Dems Score Big From Internet In 2012

(Image is from the website Examiner.com.)

Everyone knows that President Obama's campaign in both 2008 and 2012 was able to get big money from the internet, but he's not the only one. Other Democrats are learning to use the internet to tap into small donors for big bucks. And that includes the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) -- which raises money to support Democrats running for the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the 2008 and 2010 election periods the DCCC had raised 5% and 9% of its total donations online. In 2012 that percentage jumped to about one-third of all their donations. Internet donations amounted to $14.6 million dollars online. In 2012 the online donations for the DCCC climbed to $49.3 million (a jump of more than 237%). This allowed the DCCC to do something it almost never does -- to out-raise its GOP counterpart (the RCCC). In fact, the DCCC raised $28 million more than the RCCC in 2012.

And this is mostly small donors giving this money. The average internet donation to the DCCC was only $31. It goes to show that those small donations can really add up when you get enough of them -- and the DCCC got a lot of them. They even scored some million dollars internet days for the first time. On the day after the Republican National Convention, the DCCC raised $1.3 million on the internet. And in the 48 hours after Paul Ryan's acceptance speech at that convention, $2.3 million was raised (more than the RCCC raised from small donors in the entire month of August 2012).

Howard Dean was the first to recognize the potential of the internet as a source of donor money, and President Obama turned getting internet donations into an art form. Now it looks like the rest of the Democratic Party has learned from them -- and learned very well.

Texas House Delegation

Texas is sending three more Democrats to the House of Representatives for the new Congress, and one more Republican. In 2010, Texas had 32 seats in the House -- and sent 9 Democrats and 23 Republicans to Washington. In 2012, Texas was awarded an additional four seats for population growth -- and is sending 12 Democrats and 24 Republicans to Washington. It looks like the Republicans were very successful in protecting their incumbents through redistricting.

District 1
2010 -- Gohmert (R)
2012 -- Gohmert (R)

District 2
2010 -- Poe (R)
2012 -- Poe (R)

District 3
2010 -- Johnson (R)
2012 -- Johnson (R)

District 4
2010 -- Hall (R)
2012 -- Hall (R)

District 5
2010 -- Hensarling (R)
2012 -- Hensarling (R)

District 6
2010 -- Barton (R)
2012 -- Barton (R)

District 7
2010 -- Culberson (R)
2012 -- Culberson (R)

District 8
2010 -- Brady (R)
2012 -- Brady (R)

District 9
2010 -- Green (D)
2012 -- Green (D)

District 10
2010 -- McCaul (R)
2012 -- McCaul (R)

District 11
2010 -- Conaway (R)
2012 -- Conaway (R)

District 12
2010 -- Granger (R)
2012 -- Granger (R)

District 13
2010 -- Thornberry (R)
2012 -- Thornberry (R)

District 14
2010 -- Paul (R)
2012 -- Weber (R)

District 15
2010 -- Hinijosa (D)
2012 -- Hinojosa (D)

District 16
2010 -- Reyes (D)
2012 -- O'Rourke (D)

District 17
2010 -- Flores (R)
2012 -- Flores (R)

District 18
2010 -- Lee (D)
2012 -- Lee (D)

District 19
2010 -- Neugebauer (R)
2012 -- Neugebauer (R)

District 20
2010 -- Gonzalez (D)
2012 -- Castro (D)

District 21
2010 -- Smith (R)
2012 -- Smith (R)

District 22
2010 -- Olson (R)
2012 -- Olson (R)

District 23
2010 -- Canseco (R)
2012 Gallego (D)

District 24
2010 -- Marchant (R)
2012 -- Marchant (R)

District 25
2010 -- Doggett (D)
2012 -- Williams (R)

District 26
2010 -- Burgess (R)
2012 -- Burgess (R)

District 27
2010 -- Farenthold (R)
2012 -- Farenthold (R)

District 28
2010 -- Cuellar (D)
2012 -- Cuellar (D)

District 29
2010 -- Green (D)
2012 -- Green (D)

District 30
2010 -- Johnson (D)
2012 -- Johnson (D)

District 31
2010 -- Carter (R)
2012 -- Carter (R)

District 32
2010 -- Sessions (R)
2012 -- Sessions (R)

District 33
2012 -- Veasey (D)

District 34
2012 -- Vela (D)

District 35
2012 -- Doggett (D)

District 36
2012 -- Stockman (R)

French & Greeks Vote Against Austerity

Europe has been led down the wrong road by the conservatives they put in power. These conservative leaders (especially Merkel in Germany, Sarkozy in France, and Cameron of the United Kingdom) did what the Republicans are trying to do in the United States -- they initiated a program of "austerity" for the European Union. They severely cut government services for most Europeans and cut taxes for the richest Europeans.

The result has been a disaster. Instead of bringing Europe out of recession, the austerity measures actually threw many European countries deeper into recession (like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, the United Kingdom). But the people seem to have had enough of the austerity madness.

This last weekend, the French voters booted out Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the architects of European austerity, and replaced him with socialist Francois Hollande (pictured above). Mr. Hollande had campaigned against austerity. In Greece, the voters also booted the supporters of austerity out of power. They replaced the two ruling parties, who supported austerity, with a majority of parties opposed to austerity -- which will undoubtably result in a new anti-austerity government in Greece.

The right-wing government in the Netherlands was also recently booted out, and I doubt that Cameron in the United Kingdom can survive past his first term. Europe is turning against the insane policies of the conservatives. The 600 pound gorilla of the European Union, Germany, is still demanding that the austerity proposals agreed to must be followed and say they will refuse to renegotiate the terms, but they may soon have no choice. In fact, recent state elections in Germany show that Merkel's right-wing party may be in trouble in their next federal elections.

Europe is changing directions. They are starting to realize that austerity doesn't end recessions -- it just makes them worse. I hope that voters in the United States will wake up and come to the same realization, before the Republicans are able to push through more of their austerity measures -- measures that will further trash our own economy.

Obama's Campaign War Chest Grows Larger

The other day I said the Republicans needed the super-PACs to compete with President Obama in the coming election. After the fundraising announced by the White House for January of this year, that is even more true now. In January, President Obama raised more than $29 million (some of which he will share with the party). He has now totaled over $250 million in fundraising.

In the last three months of 2011, the president averaged more than $23 million a month -- far more than any of his Republican competitors (and they are busy spending their money fighting each other). The January haul by the president shows he is now kicking his fundraising efforts into high gear. He has just completed a three-day swing of the West coast, which is expected to net him at least another $8 million. February is probably going to be as good as January was.

With the Republican nomination race now looking like it will go at least another couple of months (and maybe longer), it is doubtful that whoever wins will be able to match the president in campaign fundraising. They are currently spending like mad to get the nomination and possible donors can't know who the eventual winner will be yet to replenish those funds. That means the Republican candidate will depend heavily on the super-PACs to compete with the president.

But even that might not work as well as Republicans hope. The president has encouraged Democratic donors to give to Democratic super-PACs, and with the president's encouragement the giving to Democratic super-PACs will probably pick up speed now.

In the past, Democrats have struggled to keep up with the campaign dollars of the Republicans. That won't be the case this year. The Democrats will have the money to compete. Let's just hope they spend it wisely.

NOTE -- The president's campaign says that 98% of the $29 million raised in January was from contributions of $250 or less.

Republicans Hurting Themselves With Voters

Right after the 2010 elections the Republicans were fairly popular with the voters. When voters were asked if they preferred a generic Republican or generic Democrat for Congress, on the national level the Republican always won. It has been that way for the last couple of years. But that is changing fast, and it is primarily due to the actions of the Republicans themselves.

In the newest Democracy Corps Poll, the generic Democrat now comes out on top when that question is asked. And this is primarily due to the movement of Independents away from the Republicans and toward the Democrats. Democrats now get 44% to the Republicans 42%, and when the leaners are added in it goes to 47% for Democrats and 44% for Republicans. That's still fairly close, but it marks the first time in a couple of years in this poll that the generic Democrat comes out on top.

I would love to believe that this turnaround is because Democrats have shown they deserve the chance to lead again, but that's not really what's happening. A couple of other questions in the poll show that most of the damage being done to the Republican brand is being done by the Republicans themselves. Consider these answers:

THE MORE YOU WATCH REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS, DOES IT MAKE YOU LIKE WHAT THEY ARE OFFERING MORE OR LESS?
More...............39%
Less...............53%

THE MORE YOU WATCH THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, DOES IT MAKE YOU LIKE WHAT REPUBLICANS ARE OFFERING MORE OR LESS?
More...............38%
Less...............53%

The Republicans thought that all of the debates would showcase their candidates and win voters to their cause. It did showcase their candidates, but it is instead driving voters away from them -- especially the Independents. And the Republican efforts in Congress to protect the rich at the expense of everyone else is doing the same.

With the Republicans inflicting so much damage on themselves, the Democrats may not have to do much to win big in the 2012 elections.

GOP Is Striking Out With Hispanics

According to the 2010 census, the population breakdown of the United States by race or ethnicity is as follows:

Whites (non-Hispanic)...............63.7
Hispanics...............16.3%
African-Americans...............12.2%
Asians...............4.7%
Mixed race...............1.9%

This population breakdown makes it unlikely that a political party could expect to win the White House with a fairly significant portion of the non-white vote. To win with only white votes would require a party to get an abnormally high percentage of that white vote -- and that is unlikely to be possible for either party (although with their anti-immigrant and anti-minority policies, that seems to be what the Republicans are trying to do).

It is probably impossible for the Republicans to get more than 7-8% of the African-American vote (in fact, I think that number might be too high). A lot of whites may not be able to see the anti-minority policies and simmering racism inherent in the Republican Party, but it is clear to almost all African-Americans. It would be futile for the Republicans to go fishing for votes in this demographic group.

The only real possibility to get significant votes outside of the white demographic would be among Hispanics. The last time the Republicans elected a president was in 2004. That year George Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote, and squeaked by in a close election. In 2008, John McCain got only 31% of the Hispanic vote and was soundly defeated. The question for the 2012 election is can the Republicans top the 31% Hispanic vote of John McCain, and get close to the 40% Hispanic vote of George Bush?

Good News For Democrats

As you probably know, the Republican Party has a substantial majority of the United States House of Representatives. This has allowed them to block any efforts by the president and the progressive Democrats to pass job creation measures, tax the rich and corporations fairly, protect the environment, or protect funding for education and social programs to help hurting Americans.

This needs to change, but the only way it will change is for the House of Representatives to once more have a Democratic majority (without the Blue Dogs). But most political pundits have been saying for the last few months that it is almost a sure thing that the Republicans will retain a majority in the House after the next election. They don't think enough seats can change hands to put the Democrats back in control. But they may be wrong.

GOP Playing With Fire On Jobs Bill

Today President Obama's jobs bill is coming up for a vote in the Senate. They'll probably vote on both versions of the bill -- the one that raises taxes for everyone making over $250,000 a year and the one that just imposes a surtax of slightly more than 5%on people making $1 million or more. But it doesn't matter which version you like best, because the Senate Republicans have said they will not allow a cloture vote to succeed and stop their filibuster of the bill (which requires 60 votes).

But even if by some miracle the jobs bill did pass the Senate, it stands absolutely no chance of passing the Republican-dominated House of Representatives. Republican economic leader Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin says it is because President Obama has refused to "negotiate" a compromise that is acceptable to both parties. That may be one of the biggest lies he has ever told.

If we've learned anything from the last couple of years in Washington, it's this -- it's not the president who's unwilling to compromise, it's the Republicans. The president has tried to compromise time and time again, but every effort has been rebuffed by the congressional Republicans. And they're not willing to compromise on this jobs bill either.

The Republicans have already shown there is no part of the president's jobs bill that they could accept. They don't like giving a payroll tax break to the bottom 90% of Americans. They don't like appropriating money to renovate and upgrade our transportation infrastructure. They don't like the idea of fixing up around 35,000 school buildings. And they don't like tying tax breaks for small businesses to job creation.

In fact, there is only one thing they do like. They still want to give the richest Americans and the biggest corporations more and bigger tax breaks. It doesn't matter to the Republicans that these people already control more of the country's wealth and income than since the 1920s, and are not producing any new jobs. There is no reason to believe that giving the richest Americans even more money will produce jobs either.

What the Republicans don't seem to understand is that President Obama knew they wouldn't pass the jobs plan when he introduced it. He's laying an electoral trap for them, and they are walking straight into it -- either willingly or unknowingly. A huge majority of Americans have said that the number one issue in America is job creation, and they've been saying this for a while now. They're not going to be happy with the killing of any jobs bill right now -- even one as modest as the one proposed by the president.

When the Republicans kill this jobs bill, the president is going to beat them over the head with that for the next year. And if he's smart, he'll make insignificant changes to the bill and re-introduce it over and over again -- forcing the Republicans to repeatedly vote against job creation. And when they do that they're playing with electoral fire -- a fire that could burn more than their fingers in November 2012.

The Republicans look at the president's approval numbers (around 40% right now) and think they can beat him in the next election. But they are overlooking their own abysmal approval numbers (around 15% currently). And while the public is not too happy with either party right now, they are more unhappy with the congressional Republicans -- and killing a bill to create jobs is not going to help those pathetic numbers.

It looks like the president has finally found his backbone. He's virtually daring the Republicans to kill the jobs bill. And they are falling right into his trap.

Marked Lack Of Enthusiasm Among Democrats

When the Democratic Party voters and workers are enthused about an election they usually win that election. In the 2008 election about 80% of Democrats were very enthusiastic about the election and the party won big at the polls that year (of course, it didn't hurt that the nation was suffering after eight years of Bush/Cheney). In the 2010 election, disappointed by the failure of elected Democrats to stand up to the Republicans and initiate real change, Democratic enthusiasm dropped to around 60% (below that of Republicans) and the election was a disaster for the party.

This begs the question, are the Democrats getting enthused about the 2012 election? Will it be a repeat of 2008 or 2010? The Gallup Poll has tried to answer that question with a new survey where they attempt to take the pulse of current Democratic enthusiasm. Gallup's survey, taken between September 15th and 18th, questioned 1,004 adults nationwide with a margin of error of 4 points (including 454 Democrats, where the margin of error was 6 points). And what they found should worry the president and the Democratic National Committee. It should worry them a lot.

The poll shows that less than half of the Democrats, about 45%, are more enthusiastic than normal about the upcoming elections in 2012. About 44% say they are less enthusiastic than normal. That is a marked drop in enthusiasm even from the 2010 elections, and it is larger than can be accounted for by the margin of error. Meanwhile, the Republican enthusiasm remains at a steady 58%. The president and the congressional Democrats have an "enthusiasm gap" problem, and it is time they started acting to close that gap.

How can they do that? Well, it won't be done with rallies or speeches full of promises. They heard all of that in 2008 when they delivered a huge victory to the party. But the time since then has been filled with little but disappointment. The elected Democrats have just not delivered on the change they promised. Some of you are going to point out that much of that change was blocked by Republican obstructionist tactics (and blue dog timidity). And that is true.

But it is not so much the failure, as the way it happened. There can be honor in fighting the good fight, even when you lose that fight. But there is no honor in giving up and knuckling under. And far too often in the last few years, Democrats have seen their elected officials act as if they have no backbone. Too many of them gave up and gave in instead of going down fighting. And when you lay down a history of that kind of action, as many Democratic officials have done, it makes it very hard for voters to get enthused about your re-election.

This is especially true of the progressives who form the biggest part of the Democratic Party's base. After seeing issue after issue that they supported go down the tubes with little fight from the White House and congressional Democrats, they have become disenchanted. Most progressives know they are not going to get everything they want -- that is just how politics operates. But they do want to see their elected officials fight for those issues. If they are not willing to fight to the end for those progressive issues, why should they expect progressives to fight to get them re-elected?

The president and congressional Democrats have been taking progressives for granted for quite a while now. They figure the progressives have no other place to go and will wind up voting for Democrats in 2012, whether they want to or not. And they are probably right about that. Most progressives will vote in 2012, and most of them will vote for Democrats (even if they have to hold their noses to do so). But if that's all they do, then the Democrats will lose.

The issue is not whether Democrats will vote, but whether they will spend countless hours working for the party and it's candidates. Unenthused party members do not harass their families, friends, and neighbors to get them to the polls. Unenthused members do not give countless rides to the polls on election day. Unenthused people do not spend the weeks leading up to the election knocking on doors and making phone calls. Unenthused people don't open their wallets to support candidates. And unless a whole lot of people do these things the party cannot win.

There is still time to light the fire of enthusiasm in Democrats, but it's going to take guts and a fighting spirit from the elected Democrats. The president has proposed a good jobs bill and a fairly good deficit reduction package. They are worth fighting for. The Republicans will most likely kill both measures in the House and put pressure of Democrats to agree to some kind of Republican package instead. The Democrats must fight for what they want, and if it is blocked by the Republicans then that fight must be taken all the way to the next election. Giving in again is simply not going to be acceptable.

People will vote for fighters, and more important, people will fight to re-elect fighters. It's up to elected Democrats now. Do they have any fight in them, or not?  

State Rep. Won't Run For Re-Election In 2012

The Amarillo Globe New's Austin reporter is reporting that State Rep. Rick Hardcastle (R-Vernon) has decided that he will not seek re-election to his newly re-configured District 68 seat -- even though most people figured he would have an easy time being re-elected to the Texas House.

Hardcastle said, "When I first ran for state representative, my plan was to serve for about 10 years, if my constituency allowed me. By the end of my current term, I will have served 14 years. Nancy and I figured we've served in public office long enough." The move comes as a surprise, and so far there are no Republican candidates that have expressed an interest in the seat -- although I'm sure that will quickly change.

There is talk that former State Rep. Joe Heflin, a Democrat from Crosby county, might be interested in running for the position. Heflin (pictured) had served several terms as the District 85 representative, but was defeated by Jim Landtroop (R-Plainview) in 2010. Heflin had said he would not run against Hardcastle because they were friends, but now that Hardcastle won't be running that impediment has been removed.

I don't know if Heflin will run or not, but I do think it would probably be very hard for him to win a District 68 race. For one thing, he lost his last race by a pretty overwhelming margin (38% to 62%) and that was a district where he was well-known. He is not nearly as well-known in most of the counties in District 68 (which his home county is new to). And most of those counties have a recent history of voting heavily for Republicans.

Also, in 2010 the State Ethics Commission ordered Heflin to pay a $1,200 fine for some campaign finance violations. Heflin claimed they were "minor infractions". Even if they were minor, they obviously had an effect on the 2010 election -- and there is little doubt this would be brought up by a new opponent in 2012. This could be devastating for a candidate running in a district where the residents of most counties don't know him (or his record).

I would love to see a Democrat win in any of the West Texas or Panhandle districts, but I wouldn't bet two cents on Heflin's chances in the newly-drawn District 68.

Is Rudy Entering The Race ?

This surprises me just a little bit. I figured after the embarrassment of his short-lived presidential run in 2008, Rudy Giuliani wouldn't want any part of another run for that office. But it looks like he might be a glutton for punishment. With Daniels and Huckabee out of the picture now, the establishment Republicans are casting about for someone to take on the right-wing extremists in the race (which includes most of the candidates except for Romney, who seems to be as adept at shooting himself in the foot as Gingrich).

And the name some people are tossing around is that of Rudy Giuliani (and rumor has it he may actually be considering jumping in the race). CNN decided to find out if there was any chance for a Giuliani candidacy, so they included his name in the latest poll they did with Opinion Research. The CNN/Opinion Research Poll was done May 24th through May 26th of 1,007 adults (and has a margin of error of 3 points). Surprisingly, Giuliani did very well in the poll, finishing in first place (although Romney and Palin were both within the margin of error).

Here are how the Republicans stacked up in this latest poll:

Rudy Giuliani...............16%
Mitt Romney...............15%
Sarah Palin...............13%
Ron Paul...............12%
Herman Cain...............10%
Newt Gingrich...............8%
Michele Bachmann...............7%
Tim Pawlenty...............5%
Rick Santorum...............2%
Jon Huntsman...............1%
Gary Johnson...............1%
Buddy Roemer...............*
Someone else/no one...............8%
No opinion...............2%

And here are the numbers when they took Giuliani out of the mix:

Mitt Romney...............19%
Sarah Palin...............15%
Ron Paul...............13%
Herman Cain...............11%
Newt Gingrich...............11%
Michele Bachmann...............7%
Tim Pawlenty...............5%
Jon Huntsman...............3%
Rick Santorum...............2%
Gary Johnson...............2%
Buddy Roemer...............1%
Someone else/no one...............9%
No opinion...............2%

Those numbers may be good enough to get Rudy Giuliani to enter the race. He's always had a taste for power, and I think he'd love to be relevant again. The real surprise for me is that the candidacy of Herman Cain may be actually getting some traction. This poll backs up a couple of other recent polls showing he has now jumped up into double-digit territory. Maybe the Republicans have finally found their token Black (after Michael Steele turned out to be such an incompetent fool).

The other interesting item is the hopeless nature of the candidacies of Huntsman, Santorum, and Pawlenty. I never expected Huntsman and Santorum to get anywhere, but Pawlenty was supposed to have a real chance according to some pundits. Unless he gets out of that 3-5% range in the polls pretty soon, he's just going to be another "also ran".

There's still some talk of Texas governor Rick Perry entering the race, and the Austin American-Statesman is reporting that he and his advisors are seriously thinking about it. And right-wing radio nut Laura Ingraham says she heard from a source close to Perry that he definitely will be entering the race. I'm not believing it -- at least not yet. The latest Texas Tribune/University of Texas poll put his support at only 4% in his home state.

I think it may be time to heed the words of the late great Molly Ivins. She said, "Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention." This nation needs to take those words to heart.