Ankrum Outperforms

I agree that Ted ran a great race (0.00 / 0)

And considering how little money he had, put in an incredible performance against McCaul. If Ted had the money to put in the race, he could have won.  Another reason to wake up this morning and say "We continue to fight".

Let me just add my 2 cents to your comment about John.  I hope you didn't mean to slight him.  Ted Ankrum was in a general election race, John was in a special election race where the district had only been redrawn on August 6, 2006.  Barely 90 days.  It was redrawn to be a 65% Republican leaning district.  There were 7 candidates in the special election.  Two of them whose votes we can almost agree should be John's, if they hadn't run.  Gene Kelly whose name appeared on the ballot before John, and had a Democrat identifier by it.  Gene did ran absolutely no campaigning and once again picks up 18 thousand votes on the "dead dancer" reputation.  Tommy Calvert has been a Democrat in San Antonio and most of the voters in Bexar knew that.  So if you combine those 3 vote totals for a Democratic voter turnout you change that total to 73,549 to Smith's 122,880, and an overall voter turnout of 204,155.  The DPI would then be about 36%, just like the district was redistricted to be.

John Courage 49,909
Gene Kelly  18,355
Tommy Calvert 5,285
Total  73,549

Lamar Smith 122,880
Total Votes 204,155

I for one am proud of the race John ran, and am proud that he stuck though it to the very end. 

---

by: sonia @ Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 15:24:07 PM UTC

In no way did I intend to slight John Courage (3.00 / 1)

I apologize if I gave that impression; my intent was to point out that John Courage didn't do as well as Ted did, despite having a higher profile campaign - and I wanted to be clear that it's not an apples to apples (donkey to donkey?) comparison. As noted, Courage was in a special election, Ankrum was in a true general election.

I'm proud of *all* our central Texas Democratic candidates; win loose or draw.

---

by: jelyon @ Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 16:05:42 PM UTC

The Daily Texan Curse/Endorsement killed Badnarik (3.00 / 1)

Let's review the Deadly Toxin's most curious endorsements:

Governor - Kinky Friedman (distant 4th)

U.S. Rep., D-10 - Michael Badnarik (distant 3rd)

Can we get the Deadly Toxin to endorse Ted's opponent in '08, too?

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 17:44:56 PM UTC

heartbroken (0.00 / 0)

I really wanted a congressman. Now I'm back to not having one because Michael McCaul completely ignores his constituents.

Ted is so smart & so cool. He would really be a great elected official. I just wish the campaign had had some help. When Rahm Emmanuel was on TV this morning, about the vicrory of the DCCC, I had to yell at my TV a little, even though I'm glad we took back the House. We could have had a better margin. Grrrr

Hill Country Ride for AIDSmy HCRA Page

---

by: BeckyH @ Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 18:32:58 PM UTC

A huge failure (4.00 / 2)

The failure of Rahm and the DCCC to fund
longshot candidates in any way at all
was a huge failure, perhaps the only
major failure of the Democrats this
campaign year.

Rahm and the DCCC were completely
unready for the possibility of a wave
year election, and when it came, their
reaction was simply too little, too late.

Of course, they were equally unready
for the possibility that Dean's 50-state
strategy (and its elaborations, including
filing a candidate for almost every House
seat in every state) would make this
election in any way different from
recent elections.

But enough of my fingerpointing and
blame-laying. What lesson can we learn
from this huge mistake?

We need to find a way to get funding
to longshot candidates well in advance
of the Novemeber election. Following the
adage that early money is like yeast,
the DCCC, or the DNC if the DCCC won't
do it, should send $10,000 to every
primary winner who becomes the official
Democratic nominee for a seat in Congress.
This would be seed money, to pay for the
first fundraising mailings, to set up the
website, to rent space for volunteers, etc.

Then some sort of matching funding
would seem appropriate. If, for example,
the DCCC promised to match, after the
first $50,000 the candidate raised on
his /her own, the next $50,000 up to
$100,000. So, $10,000 from DC upon
becoming the nominee, raise your own
$50,000 to show you are serious, then
to keep the momentum, DC will match
the next $50,000, total raised $160,000.

Ted Ankum raised only $50,000. But under
my scenario, he would have started with
$10,000 from D.C. Then if he only raised
another $50,000, well, he'd only end up
with $60,000.

At that point he'd contact his supporters
to let them know: Your next gift will
be matched dollar for dollar from D.C.

Sure, we would all dig a little deeper
to find another $25 or $100 or $2,100
to get that matching money. By the end
of the race, he'd have $160,000, with
$10,000 plus $50,000 = $60,000 from
D.C. and $100,000 raised by the local campaign.

With three times the money, he'd have
run a much stronger campaign.

Would this scheme bankrupt the DCCC?
Lessee, $10,000 each to every candidate,
nah, let's ignore the incumbents, so
roughly 250 new candidates, counting
open seats. Total $2,500,000. Oh, that
is a lot of money. Not as much as Rahm
and the DCCC spent on his one favorite
race (we lost) in Illinois, but it's a lot.
Another $50,000 in matching funds to
each challenger, if all 250 met the
threshold and raised the full amount
to match, another pile of dough:
$12,500,000.

Grand total of $15 million spread across
the country, out of the DCCC's total this
year, upwards of $35 million.

So instead of $2 or $3 million Tammy
Duckworth and Angie Paccione (we lost)
and the same range to Klein in Florida
(we won), it'd be $60,000 to Ted Ankrum,
Shane Sklar, John Courage, Jim Henley,
David Harris, and almost 200 others.

But this year, the R's bragged that
they took 14 of the 23 House races
decided by less than 2 percentage
points, and 13 of the 19 separated
by less than 5,000 votes.

Wanna guess how many of the 23 races
decided by less than 2%, or the 19 races
with less than 5,000 votes, got any funds
from the DCCC?

---

by: Woody @ Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:20:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]