Breaking: Bill Clinton is finding his "comfortable shoes" to come to Wisconsin

that the DNC woke up!

DNC crumbs on the way.

...until the final push. Basic race winning strategy, really.

The DNC has no excuse for ignoring Wisconsin in the way they have, they should have never allowed Scott Walker to have a 12 to 1 funding advantage they should have put more money into this race.

They have no control over Scott Walker's funding advantage.

I am not suggesting they should have squandered all their money at the beginning, I am suggesting they should have raised money at the beginning. It is their fault that Walker had such a vast funding advantage, because of the quirks in Wisconsin recall election law it was inevitable he was going to have some advantage but there is absolutely no reason it had to be a 12 to 1 advantage. If the DNC cared about this race they would have invested in it.

...because the Democratic Party was focused on recalling Walker and selecting a primary candidate.

What you're saying is that basically they should've been fund raising while simultaneously recalling Walker. This is a really bad strategy. Had Walker not been recalled I'm sure the complaints would be "the DNC and the WI Democrats should've spent more effort recalling Walker rather than fund raising."

Tom Barrett didn't get selected until May 8th. Just over a week after the walker recall signatures were certified (March 29th). 4 weeks to raise funds without any super high profile cronies to pay for Super PAC's.

Yeah, really, I think they're doing a great job with the hand they've been dealt and with how much work they've had to do.

Are you honestly suggesting that the DNC does not do fundraising while they focus on a campaign? Why have I gotten so many fundraising e-mails from them in other races if that is the case?

You can say that the DNC should have just dumped $25 million into Barrett's campaign as soon as he was selected in the WI Democratic Primary, but I just don't see it. That's a whole half of what the DNC raised in March, which is to go to hundreds of campaigns around the country. It has to be spent really wisely. The DNC gave WI Democrats $1.2 million (after much outrage that the DNC wasn't helping, of course, I don't deny that), but that pales into comparison to Koch spending in the campaign.

Being outspent is not the end of the world, though. We win with numbers. Not hard dollar numbers, but people numbers.

edit: actually if you go to Open Secrets you see that the numbers are much more dire than that: http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cycle=2012&cmte=DNC

Walkers campaign alone has 65% of what the entire DNC has to spend for politicians in the party across the whole country.

from the November presidential race. I have no idea how factual that is, but it sounds right. If true, it suggests their priorities are screwed up. Wisconsin is a very big deal. A win there would energize the rank and file and intimidate the repukes.

This is just objectively incorrect, the DNC simply cannot do much against Walker. I don't know whether or not Obama getting directly involved is a good thing or not, because it could rile up the racist teabaggers. Walker alone has 'raised' 65%, as I said, of the DNC's cash on hand, that's madness!

A win in WI would no doubt energize the base, but of course, if Obama is not "perceived" as "doing enough" it won't really help his election very much. The Republicans are gleeful at the prospect that they can manage the narrative and make it seem as if Obama isn't "doing enough." So if WI does go for Barrett and against Walker, the narrative going into November by "progressives" will be "He let WI down!"

DU's DNC bashers are a trip. Most of them think that Howard Dean is the only Chairman they could support. So when I see these DNC bashing threads, where people claim to have told some innocent DNC volunteer, that they're withholding support for (insert reason here). How many times do you think the DNC can go to the well, for one election, in one state, before they're accused of neglecting everyone else?

It's easy to rant and rave here about the lack of funding from the evil DNC, but if everyone here were honest, I'm willing to bet that very few of us have given a dime to the DNC. Some "claim" they've sent their money directly to WI. If that's true, what's the problem? The bashers seem to think they can direct other people's DNC contributions to whatever race they deem important. It doesn't work that way.

My take is simply this: Unless you're a "contributing" member, you don't have the right to bitch about someone else's money.

If we can't afford to contribute, the DNC doesn't seem give a damn about what we think or what we want. The fact that they will go all in for a useless and justifiably doomed incumbent like Blanche Lincoln but refuse to try to build the party in a hotly contested place like Wisconsin speaks tellingly about their priorities. You're right about one thing. Howard Dean is held in high regard around here, and with good reason. Rahm got the credit, but Howard did the heavy lifting.

other people's money is spent. That's the beauty of America. If something is important enough, you find a way to "contribute". I get to choose where I send my dollars, and the DNC is one of a few regular donations for me. And I'll leave it to much more skilled tacticians than you or I to decide what's "useless".

We spend hours pontificating on an anonymous internet message board. The people who work at the DNC are the professionals. And guess what? They pay professional pollsters to figure out what's "useless" or not, so they know where their dollars are best spent. They have to economize like everyone else, we're working class people and we don't have the deep pockets of the GOP. And when you get assholes cussing out innocent DNC volunteers whose biggest crime was merely calling up to ask for help, those assholes don't deserve a voice in how mine & other donors' money is spent.

And while I respect and admire Howard Dean's work as much as the next guy, he wasn't as irreplaceable as his fanbase would have us believe.

The previous candidate ALMOST won against a long standing Republican in a Republican state. Then the DNC got involved in the next election cycle, with a different candidate. It seemed to me that the Democrats wanted to lose. During my volunteer sessions, I was only calling Republican voters even though the majority of voters in this particular city are registered as Democrats. There was no get-out-the-vote effort. It was a total sham.

Hoarding one's resources for the "main event" sounds like an unconvincing rationalization to me.

Obama threw EFCA under the bus 10 seconds after he was elected. He then appointed Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education and continued pushing Bush's pro-charter anti-union agenda with his Race to the Top. When Madison was making headlines, the administration silently looked the other way.

Of course, they're doing as little as possible to help in a recall election that is being pushed by public sector unions. You can call it strategy but I see it as just more of the same thing they've been doing for 3+ years.

...have saved as much potential as possible until the last minute for a reason. Less than a week to go.

These last few days are the only ones that really do count when the money from the other side is so overwhelming. Spreading yourself thin too early on is not that useful. Getting out the vote is the biggie and that is happening right now.

Yeah, you can buy an election.

If the people stay home.

Now Barrett and Walker are tied, after only a month of campaigning by Barrett, when he was behind by double digits.

It's working, you'll see.

but when I do I work hard to make sure we have as much in the way of resources available at the end. We do all the usual things all along, of course. But I strive to do the blitz when it really matters, at the end.

Of course, coming from the DNC perspective and the comments that they have done so little, I leave the campaign manager perspective behind and recall the necessary mindset of when I was Cong. district chair in our state. I had 14 counties to think about when it came time to doing what for who. Each of course believes their needs are the most important. I believe the DNC has hundreds of tough races going on RIGHT NOW. I for one am glad they aren't putting everything they have in this race (even if they did it would be spit in the wind compared to Koch Whore money). It would certainly be unfair to many other candidates who are very worthy of support.

So, I'm just curious, out of your political experience, where exactly are you drawing this opinion from?

Julie-the curious

First point. I don't manage campaigns, but I have always volunteered time and money. Sadly, that may change this year.

You speak of having "resources available at the end" and I take it that especially means money. I think that
the amount of money available to a campaign is not knowable in advance. If the campaign inspires people early, they may increase their commitment, both in terms of money and effort. Likewise, if the campaign alienates people early, they will contribute less than they would have otherwise.

So you can argue that you shouldn't waste money in June in Wisconsin because you might need it in October and November in Florida. You may also find that the money saved came at too high a price. The DNC and the Obama campaign are obviously prepared to take that gamble.

I wasn't saying resources shouldn't be put into a race in June due to races finishing later. No, in talking about a blitz at the end I was addressing the "too little" part of the "too little too late" sentiment you and others are propagating.

"Too late" for the Big Dog? No, I'd say right about now is a good time. You want to stir up excitement at the end, when it's time to vote. Get the voters enthusiastic enough to be all about voting on the big day, not succumb to distractions and such. The end of this campaign is the ideal time for such a big event.

Lastly, other races have been going on for some time now. Many of these tough races have/had no primary challengers. So of us have already been hard at it on campaigns against the R's already.

It's the soonest, it's the most important of this very moment, but it is one of many that need resources and I am glad it's being viewed that way.

It's very easy to get caught up in the moment, follow a race closely and get emotionally invested in it (deeply). Just because it is the only race in the world right now to you does not make it the way it really is.

Julie

...and Walker is toast.

...that Barrett's good showing in the last debate is what bridged the gap.

One more show like that and I don't think Scott can even steal it.

And since I don't know the ground there...

Have the ALEC voter suppression bills been defeated or stopped in court in WI?

And what, if anything, has the Barrett campaign done to counter the thinking of the voters who believe Walker's anti-abortion, anti-union stance is worth their vote?

I think that it's very hard for Barrett to have built the sort of support that Walker has banked on with that population.

Haven't heard much about the WI ALEC voter suppression bills being kicked out. I guess they're going to be in effect. Not sure 5 days is enough time to reverse ALEC's damage.

He is quite a speaker..when he is on and focused.

This edited version of a speech in 2006...is incredible..
Why? He talks about voter supression, student loans, taxing breaks for middle class...just listen to it.
He could help? no one knows..Webb won, I think it was 5000 votes..I predict Walker will be recalled by 7500

statewide pushes, but both have to happen, not just Clinton. I'm just sorry it couldn't be done without him...

Presidents (sitting presidents) have never stumped for a state recall election, and it only then makes the election about Obama when it isn't. I know that is not a fair characterization, but that is how the media (even MSNBC) will spin it. This has always been about Scott Walker and nobody else and it should stay that way. OFA, however, can do behind the scenes work and stay under the radar screen.

Now that you explain it , Clinton will do a fantastic job IMO!

If he were to come, some undecideds will be pissed. What is he doing here...

It is about Walker, and only Walker..Clinton will focus on Walker..he is not the center as Obama is..

I think Walker will lose by 7500 votes and will be recalled.,, a great victory for us...about what Webb won by...screw the polls..

Obama isn't running, but you know damn well the republicans would make this into a Walker vs. Obama race had he gone there to campaign for Barrett. Bill Clinton will do at least as good a job of energizing voters, without giving the republicans opportunities to make this into something it isn't.

To all the koch brothers and bob perrys and trumps and frieses and newty's casino mogul and their ilk who think they can just buy these elections and these politicians and all they have to do is send enough checks: "YOUR CASH AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT TRASH!!!!"

In the end however it is not that big of a deal to me whether or not Obama campaigned in Wisconsin, the DNC however is a whole different story. It is the DNC's job to provide resources for candidates, they failed to do that in Wisconsin. Obama can watch from the sidelines as far as I am concerned, but the DNC needed to take a very active role and they completely failed at doing that. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz needs to resign for her failure, I understand that may not be able to happen before the election in November but she needs to go after the election no matter the outcome because she made the battle more difficult than it needed to be.

As well as dealing with literally hundreds of other races going on. IT's the DNC not the WNC.

Julie

I never claimed it was the WNC, but this is one of the most important races of the year and they could have done a hell of a lot more than they did.

Seems like the answer changes depending on the subject.

If Bill Clinton gives one speech in Milwaukee that is great. Honestly if Bill Clinton could tour the state with Barrett that would be ideal. Bill Clinton is one of the few national Democrats who can go every corner of the state and help out Barrett.

....c'mon Bill....

....Tom had better win or the message sent would be that the Dems/DNC care more about corporations than working people....working people may take that hard....working people may give up....

I don't know why everyone else is expected to save Wisconsonites from themselves. Even now, there's a poll that shows 40% of "union households" plan to vote for Walker's reelection. Is that the fault of Obama and the DNC?

Barrett is tied with Heil Walker, and Walker and his cronies are worried. I mean if Heil Walker loses, that means they can't finish buying WI.

Seriously. We're fucking dying here, and the most progressive icons in the nation are conspicuously silent. Clinton should be bombarding red states with our message, but we're all atwitter because he'll show up for a fucking day!

I know you're retired, Bill. But that makes you free to speak your mind... Not just seek the perfect tan.

Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please.

That sounds pretty good!! I swear I think some people WANT to lose so they can cry about Obama & DNC, but hey, I feel like it's breaking our way.

Classic stuff. Saw it throughout 2010. Made me just bail on DU and go canvass.

their walking shoes.

Walker exploited a loophole in Wisconsin law that allowed him to raise UNLIMITED funds until the Dems nominated a candidate. After that time, he is limited under Wisconsin law. However, the Dems were limited in fundraising under Wisconsin law UNTIL they had a candidate. (Law needs to be changed for future elections). As well, MOST Walker money coming from a few very wealth individuals through PACS, so yes, there was an advantage.

I am not saying the DNC could have done more, just some weird funding laws came into play as well.

and to that I say: GO BILL!!!