From someone on the inside …
Kerry’s been great in terms of being a surrogate and making campaign appearances, and it can’t be overstated how important that is to getting a candidate traction and legitimacy locally. On money, it’s been non-stop raising money for candidates for more than a year, which again is great but it should be noted that most of it came from an email list left over from a presidential campaign, a bit of an unfair advantage in this comparison. You’d have to check how much money he’s sitting on himself and how much of that he’s given to make a real judgment.
Feingold’s done the same email-wise, though he doesn’t have the list or the warchest Kerry does, and has helped some key campaigns. Edwards has been a great surrogate in some cases, and has done the email thing – could have done more perhaps, though instead he was working on poverty which is hard to hold against him. I’ve followed Clark, and he’s done the email/ online community fundraising thing, but he’s also the perfect surrogate – disliked by few and gravitas on national security.
Clinton is certainly the sore thumb. She does some great stuff for NY candidates, but she certainly could have done more. Now she doesn’t have a huge email list, and in moderate or Republican-leaning districts, where most competitive races are, she might not always be the perfect surrogate, but the sheer amount of money she is sitting on and can direct is enormous. She recently shelled out $1 million for the DSCC and I think $250K or so to the DCCC, but out of how much?
Next question, how many safe House incumbents are sitting on money and how much?
More thoughts? That last question is a good one too.
