GO John!

That's pretty impressive. Marty Block is far too liberal for this district.

Come on guys - Marty Block ran in a four-way, hotly contested primary. John McCann ran unopposed. Trying to make any point out of McCann having more money on hand at this point in the campaign is a reach, even for the political spin masters who frequent this site.

I'll take the bait, Horatio.

Marty Block is the candidate of the majority party in a district that they have lost three times in a row, narrowly. Frankly, he didnt raise that much in the primary: he was elected by Sacramento money from other groups.

But youd think now with the primary over - in a seat the Dems should win mind you - he would be almost tripping over Sac and local cash. And yet he is not.

Happy to reel you in, Actually.

The reporting period in question was from May 18-June 30 meaning almost half was before the Democrats had a nominee. Despite this fact, Block outraised McCann $120K to $74K. The reason Block has less cash on hand is that he had to spend $177K (during the reporting period)to win the primary while McCann only spent $48K. Remember McCann was running unopposed. If Block outraised McCann during a period when the Democrats were splitting their money four ways, think what he will do between now and November.

Watch your hand when reeling me in...

The point is that, as the nominee of the majority party in the most hotly contested race in the state Block should have, with minimal effort, been showered in campaign cash directly after the election. He didn't put out the effort and wasn't. That tells you something about the candidate: he assumes this is his to lose.

My original point was that it was disingenuous to claim fundraising superiority based on "cash on hand" when it was your opponent that had actually out-fundraised (not sure that is a word, but...) you by an almost 2-1 margin. This is typical for the McCann campaign. In a March press release, McCann claimed that he had "outraised each of the Democratic candidates." While I was happy for him, I would have been disappointed had he not received a plurality of the contributions since he was the only Republican and the Democrats split their contributions among four candidates.

As for how much cash Block should have been "showered with" after the election, I guess I need to repeat that he received $46K more than McCann. Why aren't you concerned that the Republicans didn't contribute more to defend their seat. It is not as though they can afford to lose any more.

Good luck John and God be with you. Because I don't see the voters being with you on this run.

It might not be a good year for Republicans nationally, but its going to be a good one for Republicans locally here in San Diego. McCann, Goldsmith, Boling and Thalheimer win in November.

That goes for Bilbray too. Leibham has a better shot of unseatting Davis or Filner in a primary in 2 years than taking out Bilbray in November.

2 Points:
(1) Arguing over what these financial reports mean is a moot point. As in years before, the money game in the race will be played out in CRP/CDP funding, caucus fund raising, and member comm. I'll let you all argue who has the better statewide funding infrastructure.

(2) "blah blah blah" needs to lay-off the Krvaric-aid or whatever other reality altering substance inspired that post...or share with the rest of us. The situation is bad in SD too. Just look at the latest voter reg numbers. Pretending that reality is something other than what it is doesn't help us.

I have to agree with point 2 by D. Morton on this one. I'll skip the Kvaric-aid.

4 years ago today, the 78th voter registration program was in full swing. Karl and I were getting on average 100 republican cards a week. As the election drew nearer it expanded to 500-700. The three times I registered 100 reps, out in Pt. Loma was like nirvana. Talk about job satisfaction. I got a rush everytime somebody filled out that little bubble next to the words "Republican Party" on a regie card. Imagine every morning getting up and looking forward to going to work.

By the end the two of us registered roughly 3000 regies in the 78th and around 1200 in the Tirrasanta and Pt Loma areas. The numbers we were pulling in brought more money from the CRP and the money we earned, attracted the rest of the carnies who did their share. I don't know their numbers. But I suspect the total numbers of that program dwarfed the margins of victory for Shirley and Kevin in 04 & 05.

Contrast that with today. I'm out of the loop, but I do know that this cycle there is not a regie opperation near the success of ours. Last I heard there isn't one opperating period. This cannot be good for the cause. Thats great that John has alot of money. He is just not spending it registering republicans it in a district that was gerrymandered to be safely democrat.

Sigh. God I enjoyed that working on that campaign. It was so much fun.

Yet this season we can't pay people to sign up Republicans. Not just because of the lack of funds, but because not enough people in the 78 want to be identified as Republican to make it worth a petitioner's time.

If party protocol doesn't change soon, send General Custer to Rescue

I dont get your General Custer point?

I think he means that if the party fails to adapt its protocol and evolves then let the party heads "general custer" lead the republicans to be massacred. I think the custers know this.

To use another metaphor. This ship is sinking fast. Rather than finding new ways to save it. The captain and lieutenants are letting the rest of the passengers drown in a sea of blue, looting the ship and stealing the lifeboats disguised as women.

Sorry to the posters but not all of us are party insiders that understand what you are writing. If you are writing for the public you could be a little more clear.

What do you mean exactly about the party adapting "protocal" - you mean their rules?

Are you talking about the local party or the nationals?

Are you saying our party leaders are somehow intentionally wanting to lose?

Please -- fewer vague mataphors more on point comments.

Thanks

Dr. What and MrBrownstone sound like the same local malcontents who flap their gums all the time that the party is going to hell even though the party has raised more money than ever and won more elections than ever. These people obviously measure success as THEM making the decisions, not in victorious elections.

The truth is the party would be even stronger if its leaders didnt have to deal with these idiots all the time. Oh... wait... thats another bitch of theirs... that they got knocked off the central committee in the june elections. lol. I GUESS THE GRASSROOTS ACTUALLY SPOKE ON THAT ONE.

If I ran a Chevy dealership and I had a long time loyal customer express an interest in buying a Camry because of poor performance by his Monte Carlo, and found out that the salesman started personally insulting that customer for complaining about his car's poor reliability. I'd fire the salesman on the spot.

In business the customer is allways right. In a democracy the voter is allways right. There is no excuse for bad customer service. Bad customer service and bad product gets spread through word of mouth. When that once loyal Chevy owning customer tells people why he switched to Camry and his experience at the dealership. The people he knows will think twice about buying a Chevy at that dealership. They will consider buying a Camry. God forbid, they may actually like the Camry and then become loyal Toyota owners, and they will tell the people they know why they love thier Toyota.

Now since alot of people find my postings esoteric, confusing and dismiss me as an idiot. My message will be blunt.

Don't further piss off your malcontented republican voters, appologize and go out of your way to make amends with your malcontented republican voters.