Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Tsongas was less than $20K up on Ogonowski in Cash as of 9/26

By

Thought you guys would be interested.  Without Pelosi’s $75k and her own $50k loan, Niki would be $100K down from Jim Ogonowski!  No wonder you guys are all apoplectic!

In what can only be described as a stunning display of fiscal mismanagement, despite outraising Jim Ogonowski by abot $1.4M dollars in total, Niki Tsongas only has $19K more cash on hand than Jim as of 9/26/07.  Without a $50,000 loan to her campaign she would have $30K less than Jim Ogonowski.  No wonder she brought the big guns in and nationally democrats have been scrambling for money. 

Niki’s Numbers

Total Raised – $1,886,849

Total Spent – $1,675,141

Total Cash on Hand – $240,708

Jim’s Numbers [http://query.nictusa…]

Total Raised – $434,121

Total Spent – $204,458

Total Cash on Hand – $221,119

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. How is spending money to win a highly contested 5 way (well really 4 way) primary fiscal mismanagement? Two of Tsongas’ primary opponents outraised and then spent (in the primary) more than Ogo has raised for the entire cycle. I think the visibility of a real primary and the money spent to win are the investment that wins this race on Oct 16th.

    <

    p>
    Fiscal mismanagement would have been losing the primay with money left in the bank.

    <

    p>
    EaBo -you were doing better misrepresenting the children’s health care veto. Stick with that

    • The race is tied, and they both have the same amount of cash on hand. If Niki Tsongas hadn’t got Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi to come in, she’d have No money left.  None, zilch Nada.  Tortoise and the Hare my friend, Niki’s the hare and Jim’s the tortoise. 

      <

      p>
      What this shows is that she couldn’t raise money after the primary without the help of Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. 

      <

      p>
      It’s not a stretch, not at all.

      • that the Tsongas campaign actually has a campaign fundraising plan and that the Pelosi fundraiser was part of it. Therefore she planned on raising $75K with the US Speaker and didn’t need to raise it elsewhere.

        <

        p>
        “If Niki Tsongas hadn’t got Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi to come in, she’d have No money left.  None, zilch Nada.”

        <

        p>
        If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

        • I told you that Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi were going to need to campaign for Niki Tsongas to win this election. You would of looked at me like I had three heads, instead of the two heads you probably think i have.  There is no getting around the fact that both the Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton visits were to prop up an unsuspectingly faltering campaign.  You know it and I know it.  I’m actually getting whoozy from all your spin.

      • Tsongas is up by 10, according to the last poll that anyone saw.  Sure, I’d rather she was up by 35, but I’d rather be up 10 than down 10.

        <

        p>
        More fakery from Team Ogo.

    • They are tied in money and virtually tied in the polls.  Tsongas doesn’t have enough dough left to run the campaign she wanted or needs to run at this time.  Without Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi Fundraising numbers she would be bankrupt with 3 weeks to go in the campaign. 

      <

      p>
      She was unable to raise post primary money on her own and needed the help of washington insiders to do it. 

      <

      p>
      All I have to say is thank you Eileen Donoghue.

      • ….not virtually tied in the polls.  A ten point spread is not a virtual tie by anyone’s standards except yours.

  3. Spending money on broadcast advertisements in a congressional special election when cable would allow you to target homes and voters much more effectively and cheaply is financial mismanagement.  Looking at the numbers, Tsongas spent from the last filing period to this one $535K all pre-primary on broadcast Television.  That was a waste of money in my humble opinion.

    • ….to get money from people outside your district it is not.  Both candidates are taking money from all over the state and since Boston has the most people and the most money advertising on Boston network affiliates seems pretty smart to me. 

      <

      p>
      And who is to say that more targeted ads aren’t going to tured out in the next two weeks? 

      <

      p>
      You are assuming knowledge of way to much on this issue. 

  4. if certain people can win or lose graciously.  why the need to be so nasty?  it is not healthy or productive to tie so much of one’s self-respect to a single political race.  and to actively work to alienate supporters of one’s opponent.  maybe  others have had different experiences, but i’ve never become friends with anyone who slugged me rather than shake my hand on first meeting.

  5. Here’s Bernstein, who has more info:

    <

    p>

    Tsongas has raised more than $130,000 since then in large donations (which now must be disclosed pretty much as they come in, thanks to new rules), compared with just $27,000 for Ogo.

    By my rough analysis, Tsongas spent roughly $200,000 after the primary through 9/26, had $240,000 in the bank at that point, and raised another $130,000+ since, meaning that she’ll spend around $575,000 in the general election plus whatever she raises in these final two weeks.

    Ogonowski spent a little over $35,000 from 9/5-9/26, had $220,000 in hand, and raised $25k+ since, giving him roughly $290,000 general-election spending, plus late contributions.

    So, Niki will still outspend him 2-to-1 in the general, plus she has the equity from close to $1.5 million she spent in the primary, which included more than a half-million in ad buys.

  6. Now that you let me know Niki needs money, I am sending a check TODAY!

    <

    p>
    Your service to the Tsongas campaign is greatly appreciated
    !!!

          • take a look at his ratings given out.  If you agree with him, 6&5s.  If you are someone from a different political position, you are hard pressed to get even a 4.

            <

            p>
            Hell, even look at tblabe’s ratings.  Same trend.

            <

            p>
            While if you look at ratings from EaBo or myself you will a wide variety of ratings for people from all sides of the political spectrum.

            • … and I still fail to see how you’ve answered my question.  You’ve provided evidence of opinionated (possibly partisan) thought.  Where is the 0 ratings abuse?

              • and sitting here and pointing out every zero and trying to validate or show abuse is not productive.

                <

                p>
                My point was simply that zero abuse is not limited to “conservatives” and that many contributers to this site that make it worth reading, tblade for example whom made the original comment on ratings abuse here, also abuse the ratings system.

                <

                p>
                My understanding of the rating system is that it is supposed to respond to the quality of the post, not my agreement with it.  Admittedly, I also participate in ratings abuse from time to time.  I also participate in the “off setting” of bad ratings that HR’s Kevin describes.

                • …  Someone saw 0 ratings abuse and called it out.  You come in with this idea that “your side of the isle does it too”.  I disbelieve you until you can show me.  I invite you to do so without changing the subject to other ideas about the care and feeding of ratings.  If you can’t show me comparable 0 abuse by non-conservatives (ideally in comparable quantities – but I’ll let that slide), then please take your original claim back. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Feel free to go on about these other ideas about ratings (of course they’ve been talked about before) all you wish, but since it isn’t an answer to my question, please don’t imply that it is.

                  <

                  p>

                • Here is a comment from Eabo that was given undeserved “0” by tblade and lightiris.  Clearly not conservatives.

                  <

                  p>
                  Here is another comment by Eabo that was given undeserved “0” by tblade.

                  <

                  p>
                  Here is an example of lightiris and alexwill committing “0” abuse.

                  <

                  p>
                  And here is one where John Hosty gives an undeserved “0” to Eabo.

                  <

                  p>
                  Now this was only from looking at ratings given to Eabo and only looking at “0”.  Not to mention all of the “worthless” ratings given by a whole slew of people who lean to the left.

                • … so now we have 0s as examples.  The next question is are they justified?

                  <

                  p>
                  Example 1 is justified.  Ebo’s comment is insulting with no substance.

                  <

                  p>
                  Example 2 is pretty justified.  Name calling no substance again.  He could have explained himself here and that might have helped.

                  <

                  p>
                  Example 3 and 4 is seem unjustified. 

                  <

                  p>
                  I’ll leave it to others to judge if this body of evidence ‘backs up’ the claim that ‘the other side of the isle does it two’. 

            • I sometimes give a comment a 6 which might otherwise not deserve it in order to counter some even more undeserved 0’s or 3’s from our right-wing friends. I try not to give 0’s just because a comment does not add anything worthwhile to the dialogue, and try to restrict it to comments that are really inappropriate for the forum. However, I have to admit that in a fit of petulance I did give somebody some zeros just because he gave me an undeserved zero.

              <

              p>
              It is impossible to make the rating system work unless you can trust everyone to use it consistently, which you just can’t do on a political site like this. For this reason, dailykos dropped their rating system and replace it with a much simpler system where you can only grant a positive vote for a comment and certain “trusted” users are allowed to add a negative vote to comments that are considered to be inappropriate (e.g., obscene or troll comments). There is some abuse of so-called troll-ratings by trusted users on that site, but it is really not very bad. I think we should adopt the same system here.

              <

              p>

          • What does ratings abuse by anyone else have to do with ratings abuse by Mr Zombie? However, it is not a worthless comment so I gave it a 4 instead of a 5. If I could have given it a 4.5, I would have done so.

            <

            p>
            Anyway, that is just my personal opinion. I don’t see how that is abuse.

            <

            p>

        • There are plenty of right-wing ideologues here who nevertheless are perfectly capable of contributing to the dialog in a positive manner. Zombie does not appear to be one of them. He seems to only be interested in wasting everyone’s time.

          • …EaBo, JK and Gary, on the conservative side for example.  And I don’t agree with everything that the “progressives” here post or comment.  It is obvious that this stuff between the Tongas and Ogonowski campaigns will simmer down once the election is over.

            <

            p>
            Regarding School Zombie, it’s clear that he is nothing more than a troll.  From the New Hacker’s Dictionary:

            <

            p>

            troll /v.,n./

            [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don’t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.

            Some people claim that the troll is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial.

            <

            p>
            http://www.ccil.org/…

            <

            p>
            I’ve been posting on message boards and comment threads for over a decade.  It’s unfortunate that some people feel it necessary to respond to every turd that is dropped on a board by a troll, but there are always a few.  And that’s what keeps trolls around.

  7. …as far as I can tell, Tsongas would be remiss if she did not use her entire campaign chest to get elected–the first time.

  8. is a regular feature at BMG.

    <

    p>
    It is only a little less amusing than Cheers & Jeers at dKos.

Archives