DSCC still looking for money

Well over a week after the elections I'm still receiving a fair amount of fundraising emails from various groups, which isn't altogether surprising. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in particular has been hitting me up a lot in emails talking about the three outstanding races still left to be decided: the probable pickup in Alaska, the recount in Minnesota (where I think Coleman will hold on) and the runoff election in Georgia. Whats significant about all three races however, is that of them, only the Georgia race is one where my money could possibly help. The other two are a matter of finishing counting the ballots, or recounting them. I also think its stands out in that of the three races, I would put Georgia as the least likely for Democrats to win. Democrats probably won't see the record turnout they did on election day, and overall excitement will be down. Plus now that its clear Democrats will have overwhelming control of the government, Georgians might be more inclined to keep a Republican in the seat to balance things out. This would follow the logic that allowed Mary Landrieu to win her Senate runoff in 2002 after less vulnerable Democrats lost in the main election.

Of course the emails I'm getting aren't highlighting the Georgia race - they're harping on the other two, and the razor thin vote margins. This is a good way to get people fired up, but I think a somewhat dishonest form of fundraising. Would my money be spent in Alaska or Minnesota? I don't think so, it would only be spent in Georgia, so why can't they say that?

Below is the text from just one of the emails which I think displays what I'm talking about.

Dear David,


The staggering scope of your victory is only beginning to sink in. Because of all of your hard work and dedication, Barack Obama will take the oath of office on January 20. It's going to be astonishing.

Because you helped the DSCC win at least 6 new Democratic Senate seats, he'll hit the ground running with big majorities in both houses of Congress. Those big majorities are essential to delivering the change we need.

Thank you - from all of us at the DSCC - for all your effort and all your support. The American people owe you a huge debt of gratitude. And our tremendous record of accomplishment this year isn't finished yet. There are still three unresolved Senate races where your time, money, and effort have put us on the very cusp of victory. Here are the latest updates:

Alaska:
Mark Begich holds a solid 1,022-vote lead over seven-time convicted felon Ted Stevens with 24,000 votes still to be counted. We should have a final count sometime this week, but I am cautiously optimistic that Sarah Palin's next senator will be a Democrat.

Georgia:
The race to win the December 2 runoff is boiling over. Saxby Chambliss, the NRSC, and the right-wing attack organization Freedom's Watch are all blitzing the airwaves. But thanks to your generous support, the DSCC and Jim Martin have been able to nearly match the Republicans dollar-for-dollar and fight back with ads of our own. Chambliss is campaigning with John McCain and Mike Huckabee, but special elections like this one are won and lost on voter turnout. That's why the DSCC already has staff and volunteers on the ground in Georgia, getting people ready to vote on December 2. Our proven strategy has worked over and over again, and I know we can do it again.

Minnesota:
Al Franken trails Norm Coleman by just 204 votes - seven one-thousandths of one percent (.007%) - and an automatic hand recount of every vote will begin soon. Coleman and his right-wing buddies are scared the recount won't go their way. So they have already started trying to undermine the process, intimidate ballot counters, and disenfranchise enough voters to win at any cost - just like in Florida eight years ago.

The DSCC and the Franken campaign won't allow them to distract from ensuring that every vote is properly counted. It might take a few weeks, but we need to count all the votes fairly. It's the only way the true voice of the electorate can be heard.

The DSCC is doing everything we can to win these final races. We'll make sure every vote is counted in Alaska and Minnesota, and in Georgia, we'll unleash the same proven field program that has already won 12 new Democratic seats in the last two elections.

We need your help to win, and even as little as $5 from you can make a big difference. Our new and condensed campaign plan shows that we need to raise $100,000 before midnight Friday. It's so crucial to make this goal, that if you give before the deadline, a group of Democratic senators will triple your contribution. Your $5 will go that much further towards giving President-elect Obama an even bigger Senate majority to pass his agenda.

Click here to rush a contribution of $5 or more to the DSCC. We still have three more chances to grow our Senate majority for change.

You have already accomplished so much to elect great Democrats and change this country. Stand with us over these next few weeks, and we can win as many as three more Senate seats to make it even easier for Barack Obama to hit the ground running on Inauguration Day.

Thank you again,

J.B. Poersch
Executive Director

Election Day Weather Reports

The folks at Harvard's Kennedy School have apparently put up a website that monitors voting conditions in every state. This brings up a questions I've always wondered about the media's fascination with weather conditions on election day.

Every two years I hear reports about what the sky is going to look like tomorrow and how this is going to have an effect on turnout. I have to say, I'm skeptical about the relevancy of it in the first place. Don't get me wrong, it many cases, I'm sure weather plays a role in final turnout. If a bad snow storm hits, I could understand how that could keep some people home, and I do believe that primary caucus turnout would be subject to particularly bad weather. Local races of low interest also might be somewhat vulnerable, but I really don't see how rainfall would have any effect on a high-profile Presidential race. After all, most people drive to the polls, not walk, and if you live in an area where it's raining on election day, it probably means you live in an area where you're used to rain and drive in it all the time. I know there are a lot of less-than-passionate voters out there, but does anybody really stay home for that reason?

I would like to think that somebody has done some research on this to try to see if there is any quantitative evidence to back it up. Of course I could see a lot of problems with doing a completely accurate study. Simply comparing areas with heavy rainfall vs. those that were sunny wouldn't take into account a whole host of other important factors such as historical participation habits and local ground operations. (Urban environments in competitive areas would be subject to more investment from respective campaigns, and therefore, see a more intense turnout drive).

I imagine however, you could compare a number of areas, maybe by county,(to be safe, maybe divide urban vs urban and rural vs rural)measure their turnout vs. national turnout, then compare that number to the historical average of that county in previous elections. Even then you would only be able to compare Presidential year elections as off-years would be subject to fluctuations in competitiveness of downballot races. This is also making an assumption that the importance of a competitive downballot race plays no effect on overall turnout when there is a Presidential race at the top of the ticket. That's a somewhat risky jump, but seeing as significant statistical evidence of a drop off in voting for downballots is always present, I think it might be an acceptable and necessary omission. Plus for the sake of this study, we would be concerned mostly with dispassionate voters, who would be the most likely to only vote at the top of the ticket. This study might be made more difficult with the emergence of early voting, which allows voters to avoid election day variables. It could be argued however, that early voters are far more likely to have a high interest level, and show up regardless of weather conditions.

If this is a reasonable thing to look at, I wonder what the numbers would look like? My guess is that you might find some small discrepancy, but anything under 5 percent could easily just be random fluctuations that could exist for a number of reasons. But I suppose that's my point, this is all just speculation and yet we treat it as something else.

Update: I think there is a group that could be potentially influenced by rainfall - elderly voters who don't have a ride to the polls. I still see this as somewhat suspect as both parties will ensure their seniors have a ride to the polls as one of the most crucial steps of any ground operation. However I will concede that there could be a number of seniors who would feel comfortable driving in normal weather conditions, but not in the rain. I don't know if this would be offset by the fact that seniors are significantly more likely to vote than other age groups however. Worth noting.