Abate raises $12,000 [or possibly $9137] in first quarter (with POLL!)

OK Class.... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 03:52:42 AM UTC

Thank you, that is great! (0.00 / 0)

Besides being very funny, it is also completely accurate. Sorry for not doing the math myself, I was sure the FEC was double-checking for me.

You also made a mistake. The paper was not signed by Camille, it was signed by her treasurer (Stan Goodman). I believe he gets to file corrections (the sooner the better), but he still gets an "F".

I have a question... If Abate had more money to report, would you still have graded the paper? Were there any mistakes on Aronsohn's? Or are you only checking this one page? Not that I have any reason to believe there's any problem with Aronsohn's (electronic filing makes it more difficult to make math errors) - it's just that Abate for Congress made it very easy this time.

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 11:16:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

uh... (0.00 / 0)

it looks like a 7 to me. so shouldn't it be 2957?

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:25:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

In the 2nd column, you can see that it's a 9, my red pen has obscured the original. :-)

Regardless of who the treasurer is, it's Camille's name at the top of the report. My grade stands firm.

I probably would have gone through Paul's as well, except that his was about 200 pages longer than Camille's. And in my experience with FECFILE (the fec's online reporting tool), it won't allow you to file your report if the numbers don't add up.

I don't mean to be cruel, but with only THREE reportable contributions, this shouldn't be so difficult to add up...in the words of Tandalayo, I have "serious reservations". :-D

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:38:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Abate FEC Report (0.00 / 0)

Well, you caught me.  I'm Abate's treasurer.  Yes, I made 2 math errors.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I promise you to double-check my math, next time. You will probably be very happy to know that the important parts of our filing are correct.  Nothing hidden.  No corporate donations to sway Abate's interests.  No contributions from Pfizer's PAC, like Aronsohn.  While the total contributions we received was small, compared with Aronson's and Garretts, keep in mind that Abate entered the race late in March, after Anne Wolfe withdrew.  After all the petty stuff is wiped away, Abate is the best candidate in this race.  She is the only candidate in the 5th District who is committed to the changes this country needs in health care, economic development, national security, and so many others areas, including lobbying reform. 

---

by: expresswaves @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 13:28:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A math error? (0.00 / 0)

Forgetting to carry a 1 is a math error.  Confusing a quickly written 0 for a 6 is a math error.  Adding $2600 and $359 and getting $2907 goes beyond a simple math error.  And then double adding contributions only makes it worse.  Didn't anyone bother to see if the cash on hand number you came up with on the FEC report matched the number in the bank account? This report is sloppy and unprofessional and very much indicative of the entire Abate campaign so far.

---

by: Demosthenes @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 14:58:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Agree (0.00 / 0)

I've seen nothing to indicate that Camille's campaign is or will be well-run, let alone well-financed, both of which are necessary traits in a campaign that is going to defeat Scott Garrett in the fall.

This campaign seems to be nothing more than a run for the sake of running, and whether they realize it or not, is actually harming our chances of a Democratic victory in November.

Many progressive-minded folks tend to hear the national progressive movement's message that the Democratic Party is unorganized and incapable of winning, and apply that message to the Democratic Party in New Jersey. What many fail to realize is that because of our party's strong organization, we achieve victories year after year, championing progressive causes such as stem-cell research, campaign finance reform, and as much as i hate to admit it, a smoking ban.

I think there are some progressives in this state who oppose the "organization" simply because other states are finding that the "organization is the problem. However, NJ is a national model of how a party organization wins, and achieves the goals that we as Democrats believe in achieving. We consistently provide a unified front against the Republican Party, recognizing the difference between those who are viable, and those who are only drawing resources away from those who are viable. If we are to defeat Scott Garrett, we need to unify our efforts towards one common goal, rather than harm a candidate who has a chance at victory.

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 16:46:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

organization (0.00 / 0)

there is organization, but it's not consistent or uniform. There are counties where the organization is practically non-existant.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 16:52:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: organization (0.00 / 0)

And in those areas perhaps some change could help. However, Bergen and Passaic counties consistently provide results, and Warren and Sussex county organizations have continued to get stronger year after year.

My point is just that we should be united behind our strongest candidate, instead of letting those who do not stand much chance of winning distract us.

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 17:05:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bergen may provide results... (0.00 / 0)

... but in my experience, not for US Congress (at least in the 5th). The party organization simply doesn't seem interested in it, and I believe they are exactly that blunt when they talk to the prospective nominees. They did a great job with the freeholders & sheriff, though. (I'm not addressing the tactics, only that they poured money into the race & ran a successful advertising campaign.)

I doubt very much that Aronsohn will be receiving much help from the BCDO, and assuming I am right, he knew that going in. I am also not sure how Camille's running hurts the party. After June 6th, the primary will be over. Aronsohn is already focusing on Garrett (as you can see from his press releases) and he's not likely to spend additional money fighting Abate. Garrett also has a challenger, so it's not like the Republicans have a united front.

This is all part of the Democratic process. Even if Anne Wolfe were still in this race, I can't imagine that it'd be justified to attack him just for running. And Aronsohn did intend to run regardless.

With that, I think I'm just going to be quiet on the primary race until it's over. If you feel very strongly that Abate is hurting the Democratic party, why not send in a contribution to Aronsohn to offset that? I will match up to $100 of the first contributor to respond. On the other hand, if you support Camille Abate & her right to run, why not send a contribution in to her campaign. (I've already sent in the matching contribution for Abate.)

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 20:58:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Bergen may... (0.00 / 0)

I have donated to Paul already, and probably will continue to do so. I certainly wouldn't drop $100 bucks for someone's "right to run". Hell, I have a "right to run", but I'd be a pretty crappy candidate, so I don't. I support those who make a good candidate.

The manner in which Camille's candidacy hurts the party is not drawing Paul's attention from his goal of defeating Garrett (I think it's pretty obvious that he's got his eyes on the prize).

It's that readers of a progressive blog like this one are not 100% behind a Democratic candidate dedicated to defeating one of the most conservative congressmembers in the country, in the bluest state in the country, simply because he has an underdog opponent.

And please, let's not even get started on Anne Wolfe. We all know there's already enough bad blood there.

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 21:34:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Issues? Who Cares? (0.00 / 0)

It's EXTREMELY telling that the sensationalistic graphic play these petty errors are getting here is not accompanied by any kind of serious policy discussion of the implication of just WHO is buying Paul off with these hundreds of pages of "contributions".

It appears that few here care that Aronsohn has, essentially, sold his soul to his corporate benefactors.  Abate has pledged never to take that kind of tainted money. 

Again, the obvious bias speaks for itself. Thanks for making it so blatant.

In the words of a true blue ancient radical, "But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother, but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?"

PS

We eagerly await Mr Aronsohn's "interview". 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 15:51:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye (0.00 / 0)

Nick, you've been invited several times to post a diary to discuss the issues. Why don't you try that? You haven't contributed at all to a serious policy discussion. You've just demanded that others do it.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 16:02:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

Yes, it is incredibly biased of someone to point out that the Abate campaign can't take a step without stepping on its own pecker. 

It's easy to "pledge never to take that kind of tainted money" when no one is giving you any money at all.  It's a bit different to realize that you need money - tainted or not - to have a chance to win.

A FEC filing is not a "detail".  It is a federal document that can, and has, landed people in jail.  This is a screaming indictment of a amateur campaign that should have anyone who actually wants to win running at full speed away from the Abate camp.

If you want an exercise in fruitlessness that entertains, support Loretta Nall for Alabama Governor.  At least she isn't derailing someone in her own party (of course, everyone in her party is busy getting stoned).

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 18:37:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vote Nall Y'all! (0.00 / 0)

So Awesome.

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 19:14:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I mentioned already... (0.00 / 0)

80% of Aronsohn's contributions come from individuals.  Hardly a corporate owned candidate.

The issue at hand here is the amateurish nature of Abate's campaign thusfar.  Granted, this is a first time run for elected office, but you'd imagine a lawyer to be a little more polished and detail-oriented.  This FEC report doesn't indicate either.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 20:55:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ooh, Pfizer's scary PAC. (0.00 / 0)

According the FEC report (not sure if that's going to come up, but you can search FEC.gov for it), Pfizer's PAC gave Aronsohn $2500.  The Teamsters gave him $10000.  HORRORS.

Let's be serious here.  Itemized contributions show that about 80% of Paul's contributions come from individual contributors, not PACs.  Let's say that some of those individual contributors are also supporters of the PACs.  You'd still be hard pressed to argue that Paul's fundraising prowess is purely related to corporate cash.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 20:51:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bottom Lines (0.00 / 1)

Paul represents the middle of the road DLC-ish estabishmentarian "wing" of the Democratic Party.

The idea seems to be to run as far to the right as possible and still be a "Democrat" so as to peel off some "moderates". Classic triangulation.  It worked really well for John Kerry.

The evident assumption being that progressives and minorities and people who want to see Bush impeached etc will have no where else to go. 

The errors in the filing were obvious errors and nothing anyone would "go to jail for".  LOL  You folks are stretching to find fault to the point af absurdity.

As for the "squeaky cleanliness" of the county machines backing Paul; I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 21:45:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

Megalomania will Embarrass You - But You will Enjoy It

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 22:20:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

The idea is not to

peel off some "moderates"

but to WIN the moderate vote.

The evident assumption being that progressives and minorities and people who want to see Bush impeached etc will have no where else to go.

While it's understandable that some folks might feel taken for granted, a wise vote goal strategy would expect to find most of one's votes amongst the majority of the voters, i.e. middle of the road, unaffiliated likely registered voters. The sad fact is that in CD5,

progressives and minorities and people who want to see Bush impeached etc

make up a small minority of that universe.

Thus the need to tailor one's message to speak to the majority of likely voters, while also being clear that the candidate is a Democrat, and will continue to champion the basic principles of the Democratic Party.

While this may not work on a national level, the demographics of OUR great blue state lend themselves to this strategy, and I think you'll find that Republicans and Democrats alike employ it.

While we're all (ok, the majority of us) liberals here, it's important to not lose sight of the forest for the sake of a few blue spruces. :-)

Oh, and yes, i DID just discover the blockquote tag. sweeeeet.

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 03:20:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well said, ridethedonkey (0.00 / 0)

rtd, that was well said.  That's my view of the district as well.  One doesn't analyze a district race the same way one analyzes a state or national race.  You have to be able to reasd the district.  You have to do the hard work of crunching the numbers, using the available informaton on voting patterns and previous elections, ward by ward if necessary, to determine how many votes you need to win and how many are truly available to you, then you go after those votes.  Some percentage will always vote Democratic, regardless of the candidate.  You take those votes for granted because you only have so much in resources to allocate.  Some will always vote Republican and those you ignore.  Of the rest, some won't vote.  You can spend all day stalking the college campuses and trying to sway the "youth vote", but those little scamps don't turn out in significant numbers and you don't want them to anyway, because they will screw up your numbers if they do.  You find the issues that appeal to the people who do turn out and who you think you can get and you work those issues.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Understand Your Analysis... (0.00 / 1)

...it's quite orthodox, and I agree as far as you go on your path of "the conventional wisdom".

However, you need to look at the fact that Garrett beat Anne Wolfe by a fairly substantial margin...and Anne was a strong and inspiring candidate with genuine and deeply established roots in the district. (A candidate that may well have won this time had she not been given the outrageous "Hackett" treatment.) 

This Aronsohn candidacy has all the earmarks of a party establishment giving a young fellow, they have some obligation to (you figure it out), a chance to make a bit of a name for himself in a no lose situation....since he's likely to lose anyway.

I don't need to go into the obvious negatives Garrett/Rove (if the sob isn't put into jail first) will use to "swiftboat" Paul.  It's all easily googled; I hear that Republicans have internet access.

What's needed to take the fifth is something, someone, geuinely new.  A candidate with personal charisma (ok so her treasurer made a math error and you wrongly think I'm Atilla the Hun...I ain't running :-).  Camille has that in spades.  The responses of ordinary people to her are fantastic.  She has a way of cutting through the BS that most folks easily detect when listening to conventional pols. 

Also, Camille can think on her feet and is as sharp as a tack...she had your boy XPat gracefully apologising when he tried to point out an "error" she didn't make.  She will only get sharper and stronger as the campaign progresses. 

On one sad pathetic level, I can't blame Paul's people for advising him to ignore her...look what they have to work with; what else can they do? 

What it will take to win in the fifth is more of a crusade than a conventional campaign.

Camille can win in November by actually getting the general population EXCITED about her candidacy!  Thousands of new registered voters can rewrite the "book"on the fifth.  Coming out of this primary as an upset winner she'll have the earned media and the momentum to do the job.

People are getting sick and tired of politicians who are obviously being handled by their pollsters and consultants. Do you doubt that?

We need an electrifying race in the fifth in which Garrett is contrasted with a bright clean new light in the sky; not a drab calculating conventional pol.

My own sense is that the only scenario in which Paul "wins" is a total collapse of Bush's numbers into the mid twenties. Then negative coat tails might do the trick.  That would just be getting "lucky".  Aside from such a dreamy scenario, I doubt he would do any better than Anne did last time, probably worse. 

The fact that Paul, pretty much, can't win is at the core of why I'm backing Abate.  It's not just a matter of idealism (not that I'm not proud of my lofty ideals :-).

Face it: Abate is the only candidate on the Democratic ballot in this primary that can likely win in November.

Now y'all can go ahead and keep on beating me up (do your worst, make my day ;-)...but time will eventually tell who was right and who was wronged.  So, I bid y'all a fond...

Ciao fer Now!!!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 03:56:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nick (0.00 / 0)

It's a shame that you make Camille and her campaign look bad. Could you please stop making this entire blog look bad, too? We get it, ok? You think Camille is going to win and that nobody else can win. We. Get. It. Now please, say something different. Anything at all. You're just being repetitive, and worse - you're choosing to repeate things which have no basis in reality. Start a diary if you want to say something meaningful. You're just cluttering up the comments with the same exact comment over and over and over again, and it's getting tiring.

This is our house, and you're our guest. If you're reasonable, you're welcome to stay. If you continue to be disrespectful, you will be booted out, and any complaints of censorship will fall on deaf ears. You've been warned several times already.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 04:55:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yo (0.00 / 0)

I'm no one's "boy".

I apologized when I made a mistake.  That's what grownups do.  You should make a note to study that sometime. 

The biggest mistake I ever made - even worse than that first marriage - was in hoping that you could somehow be encouraged to turn your efforts into something useful.

For the single mistake I made, Camille looked like a complete loser and clueless a dozen times.  I suppose you have to take your victories where you can get them - and that is going to be the only victory she gets this year.

Now run along and kick sand in some other sandbox.  Maybe the kindergarteners are young and naive enough to eat the shit-sandwiches you're selling.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 12:22:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Positively Content... (0.00 / 1)

...to let y'all have "the last words".  Keep on digging yourselves in deeper; pretty please.

Unless you choose to delete more of "the record"; time (it just might even take years) will tell who has egg on their faces.

Goodbye, and Good Luck!

:-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 14:42:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks - bye. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 14:46:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because we all like pie... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: PocketAces @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 13:45:45 PM UTC

I have to say (0.00 / 0)

I'm pretty impressed with the creative graphics work associated with this posting. I had no idea it'd turn into this.

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 21:09:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, that's how I roll. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: PocketAces @ Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 04:45:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]