC in how he landed his seat, which centered on spending $90K of his own money, allowing him to pull 50.18% of the vote by outspending his opponent 46:1. Morrison's $240,000 flooded the airwaves against the $5K his non-campaigning opponent spent, so now the DC crowd can clinck Champagne flutes for their candidate who has "proven" he can win statewide.

I remember back in 1999 when the 2000 State Auditor's primary was shaping up. Convential wisdom said that Rep. David Ewer and Senator Spook Stang were wasting their time against Morrison in the primary as he would spend "whatever it takes" to win. He did and he did win, but he only outspent Ewer by $30K and Stang by $85K. In the GOP primary, Rep. Bruce Simon spent $38K but lost to Joyce Schmidt who only spent a hundred and sixty bucks.

Morrison's plan back then was to spend "whatever it took" and it didn't take that much.

It really doesn't take that much to saturate Montana. Already, Jon Tester has raised twice as much as Morrison's "whatever it takes" number. Even though this is a senate seat, the primary victor is only going to need three or four times the votes that Cegelis received yesterday. And like the Illinois race, the Montana bloggers have been quite clear that this is a race Tester can win (latest here.

I was thinking all of this today when I received an email from Tester with the subject I'm In. It read, in part:

Yesterday, officially filed for the U.S. Senate race--to bring Montana values back to the U.S. Senate.

I'm running because the values we share in towns like Big Sandy are missing from our nation's capital. Honesty, integrity, basic equality and fairness are absent in a political process controlled by insider politicians and corporate lobbyists. Politicians like Tom DeLay and Conrad Burns work for lobbyists like Jack Abramoff--instead of their real bosses--the people who elected them.

It was a big step for Sharla and me yesterday. But you can make this an even bigger step by showing the press and pundits that Montanans are committed to sending Montana values back to Washington, D.C. Next Friday marks the final fundraising deadline of the primary season. Your contribution today can send a loud message that we're in this fight together:

http://www.testerforsenate.com/contribut e/

The campaign has caught fire in the last couple of weeks. Our fundraising and field programs are moving forward, and we're seeing that momentum in the polls. I was the only candidate not to lose ground in the latest poll from Rasmussen Reports--and, with 46 percent, I've pulled ahead of Conrad Burns, 46 percent to 43 percent, in the March poll.

Tester is a straight talker, who gets stuff done, can win in November and make us as proud as we are of Gov. Schweitzer. Here what the Billings Gazette said in a story on his filing:

Tester lashed out at Burns for his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"Conrad Burns' reign of corruption is coming to an end," Tester said. "I look forward to bringing Montanans the kind of leadership we want and deserve."

Accomplishments outlined
Tester cited his role helping Gov. Brian Schweitzer deliver on an ambitious 2005 legislative agenda that included prescription drugs for seniors who need it, an energy plan to lessen dependence on foreign oil, better funding for schools and economic incentives to create jobs in Montana, all without a tax increase. [...]

A primary election gives a party a chance to put out its best candidate for the general election, Tester said. He likes his chances in November because he won from a Republican legislative district.

"I've shown the kind of leadership in the Montana Senate that gets things done," Tester said. "I've got a proven track record. So that's the major difference."

With two and a half months before the election, we have plenty of time to make a huge difference in this race. Tester winning the primary keeps the Montana Miracle going and if enough people come together we can be his voice, knowing he will be our voice in the Senate. Yes, an actual voice for people instead of big contributors with a campaign that excites the grassroots instead of tries to spend enough money to beat the grassroots.

Tester closed his email by saying:

Growing up on a farm, I learned to work hard, have faith, love our country, and support my family and community.

These are the lessons we all teach our children. And it's a message Montana can teach America.

As I said in my filing yesterday, I may not look like the rest of the U.S. Senate. But maybe it's time that the rest of the Senate looked a little more like Montana.

Maybe Montana can also teach some lessons to the Democratic Party. I think this is too important of an opportunity to miss. On election night, I don't want to be left wondering "what if" as the results slowly come in.



Display:


multiple choice (none / 0)

A.) Don't help Tester

B.) Sign up for email alerts in case you might want to help and want to stay in the loop.

C.) Join one of the 519 people who have made an average contribution of $40 and invest in this race


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 06:59:39 PM EST

A lesson to be learned (none / 0)

As far as I can tell, Morrison hasn't gone negative at all on Tester. I have not seen ONE attack against Tester. Tester's partisans, on the other hand (Bob Brigham comes to mind) have attacked Morrison relentlessly. Your comments about "clinck(ing) Champagne flutes" is insulting and unwarranted. Campaigning for Tester is great, but keep it civilized.

You may not have noticed the anger and bitterness in the threads below about the IL-06 primary. That's because it got real negative. Shill for your candidate all you want, but if you want a lesson from IL-06, here's one: make this primary about the attributes of your candidate and the shortcomings of Burns, instead of turning it into a vicious us vs. them campaign that leaves everyone pissed and angry when its over, no matter who wins.


by JRyan on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:45:30 PM EST

nobody has gone negative (none / 0)

The lesson I took away is that comparing the advantages and disadvantages of both candidates, early and hard, could allow the better candidate to overcome the money advantage the stooge candidate will always have.

This isn't negative, this is contrast. The discussion on the blogosphere about Morrison has actually been pretty tame compared to the rumors in Montana (which Burns will use in the general even if Tester won't use them in the primary).

Morrison has only shown he can win by overwhelmingly outspending his opponent, which isn't going to happen against a sitting senator. More importantly, Tester would be a good senator and Morrison would be another DLC'er like Lieberman.


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nobody has gone negative (none / 0)

Truly, I have seen many people comparing Tester's disadvantages here (snark, in case you didn't guess). And comparing Morrison's advantages and disadvantages doesn't include implying that he's a "stooge". Contrast? What tripe. I haven't seen one honest discussion of the contrasts between Tester and Morrison by a Tester supporter. Its always a rugged everyman of the earth with pure progressive principles in the mold of Brian Schweitzer vs. the corporate DLC hack/city lawyer/stooge funded by the DC crowd who will just be another Lieberman. I have never seen a Tester supporter candidly admit that Morrison, rather than being a straight city lawyer, worked as a construction worker, a radio announcer and developed his own landscaping business to put himself through college, and that as a lawyer, he earned the the hightest possible rating for ethical behavior and professionalism(found this on wikepedia). Will a Tester supporter mention that Morrison wrote "Mavericks, The Lives and Battles of Montana Political Legends", where it is clear that his role model is Mansfield, not Lieberman?

This isn't really my fight. I have to deal with Cardin vs. Mfume, and O'Malley vs. Duncan, where I'll have a vote in the primary. But it really pisses me off to have one guys supporters dump on another guy, and then hide behind the "comparing the advantages and disadvantages" excuse, especially when I have never seen a Morrison supporter attack Tester.


by JRyan on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 08:40:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nobody has gone negative (none / 0)

Good elevator description:

Its always a rugged everyman of the earth with pure progressive principles in the mold of Brian Schweitzer vs. the corporate DLC hack/city lawyer/stooge funded by the DC crowd who will just be another Lieberman.

That pretty much sums it up. Ironically, if you wanted to put forward something nice about Morrison, you should have mentioned something that is a plus with the voters. "Not always a trial lawyer" is a great way to get Burns re-elected. "Ethical lawyer" is going to get a laugh, for a whole bunch of different reasons. Mentioning Morrison's book as a plus is like praising Ben Affleck for Gigli.

In some races you have competition between too good people and it is a let the best man win situation. This is not one of those races.


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Lord (none / 0)

Sooner or later every fanatic believes that their own vision of the world is reality. That is why a bunch of fundamentalists were able to convince themselves that George W was the greatest man to walk this earth since Jesus, and anyone who stood in his way should be destroyed. Similarly, I see a bunch of bloggers who have worked themselves up into a frenzy over Tester, making him into a hero with no faults while turning his opponent into an archetype of everything that is wrong with the party. This is doubly unconscionable since Morrison not only isn't that bad, but he has also done nothing  sleazy to warrant your insults (and they are insults). Unlike IL-06, the national party didn't force Morrison on anybody. All this negativity is going down a one-way street. And what the hell is wrong with him writing a book about Montana's legends? I truly fail to see how this is a minus.

If Montana's citizens disliked Morrison, or lawyers for that matter, then he wouldn't be leading Burns by a higher margin than Tester in every single recent poll. If they disliked Morrison, they wouldn't have elected him statewide TWICE (I've seen your attempts to minimize this and I'm unimpressed). If Morrison was basically unsuited for Montana, then you wouldn't be trying so hard to discredit him now.

"In some races you have competition between too good people and it is a let the best man win situation. This is not one of those races."

Really? I would like to see one seriously contested primary in this cycle where "progressive" bloggers haven't taken sides. So tell me, regardless of what you think of their politics, do you think that Tammy Duckworth and John Morrison are not good people?

The whole reason I responded to your diary is because I found your attempt to link the Montana primary to the IL-06 primary very interesting. As I already noted, if you look down below, you see people referring to Duckworth as a bitch, some claiming that they will vote for Roskam, others that want to quit politics, while the other side calls them little children who want to pick up their marbles and go home. That is what happens when a primary gets overly negative and breeds bad feelings. By going after Morrison the way you are doing and by building up a cult of personality around Tester, you are ensuring bad feelings, especially if Tester loses. Guess what? Both Tester and Morrison are good guys, and you should let the best man win in a fair contest, not by insulting one or the other.


by JRyan on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 12:21:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Lord (none / 0)

Guess what? Both Tester and Morrison are good guys, and you should let the best man win in a fair contest, not by insulting one or the other.

Morrison isn't a good guy, just don't see it, never have.

On the other hand, Tester is the best candidate running for U.S. Senate.

This is not a let the best man win type race.


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 01:53:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A lesson to be learned (3.00 / 2)

Thanks, JRyan, for trying to inject some reality and civility into this debate.  I support that immensely, because even though I'm supporting Tester in this one (even sent him $100, a lot more than I sent any other candidate outside my home state of Nebraska) I supported Duckworth last night and I'm simply horrified by the hateful things that have been said on MyDD regarding her, not just as a candidate but as a person.

I think there's a deeper problem here, and that is that the blogosphere doesn't really engage in races on a partisan, idealogical or even in a coldly rational, by-the-numbers kind of way.  The driving motivation behind blogosphere involvement in any given race is personality, and the essential narrative is hero vs. villain.  

This played out perfectly in OH-02, where we had a genuine hero running against a genuinely mean-spirited and spiteful villain.  I don't know if the narrative predates OH-02, but I do think this is the best example of how the narrative works.  Since then, of course, we've had Ciro the Hero vs. Henry the Villain.  We have Lamont v. Lieberman.  And we've seen the model applied, at least by some, to Cegelis v. Duckworth,  Hackett v. Brown and Tester v. Morrison.  Where we fail to identify one of the players as the villain and one as the hero we largely become disinterested and allow the races to progress with little or no attention until the last minute, as in CA-48 and CA-50.

The problem with our reliance on this frame to motivate blog readers is that it requires negativity in order to work.  One can't make a someone a convincing villain unless one can model their hatred and disdain towards them.  This is not a good thing when we're talking about competitive Dem primaries, and ultimately leads to us turning our guns on each other and damaging our chances at the general election (as in OH-Sen).

I hope that MyDD and the other big names in left-wing blogs can overcome their dependence on this frame, but I doubt that will ever happen.  


by Ryan Anderson on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 04:45:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A lesson to be learned (none / 0)

In establishment v. grassroots campaigns, it is important for the grassroots to tell the full story, because it is necessary to balance out the real live negativity that comes down from the top.

There is a clear difference between the Montana model that has been so successful under Schweitzer and the DLC model that Democrats cowering in DC. One works, one hurts.


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 11:26:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A lesson to be learned (none / 0)

Whatever you think of the differences between Morrison and Tester's politics and strategy, those differences do not amount to Morrison being a bad person.  ANd again, I say this as a big Tester supporter.  I agree with you when you say he's the best Senate candidate this cycle.  But Morrison isn't a bad guy just because he's running against him and has different beliefs and a different approach.


by Ryan Anderson on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 01:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A lesson to be learned (none / 0)

I don't think Morrison is a bad guy for reasons of politics or strategy.


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 05:05:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.