.. and his 50 state strategy which we SO need right now!

back in that job.

After Obama wins the election, I'm hoping he'll AT LEAST put Dean in as head of HHS. We'll need a champion and a fighter to run the healthcare system in the next term.

It wasted money in districts and states where Dems had no chance. Many experts have said that it actually cost the Dems several seats that were possible wins because money was diverted to unwinnable races. The real reason that the Dems did so well in '06 and '08 was because they were wave elections due to GOP mismanagement of the government. The same was true of the '10 election. Despite Michael Steele being a terrible GOP chairman who completely mismanaged his party's funds, the republicans picked up a record number of seats in the House.

That's not money wasted, even in losing races. it plants seeds for future harvest — if we ever get another DNC chair with vision.

because they didn't have enough money.

Examples?

He ran against Vito Fossella and was endorsed by the NY Times. But he couldn't get any money from the DNC because they were spending it elsewhere because of the 50 state strategy.

Unlike other candidates, Obama visited the state, and the Democratic party started spending money. They got a return on their investment. Today, Republicans are having to spend money in a state, that's been considered a "gimme" for decades.

You have no idea what it was like, to feel abandoned by your own party, for so many years. And If I remember a recent Obama speech correctly, he informed Texans, they' are going to be working to turn that state, in the future as well. The 50 state strategy isn't dead, it simply isn't discussed. There are 50 states in the union, and everyone is worth fighting for.

Which is not what the 50 state strategy was doing.

prioritizing spending is essential, IMO. Most House districts have been designed to never allow an election to be close. Different analyses will choose different sets of districts as most competitive (for example, see the NY Times's list of the 81 most competitive House districts at
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/ratings/house ), but it would be foolhardy for the DCCC to divide up its limited funds into 435 equal parts.

Remember, only a net of 25 districts need to flip from R to D for Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker again. So the House is challenging, but by no means hopeless.

Spend where it will be effective. Don't spread it around in districts where there is no hope of winning.

There's a reason he has just sunk a ton of cash in Wisconsin. As opposed to Mitt, he has a government job to go back to. I don't think we'll be hearing a whole lot from Rep. Ryan in the next few weeks. That is unless the Democrats hammer on his plan...put it on the web, leak parts of it at a time...drip, drip, drip... like they did Romney's dirt. That's what sticks...snippets of video and audio with short-term audiences in mind.

OTOH, give it to James Carter and David Corn. They know what to do with it.

and retaking the house.

Trust me on this. RCP has no clue what they're looking for.

RCP is the Fox News of polling sites.

in their averages. I wish there was a button you could push that says "Poll Results" vs "Poll Results (Excluding Rasmussen)."

For example, at this point EVERY POLLING organization is showing Obama with increasingly bigger leads, except Rasmussen showing the exact opposite. Rasmussen showing Romney with increasingly bigger leads. Which leads me to believe that at this point Rasmussen is just trying to diminish Obama's lead to avoid Republican voter discouragement. If Obama is WAY ahead, a lot of Republicans might not even show up to vote, and Rasmussen's job is to prevent that.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate

IN BETWEEN elections they fudge their numbers to manipulate voter sentiment. Rasmussen is always an outlier, relative to other polling organizations, in between elections.


http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/12/rasmussen-vs-the-rest/192361/

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/my-probem-with-rasmussen.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/living-in-rasmussen-land.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Sep19-noras.html

Electoral-vote.com has electoral and Senate maps without Rasmussen

To flip the house that dramatically in two straight cycles?

I don't see it, especially since the Rethugs have made the narrative all about the President, but I could see a gain of about 15-20 seats on general principal for all the good that will really do. I know in my district my Dem Rep is in trouble for non-Washington reasons, so you never know the little battles in each district playing out.

people need to know that they feel the same way Rmoney does - except that they are too smart to say it.

The American People need to know that a vote for any Repug is like shooting themselves in their foot. We need to give President Obama both the House and Senate if we really want to move Forward. Anything less will keep us in this stalemate that the Repugs have created.

Please get the word out to everyone you know.

If the Romney campaign keeps sinking then there will probably be a bunch of republicans that won't given go to the polls to vote.

getting the uppity negro out of the White House. If it looks like there's a chance of that happening, they'll crawl across broken glass to vote. If it looks like it's NOT likely to happen, a lot of them won't bother. Mainly because the Tea Party fanatics must be incredibly disappointed by now with the gang of gorillas they sent to Washington in 2010 with the express purpose of dismantling government, and ended up accomplishing absolutely nothing.

The only reason those people would turn out to vote with the knowledge that Obama is going to win anyway, is if they still think that Republicans in the House are going to change everything. There's already evidence that they don't really want to.

That's also why partisan polling organizations like Rasmussen are working so hard to diminish Obama's apparent lead. To avoid having Obama ahead by too big a margin, when, in fact, the obsession with defeating Obama is the only thing driving half the GOP voters.

Except for some reich-wingers and fundie scum I can't think of anyone who'd vote for them.

would vote for the down ticket dems too.

Boo! I have a hard time believing we don't have a chance!

there was a lady ahead of me at the checkout. She was talking to the checker and I said something to her (can't remember now) about the 47% and she turned to me and said "can you believe that man" "he has the nerve I used to be a Republican but after what he said no way" "I will vote for Obama he isn't all perfect but a hell of a better choice". I said I agree. Mitt sure thinks us stupid out here we the 47% and she said "I know I delivered mail and no we are not" We smiled and I said have a nice evening. Everyone in the checkouts (three of them) were looking and listening to us. He's in real trouble because I live in a very red county in So. Oregon and people were acknowledging and shaking their heads yes to what we were saying. I left with a smile on my face.

So perhaps we can really get back the house. Those Republicans do not like what ole Willard said no sir ree....