,
28 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
1) I promised it, and I'm actively doing the research now, so here we fucking go: The breakdown of why this thread is some BULLLLLLL SHIIIIIIIIIT. H/T to @realGGGLee for pointing it out to me and to @NuritBaytch for her tweet putting me on the trail for how to prove it was bull.
2) First, let's look at the overall scope: yes, this was a longshot Dem campaign. Ballotpedia goes back to 2000 with its data, and it shows the district has been solid red for all that time, an R+9 district. NO SHIT Wulsin was having trouble fundraising. ballotpedia.org/Ohio%27s_2nd_C…
3) HOWEVER, take a good gander at the overall 2006 expenditures, namely the House Dems fundraising for 2006: $416.5 mil, for 435 seats. An average of $957k per candidate raised. opensecrets.org/overview/index…
4) Wulsin BEATS this average at $1.09 million. fec.gov/data/committee…
5) Second off, remember what year this is. This was 2006. I'm linking wikipedia strictly for giving you the overall view: this was the year that Democrats went from a 28 seat deficit to a 31 seat surplus, a swing of 59 votes overall. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Unit…
6) Quite frankly, she could ride off of the wave of anti-Bush enthusiasm, and in fact did, coming with 1% of winning even after being outraised 2:1. Complaints about how a funding deficit exists means a disadvantage is a bit of a canard, given the success of Trump, AOC, etc.
7) She came within 3000 votes. Bet she wish she had Brenda Snipes counting the votes for her. ballotpedia.org/Ohio%27s_2nd_C…
8) BUT, the important assertion: that her campaign was struggling for funds and attention immediately after the primaries. For that, I downloaded the excel sheets from the FEC's website fec.gov/data/committee…
9) I downloaded the individual contributions for both Wulsin and her opponent Schmidt. Now, I had some trouble id'ing when exactly the Ohio Dem primaries in 2006 were held, so I assumed they were close to the same timeframe as the GOP primary, about May 6 or so.
10) Schmidt from January 1st to June 6th raised around $100k, Wulson around $30k. Seems pretty lopsided, until you realize that Schmidt was an incumbent from a special election the year before, 2005, and had gotten funding from GOP leadership to fight off a primary challenge.
11) So, instead, I found another R+9 district from 2006. Hmm.... where to find an R+9 district with a Democrat candidate that wasn't receiving a lot of attention...
I KNOW! KY-6, where the Democrat incumbent Ben Chandler wasn't even facing a GOP opponent! ballotpedia.org/Kentucky%27s_6…
I KNOW! KY-6, where the Democrat incumbent Ben Chandler wasn't even facing a GOP opponent! ballotpedia.org/Kentucky%27s_6…
12) And heeeeeere's his campaign funding breakdown for 2006... fec.gov/data/receipts/…
13) So, from January 1st to June 6th, the same timeframe I looked at Wulsin and Schmidt in, he raised... $17525. Almost half of what Wulsin did.
14) So, wait, Wulsin was doing TWICE AS WELL at fundraising for individual contributions as a Democrat incumbent in an R+9 district? No wayyyyyyy.
But, let's take a look at the committee contributions. This is where it gets interesting.
But, let's take a look at the committee contributions. This is where it gets interesting.
15) It's true that Wulsin got next to no attention from PACs and other groups early on in her campaign; it was a ripe target rich environment for seat flips. Wulsin got the average campaign contributions for Democrats anyways raising almost as much as Ben Chandler (incumbent) did
16) Now, he claims that AIPAC came in and offered to donate the PAC max to the campaign. This... didn't happen. AIPAC isn't a PAC. There were no donations from AIPAC directly in the timeframe quoted.
17) IN FACT, in the timeframe quoted, the donations and attention this Ady person claims wasn't materializing DID materialize. Majority PAC, National Committee for an Effective Congress, an electrical workers union, all in June and the first week of August. 
18) AH, BUT, its been argued in the comments and is true, AIPAC bundles and promotes candidates to Jewish members of the public to funnel donations to candidates.
Ok. Problem: June was their WORST month of fundraising post-primaries.
Ok. Problem: June was their WORST month of fundraising post-primaries.
19) So, where are these mystery donors that sprang out of nowhere?
Yes, Wulsin DID see a spike in donations in june, but there's nothing about that trend in individual contributions that seems THAT out of whack. OF COURSE there's going to be a spike in donations in the general
Yes, Wulsin DID see a spike in donations in june, but there's nothing about that trend in individual contributions that seems THAT out of whack. OF COURSE there's going to be a spike in donations in the general
20) The fact is, the actual flood of campaign donations started in July and August, which as previously established is when the Democrat national groups started pouring money into her and all other campaigns.
21) Point in fact, here's the pre-primary breakdown for Chandler; she was doing BETTER than a Democrat incumbent in a similar district in fundraising. From Jan to May, she raised $26k, he only raised $17.5k.
22) Note that I'm not comparing their post-primary amounts, as Ben Chandler's situation was unique in that there was no Republican candidate after the primaries, as such his individual contributions dried up after the fact.
23) Now, the rest of Ady's thread is the usual anti-Israeli tripe, calling it an occupation 'AIPAC is a central pillar of the occupation', and claims 'They are doing terrible things in the name of Jews and of Israel' (see why I treat the terms as one in the same?)
24) But, the core assertion I'm contesting is, where was this funding deficit, and where were these magical AIPAC donors that materialized? Quite frankly once you look at the numbers and trends in both individual and committee donations... Wulsin's campaign was completely average
25) Her overall fundraising was average for a Dem candidate that year, the Democrat national PACs came in to donate 2-3 months after the primaries like they do for all other Dem candidates, and her individual contributions were on trend for what you'd expect from any election
26) Once you look at the numbers the 'Oh, poor Wulsin campaign HAD to take AIPAC donations to survive because our fundraising was so terrible and no one paid attention to us!' story doesn't make a lick of fucking sense. It was a Democrat sweep year. They were targeting EVERYWHERE
27) And once you realize the core assertion, that AIPAC was responsible for the Wulsin campaign's early fundraising, is complete horseshit, then it becomes clear that the ONLY reason this socialist (I see that rose) is pushing that story is because he's trying to smear AIPAC.
/end
