Michelle Nunn raises $1.7 million in first 10 weeks

From Michelle Nunn’s Facebook page yesterday:

After tallying the data for the end of the third quarter, I’m proud to report that we not only met but far exceeded our goals. Thanks to our strong grassroots-powered campaign and the investment of more than 6,700 donors, we raised over $ 1.7 million in just ten weeks!

Nunn’s announcement has been covered widely, including by Politico and the Washington Post. The campaign’s haul is about twice the amount that Jack Kingston raised in the 3rd quarter, but it’s worth noting that Kingston has “nearly $2.9 million in the bank,” according to the Washington Post.

Early fundraising success like this would seem to make it less likely that Nunn will face a major challenger in the Democratic primary.

Republicans have some obvious advantages going into next year’s Senate race, but they would be foolish to discount a credible Democratic challenger, especially a woman who is the daughter of one of the most respected politicians in the state. For the coming months, Nunn may be able to build her own support and hoard cash while the Republican candidates battle through a bruising primary.


  1. MattMD says:

    I would gladly vote for Nunn over an idiot like Broun.

    Trust me guys, you don’t have to be a genius to get a medical license. Hell, you can be a doctor with average intelligence. Determination and discipline matters most. Clearly, that doesn’t mean this fool has any advantage at governing.

    • Jon Lester says:

      Before that becomes a possible scenario, I want an honest primary for the Democratic Senate candidates. We don’t need the DNC and SDCC choosing the nominee for us. I don’t care how much money has deservedly parted from Nunn’s out-of-state donors.

        • Jon Lester says:

          Because it’s the “Democratic” party? Because the likes of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (also pro-Syria-intervention) are who run the DNC? Because there are other candidates? Why wouldn’t we want an honest primary? How does Ms. Nunn expect to perform well in a debate with the GOP nominee if she doesn’t have one with fellow Democrats?

          • griftdrift says:

            Very noble. However the goal of any political party is to get its candidates elected. If the Democrats think their best shot is a clean primary, it would be rather foolish to not do something that helps achieve their core mission.

  2. John Konop says:

    I do not think she has a chance this election. It look like She will raise enough money to set up a statewide network, combine that with Hillary getting abnormal amount of female turn out, and a few points pick up via demographics changes should could win the next cycle. The key number is how close she gets to 45 percent or higher in the general……a swing of around 5 points next cycle would not be a stretch if the above plays out.

    I would bet the Dems have run numbers on this………You will see female candidates on the increase being lined up for the Hillary run across the country by Dems. This will be all about first female president not issues ie tag lines like our time……..GOP should really take this run by Nunn seriously from long term view, not one cycle.

      • John Konop says:

        I would not know, never met her or the father. Do not even know, nor do I talk with any players in the Democratic party…..I am just speculating based on math, demographics and if Hillary runs. I have no idea about candidate quality, positions……all are key parts as well, and the GOP opponent as well…….

        The biggest Dem players I know are Chris, Caroline and few others who I communicate with via this blog, for the most part all are very nice people agree or not on issues 🙂

        • Jon Lester says:

          The one activist I know well isn’t his county’s party chairman anymore. As I told Dr. Rad in my first correspondence with him, I really don’t do party politics, and that was before this lack of imagination on the part of national Democrats was becoming so obvious. The “conventional wisdom” that Hillary must be the best they can do for the White House in 2016 really says it all.

          • Lea Thrace says:

            I would be interested to hear who you think would have the level of exposure/credentials/experience to have a chance in 16 if Hilary isnt it.

            (Not an indictment of your views or even an endorsement of Mrs. Clinton. I really want to know.)

            • Jon Lester says:

              If you’re asking me to name a better candidate, I can’t, at the moment, but it’s also not my job. Yet, out of a national pool, why can’t they do better than someone who’s demonstrated more than a little hubris and contempt for the average voter? Do the Democrats really want to ignore the civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle and cast their lot with a total statist? This is aside from both her age and the Benghazi thing, as well as from the seeming double-standard Democrats expect us to observe regarding “Bush fatigue” and their own growing slate of legacy candidates who have little more than famous names going for them.

              That’s not to say that forty-something of the electorate won’t vote for her, anyway, of course…

    • caroline says:

      A lot of it depends on who the GOP nominates and also the way the GOP has been sinking their numbers lately. Broun turns the state into a laughing stock it might be a repeat of what happened in Indiana last year.

      • Jon Lester says:

        I have a feeling Jack Kingston will come out ahead in the GOP race, and he’d probably be the toughest to beat. He might not look that different on paper from the others, but if he has the self-discipline to watch what he says, that could make all the difference.

        • pettifogger says:

          Kingston is easily the “preferable” candidate. He’s much easier to sell, has much better political discretion, and his likability exceeds all other GOP candidates by a mile.

          The only potential candidates that could avoid a “close” (53-47) election, IMO, are Kingston and Loeffler. Unless Kelly gets in late, looks like the smart money is on Kingston. I think other GOP candidates can and likely would win, but Broun, or a poorly-run general by Gingrey or Handel, could be stress-inducing.

          • xdog says:

            “I have a feeling Jack Kingston will come out ahead in the GOP race, and he’d probably be the toughest to beat.”

            Agreed. Kingston has been a political pragmatist and is someone opps feel they can do business with. In a general election he could reach across to donk voters who might be uncomfortable with the neophyte Nunn. I know those qualities are anathema to the tp right but fortunately there are others of us who find them appealing, even necessary. If the gopers continue to refuse to fight for their party by enabling the nutter right, it’s up to the rest of us to send them home.

            All that assumes 1)he can get right enough to win the primary and 2)he doesn’t get some right he antagonizes everyone else.

                  • xdog says:

                    I’m not here to defend Kingston but I haven’t heard about any bridges to nowhere down in Savannah. If you’re anti any fund transfers ever to congressional districts, maybe you should check out the clause in the preamble about promoting the general welfare, then consider how the world actually works.

                    • Harry says:

                      Everything is relative. Keingston is well known for being chums with lobbyists and snouting around for the Extrawürst. It doesn’t help the situation when the goal should be to reduce rather than increase the size of government. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

  3. northside101 says:

    I think John Konop has good points about taking long-term view on Nunn. One argument is that her candidacy actually shows a weakness in the Democratic party—like the Republicans of 30-odd years ago, who often nominated- candidates with little or no experience in elected office, feeling being in those days, it was next to impossible to win as a Republican. Where are the seasoned candidates who have spent time in the Legislature and/or Congress? But the flip side is with the state’s demographics changing, even if she loses next year, there could be 2016 (presidential year, with Hillary on the ticket most likely), especially if Isakson retires. (Oh, I know he says he’s running again, but obviously he is not going to announce 3 years in advance that he is not running for a third term.)

    If the Senate race were confined to metro Atlanta—now 28 counties—it would be a true toss-up. Obama actually carried metro Atlanta in 2008 and 2012 (though by less than 15,000 votes last time). Nathan Deal won it over Barnes by about 4 points in 2010. Problem for the Democrats is when you go to rural/smaller town and city Georgia—Dahlonega and Darien, McRae and Monticello, Vidalia and Valdosta, Bainbridge and Baxley, etc.. The national Democratic platform—abortion on demand, same sex marriage, Obamacare, etc—doesn’t play in areas like those. And the rural areas, though a smaller percentage of the state’s total votes than in decades ago, still pack a punch. (Ask Roy Barnes about that—he won, though just narrowly, metro Atlanta but lost badly in the rural areas in 2002.). I don’t see any indication that Ms. Nunn has a different view from the national Democrats on those issues. (Oh, there was a time when Georgia Democrats would claim not to be national Democrats—think for instance Joe Frank Harris distancing himself from Mondale in 1984, or Talmadge and Russell in 1964 as pertains to LBJ—but those days have passed with the demise of rural white Democrats in the Legislature.) Certainly her father would not have run on those issues 40+ years ago when he took the seat of the late Richard Russell. If a Democratic candidate can’t make much in the way of inroads in rural Georgia, then the only way to win statewide is a big margin in metro Atlanta, maybe in excess of 55 percent if not more.

    It remains to be seen too whether the Nunn name still means something. No one born after November 1972 could have ever voted for Sam Nunn (he was last on the ballot in 1990), so lots of voters in this state have no memory of the name. (Not like the Talmadge dynasty has come back to life in this state.)

    In any event, after blown Republican Senate races in recent years, I’d have to agree with John K, not a race for Republicans to take for granted…….

Comments are closed.