Senate '08: End-of-year money numbers
Senate candidates Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick have released their fundraising totals for the final quarter of 2007.
And we've once again produced a box-score - following up on what we did last quarter. And since a picture is worth a thousand words, we've got a lovely bar chart for you as well.
Merkley's daily pace of fundraising jumped by over $2000 - from $4819/day in Q3 to $6878/day in Q4. He nearly tripled Novick's Q4 fundraising, on the strength of 1200 more donors. The Merkey campaign says that his total broke Oregon's two-quarter fundraising record for U.S. Senate challengers.
Novick's daily rate went up by almost $1000, from $1389/day in Q3 to $2433/day in Q4 - and saw his average donation go up from $248 to $274.
| 2007 Q4 | Overall | |||
| Steve Novick | Jeff Merkley | Steve Novick | Jeff Merkley | |
| Raised | $219,000 | $619,000 | $563,000 | $913,000 |
| Contributors | 800 | 2009 | 2100 | 2729 |
| Fundraising Pace | $2433/day | $6878/day | $2105/day | $6007/day |
| Average Donation | $274 | $308 | $258 | $335 |
| Cash On Hand | $293,000 | $528,000 | ||
There's plenty of coverage about the money numbers this quarter. Check it out at Witigonen, Lefty Lane, Senate 2008 Guru, Ridenbaugh Press, and Forward Oregon.
Writing for the Register-Guard's blog, David Steves wonders aloud: "Is Merkley pulling away in the Dems’ money race?". At the Oregonian, Jeff Mapes also blogs about the numbers.
Do your part. Donate now to Jeff Merkley, Steve Novick, Candy Neville, or the Democratic nominee fund. Discuss.
|
January 15, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (127 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 15, 2008 12:29:12 AM
Guru link does not work. Goes to Witigonen as well.
Steves does point out that "all time record" essentially is comparing the total to one other race. Mapes is more uniformly impressed.
Didn't you have burn rate on the charts last time, or am I mistaken?
Posted by: James X. | Jan 15, 2008 12:53:23 AM
I don't think Novick needs parity with Merkley. I think he's shown impressive fundraising strength for someone with little institutional support, and he has enough to run a very capable campaign against Merkley. That said, Merkley's ability to outraise Smith's Q3 haul (has Smith provided numbers for Q4 yet?) is impressive, and reassuring. Let's not forget that Smith had $3.5 million at the end of Q3, and that was cash on hand.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 15, 2008 12:56:41 AM
TJ: Link fixed. And a link added to the Mapes item. Thanks for the heads up on both.
Last quarter, we posted cash-on-hand as well.
Between total raised and cash-on-hand, people can figure out the spending. But for the arithmetic challenged.... Novick has spent $248,000 and Merkley has spent $385,000 overall. In Q4, Novick spent $144,000 and Merkley spent $306,000. Over 92 days, that's $1565/day for Novick and $3326/day for Merkley.
In summary, over the 4th quarter, Merkley spent $1761/day more than Novick and raised $4444/day more - for an overall budget gap of $2684 a day.
If these trends stay put, at the end of Q1, Merkley would have a cash-on-hand advantage of... $244,205. (But I don't think anyone thinks that any of these numbers will be the same three months from now.)
Whew. I hope I got that right. My eyes are swimming. Time for bed.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 15, 2008 1:14:08 AM
Gordon Smith has raised more than $1.7 million since Merkley joined the campaign, including more than $900,000 in the last three months. And Smith's cash-on-hand total - $4.4 million as of Dec. 31 - also dwarfs Merkley's bank account, which stood at $528,000 at the end of the year.
If this race is about money, Smith wins hands down. It's going to take a campaign that's a little different this time.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 15, 2008 1:23:33 AM
Pat -- Can you post a link to source for those numbers? I haven't seen any hard details for Smith's Q4 numbers.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 15, 2008 1:36:08 AM
I gleaned that info from the first three graphs of Mapes' post.
"At first GOP Sen. Gordon Smith's spokesman, R.C. Hammond, said his boss wouldn't have any fund-raising totals until next week (the Senate candidates don't have to submit their full reports for the last quarter until the end of the month). But not long after, Hammond called back to say he did have some figures after all."
Posted by: James X. | Jan 15, 2008 1:50:54 AM
It would be highly unusual for an incumbent not to have a significant advantage over their opponent, especially multiple opponents engaged in a contested primary. Our nominee will receive plenty of cash once the primary is over.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 15, 2008 2:18:08 AM
Our nominee will receive plenty of cash once the primary is over.
If, and only if, the people giving that cash believe that our candidate can win. Or, more to the point, that the money they donate will make the biggest impact here - rather than in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, or Virginia. (Or even Texas, North Carolina, or Kentucky.)
There's no guarantees in this business. Ask Bill Bradbury.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Jan 15, 2008 4:57:58 AM
I agree with Kari's point that the nominee will get a big infusion of cash only if people believe that the nominee can win.
If it's Merkley -- a charismatically-challenged professional politician who will come into the race much less funded than the incumbent -- it will be an uphill struggle. If it's Novick, running as a inspiring, tell-it-like-it-is progressive who will take the seat previously occupied by Paul Wellstone -- then the Democrats can mount an exciting and realistic challenge, even if Smith has more money. With Novick, as with Wellstone, a given amount of money goes further.
Merkley is a nice, capable guy, don't get me wrong. He would be a huge improvement over Smith. But Smith is obviously a popular figure in his own right. Like Merkley, he has plenty of experience in legislatures -- indeed, Smith's is the more relevant of the two. But also like Merkley, Smith doesn't inspire excitement. As others have said, Novick has more "street cred" than either of them.
Novick, in short, is Oregon all the way. He's a quirky, but lovable guy running in just the right state. His latest ad points out that the guy doesn't take himself too seriously, but knows how to connect with people. (And by the way -- those of you who think that ad lacked substance ... you try to graduate with honors from Harvard Law School at 21.)
If Novick and Merkley were running in Kansas, perhaps Merkley would be the better choice. But I still suspect he would lose to the incumbent. Oregon needs to think out of the box if it wants to win. That means Novick.
Posted by: Scott Jorgensen | Jan 15, 2008 6:19:52 AM
Good God, Kari. Did you ever get to sleep last night, or did your baby keep you up the whole time?
Posted by: paulie | Jan 15, 2008 7:38:09 AM
Jeff Merkley, Steve Novick and Kate Brown were all in Jackson County yesterday. Merkley lit up a huge crowd with an impassioned speech. Steve give a very effective 7 min. live interview on one of the TV stations and Kate Brown revealed the depth of her knowledge about election laws, petition signatures, national ID cards and more in to an inquisitive audience at the Jackson County Democratic Headquarters. Merkley and Novick spoke to seperate SOU classes. The press coverage for all of the candidates was great on all 3 major stations.
Which Democratic US Senate candidate can more likely beat Gordon Smith?
Which of the four SOS candidates can best serve the people of Oregon?
What a year!
Posted by: Ben DuPree | Jan 15, 2008 8:16:57 AM
... charismatically-challenged professional politician who will come into the race much less funded than the incumbent
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this assertion a bit off-the-mark? I've seen Jeff many times in-person, and I would never characterize him as either of the above.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 15, 2008 8:42:36 AM
it's pretty self-evident he's a professional politician. Charisma is more a matter of opinion. He's become more ardent lately, but I wouldn't call it charisma. Charisma is Novick, Westlund, Jeff smith, dan savage. Guys like Merkley are
smooth, genteel and refined, but not charismatic to my mind. But as I said, perhaps it's taste.
On general election support: there will be money there for either guy. Oregon will remain a targeted race, and the top two or three may not even need much. I wouldn't put a dime into Va., that race is over.
But the salient point is that they have different standards for qualification. Merkley can't just win the primary; he has to draw big money for a protracted traditional battle. Novick looks unlikely to outraise Merkley, but his bar is to win despite a money disadvantage, thus proving he can overcome being outspent.
Posted by: Ben DuPree | Jan 15, 2008 8:52:34 AM
I'd argue the professional politician idea, TJ, but perhaps it's a matter of taste, like you said. I see Jeff Merkley speak and I find him to be a compelling, honest, hard-fighting progressive with the record to back it up.
At the same time, the fact that he can raise the big bucks while still establishing himself in the race is a credit to his talents and portends well for his future fund-raising against the G-man. Jeff's numbers are eye-popping, and the party's just getting started.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 15, 2008 9:04:09 AM
Did you ever get to sleep last night, or did your baby keep you up the whole time?
He was fine until 2 a.m. - and then... ugh.
Posted by: Chris Greiveldinger | Jan 15, 2008 9:10:02 AM
It's true that the race isn't just about money. I'd be even more frustrated with the whole process if it were. Unfortunately raising lots of money is essential. It doesn't just provide the funds to run the campaign, but it's a way (admittedly an imperfect way) to gauge peoples' commitment to a candidate. These numbers are very good for Merkley, and I'm sure that the campaign will keep up the good work so that the necessary money will be available to defeat Gordon Smith in the general election.
Posted by: Sarah Lane | Jan 15, 2008 9:16:30 AM
Wow. I did not know that Merkley out raised Smith last quarter. That's wonderful. I wonder when Smith will be releasing his Q4 numbers? To me, Merkley's strong fund raising numbers show that we're going to have a real shot at beating Smith. The Oregon Dems are motivated, and are much more excited about the 2008 election than the Repubs are. Who can blame them? If I were a Repub I'd want to crawl into a hole after seeing what they've done to our country the last seven years.
Posted by: BHamm | Jan 15, 2008 9:19:44 AM
Kari, I feel your pain (it was more like 3:30am for us).
Ben, I don't see how you can say Merkley is "still establishing himself in the race." He was recruited by the chair of the DSCC and immediately endorsed by "top" Democrats (although the Sleepy Ted nickname seems to becoming once again applicable), then he received an infusion of indirect cash from the DSCC, as well as large sums from DSCC-oriented PACs in New York. It's not a credit to his talents; it's a credit to an entrenched network of support that targeted him.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jan 15, 2008 9:28:46 AM
Daniel Spiro:
He's a quirky, but lovable guy running in just the right state. His latest ad points out that the guy doesn't take himself too seriously, but knows how to connect with people.
Loveable? Doesn't take himself too seriously?
The guy is totally serious about himself, from my personal observation. Don't be fooled by self deprecation. Most of us non-Harvard grads learned that trick in high school speech class.
Like many on this thread, I met Novick years ago, and have followed his career with interest. Despite the fact that I've always found him to be arrogant and instantly dismissive of anyone that couldn't advance his interests, when I was invited to his kickoff announcement party and I attended with enthusiasm.
I've always liked the barbed wit, the single sentence take-downs, and the gimmicks. He always had Red Meat for the chronically enraged like myself. At his kickoff event, he delivered again, although I keprt in mind that there was that whole "If a viable candidate shows up, I'll drop out" thing, but I never really believed that anyway.
In short. Novick reminds me too much of me to ever support him when the aforementioned "viable candidate" (in this case Jeff Merkley) stepped in.
And yeah, even though Steve acted like the snobby Democratic Party Insider that I've always railed against at his kickoff, as he always has in my experience, I supported him then because there was no one better.
Now there is.
*************
As for the funds raised, I notice that Team Novick did a sustained, (if amateurish) effort to raise expectations for Jeff,You know how that goes:
Greek Chorus member #1: "If Merkley doesn't raise at least 50% more than Steve, he's just not viable."
Greek Chorus member #2: "Well actually, if Merkley doesn't raise at least twice as much as Steve........
But the Jakester and his Krew seem a bit quieter on that topic since Merkley bested their most fevered imagination, raising almost three times Steve's amount.
So for Jake and the Kidz it's on to another avenue of attack. It's the whole Scorpion and the Frog deal.
They do it because its in their nature----or they've got nothing else.
Posted by: bdunn | Jan 15, 2008 9:33:58 AM
I think its telling that many Merkley supporters praised the Novick ad yesterday because it was a good ad but today when Merkley has clearly excelled with the fundraising, Novick supporters cant do the same.
Think about the numbers this way every day after hes finished paying the bills Merkley puts more money in the bank than Novick raised before Novick pays the bills. Its all well and good to talk about not running as expensive of a campaign but TV costs the same for Novick and Merkley. Merkley will continue to beat Novick over the head with fundraising, which coupled with Merkley's labor support will allow him to walk over Novick in the primary.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 15, 2008 9:38:15 AM
Sarah, who said he outraised Smith? Smith took in almost a million,
didn't he? Not even close.
Ben, Merkley's numbers are not eye popping. 1.9mil two quarters in a row, as a challenging Democrat in a contested primary where neither has the dscc nod--THAT is eye popping. Merkley will probably end up behind Franken, Warner, Udall, Shaheen and Noriega.
Also--is the 93k (or more) from dscc in 4q, or 3q?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jan 15, 2008 9:43:08 AM
Despite the fact that I've always found him to be arrogant ...
That's the problem with knowing what you're talking about and speaking with candor. Some people (mis)interpret it as arrogance.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 15, 2008 9:43:16 AM
"I did not know that Merkley out raised Smith last quarter"
Ummm, he didn't. Mapes says smith raised more than $900,000 in the 4th quarter.
Posted by: torridjie | Jan 15, 2008 9:43:37 AM
pat, can you identify who specifically said any such thing? Particularly the campaign, as you assert?
For my part I said under 500k is a disaster, under 750k is good but not great, same as last time. And there we are.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 15, 2008 9:47:43 AM
"I've always found him to be arrogant and instantly dismissive of anyone that couldn't advance his interests"
Glad no one's launching any personal attacks, Pat Ryan, 'cause That kind of thing is for grade schoolers at recess.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 15, 2008 9:56:37 AM
I think the burn rates tell the most interesting story here.
If Steve Novick has to spend x dollars per day to run the kind of campaign he wants to run, and Jeff Merkley has to spend 2.5x - 3x per day or more to run the kind of campaign HE wants to run (manifestly a higher-overhead operation), then ultimately the real measuring stick is just votes, not dollars, and we'll all know how that comes out soon enough.
People win primaries and even general elections even after being outspent by large multipliers, after all, if they know how to spend the resources they do have intelligently.
I'm a Novick supporter. Do I wish he had raised more money so far? Of course! Do I wish I could have given him more myself? Absolutely! More money is always better when you know how to spend it intelligently. By comparison to Steve in raw dollars raised, Merkley did almost 2.5x. What that really means, well, we'll know in four months or so.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 15, 2008 10:06:43 AM
I've seen Merkley give a speech. He was one in a row including Kulongoski, former Gov Barbara Roberts and Senator Tester. Which is to say that Jeff's performance was easily benchmarked - Roberts in particular has a well-deserved reputation as a fiery speechifier.
I don't care what you want to call it, Jeff knows how to light up a crowd!! In fact I would have to say that his performance was somewhat better than Roberts' speech... and that's saying a lot.
Seems to me that if you look at who is trying to downplay Merkley's charisma in comments here that one quickly realizes that they have a mighty big axe to grind given their very public support for one of Merkley's opponents.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 15, 2008 10:19:41 AM
Here's my take on Merkley's "charisma" -- as you know, I have had a one-on-one discussion with him in which he made strong eye contact and engaged me very directly. In that one-on-one discussion, he held my attention fully and it was very enjoyable to speak with him (although we disagreed on issues). I found him very pleasant and likable.
In a larger crowd, though, as for example the Bus Project conference over the weekend, he exhibited a tendency to confuse volume with animation. He did a thing that drives me crazy when Hillary Clinton does it: he bellowed even though he was heavily miked and the room was not that big. When she does it it drives me crazy and when he did it it drove me crazy too. It is distracting from the message and does not inspire confidence in the speaker. He is a much improved public speaker over the first time I remember hearing him (sometime in 2006) but he does not have the natural gift for it that Steve has. OK, I'm a confessed Novick partisan, but that's what I think.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 10:24:33 AM
Posted by: James X. | Jan 15, 2008 1:50:54 AMIt would be highly unusual for an incumbent not to have a significant advantage over their opponent, especially multiple opponents engaged in a contested primary. Our nominee will receive plenty of cash once the primary is over.
Provided that they think the candidate is viable against Smith and there has not been a months long campaign of bridge-burning and foolish antiestablishment bomb-throwing rhetoric against the very establishment whose suport will be needed to take out Smith.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 10:30:17 AM
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Jan 15, 2008 4:57:58 AMI agree with Kari's point that the nominee will get a big infusion of cash only if people believe that the nominee can win.
If it's Merkley -- a charismatically-challenged professional politician who will come into the race much less funded than the incumbent -- it will be an uphill struggle.
This is nonsense. Because Merkely doesn't go neanderthal throwing red meat to the parisians and grunting doesn't make him charismatically-challenged. Both Merkely and Novick have strong points that make them substantive candidates (and ether would make outstanding Senators) your characterization is, besides being off the mark, needlessly divisive.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 10:34:07 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 15, 2008 8:42:36 AMit's pretty self-evident he's a professional politician.
You are right TJ, he is professional, he is also experienced and has a record of delivering results. Are you suggesting that Novick is not is a professional who is involved in influencing public decision-making through the influence of politics?
If not he has no business running for office (I think Novick is capable and would make a good Senator, as would Merkley).
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jan 15, 2008 10:40:25 AM
I'll donate to whoever is the nominee against Gordon Smith. I guess that means I have to wait until after the primary.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 10:41:05 AM
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jan 15, 2008 9:43:08 AMDespite the fact that I've always found him to be arrogant ...
That's the problem with knowing what you're talking about and speaking with candor. Some people (mis)interpret it as arrogance.
I would agree, except that is not the problem that is being obliquely being initmated.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 15, 2008 10:44:37 AM
professional POLITICIAN, Mitch. Read more closely.
Kevin's continual attempts to sub ad hominem attacks of motivated posturing for actual rebuttal, says much. You can ask Kari; I was calling him "milquetoast" and uninspiring since before he had even decided to join the race. Just because you have a tendency to argue that up is down when it comes to Merkley, Kevin, don't assume the rest of us are similarly attenuated to such tactics.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 10:45:41 AM
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jan 15, 2008 10:40:25 AMI'll donate to whoever is the nominee against Gordon Smith. I guess that means I have to wait until after the primary.
No you don't have to wait. You can donate now to the ActBlue fundraising page contributions to this fund will be sent to the Democratic nominee upon his or her selection.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 10:47:15 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 15, 2008 10:44:37 AMprofessional POLITICIAN, Mitch. Read more closely.
I did read it closely Mark. And you are ignoring the fact that Novick is a professional polictican as well. Are you saying he isn't a professional one?
Be sure to light more bridges behind your candate Mark.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 10:51:01 AM
For those not sure what politician means:
A politician is an individual who is involved in influencing public decisionmaking through the influence of politics or a person who influences the way a society is governed through an understanding of political power and group dynamics. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, coup d'état, appointment, electoral fraud, conquest, right of inheritance (see also: divine right) or other means. Politics are not limited to governance through public office. Political offices may also be held in corporations, and other entities that are governed by self-defined political processes.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 15, 2008 10:52:23 AM
Stephanie,
You should hear former Gov. Barbara Roberts give a speech. She's louder than Merkley by a long shot and still manages to light a crowd on fire like few politicians I've ever seen. For that matter, Kulongoski was louder than Merkley when I saw them speechify. All three were speaking through an amplified system in a relatively small room.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 15, 2008 10:56:46 AM
do you know what professional means, mitch? The way you are arguing nonsensically that someone who has never been a politician is somehow already a pro at it, the evidence is compelling.
Jeff merkley--paid politician since 1998.
Steve Novick--paid politician since...oh yeah, that's right.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 15, 2008 10:56:52 AM
Mitch,
Of course Novick is also a professional politician, just of a different variety is all.
What torridjoe is doing is also known as demagoguery - where one assumes the stupidity of an audience.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 15, 2008 11:02:30 AM
Our nominee will receive plenty of cash once the primary is over ... If, and only if, the people giving that cash believe that our candidate can win.
It should be noted that --despite what may or may not motivate that attitude by the deep pockets in Washington -- the practical effect is to say, "choose the candidate we want, or we'll take our ball ($$) and go home."
Who's in the best position to decide who is the best candidate for Oregon after all. Is it Oregonians, or is it the D.C. money men? Extortion is no way to win an election.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 15, 2008 11:03:18 AM
Torrid, I fail to see why you want to parse these particular words on a blog that is frequented by political junkies. We don't need you to spoon-feed us your particular spin on them. Particularly when the distinction you are attempting to draw is transparently obvious to everyone.
I think it a very safe assumption that few, if any, readers of Blue Oregon don't already know what a professional politician is.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 11:06:14 AM
I would add that I have to agree with bdunn up-thread in that it is indeed interesting that yesterday Novick had a good day rolling out his TV ad (which is not a bad commercial as an introduction) and Novick goes on to post a respectable haul in Q4, and Merkely has a huge quarter fundraising, and all some Novick bomb-throwers can do is fling feces at the good news for Merkely's fundraising.
Nobody is expecting kumbaya in a contested primary, and a strong and spirited primary is a good thing if it isn't a negative one. But this scorched earth line of "supporting" a candidate by flinging shit at the the party and your opponent by a candidates boosters (with tacit support from the campaign) is precisely why it has already cost some candidates support from some quarters.
Posted by: BHamm | Jan 15, 2008 11:10:13 AM
Glad to see lestatdelc has been reading John Kerry's emails of support and also can't spell the Speaker's name.
And Kevin, torridjoe didn't assume. He reacted to.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 15, 2008 11:10:30 AM
Extortion is no way to win an election.
I would agree. What I think you're missing is that those out-of-state pockets don't owe anyone anything. They are professional gamblers looking to benefit from good bets. And right, wrong or indifferent... the fund-raising capabilities of a given candidate are a big part of how the horses are evaluated prior to the race.
Also, from the figures I've seen it appears that both candidates have raised large sums of money from out-of-state, including in Washington D.C.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 11:17:25 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 15, 2008 10:56:46 AMdo you know what professional means, mitch?
Yes I do Mark. Are you saying that Steve Novick worked without pay for almost a decade from the the time he left Washignton D.C. as a lawyer to be the in-house policy wonk for the Senate Democratic cacus the Leg., the Gov. and the failed Bruggere campaign?
I don't fault Novick for his yeomen work as a professional politician, in fact I applaud his applying his skills in a such a capacity since I tend to agree with where he is on the issues (same with Speaker Jeff Merkley). But then again I am not the one going around slagging off people for being professional politicians (which includes your chosen candidate, who I respect). Particularly one who's salary as an elected official I would bet is less than what Novick got paid when he was an advisor in the Leg. or to the Governor.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 15, 2008 11:18:08 AM
the tally looks to be at least two, kevin. As the source page for Mitch's curious defintion, "this section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." I suggest Webster's, which actually includes the professional component in its definition.
Love the "some say" concern trolling, though Mitch. Validate the BS ("huge quarter"), or be castigated! Don't critique the Party, even if they ARE fucking things up!
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 15, 2008 11:20:21 AM
Posted by: BHamm | Jan 15, 2008 11:10:13 AMGlad to see lestatdelc has been reading John Kerry's emails of support and also can't spell the Speaker's name.
No idea what emails you are reffering to, and of course nobody here makes typos. Typos in comments on a blog on teh internets? Stop the presses!
;-)
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jan 15, 2008 11:23:43 AM
Jeff merkley--paid politician since 1998.
Wow. you sure slammed us there TJ. Like you, I'm totally jealous of those "paid politicains" riding that $16,000 per annum or whatever it is.
**************
The question that impartial observers should be asking is given the respective histories and personalities of the candidates, which one would be the most effective legislator for Oregon Voters. Which one would be best able to build coalitions, build consensus.......you know.....actually get results.
Even though they are not necessarily mutually exclusive
The skills required to litigate and the skills required to legislate are very different.
I'm looking for a guy who can come in to the US Senate as a Back Bencher and still have the chops to get stuff done.
That's why I switched from Novick to Merkley.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 15, 2008 12:21:36 AM
One other stat of interest:
Actblue numbers:
Merkley 967 donors $118,597 raised
Novick 1,632 donors $284,364 raised