Bloomberg article says if Obama wins, thank Harold Ickes and Catalist.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-18-08 06:19 PM
Original message

Bloomberg article says if Obama wins, thank Harold Ickes and Catalist.

Frankly I think this is a puff piece about Harold Ickes and his voter databank called Catalist. The whole article never once mentions the new voter files the DNC has been rebuilding with the help of the Democrats in the 50 states and with the help of the Obama campaign.

So it begins. The DC insiders get the credit, just like it has always been. The money players, the power players.

Democrats Take Republican Database Model to Target Swing Voters

Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama has spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising, consultants and polling.

It may be the money that he is spending on a database, though, that helps determine whether the Democrat wins the race for the White House this year. And he may have one of Hillary Clinton's top supporters, Harold Ickes, to thank for it.

George W. Bush won the last two presidential elections by targeting a small number of voters in just a few states. Obama is trying to ensure that doesn't happen again.

Ickes, a Democratic media consultant and former Clinton adviser, has spent four years and $15 million building Catalist, a database that scores 200 million Americans according to their likelihood to vote for party candidates. Illinois Senator Obama, 47, is one of his biggest clients.

Okay, fine. I know that is the database used by the Clinton campaign. I know Obama used/is using it as well as using and updating the DNC voter files. So Bloomberg did not really give the whole story.

DeepModemMom had a post here not too long ago about questions arising over the Ickes databank.

Harold M. Ickes, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign, is the president of Catalist, a for-profit voter databank company. No matter who the Democratic nominee is, Mr. Ickes stands to profit.

When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton needed help rounding up superdelegates, she turned to Harold M. Ickes, the ultimate Democratic fixer, who is now working round-the-clock for her, drawing on his vast energy and decades of political connections. But, at the same time, Mr. Ickes is also wearing another hat. He is president of Catalist, a for-profit databank that has sold its voter files to the Obama and the Clinton presidential campaigns for their get-out-the-vote efforts. With his equity stake in the firm, Mr. Ickes stands to benefit financially no matter which candidate becomes the Democratic nominee.

She links to the New York Times article from April this year. It is important to read it all to see who is still influencing the party.

Clinton Aide�s Databank Venture Breaks Ground in Politicking

In creating Catalist, Mr. Ickes, who was deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, has formed a rare entity on the political scene, a for-profit limited-liability corporation that allows wealthy Democratic donors to help progressive organizations and candidates by investing in the company. And if Catalist, which has data on 230 million Americans, is successful as a business, these donors-turned-investors stand to reap financial returns from using their money to help elect Democrats.

But some campaign finance watchdogs say they wonder whether Catalist was established not so much to make money but to find a creative way to allow big-money liberal donors to influence the election without disclosing the degree of their involvement or being subjected to other rules that would govern spending by an explicitly political organization.

They do not have to reveal much about themselves.

Catalist�s backers, along with Mr. Ickes, are some of the same people involved in America Coming Together and the Media Fund, which have since disbanded. As a private company, Catalist does not have to disclose its investors or the amounts they put up, which have run well into the six-figures. The company has said it will not turn a profit until 2010, making it difficult to determine whether its backers are business investors or political donors, as well as whether or not it is helping to subsidize the liberal groups that are its clients.

It is considered a "Shadow DNC", run so that Democrats can safely ignore that organization. Run so that big money can still play.

Hmmmm..maybe that took money away from funding the 50 State Strategy.

The Shadow DNC

Catalist is actually just one piece in a larger, and interlocking, network of independent liberal organizations that are acting almost as a shadow Democratic National Committee, now that the party itself can no longer accept unlimited large soft money donations. While these independent groups cannot communicate with the Democratic Party on strategy, they provide yet another way of getting the party�s message out, even if not in the words of the party.

Ickes began building the database because he said he did not trust Dean at the DNC.

Perhaps Ickes' largest-scale project is Catalist, a private company born out of his open distrust in the ability of Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean to build a voter database to rival that of the Republicans. Ickes is president of the company.

"It's unclear to me," Ickes said, whether the Democratic Party's database is uniform and rich enough for a national election.

The Democratic Party's voter database, a party spokeswoman said, is fully functional and accessible through a central interface.

"Given the proven success of VoteBuilder in the 2006 elections and the overwhelmingly positive response we've had from the campaigns and state parties who used it, we are very confident in our voter file," said DNC communications director Karen Finney.

Some excerpts from National Journal's article "Big Blue Wave" indicate that Bloomberg perhaps has not been quite truthful about the role of Catalist in Obama's campaign. An earlier post here about that Big Blue Wave:

Sources of voter lists are defining the campaigns, could affect the election as well.

Rather than focusing on a handful of swing states, Dean and a chorus of like-minded allies have argued, Democrats should invest substantial time and money in trying to restore their competitiveness, even in Republican territory. As part of that initiative, Dean has provided every state party with funds to hire organizers and upgrade computerized voter files.

Dave Boundy, the DNC's political director, says that while Clinton has used voter files from a private vendor, Obama has mostly purchased the files from state parties. Under the agreement with those parties, Boundy added, Obama will update the files to show which voters responded to his outreach efforts. That should help state parties and the eventual nominee target their own turnout campaigns this fall.

And the DNC, said Boundy, was coming out with a new Neighbor to Neighbor tool.

In addition, Boundy said, the DNC is about to unveil a computerized tool that will help channel the new wave of volunteers into door-to-door campaigns later this year. The tool will allow state parties and Democratic candidates to identify voters they want to reach -- and then allow activists to access an online list of the targets closest to their own homes. "We have two very sharp candidates... who are going around the country and igniting all of this stuff," Boundy said. "And what we have for the first time is a way to capture that and turn it into productive activity."

I was sad to see that money was used as a tool so often against the DNC during the primary campaign.

There were many examples of large donors threatening over the Florida primary mess....many even got their money back because things were not going their way.

�If you�re not going to count my vote, I�m not going to give you my money,� said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.

Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida�s delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.

�If we do not resolve this issue,� Mr. Korge said, �I think it�s safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000.�

So it is starting..the media will be doing a lot of this. Crediting the usual power brokers if Obama wins.

I think that a lot more than that will gone into a win. A change from an insider attitude, moving the power outside of DC. Generating enthusiasm. But the same ones will get the credit.

I disagree with the Bloomberg article. If Harold Ickes plays a role in any win, it will mean that money and power still speak more loudly and probably always will.

As Robert Reich said in November 2006:

Why Are They Gunning for Howard Dean?

What can possibly account for the post-election victory party pummeling of Howard Dean by inside-the-beltway Democrats? Prominent Democratic consultants (James Carville, Stan Greenberg) go on the record (�you can quote me�) with complaints barely two weeks from a Democratic sweep. Leading congressional Democrats (Rahm Emmanuel) vent their anger vociferously (�on background�). Why? Dems now control both Houses and have twenty-eight governorships. Dean ought to be congratulated. So what�s the underlying agenda here? Three theories:

1. The only way a Dem gets on television after such a sweet victory isn�t by criticizing Republicans � it�s by criticizing fellow Dems. Stirring up clear waters grabs attention. Attention draws crowds. Crowds create power. Power is the name of the game in Washington, especially when formal control of Congress changes hands.

2. Dean�s strategy of putting money into state party infrastructure takes money out of the pockets of Washington insiders � away from Democratic consultants and key congressional party activists. That makes insiders angry.

3. Dean is an independent DNC chair, not under the sway of the Clintons. Unlike Ron Brown, who guided the DNC toward a Clinton victory in 1992, Dean doesn�t play the usual power games. Hence, the Clintons would like him out, and the sooner the better. Carville, Greenberg, and Emmanuel, among others, are doing their bidding.

Which is it? I�m not so cynical or conspiratorial as to believe any one of them. But you come up with a more credible theory.

The Bloomberg piece is the beginning of their taking credit for what should be a shared victory in every way. Enough.

This time those of us who call ourselves activists proudly should make sure the right people should get credit if our party gets back in power.