The DNC raised 16 million last month, but as noted earlier, with Citizens United letting money flow freely from the wealthy and corporations, 16 million is chump change.
Reader Interactions
64Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.
We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.
Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.
Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!
One way or another, he’s a liar.
We do not need to pander to people who do not like what we stand for.
He really is that stupid.
… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact
The words do not have to be perfect.
Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.
You cannot love your country only when you win.
“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”
We still have time to mess this up!
Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.
Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.
Democracy cannot function without a free press.
Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.
I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.
Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.
“They all knew.”
We are aware of all internet traditions.
Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.
Tick tock motherfuckers!
The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.
geg6
The best thing about this number is that the DNC cash will be going to an awful lot of GOTV efforts. I really don’t think the massive corporate/corporate lackey cash is going into on the ground efforts, just a lot of noise and fury on our teevees. How many people do you know who actually pay attention to that aural wallpaper?
bmcchgo
Yeah, but that 16 Mil will go towards GOTV efforts in many key states, something the GOP has to cut back on due to bad fundraising numbers.
And another thing. Is it just me or are the Rove funded ads just god awful and weak?
ChrisWWW
Because Democrats didn’t blow up the Senate filibuster, we’ll be paying dearly for years to come.
geg6
I’d also like to mention that it’s heartening that the majority of that money came from people like us BJers: small donors, sending in cash online and through the mail. Enthusiasm gap, my ass.
Zifnab
@geg6: If the ad hits the right key, it starts making people doubt. Lots of negative ads drive down the vote in general, and in this election cycle a lower voter turnout will benefit the Republicans.
Zifnab
@ChrisWWW: Dems could have abolished the filibuster in January of ’09, when the Senate rules only needed a 51-vote majority. They will have another opportunity in January ’11. Any attempt between these two dates is subject to obstruction by… the filibuster.
agrippa
If the money is going to GOTV efforts, it will do some good.
The Democrats do need to get out the vote.
There are a fair number of marginal seats; in 2008, about twenty seats had a winning margin of under 5%.
Punchy
Anyone know what party Bill Gates associates with?
ChrisWWW
@Zifnab:
And when Democrats don’t blow up the filibuster next January, who do we blame for the next two years of nothing happening?
geg6
@Zifnab:
The people I know who are turned off by these ads are the low information Teabagger types. All the Dems I know who pay attention to them (a very small minority) are galvanized by the blatant lies in them.
GOTV is the best money spent, a thousand times more effective than blowing your wad on an ad that the vast majority of people tune out or skip over.
geg6
OT, but is anyone else getting the Michelle Bachmann Glamour Shots ad over in the right margin? It’s creeping me out.
J.
Don’t know about all of you, but I could sure use $16 million in chump change. Heck, I’d settle for $5 million. (A million just doesn’t go as far as it used to.)
Stillwater
@ChrisWWW: Because Democrats didn’t blow up the Senate filibuster, we’ll be paying dearly for years to come.
For the Democrats to change the procedural rules of the Senate would require the Sen. Dem. caucus to do what they are congenitally incapable of: pissing off Republicans. I mean, just imagine the resulting eulogies on the Senate floor regarding the death of freedom in America if they actually tried to re-implement the concept of majority Roolz. Not even Feingold has the heart for that.
Steve
@ChrisWWW: The movement for structural reform is gaining momentum. Considering that we’re going to need virtually every Democrat on board to get rid of the filibuster, it’s likely going to take more work. My plan is to keep working at it rather than sitting around blaming anyone.
ChrisWWW
@Steve:
Some folks need to be thrown out of the party if they don’t support ending the filibuster. After all, it’d be clear they don’t give a damn about actually passing legislation, so they might as well GTFO.
Nom de Plume
@geg6: GOTV is the best money spent, a thousand times more effective than blowing your wad on an ad that the vast majority of people tune out or skip over.
I’ve been making this same point for quite some time. In my market, the GOP has been saturating the airwaves with attack ads for months now, and they are only ramping it up even more as we approach the election. I suspect that they are probably annoying more people than they’re attracting.
NR
@ChrisWWW: I’d settle for making the Republicans actually filibuster something, instead of just saying “Well, we don’t have 60 votes, time to pull the bill.”
Martin
@Stillwater: It’s not about pissing off Republicans. It’s about who is going to do more legislative damage without a filibuster to keep things in check.
On this, I’m on the fence. The filibuster, combined with most senators being captured by corporations, pisses me off to no end, but I can’t even fathom the legislative damage this group of Republicans would do next time we have a Republican president without a way for Dems to filibuster. DeMint is already threatening to blow the place up from a non-leadership minority position, and he’s got the support of all the Republicans. He’s got a good shot at being our next majority leader.
I don’t know. I think we’re fucked either way, but I’d rather there be no new legislation in the Senate than they repeal everything in sight.
ChrisWWW
@Martin:
The Republicans can and will end the filibuster if Democrats use it the way Republicans have been for the last 4 years. It’d be nice for it to end while liberals could still do some good.
Bullsmith
It’s hard to keep democracy functioning when the Supreme Court has placed the rights of the monied above all other concerns. One person one vote is hard enough, but once you classify money as speech instead of property, then the whole concept of “free speech” is flatly destroyed.
agrippa
get out the vote is critical.
Xecky Gilchrist
I can’t say I’m happy about the Citizens United decision, but now that the Court has handed it down, I am curious about the rate of diminishing return on campaign money. Especially as spent by people like Republicans who build cronyism and corruption into every transaction they make.
Until we can get money out of politics, we need to make sure our side is using it efficiently.
Nick
@NR:
There was actually a cloture vote for DISCLOSE Act, as there was for plenty of other bills recently. The cloture vote IS a filibuster.
So you got what you wanted.
ricky
I don’t think Citizen’s United unleashed the amount of money.
Nick
@ChrisWWW:
Another reason why this “I’d be happy if they just fought for X” is bullshit, because when they do fight and lose, the left will find excuses as to why they suck anyway.
Nick
@ChrisWWW:
It’s irrelevant because Democrats would never abuse the filibuster like the Republicans had, there are too many conservatives, enough to break filibusters, and Democrats actually care about a functioning government.
Sly
@NR:
You don’t make someone filibuster. They either do it or they don’t. It’s been decades since a Senator has been forced to speak in order to hold the floor and prolong Senate business indefinitely.
Next time you have a spare moment, turn on C-SPAN2 during the week. If you see a shot of the Senate Well with some relaxing classical music playing as the clerks meander around, chances are you’re watching a modern filibuster.
KCinDC
@ChrisWWW, the Republicans don’t have to worry about what they’ll do if the Democrats use the filibuster the way they have. Unfortunately there are far too many Democrats who will take the GOP side and never dare to filibuster GOP legislation. Why bother going through the effort of getting rid of the filibuster (even if the media will help you with the narrative, whereas they’d decry a Democratic attempt as the equivalent of a coup), when the Dems won’t be sticking together enough to use it much anyway?
lol
Shouldn’t we be getting blog posts about how this inadequate fundraising haul is proof that liberals are holding on to their pocketbooks in a successful effort to punish the DNC for killing the 50 state strategy?
ChrisWWW
@Nick:
When Democrats fail to take affirmative steps to fulfill their promises, it stands to reason that they didn’t have any intention of ever trying.
And because Democrats continue to respect the filibuster, they are doing more to harm “functioning government” than the Republicans who are just using the tools available to them.
Dave
I think the question is can all this corporate money cancel out the inherent stupidity of the candidates? Like, how much money will it take to counter O’Donnell saying she wants to have veterans use vouchers for their health care? All it takes are a few dumb words and millions in advertising will go right down the sewer.
Zifnab
@ChrisWWW: Then we can feel free to blame the Democrats. But by ’11, if the Senate refuses to update the rules it will be after learning a hard lesson for two full years. In ’09, we expected to have a 58 vote majority and the ability to win over at least two or three Republicans on a regular basis.
That said, guys like Lieberman and Nelson derive their power from being the 60th vote. In a 52-48 Senate, they’re never ever going to be that vote. It’s in the best interests of even the conserva-DINOs to change the rules, at this point. So I do have a fledgling hope that we’ll see progress.
@geg6:
You don’t have to be a Tea Bagger to be a low information voter. And if the ads are blatant enough lies or deceptive enough rat fuckery, it can do a lot to undermine the confidence of liberal-minded independents.
I really don’t want to see the Green Party picking up vital liberal votes in purple states because negative ads successfully paint Democrats as “more of the same”.
cleek
@Sly:
exactly.
nobody has to speak during a filibuster. that’s just a myth.
300baud
@Nick:
I believe the request here is for the classic “refuse to yield the floor” filibuster. My understanding is that the Republicans have, in effect, threatened to obstruct all Senate business by continuing debate on a bill. When the cloture vote fails, the Democrats just give up. I’d rather their obstruction be made visible, with the Democrats insisting that they actually keep debating. With their mouths. On TV.
My theory here is that the Republicans are much happier to be assholes in secret than on major network news programs, so they’d be less dickish if we called them on it. Even if that’s not the case, though, they’d have to actually work for each bit of jerkiness, which would suit me fine.
Nick
@300baud:
That filibuster does not exist. The only person who can refuse to yield the floor is the person filibustering. If they don’t want to talk, they don’t have to, all they have to do is object to an unanimous request to move to a vote and trigger either a roll call vote for another unanimous request. Jim Bunning did it with unemployment, he did it all fucking night. I’m so fucking tired of explaining this.
Besides, even if there was a filibuster everyone dreams there are, what the hell makes you think corporate-run television stations are going to cover it? and what the hell makes you think people will watch it?
ChrisWWW
Shorter Nick:
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is not real life.
DecidedFenceSitter
@300baud: Except that’s not how the filibuster works. “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” isn’t how it works. It can be like that, but instead, it is more likely some other motion that delays the Senate.
Here’s the my general go to guide for debunking this: Myth of the Filibuster, Why the Dems can’t make the Republicans talk all night.
If you disagree with the findings of Reid’s office and Senate Parliamentarian, that’s fine. Now explain where the error of their logic is located.
wilfred
I think not enough people understand that this is the most important, significant, meaningful, vital, life-changing, game-changing, breast-beating, paradigm shifting motherfucking election in the history of our corner of the galaxy.
Things are moving slower than a week in jail. Where is the feeling?
Malron
Boy, those Republicans sure are clever. I was riding in the the car this morning and the local FOX Sports affiliate – which doubles as the local conservatalk station during the week – was still on. The radio personality was inviting callers to phone in. Many claimed that the thousands on the Mall were angry freeloaders demanding more government handouts (apparently, “jobs” qualify as a government handout to the Hoveround Brigade) but their most profound concern was how much garbage the OneNation participants left on the National Mall over the weekend because to them its hypocritical of the supposedly environmentally conscious to leave garbage on the mall. Naturally they claimed the Beck worshipers didn’t do the same on 8/28.
Sly
@300baud:
Except they don’t have to. All a Republican has to do is make a motion noting the absence of a quorum (the number of Senators needed to be present in order for the body to actually conduct business). When the quorum call is complete, they stand up and do it again. And again. And again. Only one Republican needs to be present to do this, and they can (and have) take turns doing it.
Suck It Up!
Very Serious column:
Obama hugging Emnauel might hurt the US’s street cred.
biggovernment.com/lkudlow/2010/10/03/a-hug-too-far-obama-emanuel-embrace-is-the-tip-of-the-weakness-…
NR
@Nick: No it’s not. A filibuster involves Senators talking for hours and days at a time. The Democrats have not made the Republicans do that at any point in the past year and a half.
Stillwater
@Martin: but I can’t even fathom the legislative damage this group of Republicans would do next time we have a Republican president without a way for Dems to filibuster.
To fathom this, just look at what happened from 2001 -2006. Most of the onerous leg. was passed with supporting Dem votes – for cloture as well as passage. I can’t recall one Democratic filibuster on proposed legislation (were there any? as I said, I can’t recall). ANd there was no phillybuster on Alito, which says everything we need to know about whether Democrats have the inclination or cajones to substantively obstruct the GOP. Yes, they filibustered some appointments and nominees, but that’s pretty far out on the fringes of the ‘partisan divide’.
Stillwater
WTF happened up there? Weird. Hope it doesn’t eff up the formatting.
MikeJ
@Punchy:
His dad is starring in ads for a prop that would add an income tax to the top 1% of earners in Washington.
Bill seems pretty liberal, but rarely does anything overtly partisan, mainly, I believe, to protect the rep of the B&MGF from both sides.
300baud
@DecidedFenceSitter:
Thanks for the link. I didn’t know that.
In that case, I’m perfectly happy to merely have them sit there all night, going through the motions over and over. The point isn’t practicality; it’s theater. In particular, a theater piece that accurately conveys the broader story of the Senate.
@Nick:
I think they’ll cover it because it’s drama. It is absolutely impossible for modern TV news to ignore drama. It’s time the Democrats learned how to create some. The Republicans are obstructing the business of the people, and the Democrats are just saying, “Oh, ok.” Fuck that.
joe from Lowell
What was this post about? Eggs, or something?
Oh, right, the DNC’s September cash haul.
It might, or might not, be true that the outside money going to Republican-affiliated interest groups is larger, but that money demonstrates the interest of a handful of large corporations and wealthy individuals. The DNC’s continuing advantage over the RNC is a consequence of a larger number of small-dollar donors, and an indication that the supposed enthusiasm gap is less than it’s cracked up to be.
Omnes Omnibus
@NR: No, it fucking does not. Once upon a time, it did. Those rules were changed in the 70s (?). Read some of the links that everyone has been posting.
joe from Lowell
Just to stir things up: remember when the firebaggers told us that they were going to Go Galt on their party-related fundraising, phone-banking, and GOTV activities?
As it turns out, 12 bitter people on the internet don’t actually control the fortunes of the Democratic Party.
Sly
@NR:
As has been mentioned, repeatedly, the majority has no power to make members of the minority talk “for hours and days at a time.”
Every criticism of Reid that entails him not “making them actually filibuster,” which I see on countless liberal blogs and discussion forums, is based on a lack of knowledge about Senate rules and procedures. A Senator won’t talk endlessly unless he or she wants to do so.
MikeJ
Filibuster:
dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/21/838268/-What-stands-in-the-way-of-forcing-a-filibuster
huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html
Nick
@NR:
No, a filibuster is simply objecting to unanimous consent to move to a vote. That’s what it is. No one has spoken for hours at a time since Al D’Amato in 1993 because HE WANTED TO. This has been explained to you over and over again, with parliamentarians and experts pointing to why and you STILL don’t believe it. I just don’t know what else to do.
Sly
@Omnes Omnibus:
The cloture requirements were changed in the 70s from 66 votes to 60. Cloture was actually first introduced in 1917. And even then, cloture only partially addressed the problem that the Senate has no formal procedure to “end debate” and call a vote.
DecidedFenceSitter
@300baud: Except where is the drama? There’s nothing to fill-up the air except someone going, “I don’t think we have quorum.”
Now if you want to yell at the Democrats for not screaming enough, then go right ahead, but I offer the case of Alan Grayson who screamed his head off, and then was minimized after the TV stations discovered that he wasn’t going to be laughed off the stage like Howard Dean was after the “Scream” (which was a result of a poorly unidirectional microphone set-up).
I used to poo-poo the folks who said that the media was stacked against the Democrats – but no longer, and I’m not sure what can be done about it.
Sly
@Nick:
A minor quibble, but the last time a Senator elected to speak for hours was in 2003, and it was Harry Reid. Highlights included his discourse on the benefits of using wooden matches.
Omnes Omnibus
@Sly: It is my understanding that the mid-70s change from 2/3 to 60 also brought in the “invisible” filibuster, i.e., the current set up.
Sly
@Omnes Omnibus:
Depends on what you mean by invisible filibuster.
If you mean repeated quorum calls, they’re old enough to predate even the initial establishment of cloture. In the House, using quorum calls to disrupt business dates back to 1890, the year when the House abandoned any possibility of a filibuster by preventing disappearing quorums.
If you mean the necessity of a cloture vote for everything, then you are right. But that’s just one kind of filibuster.
Martin
@Stillwater
Democrats did filibuster. They didn’t not filibuster Alito because filibustering SCOTUS appointees has always been viewed as going too far. Elections have consequences, after all. If you don’t want asswipes put on the bench, don’t vote in Republican presidents.
But Democrats have never had the kind of party discipline that the GOP has had the last 10 years, and thank God. If they had and pressed on filibustering everything the way the GOP has, all of those Blue Dogs would be Republicans and we’d still be in the minority. It’s FAR better to have the power to bring or refuse to bring legislation to the floor than it is to have some assholes in the party. Harry and Nancy can block any piece of legislation that the Republicans should write simply by being majority leader/speaker. It’s far and away the most power afforded any person or any group in Congress – vastly more powerful than the filibuster.
That’s why voting in shitty Dems is still better than losing those seats – even to moderate Republicans.
LindaH
I honestly believe that neither party will move to end the filibuster. The closest we got was when the gang of 14 made their deal that kept the filibuster rule in place when the Republicans were threatening to “go nuclear” and end the filibuster. The only reason this happened IMHO, is because at that time the Repubs, the media, and the Democrats themselvess were convinced that the Republican takeover of government had been achieved and that there would never again be a Democratic majority in the Senate. Although I understood why the Democrats at that time fought so hard against the nuclear option, I wondered if it was a foolish move. Yes, we probably would have had Harriet Meyers on the Supreme Court, but I’m not sure she would have been any worse than either Roberts or Alito. It will be long time before the Republicans are arrogant enough to convince themselves that they are invulnerable and an even longer time before the Democrats believe they can hold a majority over a length of time. That means both sides want to have the filibuster ready and waiting for when they want to use it.
I think we’re stuck with it for a long time, although I’m willing to be proven wrong. The only thing is, if they drop the filibuster I hope someone has the sense to tie it to a provision that drops the lifetime appointments of judges. Give them 10 years and then they can be reappointed if the President wants them and the Congress re-approves them. Or make them run every 4-6 years like judges do in my state. And make sure the Supreme Court is included in this regulation. If that happens, then I hope the filibuster goes. If not, then we still need it for judicial nominations if nothing else.
cleek
@LindaH:
just a nitpick…
the filibuster is a Senate rule, not a regulation or law or anything that can be fixed via simple legislation (though an Amendment could do the trick). to get rid of the filibuster, they can simply adopt different Senate rules, come January. they won’t, but they can.
Stillwater
@Martin: Democrats did filibuster.
I agree with your comment here, blue dogs and all. And the point I was making is that preserving the filibuster for future use against proposed GOP legislation isn’t something Dems (at least as I recall) have a track record of doing anyway. So I’m curious as to what proposed legislation Dems filibustered in that period. Do you know any examples?
Omnes Omnibus
@LindaH: I have to strongly disagree with the idea that federal judges should have short terms. The primary purpose of the lifetime appointment was to insulate judges from political pressure, to make sure that they are independent and not answerable to the other branches. When you you lat the number of state court judges who are “tough on crime” or, in my view, are pro-prosecution, it is because they are going to be running for reelection and they figure that such as stance will gain votes. As far as reappointment goes, there would not have been a left of center jurist on the federal bench by the end of the Reagan/Bush I years if judges required reappointment.
lol
@Stillwater:
Most of the Bush policies people claimed were killed by the filibuster failed to get even majority support. See Social Security Reform, Harriet Miers, etc.
The filibuster wouldn’t have done much to stop most of Bush’s successfully passed stuff because those bills enjoyed actual support from Democrats. See Iraq War, NCLB, etc.
And alot of Bush’s other fuckups were because they’re incapable of good governance, which is outside the purview of the Senate anyways.
I guess the only thing the filibuster accomplished was it allowed Dems to kill a few judges and it forced Bush’s tax cuts to go through reconciliation.
Democrats need to get out of the mindset of “but but what if we’re in the minority 6-10 years from now?” because it means you’re thinking from a position of weakness. Elections have consequences bitches, start acting like it.
Omnes Omnibus
@lol: To me, the best reason to get rid of the filibuster is that the gentleman’s agreement that it would only be used in extraordinary circumstances has been broken. Using the filibuster has become the norm. As a extraordinary remedy, it had some putative value. As SOP, it sucks dead moose ass.