Cegelis and Fundraising

While this topic has been done before on MyDD, I wanted to hit it again now that Christine Cegelis has released her Fourth Quarter fundraising numbers.  I'm going to do three things in this entry: look at the numbers by themselves, compare those numbers to other Illinois candidates, and compare them to other candidates nation-wide.

Details below:

1) In Q4 of 2005, Cegelis raised 68K, spent 77K, and finished with 39K cash on hand.  In other words, she spent more money than she raised, and finished with 10K less COH: while her receipts increased by 15K from Q3, her spending increased by 30K.  This doesn't strike me as a healthy trend.  If you subtract the loans made to herself from her cash on hand as of New Year's Day, the net sum remaining is $184.54.  Even if you don't count the loans as a liability (since the loan is to herself), that $184.54 doesn't speak well of her ability to raise money from other people.  Note that Peter Roskam finished 2005 with 830K COH.  Even if Cegelis has and will get more bang for her buck through greater voter contact, it seems to me that it's hard to win elections while being outspent 20-1.

2) In Illinois, there are 7 non-incumbent Democratic candidates who, as of 11 AM on 1/31/06, have filed FEC reports: Cegelis and Lindy Scott in 06, Dan Seals and Zane Smith in 10, John Pavich in 11, Jon Laesch in 14, and David Gill in 15.  Cegelis in Q4 spent more money than any of the other 6 has spent over the cycle as a whole.  Yet she has less COH than Scott, Seals, and Pavich, and has 2K more COH than Gill, despite outraising each of them over the cycle.

Compare Cegelis' fundraising in Q4 to Melissa Bean's numbers at this point last cycle.  Bean raised 30K more, spent 45K less, and had 65K more COH.  This might have something to do with Cegelis in 2005 spending 135K more than Bean did in 2003.

If the goal is to build up a warchest with which to win the primary while having enough cash to fight the general, this isn't how to do it.

3) For the national comparison, I've looked at candidates in competitive races, using Charlie Cook's 1/13/06 race charts.  In open-seat races, I compared her to 17 other candidates in the 12 open-seat races (10 seats held by Republicans, two by Democrats). Where Q4 numbers were available, I used them; where they weren't, I used Q3.  

Cegelis was 12th for quarterly fundraising out of the 18 total candidates; three of the six below her (Bill Mitchell and Greg Rublee of FL-9, and Jan Schneider of FL-13) are underdog or longshot candidates, and one was Lindy Scott, discussed above.  Yet of those 18, Cegelis had the most spending of any candidate, including Francine Busby, who has an election in April.  

Overall, I compared Cegelis with 43 other candidates in the 35 listed competitive races where a Dem candidate had an FEC filing.  Of the 44 candidates, Cegelis was 31st for quarterly fundraising.  Of the thirteen candidates below her, six were underdog or longshot candidates (Mitchell, Rublee, Schneider, Andy Warren of PA-08, Jerrry McNerney of CA-11, Bret Clemons, NH-02) and three others (Jamie Wall, WI-08; El Tinklenberg, MN-06; Patrick Murphy, PA-08) only had Q3 numbers available; each of those three outraised Cegelis in that quarter.  

At the same time, Cegelis was 5th for spending out of the 44.  Each of the four candidates who spent more in Q4 (Lois Murphy, Nick Lampson, Nancy Farrell, and Ron Klein) raised more than 250K in Q4; Murphy, Lampson, and Klein raised over 300K for the quarter.

The point here is not that money is everything or that Cegelis' grassroots contact can't eventually pay off.  The point is that Cegelis, to beat Roskam, needs to be running a tight, efficient campaign that gets a lot of bang for the buck, and it doesn't seem like she's doing that now.

Tags: Christine Cegelis, IL-06, Lindy Scott, Tammy Duckworth (all tags)



Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

Absolutely true.

by Ament Stone of California 2006-01-31 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

In defense of the Cegelis campaign's spending, I will say that it costs a lot of money to build effective party networks and structure from scratch and that's exactly what she's done over the past two years.  In DuPage and western Cook counties, you can't send out one email and get instant supporters, it takes meticulous planning, and, unfortunately, a lot of financial resources. The campaigns you're comparing her to don't have the same kind of dynamic as District 6, with not one single Democratic elected official. I'm sure Christine Cegelis would rather have more cash on hand, but I'm also sure she's confident that what she's spent so far has been wisely applied to creating the grassroots that are going to take her to a primary win and, come November, another seat for the Democratic party.

by OakParker 2006-01-31 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

I for one will be so happy when the primary happens and we can all shut up about this topic.

by DaveB 2006-01-31 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

- The Cegelis campaign brought in more this past quarter than in any
previous quarter.

- January 2006 has been the best fundraising month the Cegelis campaign has
ever had.

- What is ultimately going to matter is how many votes Cegelis gets on
Election Day, and the campaign sees a very motivated, very energized base on
the ground locally.

- The Cegelis campaign is planning a thorough and  effective Get Out the
Vote effort. It¹s a very cynical calculation that  says dollars equal votes.
They may carpetbomb the district with television  and direct mail, but
Cegelis' primary voters are educated enough to understand  that that doesn¹t
dictate their vote.

- Donations are increasing in quantity and frequency as Cegelis' momentum
builds. The campaign is very comfortable that they have enough resources to

- The Cegelis donor base is more than 2000 people. The Cegelis campaign is a
grassroots campaign with an average donation  around $100.  The majority of
these donations are from individuals in the  district who are giving their
time and resources to the Cegelis campaign because they believe that
Christine is the best candidate to represent the local interests.

-The majority of donations are from individuals in the district who are
giving their time and resources to the Cegelis campaign because they believe
that Christine is the best candidate to represent local interests.

- Cegelis  fundraisers are at local restaurants and union halls, not Chicago
law firms and the DCCC in Washington.

- Cegelis has put together an extremely motivated, growing and loyal base.
It¹s that base that¹s going to get out the vote for Cegelis on March 21st.

- The primary voters in this traditionally Republican district are very
motivated, very loyal people.  They¹re not the types who respond well to an
out-of-district,  Washington-recruited candidate.

- People are really energized by this race.  Feeling on the ground is that
the voters of this District want to  choose their own representative. They
don¹t want Washington pulling the strings.  Support for Christine's campaign
has only increased since another opponent entered the race.

- Cegelis campaign spending is below the average numbers of a congressional
candidate in a competitive primary.

- It takes money to build an organization from scratch. There are no
Democratic elected officials in DuPage county and before Cegelis ran for
Congress, there was little to no Democratic structure. The Cegelis campaign
has been doing the tough and expensive work of getting this network up and

- As a result of that work, they have put together an extremely motivated
and loyal base. It¹s that base that¹s going to get out the vote for Cegelis
on March 21, so local Democrats can get on with the business of beating
Peter Roskam and winning this seat for the Democratic party.

Bean Q4 2003:
Contributions: $101K
Expenditures: $30K
COH: $105K
Debt: $0

Cegelis Q4 2005:
Contributions: $68K
Expenditures: $78K
COH: $39K
Debt: $39K*
*Note: No debt owed to consultants or contractors, only to candidate. So
essentially FEC report is misleading on this line.

2003 Total: $139K

Cegelis 2005:
2005 Total: $228K

Cegelis out-raised Bean by 164% a year out from the general election.

Additional Info:
Cegelis Q3: $52K
Cegelis Q4: $68K
Percentage Increase Q3 to Q4: 31%

Cegelis contributions went up 30% even while the DCCC and Emanuel were
trying to shut down her campaign by starving it of sources of fundraising.

by kspidel 2006-01-31 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

Cegelis contributions went up 30% even while the DCCC and Emanuel were trying to shut down her campaign by starving it of sources of fundraising.

Sorry that just shows how ignorant of real fundraising techniques most people really are....

90% of funds raised comes from:
A. The people the candidate knows, went to school with, are in the same profession, in the same church, share the same hobby, are in the supportive volunteer groups, in the Alumni Association and on and on and on. In other words they come out of her head!

The very first thing a financial consultant or manager does is sit the Candidate and his/her family down and start the process of identifing everyone they've ever known.

A really good example of this was published in Readers Digest about a Candidate and her manager who told her to raise $100K in two weeks!
This  story tells the tale of exactly what happened and how she did it.

B. Union PACs and Issue PACs: A candidate that ran in 2004, knew she was running in 2006 has had over 18 months to solidify her relationship with the local unions. They will give money and endorse, usually after the primary, but occasionally during an unusual primary. At least her relationships could be solid and she could be secure in her donations after the primary. In this instance, 90% of the time, the Locals call the shots. And the Issue PAC ALWAYS call the shots.

So read the story and learn how fundraising really works in smaller races....and yes this a smaller race. And even incumbents make those same calls. It never stops. Why to you think everyone keeps your name, address, phone and email that you meet?

Rahm couldn't stop her lifetime of friends from donating. Rahm doesn't give a damn. He's busy, for whatever reason, working for a candidate he obviously thinks has a better shot in the General Election.

With all the time she's had she should have had all the DNC delegates locked up, the unions locked up, all the Dem Mayors locked up, all the Dem officials locked up and all the donation lists working on her behalf.

And I really don't understand why she hasn't other 'maybe' than she's one of those who thinks fundraising is 'bothersome and beneath' her. Actually heard a candidate say that once.  He's dust.

I don't give a damn who wins this race so long as we have a real shot at the General. And with this fundraising record I can't see it.

by BigDog 2006-01-31 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

I can't quite figure out whether you're arguing against the idea that
Cegelis can't win the primary, or against the idea that Cegelis can't
win the general. My post was concerned solely with the latter.

In general: your argument is that dollars don't determine votes, and
that Cegelis will have reached enough voters personally or directly
that her campaign will inspire them to support her in November.
Dollars don't buy votes, people convince voters to vote for them.
It's true: dollars don't buy votes.  Dollars pay for speeches, events,
rallies, coffees, dinners, workers, people to walk in parades,
stickers, lawn signs, tv and radio ads, direct mail, doorhangers,
canvassers, phone calls, robocalls, GOTV.  All of those
convince voters to support a candidate.  Will Cegelis' grassroots
efforts and presence outweigh the fact that, on current evidence,
she'll be outspent severalfold?

You talk at length about Cegelis' base, and how the base is going to
get out the vote on the ground and help her win the election.  But
this is, as you said, a Republican district.  If Cegelis
turns out her base and Roskam turns out his, he will win!  What is the
Cegelis campaign doing to convince three or four percent of
Republicans that Cegelis is the better choice?  How are they going to
persuade crossover voters? And what money will they use to do that?

Will Cegelis' grassroots efforts and presence also outweigh the fact
that, on current evidence, her campaign is not being run tightly,
efficiently, or frugally?  Her spending and burn rate were high well
before Duckworth ever got in the race.

You talk about how from Q3 to Q4, receipts increased by 30% and were
at an all time high.  Well, from Q3 to Q4, spending increased by
and was also at an all time high.  I'm not quite seeing the
bang for the buck there.  Yeah, Cegelis outraised Bean in 2005 vs.
2003 by 64% ( not 164%), but she also outspent her by 200%,
and as a consequence, finished with 50% less COH.  Great.

Put it this way: if momentum is building and the  amount and number of
donations goes up, why is COH going down?  When will all this
party-building and donor-prospecting actually start to pay off? How is
Cegelis planning on overcoming the basic partisan tilt of the district
while being substantially outspent?

by MHS 2006-01-31 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

If Emanuel would've backed Cegelis instead of finding his "perfect" candidate in Duckworth on the FIFTH try, fundraising would be a non-issue.  Cegelis also pays her bills timely instead of hoarding the money so her quarterly bottom line looks better than it really is.  She gets villified for this because it's a "high" burn rate.  This is 20th Century conventional wisdom that stopped working in the 1990's.  It dooms the Dems to perpetual minority status in the 21st Century.  It's time to lose it.

If Cegelis loses the Primary, Roskam will certainly win the General.  There's too many people in IL-06 that don't appreciate the Chicago political machine.  Now it's coming into their backyard & almost telling 110,000 2004 Dems that they were wrong to vote for one of their neighbors because she isn't good enough for Congress.  Instead, Emanuel provides a pre-packaged candidate from a different CD.  It took FIVE tries before he found an injured vet to play on civilian sympathy.  He couldn't sell Duckworth on a CD with a large vet voting population.  Their response would be suck it up & deal with it.  IL-06 is mostly civilian -- so why not?

News flash --> Treating voters like fools won't work.

With Duckworth in the General, Roskam wins hands down.  The only thing Emanuel would've accomplished is wasting money on the wrong person & forcing Roskam to spend more money than he'd like.  With Cegelis in the General, at least there's a reasonable chance IL-06 turns blue.

The voters have the last word not the money.  Maintaining this tired argument is the same as telling the voters that money is worth more than their voice, their vote, in an election.  Many are already demoralized & disenfranchised.  Enough to stay home & "give" the election to Roskam.

by Philosophe Forum 2006-02-01 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

Philosophe, the issue with Cegelis is not simply that she's not raising a lot of money; the issue is also that she's not maximizing her resources and getting the most impact from each dollar spent.  I'd like to see your evidence that (1) Other candidates don't pay their bills on time; (2) Cegelis pays her bills differently than those candidates; (3) That this affects her spending and COH figures.  Most importantly, what's your evidence for (4), that burn rate doesn't matter?  Cegelis was presumably paying her bills on time in Qs 1, 2, and 3, right?  So why did her burn rate in Q4 go up by 25 or 30% from her burn rate in Q3? Why did her spending increase at twice the rate of receipts from Q3 to Q4?

Frankly, the debate about Cegelis is not about whether she'd be a good Congresswoman; the issue is whether she can get there in the first place.  Note that for the general election, it doesn't matter at all if she inspires all of those 110,000 Dems to vote for her; she's also got to pull 30 or 40,000 Republicans to vote for her too. If every single Democratic Cegelis supporter turns out for her on Election Day, and no more, she loses.  It's that simple. To win a Republican-leaning district, you've got to get votes from Republicans.  I still haven't heard about how she's going to do that, especially if she's got no money.  

And yes, the voters have the last word.  I don't think anyone's denying that.  What decides a person's vote? Have they heard of the candidate? Is the candidate of their party? Do they like what they see of the candidate? Do they agree with the candidate's positions? Does it seem to them like the candidate is honest, trustworthy, and a good person?  What I don't understand is your contention that money and spending are irrelevant in getting all of those pieces of information to the voters. Money is not a sufficient condition; I certainly agree with you there.  But I don't see how it's not necessary.

by MHS 2006-02-02 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

Cegelis is excellent on the issues.  More so than Duckworth ever could be.  So if she doesn't get a plurality in the General, there's no way Duckworth ever could.  She's only the ballot for 2 reasons:  1) force Cegelis off the ballot & 2)  force Roskam to spend more campaign money than he really wants to.  We don't even know if Duckworth has ever voted in her life -- absentee or otherwise.

Candidates not paying bills is business as usual.  I personally know of a person working on a campaign that has yet to see payment.  He's been on the job for over a month now, too.

Since the Q4 numbers are in, it's definitely obvious how important support is.  It's sad that so much in financial resources is going to waste.  Also, Duckworth's numbers are artificial to a degree.  She received $10K from Durbin & Obama each:  $5K for the Primary & $5K for the General.  Looks good now before she has to refund the General contributions after she loses the Primary.

We've talked about this considerably at SoapBlox/Chicago.  If you still don't find the answers to your questions, Cegelis should really be the one to respond.  I suggest reading everything at SB/C & then send an e-mail to Cegelis (info@cegelisforcongress.com) directly.  She'll answer.

Better yet -- A bigger help would be to send the www.cegelisforcongress.com URL to a well-to-do acquaintance that doesn't care about what Emanuel thinks, Emanuel not liking Cegelis -- at all, Emanuel's hatred for progressives in Congress, & Emanuel's blatant egotistical control.  That friend could contribute to Cegelis AND host the high-level fundraising meet-n-greet that everyone has denied her so far.  

Got a friend?

by Philosophe Forum 2006-02-02 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

With all due respect, Philosophe, you do realize that your view of what makes a candidate "excellent on the issues" and the view of the 6th District as a whole might not be the same, right? Last time I checked, we were talking about a district that has voted for Republican representatives for decades and voted for the re-election of President Bush.  Somehow, I don't think that describes you politically.

As to the bills issue: are you arguing that your friend is typical, and based on what evidence? Did your friend's campaign have a good Q4? And are you suggesting that the reason that, for example, John Pavich was able to outraise Cegelis in Q4 by 30K is because he doesn't pay his bills on time?

And yes, I realize that you've discussed this considerably at SB/C.  I still don't understand how Cegelis' Q4 numbers were awful because she was "building the party infrastructure," while the party and volunteer infrastructure was developing so well over the same timeframe as to overwhelm her campaign plan.  If the latter development is the product and culmination of 2+ years worth of work, would it require a 60% increase in spending from Q3 to Q4 to achieve? And shouldn't it also pay off in better fundraising?

Put bluntly: if Cegelis' grassroots network is so good, why is she being outraised by close to 30% in Q4 by John Pavich? He has now outraised her overall while spending 1/4 the money, and has a nearly 5 to 1 advantage in COH, without taking PAC money or being in a targeted race.

If Cegelis' campaign was sufficiently unprepared for the success of their grassroots organizing efforts (the efforts they knew they'd have to undertake to win the primary and the general) that they have to radically change staff six weeks before the primary, how the heck are they going to be sufficiently prepared, organized, and efficient to beat Peter Roskam while starting a million dollars behind?

Look.  My root question is very simple.  I'm looking at a campaign that's currently spending more money than it's raising, with less than 40K COH, up against a strong opponent with 830K in the bank in a Republican district. I don't see how that campaign can win, and I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing.

by MHS 2006-02-02 07:15PM | 0 recs
Project Mgmt vs. Monied Conventional Wisdom

If you use www.tray.com to analyze Pavich & Cegelis, you'd see that Pavich received $1K+ each from several attorney donors.  He's an attorney getting money from fellow attorneys.   IT professionals & their peers aren't usually in that tax bracket.

Obviously Pavich is a candidate paying his bills according to the records.  Some do.  Some don't.  Withholding payments is more typical in campaigns than you'd realize.  It's part of the culture of artificially puffing the COH everyone wants to concentrate on.

A breakdown of Duckworth's numbers proves the percentages that the Cegelis supporters have been saying all along:

Duckworth Receipts:

Total Individual Contributions $74,196
52 Individual Contributors
28 from Chicago ($34,100)
2 from in district ($2,300)

51% of individual contributions came from 28 individuals - lawyers and investment bankers - only 1 of whom lives in the district.

46% of individual contributions from residents of Chicago.

13% of individual contributions came from one Chicago firm.

4% of individual contributions came from her husband and media consultant.

3% of individual contributions came from district residents.

Duckworth Expenditures:

Total Expenditures: $15,845
Petitioning Consulting Fees: $3,375

21% of expenditures spent on petitioning consultants

Only 3 petition passers live in the district and raised a total of 213 signatures out of Duckworth's approximately 4,000.

Interesting notes:  One of the attorney donors is Central IL attorney Simmons.  He gives to whomever Emanuel tells him to.  He enjoys fantasies of using his millions to take the IL-19 seat once Shimkus gets his fantasy Springfield job.  There are no salaries only consultant fees.  Once the IL-06 voters realize that there were only 213 in-CD signatures out of the 4,000 (+/-), she'll get less votes than the 1/3 I thought she'd get in the Primary.  The IL-6 minimum signature requirement is 827 proving that she would not be on the ballot without the out-of-CD signatures of people that can't vote for her any way.

We're witnessing a transformation in political campaigning.  This is the project management model of calendar, message, people, budget.  The budget doesn't override everything.  Assume you have nothing & fighting for every minute resource to achieve your goal.  You have to optimize everything to win.  This is opposed to throwing big money at a media blitz weeks before the election.  As a project manager, Cegelis is doing things the opposite way.  She has a tiny budget that she manages wisely.  It's not the size that counts.  It's what you do with it.  No one else knows how to handle a project because they're lawyers or professional politicians.  You have to understand project management to understand what you're missing.

Everyone makes money on the conventional wisdom.  The economics have kept it in place.  Money is now the problem because it's now failing.  Everyone who adheres to that status quo doesn't see that.  The Dem Party fails in elections & blames everything except money:  conservative MSM, the GOP, bad weather, bad framing, bad luck, etc.  Grassroots organizing getting out the vote is optimizing minimal resources.  It's not "he who dies with the most toys wins."  

Again, we're talking about 20th Century conventional wisdom that no longer works in the 21st Century.  Either Dem candidates change with the times or they're doomed to remain the losers.  $1M campaigns don't win elections any more, & the 2004 IL Supreme Court race between Maag & Karmaier proved that.  

The General ballot will have Cegelis running against Roskam.  She has a good chance of winning because the demographics of IL-06 have changed considerably.  While you're correct that "district that has voted for Republican representatives for decades and voted for the re-election of President Bush", the GOP foothold isn't as solid as it once was.  Democrats have moved into the CD, people have lost their jobs, etc.  That means that the value system has changed as well.   Roskam's appeal with the Rep voters won't be as widespread in 2006 as it could've been in 1998 or 2000.   They'll either stay home or vote for Cegelis.

by Philosophe Forum 2006-02-03 05:40PM | 0 recs

If you're going to do comparisons, could you do some for comparable districts?

For example, only compare Cegelis's numbers to those of people running in a primary against someone receiving huge support from the head of the DCCC, and in a district where you have to build up your own party infrastructure since none exists.

I didn't look into any of the other ones except David Gill, since he's in my district.  You say that Cegelis has only 2k more COH than Gill, despite outraising him.  Did you consider the fact that David Gill does not have a primary opponent and just opened his first office last week?

by Fran for Dean 2006-01-31 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Comparisons

Comparisons off the top of my head: In WI-08, David Obey, whom I think it's fair to say probably has a fair bit of influence in WI politics, publicly endorsed Jamie Wall in the primary.  Wall's opponent, Nancy Nusbaum, raised 107K in Q3, spending 21K. Admittedly, she's starting from a strong position with a history of elective office in the district, but still. Note that this was before the EMILY's List endorsement, too.  

In terms of Democratic infrastructure: if you look at Minnesota, Elwyn Tinklenberg is running in quite a conservative district with some very conservative patches, that lost a good deal of its more Democratic areas in the last round of redistricting.  In Q4, he raised 127K, spent 55K.

As for David Gill: I don't quite see what point you're making. I understand that Cegelis has a greater need to spend money at the moment and is running a more active campaign.  That said, it's never a good sign when you outraise someone 4-1 and end up with virtually the same COH because you outspent them 5-1. That's especially true when the COH in question is under 40K.

Again: Cegelis is not raising enough money and is spending too much of what she does raise too early.  If she is building party infrastructure (and that strikes me as sufficiently vague to cover a multitude of sins), sooner or later she's got to put that infrastructure to work and actually raise some money.  31st out of 44 in money raised is not a good place to be if you actually want to take the seat.

by MHS 2006-01-31 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

Duckworth's Q4 numbers: 121K raised, 16K spent, 105K COH. That includes 10K from Obama's PAC, 10K from Durbin's PAC, 2K from Mike Honda, 1K from Schakowsky, 2K from David Axelrod. 69K from individual contributors, 44K from PACs. FWIW.

by MHS 2006-01-31 03:10PM | 0 recs
Individual contibutors:

69K from 52 individuals.
Three of whom live in the district ($4,100).
One of those is her husband ($1,000).
One of those is her media person ($2,000)
The overwhelming majority from Chicago.

68K from 104 contributors
The majority of whom live in the district.


by michael in chicago 2006-01-31 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Individual contibutors:

Well, the trouble is, I still don't see how it's worth a whole lot unless Cegelis can raise more and spend less. How is she going to do that?

by MHS 2006-01-31 07:11PM | 0 recs
I view this differently

The primary won't be won on an FEC COH line item. The candidate who gets the most votes in the primary will win.

Cegelis will continue to raise money, having her best month in January 2006. And that money will go right back into organizing her volunteers and honestly interacting with the community.

I give voters in the primary more respect in knowing that they understand the difference between deep ties to the community and ties to deep pockets.

Ground will win the primary, not mail or media. Ground is much more affordable than media. Although others may have more cash on hand, Cegelis has more neighbors on board and the organization to mobilize them.

by michael in chicago 2006-02-01 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis and Fundraising

That may very well be true.  And so? As I think I mentioned before, the point of this post was not about who has the best chance to win the primary; that would take more on-the-ground knowledge than I've got.  The point is whether Cegelis is running the kind of operation that can win a general election. Can she run a sufficiently tight and efficient campaign to make up for the fact that she would start the general election campaign at least a million dollars behind? I mean, if current trends continue, she'll start the general election campaign basically broke. What is she doing to be prepared for that fact? Even if the DCCC comes in and helps her raise money, that will not, and cannot, take care of all of her fundraising needs.  

That she is raising most of her money in-district from small donors is great; I think it's an excellent trend.  It doesn't change her need to raise more and spend less if she's going to win the general.

by MHS 2006-02-02 07:07AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads