• on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    Having more funds, all the backing of the national party, star power, Obama cutting ads and mailers, media galore, and running for an open seat as an Iraq Vet against a viamently pro-Bush and pro-Iraq War extreme Republican who held very well covered public events with Bush, Cheney and Rove. Couldn't be her campaign's fault.

    It had to be Cegelis' fault.

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    So you're calling Bridget a liar? Ever met her? Are you saying what she wrote is made up and that she doesn't know what she's talking about?

    I know both Mike and Bridget. Do you? Both are good people. I've worked side by side with them both. Have you?

    What's your motivation here? Or you just going to throw around this type of character BS.

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    The majority of which are responses to my comments or posts. You dissapeared the day after the primary from SbC. Exstensive comments, then virtually none. Just sayin...

    Regarding the rest, I know Bridget. Anyone who worked in IL-06 or the area knows her. She was one of the first people the day after the primary that was advocating for Cegelis' organizaiton to go work en masse for Duckworth. She not some volunteer, but instead highly trained and has run campaigns. I know her. I don't know you. I trust her word.

    Regarding how Duckworth's campaign did, I agree with you. She came closer than anyone ever has, and got the highest percentage for a Democrat ever. No debate there.

    But she also had every resource from the nation party at her disposal. She had more money than any Democrat around here ever had. She actually outraised Roskam, and had similar totals spent on her behalf. Roskam ran distorted ads about her right up until election day. But she was matching his ads as well, and her campaign sent plenty of mailers (as well as NEA on her behalf).

    She should have done better than anyone ever has. She should have won. She wasn't running against a 30-year incumbent who transcended the Republican party around here. She wasn't outspent. She had plenty of support nationally. She was an Iraq vet running in the middle of a wave of anti-Bush, anti-war sentiment.

    For example, Tom Berry ran against Hyde in the last mid-term in 2002. He raised so little funding that he didn't even file with FEC. He got 48,000 votes in DuPage. With no funding, virtually no campaiging, no media, he got 48K.

    In 2006, Tammy Duckworth ran against Peter Roskam - a stanch Bush supporter and outspoken advocate for the Iraq war, in the middle of a Democratic wave, for an open seat. She got 65,196 votes in DuPage, spending over $3 million to do so.

    Tom Berry: Spent nothing, no media, no support: 48K votes.
    Duckworth: Spent $3 million, lots of media, full support: 65K votes.

    I agree with you that this tied down the GOP and forced them to spend money. But we didn't pick up a seat in IL. It may have been a great victory on Tuesday, but forgive me if having to say "Congressman Roskam" pisses me off. Now who ever runs in 2008 has to run against an incumbent where Bush and the GOP and hopefully the war won't be an issue. It's just all the harder now.

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    I don't agree completely with your second point. I got to know quite a few people who were not on the staff of any campaign and watched them blog their hearts out. Completely for free. People get emotionally invested when they make a campaign their own. Automatically discounting what they say, especially if they have a longstanding record blogging in the community, I think is a disservice.

    To your first point, there is always known unknowns and unknowns we don't know we don't know. ;-) If you want hard proof that there are people being paid to blog for campaigns, both positively and negatively, I don't think you'll ever get it short of a criminal investigation. And then on what law is being broken and who will investigate?

    It's all moot now anyway. But I stand by the post I wrote a long time ago that my faith in the purity of the blogosphere is now jaded. I think beyond repair.

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    My bad. Caucus not coalition. You've got the right idea.

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    Referring to a former candidate as a "bitch" at a public gathering filled with her former supporters and friends definately didn't go a long way to engender good will.

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    I know of at least one Cegelis supporters and bloggers that were contacted about being paid to blog for the opposition. They were our supporters and we found out about the contact pretty quickly. There is no doubt that this was going on. None. I even contacted you about this privately back around primary time.

    Now proving that people did this... Good luck. I'll look for that anonymous blogger handle on that FEC disbursement report right away...

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    He still has close ties to the fundraising in the area. There just aren't that many big Democratic donors that live in DuPage the way there are in his back yard. He will have a strong effect on the purse strings for any Democrat that runs in his backyard.

  • I understand your point. But this one feels like a win for the grassroots on many levels. As Kos and others have pointed out, everyone shares the credit. But after being called the "nutroots" for so long and derrided despite our efforts, I think some of the snark is needed in that humble pie some people must be eating right now. Maybe with a side of crow as well.

    Take it in stride. Let people have their "I told you so" moment. Read between the snark.

  • One improves by examining both wins and losses. There is plenty to be learned by examinging which strategy paid the largest dividend and which didn't.

    An election like this yeilds hard data that can be interpreted, and should be. Although the post is a snarkfest, it has a solid premise based on the data and as such has merit.

    Besides, 2008 is only a short while away. I want to increase our majority and take back the executive, not screw up again and regain the minority.

  • comment on a post Final Exam: The 49 State Strategy over 7 years ago

    13. Which states did Rahm Emmanuel specifically ask to have disqualified from receiving DNC support and picked up ZERO seats:

    A. Illinois
    B. None of the above

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    After the primary, Christine Cegelis could have easily went and said "screw it" and walked away from politics, especially given the number of knives stuck in her back by the party leadership. I think many of her more "green" and independent supporters did just that unfortunately.

    In the end, who's fault is this? Is it the supporters of one candidate who felt that the national party came in and played with their local politics? Go ahead, tell me again that didn't happen. Is it the campaign staff that after the primary refused to be gracious and embrace those who had a firm handle on the ground, but insted chose to be arrogant and tell everyone they knew better? Go ahead, tell me that didn't happen.

    I could go on here. Bottom line is that if you wanted all the former Cegelis supporters to work for the Duckworth campaign there needed to be some significant reaching out that didn't happen. Duckworth's staff often acted as though Cegelis people were ignorant ideological fools who didn't know what they were doing. They often acted as though they won the primary by double digits rather than by 2 votes per precinct.

    To me, that is the pathetic, substance-less argument that cost us this seat. Duckworth's staff lost this race, no one else.

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    Hmmm, what was more powerful a motivator: Anti-Hyde in 2004 or Anti-Bush/Iraq in 2006?

    You don't know what you're talking about.

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    I honestly don't know. But whoever is going to challenge Roskam needs to get building tomorrow. But Rahm still controlls the purse strings around here, so his influence will need to be dealt with.

  • on a comment on About Cegelis over 7 years ago

    I still have to say "Congressman Roskam." There ain't no vindication in that. Then I read stuff like this and vindication seems pretty worthless.


Advertise Blogads