According to his website, Peter Schiff is now accepting contributions for his exploratory committee. Apparently he has been raising money since July 14th.
Is this a precursor to a run? Or is he just testing the waters? I suspect that depends on how much money is raised–and how much of it comes from Connecticut.
Connecticut Local Politics 
I don’t think he knows what he’s doing. He will never get the Republican nomination nor 15% of the delegates at the Republican convention to qualify for the primary which means his only way to get on the primary ballot is to collect the ~8500 signatures to qualify. That’s just about impossible (for him).
If he runs as a petitioning candidate, the best he can do is collect the 3% whacko vote like that loser Ron Paul.
It’s a free country and Shciff is free to waste as much of his time and money as he wants in his impossible quest to become a US Senator from Connecticut.
Belaga did, so did Kezer and neither had more than 6 or 7 living brain cells.
Schiff has waaaay more than that.
Kezer didn’t get the nomination. Belaga got TWENTY percent of the delegates and won a three way primary.
Shciff could be in a five way primary and he will still lose Doug, there’s no two ways about it.
I’ll bet ya $500.00 that Schiff won’t be the Republican nominee for US Senator in 2010 in Connecticut. If I lose, I’ll send you the money, if you lose you send yours to the CTGOP (state account), deal?
Brenda – keep underestimating people like Schiff.
I have news for you – people are tired of the status quo and are looking for candidates like Schiff, and the Republican party would be stupid not to pick someone like him who has a firm understanding of monetary policy and the Constitution.
This will be a turning point for the Republican party in CT to see if they are truly interested in adhering to conservatism, or merely promoting the same players and play book as in previous years and producing more election losses.
Well, I got news for you Republitarian, Shciff WILL NOT get the Republican nomination so if you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, I’ll offer my bet to you too except in your case it’s $1000.00 since you seem just so convinced that Schiff is the answer. That’s a pretty stupid recommendation on your part but I’ll be more than happy to take your $1,000.00 if you’re so inclined, how ’bout it?
I’ve never been able to convince myself that it’s worthwhile to give campaign contributions to candidates with net worths of 8 digits or more. I remember when Steve Forbes was running for President, and a friend of mine who had a five digit salary gave him a small donation. I was shocked: he needed that money way more than Steve Forbes did. Do many other people think this as well?
I don’t know much about Schiff. He seemed to have predicted the whole economic meltdown pretty well (lots of people said one was coming, but Schiff actually could point to reasons). There’s no way Dodd could paint him as a member of the financial elite that needed bailouts.
My big fear about Schiff is he has never run a campaign before, and I’d imagine he’s pretty cocky (c’mon, how could he not be? He saw the housing crisis coming way before anyone else). That’s a bad combination: someone running for office who doesn’t think he’s ever wrong, and who has fairly non mainstream views. He could easily say something completely off the wall. After all, his dad is in prison because he claims that the income tax amendemtn to the constitution wasn’t properly ratified. Schiff could easily say something that could be perceived to be off the wall (or actually be off the wall).
Democrats are in big trouble for 2010. Dodd,Delauro,Larson,Courtney,Murphy& Himes are all headed for the eye of the storm. (read on)
http://www.politico.com/arena/
It’s a party in crisis – lagging in the polls, it is out of ideas, its congressional leadership is highly unpopular, its policies failing, and a huge portion of its base consists of irreconcilable extremists. I’m, talking, of course, about the Democrats.
It’s supposed to be the Republicans with the horrible “brand” problem and lack of ideas, but in fact there are increasing signs that the Democratic Party is ready for meltdown. Will it happen? I don’t know, but what’s the fun of predicting it once it is obvious to everybody? So let’s go.
Start with generic polling. Democrats held a 7 point lead in Rasmussen’s generic polling for Congress just before inauguration day. Today, Republicans hold a 3 point lead, their biggest edge in years, while the 37 percent who would choose a generic Democrat over a generic Republican is the lowest percentage in years. Historically, generic numbers tend to be a bit more favorable to Democrats than actual voting numbers, so it’s especially bad news for Democrats when they trail the GOP on the generic ballot. Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on the economy, Iraq, national security, abortion, social security, taxes (by a whopping 16 points – six months of REALLY wild and reckless spending by the Democrats, making Bush and the Tom DeLay congresses look like a pikers, has given the GOP back its street cred on taxes and spending quicker than many could have imagined), immigration, and government ethics, with Democrats leading only on their traditional strengths of health care and education, where they hold small and narrowing advantages.
Meanwhile, 62 percent now say that the U.S. is on the “wrong track,” the highest number since the first half of February, suggesting that the initial confidence that greeted President Obama in his first weeks is gone. Republicans lead in polls to reclaim the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia this fall, after Democratic victories in 2001 and 2005 in both states. Those races have more to do with local than national politics, but they nonetheless reflect the ebbing of the Democratic tide. The President’s personal numbers are still reasonably strong but falling fast. Reduce…
Fifty percent now oppose the government option in health care, and 78 percent are convinced that Obama’s reform efforts mean higher taxes for the middle class. Even after her uneventful hearings, Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination is favored by only a seven point plurality of voters – at the same point in their confirmation processes, Justices Alito and Roberts were supported by double digit pluralities. The public increasingly identifies both the recession and the unpopular bailouts with the Obama adminstration, which in its first months has doubled down, rather than reversed, former President Bush’s bailout and spending policies.
And the public doesn’t see those policies working. Early guarantees by the President and his top advisors that the “stimulus” would keep unemployment below eight percent and add millions of new jobs within the year have proven to be laughably false. The president and Democrats in Congress really have no new ideas – virtually everything the president has offered up reeks of warmed over Carter/Mondale. The closest the administration has come to offering anything new is cap and trade, which to most Americans increasingly sounds like a pseudonym for tax and spend. The huge pork barrell spending embraced by Obama in the stimulus bill gives him a way to keep rewarding Democratic constituencies for the next two years, but it also straightjackets more worthwhile domestic initiatives and robs him of further budget flexibility.
Perhaps worst of all, the Democrats are the party of the crazies. Polls show that approximately one-third of Democrats believe that the Bush administration knew in advance, or even planned, the attack on the World Trade Center in September 2001. A huge percentage will be satisfied with nothing short of criminal trials of various Bush officials, a public relations disaster in the making should the Democrats go that route. Go to the sites of Daily Kos, Huffington Post, or any other leading liberal website and read the comments from the rank and file – the Democrats are in serious danger of becoming a party of the bitter, the resentful, the unhinged, the mean and nasty, and in some cases, the certifiably insane.
Will the Democrats implode? Obama remains reasonably popular, and the Republicans are still struggling to find a positive agenda. The Democrats will have a media edge and probably a substantial money edge in the 2010 midterms. I expect the economy to pick up between now and 2010 – if you throw enough money at anything, it will have some effect, just as drunks feel better when they drink – and the downside may not really kick in until after 2010. Butt for all the presumptions that the Republicans are the party with difficulties, it may be the Democrats who are ready for a fall
Peter Schiff knows what he’s doing; that’s why he’s waiting so long before determining whether to throw his hat into the ring. He has been gauging support online and from potential CT voters and will only jump in if he thinks he has a shot of winning. Don’t underestimate Peter’s fundraising and volunteer potential.
Schiff’s biggest downfall is the reason I am supporting him – he will tell the truth no matter who is listening. He plans to be entirely open and honest with the voters; that is, he will criticize both George Bush and Barack Obama without hesitation for their harmful interventions into the economy.
I’m not sure how Dodd will try to attack him. Peter predicted with great accuracy the economic crisis while Dodd contributed to it. Unlike his potential primary opponents, Mr. Schiff is not an establishment insider. He will not pander to any lobbyists or special interests if elected because, as he stated, he is not looking to be a career politician. If he makes the sacrifice of running it is because he thinks it will be his best and last chance to try and influence the direction of our government before things completely collapse.
Dodd won’t “attack” him at all, he’ll ignore him. Shciff is no threat at all to Chris Dodd.
Heck with that certain knowledge under his belt, why didn’t he make any money?
When the Red Sox were down 0-3 against the Yankees in the ALCS in 2004 I was 100% positive the Red Sox would go on to win the World Series the second I saw Mariano Riviera come into pitch in Game 4. I said it, lots of people heard me and I was RIGHT! Of course just like your hero Shciff, I didn’t put my money where my big mouth so I have nothing to show for it.
Petey and I have tough crosses to bear since we’re both so darned smart.
Brenda, which Republican do you think would beat Chris Dodd?
I thought Schiff did actually make a lot of money from that by being short certain securities.
Peter Schiff definitely went on television time after time before the financial crisis and predicted it with almost perfect accuracy. This is a matter of public record. All the other financial pundits would shout and him, saying he was wrong, and he was exactly right.
Peter Schiff may not be the best candidate. However, he predicted the downturn, he predicted it accurately, and that’s a matter of public record.
How many times do I have to say it on this blog? I have maintained all along that Chris Dodd WILL NOT be on the ballot as a candidate for US Senate from Connecticut in November of 2010 so your question is impossible for me to answer.
Well I’m saying if Peter won the nomination. I know you don’t think this is possible. I don’t deny that it will be tough. But Peter would be able to contrast his predictions and Dodd’s cluelessness in advertisements such as this one made by a supporter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ebWrWUg18
The primary will be tough. Myself and other passionate Schiff supporters will dedicate a lot of time and effort to trying to get him elected. If CT votes for someone like Simmons instead… well that says more about the Republican Party than it does about Peter. But I don’t base my support on who has the best chance of winning; I base it on who is best for Connecticut and best for America.
I wouldn’t call it “perfect accuracy” he talked a lot (he likes to do that) and if you weed through his tens of thousands of words, sure you’ll find some that loosely line up with what happened. He’s not the only one that said that the real estate market bubble would burst, THOUSANDS of people said that too. Why is it that only a blowhard like Shciff gets credit for predicting the obvious?
I can’t find any proof of that, can you? I do remember that some guy claimed that a Shciff client lost a great deal of money:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html
Read that article, it certainly raises doubts about ole Peter.
I would also figure that if Shciff had a proven track record of actually acting on his supposedly tremendously insightful predictions and making lots of money, we’d be hearing all about it but alas, we haven’t, have we?
Ok Brenda, then what Republican would stand the best chance of winning vs whatever Democrat that will run?
You can dedicate (waste) all the time you want and you will lose, trust me on this. How did Ron Paul fare in the Republican Presidential primaries, 3% or less? Schiff is destined for the same or most likely less support in a Republican primary for US Senate in Connecticut.
So what are you going to when Shciff loses the primary, not support the Republican candidate who winds up being the nominee?
Impossible to say. If the economy is worse in November of 2010 than it is now and Obamma and the Democrat’s approval ratings are in the toilet then Caligiuri, Simmons or Foley might stand an outside chance against whoever the Democrat nominee is. On the other hand, if the citizens of this state are generally happy with what’s going on down in Washington and Obamma’s apporval ratings are through the roof (like Reagan’s were in 1984) then NO Republican has a chance in the world to defeat any Democrat who happens to be on the ballot for US Senate from CT in 2010.
Either way, Peter Shciff WILL not be the Republican nominee for US Senate from CT in 2010. I’m still taking bets on that, you want in on the action? Since that won’t happen, it’s a complete waste of everyone’s time to speculate “What would happen if…….” since he won’t be there.
That youtube video shows that many financial analysts certainly didn’t agree with Schiff. He said that the subprime mortgages were bad, were going to collapse, that bank stocks would collapse, and that you should own gold and not stocks. These were things he said in 2006 and 2007. Meanwhile the other analysts on the show were recommending you to buy Merrill Lynch and Wamu. One guy said the Dow would hit 16,000 (it is now at around 8600).
I’ll admit, I was invested in stocks when the financial crisis hit. My 401K: all stocks basically. I could have put it in a money market, that’s an option. Most of us didn’t get out of stocks. Peter Schiff was openly advocating that point.
There are lots of things to attack this guy for, but his predictive ability on the financial markets is not one of them.
I wonder if the Club for Growth will get involved.
Brenda, In your analysis a Republican candidate either stands Zero chance or little chance of winning the US Senate seat. I’m sure Scooper is smiling 🙂
Can we assume you feel the same way when it comes to Delauro,Himes,Murphy,Larson & Courtney?
Basically, no matter what, Democrats win-Republicans lose?
I think Dodd is vulnerable. Definitely one of the top Democratic seats this year, along with Harry Reid’s and the Burriss seat in Illinois.
Of the five congressmen, I’d say Himes is the only one that’s not going to coast to an easy victory. He’s a first termer, and if you lose a congressional seat, that’s when you tend to lose. I haven’t followed too closely what’s going on in that district, and in any event, it’s probably too early to tell. DeLauro and Larson basically can’t lose. Courtney or Murphy could lose, but there’d have to be a major event for that to really happen (big scandal, for instance).
Puf–
Let’s be clear. Dodd remains favored to win. If you guys are stupid enough to wage a primary, Dodd’s chances soar to 90%. The one thing I don’t like is that damn cottage. (What is left to be revealed?) And I still think Dodd should retire in favor of Blumenthal, thereby sparing us the coming nastiness.
In terms of Schiff, he’s a snake-oil salesman, and his talk of getting rid of the Fed would be scary, except that only a handful will ever listen to him.
Schiff’s first vote in Connecticut would be in the GOP primary, FOR HIMSELF! Need we say more?
I have to ask you, what happened in 2008?
To answer your question, bascially YES.
Let’s face it, it is virtually impossible for a Republican to win in the 1st and the 3rd and probably the 2nd as well. The 4th and the 5th have lots of Republican and Republican leaning voters, all you have to do is look at Chris’ maps here on this site. The first thing that needs to be in place for Republicans to win any of the Congressional seats is widespread dissatisfaction with either the Democrats in Washington in general OR widespread dissatisfaction with the individual Congressman as was the case with Sam in 2000 and Nancy Johnson in 2006.
The 1st and 3rd are almost so safe for the Democrats, the incumbents there could literally get away with serious indiscretions, crimes, etc. and probably still be reelected. That’s not so much the case in the 2nd and certainly not in the 4th and 5th.
So even if those stars line up properly, the Republicans must offer an acceptable alternative to the voters. Gary Koval was not an acceptable alternative to Gedjenson in 1998 but Simmons was in 2000. No acceptable alternative has popped up yet in the 1st or 3rd and probably never will this cycle. Matt Daly in the 2nd is a complete dirt bag and a joke so ya may as well forget him. Daria Novak is a very nice lady but she has no elected experience nor any knowledge about running a Congressional campaign in a district as large as the 2nd. I also don’t see any past or present Republican State Reps or State Senators in the 2nd stepping forward to run against Courtney in 2010 so the Democrats keep that one too.
As far as the 4th and the 5th, my analysis for the US Senate race applies in those races as well.
Let’s be clear, if Dodd is on the ballot, he loses. Just about EVERY poll has him losing to no matter who is running against him. His negatives are so high, I highly doubt he will ever overcome them. That’s why I continue to maintain that he won’t be on the ballot as a US Senate candidate from CT in 2010.
Brenda–
What does Dodd lose by running for re-election, even if he were 10 points down in the polls and seemingly heading for certain defeat? The answer is nothing.
And of course no one has the balls to stand-up to the thirty year incumbent.
What makes you believe Dodd will drop out?
Brenda, I’ll tell you what happened in 2008. The Republicans controlled the White House and people were very dissatisfied and they took it out on the party in power. However, the game has changed. Obama and the Democrats are now in control and despite the promises of change and the hope the economy is much worse and frustration is growing. When the country wants to throw the bums out this time, the bums will be Democrat. Unless there is a turnaround, and I hope there is, Democrats will be in for a major ass whooping in CT and across the nation. NO DEMOCRAT SEAT IS SAFE IN 2010!
Just for balance, Schiff wrote a response to that.
http://news.goldseek.com/EuroCapital/1233299220.php
I think Paul got 5-6% in Connecticut, but from what I gather, most of that was because of his stance on the Iraq War. I mean, Connecticut Republicans were so pro-war that they opted to support the Senator with the single worst Constitutional voting record in the country (Lieberman) just because he was pro-war. They had absolutely nothing else in common except war. Well, the war’s over. So, now what’s your excuse for not wanting to follow the Constitution and limited government?
Yes. Much like Schiff, I don’t have a problem not voting when there isn’t anyone worth voting for. Simmons and Foley are no better than Dodd. And based on some of the stuff Caliguiri has introduced this year, he’s not exactly the kind of limited government advocate I’d like to represent me. I’ll vote for Schiff or no one.
JP, I hear whay your saying except, the war is NOT over. It only seems that way because the main stream media stopped reporting about it since their guy was elected.
Yep typical answer from someone like you. Your loser candidate doesn’t get the nomination so you pass the spot on the ballot and help the Democrat who promotes big government. You’re pathetic.
Check again, it was 4%.
You’re kidding me now aren’t you? What he has to lose is HIS SEAT in the US Senate. I give the national Democrats a lot of credit, they and Obamma won’t sit idly by and lose a US Senate seat which will drop them below the magic number of 60. They will offer him some sort of nice soft landing somewhere, like an ambassadorship, let his wife stay on all those boards of directors. If he thumbs his nose at the gentle request to step aside and loses, he has EVERYTHING to lose Anderson, EVERYTHING. No more candidate committee to solicit funds to pay those seven figure legal bills, no more “connections” no more wife raking in large six figure incomes being on boards of directors, no more US Senate salary, etc.
He has far to much to lose by running again and losing.
Sorry, “too” not “to.” Very bad of me…..
In fairness, what JP is saying is the same argument that has been made by conservatives since ’92 — don’t give us our favorite, and we’ll stay home. And the usual suspects in politics that are supporting Simmons won’t sit out the 2010 election just because the “Club for Growth” candidate or the “Christian Coalition” candidate is the one that got the nod.
And you’re belittling another poster again — or did JP “get what he deserved” too, like anyone with different opinions than you?
He’d lose his seat either way. You’re saying he’s altruistic enough to put his principles (which would be better served by a Murphy than a Simmons) ahead of his self-interest. It’s an interesting theory, and I don’t know Dodd personally so I can’t say you’re wrong. But if that’s the case, we’re going through an awfully complex charade on the way to his dropping out.
Brenda, I agree in that I don’t see a path for Schiff to the GOP nomination. But unable to get 15% at the convention – an extremely low turnout vote? Wow… you’re drastically underestimating us “whackos.” I assure you, he could get that 15% vote… if he got the right people on his team. 15% for him would be a time-consuming effort, but it absolutely could be done.
And GC… are you holding off on my Dodd piece?
Shciff won’t be able to get 15% of the delegates at the convention, it’s as simple as that. Paul Streitz and Miraim Mazullo didn’t even come close to 15% in 2006.
Have you ever attended a major party state convention? You’re delusional if you think Shciff can get the support from 15% of the Republican delegates at next year’s convention. You even admitted you “don’t see a path for Shciff to the GOP nomination” so why even bother wasting time and money jousting with windmills?
Same with me. I am one of those young college voters and like many others my age I am drawn to Schiff’s platform of constitutional government, sound money, free markets and personal liberty. If the election comes down to Foley or Simmons against Dodd, I’ll be opting out. When are you picking the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil. I will put as much effort as I can to try and get Peter Schiff elected. If he doesn’t make it, at least I’ll know I didn’t stay on the sidelines when Connecticut finally had a chance to elect someone with integrity.
Simmons is the leader, I guess. If he gets the Republican nomination, you’ll vote for him because the Democrat promotes big government and Simmons doesn’t? I see how it is.
When a Democrat proposes Cap and Trade, that’s big government. But, when a Republican like Simmons cosponsors the Climate Stewardship Act, which was very Cap and Trade like, well Simmons is a Republican so it couldn’t have been big government if a Republican supported it.
When a Democrat says something about having a national civilian security force that’s just as powerful and well funded as the military, well what they’re talking about is establishing a police-state. But, when a Republican like Simmons votes to massively expand federal police powers by voting for thought crimes laws (AKA Hate Crimes), the PATRIOT Act, warrantless searches, national ID cards, the Military Commissions Act, and so forth, that’s what you’d call a Republican limited government approach to establishing a police state.
When a Democrat wants to prohibit offshore drilling or drilling in ANWR, well, they they don’t understand economics and they’re putting our national security at risk. But when Simmons votes to keep a moratorium on offshore drilling and prohibit drilling in ANWR, he’s a Republican so he must have had good and wise limited government reasoning for voting that way.
When a Democrat wants to send foreign aid overseas, that’s an unconstitutional use of tax dollars. But when a Republican like Simmons votes to send aid overseas, he must have a perfectly good Constitutional justification for doing so.
When a Democrat votes for welfare spending bills, they’re redistributionists and socialists. But when Simmons votes for funding things like Section 8, that’s OK, because he’s what you’d call a compassionate-conservative Republican and that doesn’t mean redistributionist socialist at all.
When a Democrat proposes a massive expansion of government into health care, that’s bad. But when a Republican like Simmons votes for a massive expansion of government health care, like the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, that’s good, because Simmons is a Republican and he is for limited government.
When a Democrat votes to increase spending and raise taxes, they’re tax and spend liberals who flunked economics 101. But when Simmons votes to cut taxes and raise spending, pushing a larger bill down the road, that’s just how Republicans roll.
So yeah, maybe a year from now maybe the one guy in the race who will actually do something to shrink the size and power of the government won’t get the nomination. But at least I’ll be able to honestly say I didn’t vote for a big government statist like Rob Simmons.