Democrats Plan Political Triage to Retain House

Source: New York Times

As Democrats brace for a November wave that threatens their control of the House, party leaders are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority.

In the next two weeks, Democratic leaders will review new polls and other data that show whether vulnerable incumbents have a path to victory. If not, the party is poised to redirect money to concentrate on trying to protect up to two dozen lawmakers who appear to be in the strongest position to fend off their challengers.

“We are going to have to win these races one by one,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, conceding that the party would ultimately cut loose members who had not gained ground.

With the midterm campaign entering its final two months, Democrats acknowledged that several races could quickly move out of their reach, including re-election bids by Representatives Betsy Markey of Colorado, Tom Perriello of Virginia, Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio and Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland, whose districts were among the 55 Democrats won from Republicans in the last two election cycles.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/politics/05dems.html

It was "Fucking Mental!"

Rahm's in charge now, motherfucker. And he'll get the same results he always gets: DLC (Democrats Lose Congress).

You gotta remember who counts here. The DLC's serving their constituency just fine.

He knows who owns him.

The 50 state strategy got tossed. So the party is struggling in a hell of a lot of places where we could have been doing well.

Only the candidates who come in with enough corporate backing already deserve to get any help. Which means only the candidates who are sufficiently corporate-friendly and conservaDem get any help.

The party has been REFUSING To help any lefty/progressive candidates with any support or money because they don't look "promising enough."

Yet another way that we have been Betrayed since this Administration and the ConservaDem cronies took over. x(

Under Dean, every state had support and every candidate got attention.

Since Dean got replaced, candidates are reporting that they have asked for help and received absolutely NO RESPONSE and NO ASSISTANCE of any kind.

Under Dean Prioritizing meant that Every state got support, but some candidates got more than others.

Under the current leadership a few candidates get support, and most others get nothing. That isn't really investing nationally. That is investing SELECTIVELY.

Under Dean we saw the results of the 50 state strategy. We won elections in places where we never won elections before. But now we are back to only investing in safe or likely elections.

If we never invest in the the unlikely locations we never have resources, teams, moral and a chance in those unlikely locations, and we aren't likely to win there. The 50 state strategy showed that we can. But without a 50 state strategy we won't.

That's what replacing the "50 state strategy" with "targeting" and "triage" gets you.

More proof that our party's leaders never WANTED us to take Congress back after 1994.

instead of embracing him. It's not exactly like Lamont Lieberman, but there are some similarities.

We are now going to see how truly incompetent Tim Kaine has been.

:kick: total milquetoast

Obama paid his campaign debts to people like Kaine, who still had a year to serve as Governor, pissing off his state, which then elected a Republican Governor, and Napolitano, which gave Arizona's Governor's mansion to a Republican.

I felt a lot of those appointments were about Obama, period, not the nation OR the Party. His choices were one of the reasons why I started regretting my donations to Obama's primary and election campaigns (very large for me) before he even took office.

Oh, wait. No and no. Sorry.

They probably threatened him with being "suicided" if he did not step down after one term.

I am not sure if that is a party rule or custom or simply a practical reality. .

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it looks like "Vote For Democrats, Because Republicans Really Suck"
isn't doing the trick this year.

Most of us have had it with "vote for me, because I'll suck less than the other bozo."

8 years of total shit, they totally fucked up the country and people wanted that to be fixed overnight. They need to get fucking real.

It wasn't convincing to begin with, and certainly isn't now that The Big O has been in office for 20 months.

It's not the PACE, it's the DIRECTION.

The need to "Fucking real" goes both ways, as does whining.

Too much to ask of them, I guess.

You'll see Harold Ford, and bunch of other "Democrats" they should be actively hiding, all over the place.

Luckily, he's not very good at what he does--or tries to do.


So glad his attempt to carpetbag NY failed.

The only way to gain visibility on TV is to buy time. All of the free time is given to the Republicans to spread lies because the ownership of the public airwaves is all right wing. (MSNBC is cable and only partially owned by GE and even then it is only the evening lineup that is liberal). It is the ownership that determines content, including the lack of fact checking. While the Constitution permits a free press it does not require a free press and without a fairness doctrine of some kind we end up with the Republican toadys we have today.

The DNC puts hacks on TV rather than skilled communicators, in part because they do not like their skilled people for various reasons, too liberal, too inclusive, and in part because they see TV or speaking assignments to be rewards for loyal service, not important moments to be filled by those most able to do it well. The media sucks, but it is only partly to blame, and of course, smart folks know how to get around the suck. It is the hacks and centrists who are confounded by it all.
To me, the communications people at the DNC are so bad that a perfectly balanced media would not help their problems. Take Tim Kaine. He is opposed to the basic rights of millions of Democrats, and he is the lead guy. He is on TV. In the papers. This does not unify us, because he is against us. He's for Donna Brazille and Leah Daughtry, religious straight people. They put Brazille on TV all the time, with her smug and her anti equality sentiments so well known. That is just stupid stuff, slandering people then 'reaching out' for their support.
The 'blame the media' routine is an excuse. And not a very good one.

It's a vast right/center right wing conspiracy! ;-)

(Apologies to Hillary)

While the Constitution permits a free press it does not require a free press and without a fairness doctrine of some kind we end up with the Republican toadys we have today.

First of all the Constitution does NOT "permit" a free press it forbids the federal, state and local governments from interfering with it.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Permission is something that is granted and can be taken away whenever the entity permitting it decides to do so. A guarantee is set in stone. The "Fairness Doctrine" would certainly interfere with freedom of speech.

The bottom line is that right-wing talk radio is more prevalent is that more people listen to it. Air America was a dismal failure and, try as people might, it was because the ratings (and management) sucked. It managed to get on allot of stations in some major markets but the ratings simply couldn't pay the bills. Exactly why is open to conjecture. Maybe liberals prefer music either on FM or Cd's. Maybe liberals don't listen to as much radio. Maybe liberals are more willing to listen to right-wing radio then conservatives are willing to listen to left-wing radio but none of it matters to the Constitution. There wasn't some vast right-wing conspiracy there was simply a failed radio network.

Ed Schultz seems to do OK without the Fairness Doctrine.

And attempting to put words in my mouth. Plus you don't seem to understand what a fairness doctrine would entail. Fairness doesn't mean equal time as you imply. It means that there is a wall between news and opinion and that means that news must news and not opinion. When errors are made a clarification or retraction would follow. This would hamper some of the analysis that passes as news but is really opinion and it should end the outright lies but little else would be changed. An informed public need straight facts. Are Republicans getting that when something like 44% think Obama is a Muslim. I rest my case.

"We've got lots of money to protect some blue dogs, but you progressives and populists are on your own".

Just wanted to point that out, for what it's worth.

DCCC chairs like Harold Ford, Rahm, etc. The jury is still out on Van Hollen, but I ain't holding my breath.

how exactly is that better than Republicans? It pretty much guarantees that Democratic progressives will fail.

That's a show stopper for me!

If I am correct and if he voted for it anyway, why stake anything on what he says or doesn't say?


Maybe he's hedging now because he doesn't want to embarrass himself again?


http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/


I really wish I could develop a taste for D.C. kabuki. It's so readily available and they don't even charge separately for it.

(not, Harold Sr. would NEVER have had anything to do with the DLC. Harold Sr. was a REAL Democrat).

the guy who signed the PNAC memo and was very instrumental in founding the DLC, now heads some institute with "progressive" in its name.

"Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more centrist orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall




"The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein.\


<snip>

"The DLC has become unpopular within many progressive and liberal political circles such as the organizations Center for American Progress, Democracy for America, and the blogs Daily Kos and MyDD."


Go figure what "progressive" actually means in each of those contexts. "Populist," however is fairly clear, at least as of this morning.

(And, for someone who seems to have played such a historic, if two-faced role, seems to have an unbelievably brief wiki. Wonder who purges it 24/7)

but please, keep on with the scare tactics of "republicans are worse! oh noes!"

it's the policy that counts. nothing from nothing is nothing, as they say. i can't really defend or support nothing. and i'm sophisticated enough to oppose "worse" even as i can at the same time not be satisfied with nothing. it's not a mutually exclusive situation. brand loyalty is for consumerists.

yeah Dean's 50 State=far superior, but we know the 'other Right' really needs & wants to lose in this election.

Ever watch M*A*S*H?

U.S.A. is needed, the problems are already known. I still say Clintonion Triangulate is what's up for Wrong Emmanuel etc.

Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy showed that we can win and expand our power nationwide
by making the republicans fight everywhere.

Mary Jo is a neighbor and a friend of mine and to dump support of her just sucks as does
starting to work 2 weeks after labor day.

Every election where big changes are possible involves a "firewall" strategy. The key is where you build that firewall.

Republicans' losses in '08 and many of ours in '94 were because the wall was built too optimistically.

Of course... It isn't a great idea to advertise which races you're giving up on. That defeats the purpose.

A GOP seat here in Omaha. Does that mean that the Democrat gets no money so he gets wildly outspent and loses by default? Not very smart.

It means you save the ones you can save. Of course if there's a chance to pick off a republican, you add that to the list. The key is to honestly appraise whether you HAVE that opportunity.

Alaska is an interesting example. It doesn't cost much to run a campaign there, so the dollars could be well spent. They just need to run some detailed polling (and our guy needs to get a pulse). If there's a shot you spend money/ time there rather than one of our seats that's already lost.

Honest appraisal (without political bias against progressive) from the appraisers might very well be a task outside their reach.

The Rasmussen poll has Scott McAdams only SIX POINTS down! That automatically obliges the party to treat that race as comnpetitive, especially since McAdams' opponent, Joe Miller, is a teabagging wackjob(endorsed by Tea Bag Express-the group that was too racist for the REST of the Tea Baggers!).

www.scottmcadams.org

The polls indicate that the race is potentially competitive, but the people who were polled were just getting used to the idea that it wasn't going to be Murkoski. Certainly it's possible that the national party will elect to get involved. After all, Alaska is about as "cheap" a seat as you can get (but the vote counts as much as the seat in California).

The flip side of that is that the candidate may not need national party support (and has indicated as much) because he can possibly raise all he needs on his own (which helps him distance himself from some positions that are popular among democrats... but not Alaska democrats). He's said that he intends to raise $750k and indicated that the media buy with $500k is as large in AK as $20million would buy in CA.

By "have a pulse" though... I didn't mean polling strength (the results of the primary almost guaranteed that the race would tighten significantly). I meant that the candidate isn't particularly strong on his own merits. If Knowles would get into the race I think we would have a real shot, but McAdams just isn't very impressive. He was interviewed last week and asked whether he would have voted for HCR. He paused for ten full seconds and then said "Let's see. One moment please" - followed by another fifteen seconds of silence... followed by a request for the next question. He also answered the next two questions (the war and TARP) with "why don't you let me get back to you on that"

That's not quite Brewer-esque... but it also isn't a candidate who is ready for prime time.

If we win the seat, it will be Miller making several Angle-ish statements and blowing the race. Could happen... but I don't think that national party financial support will make too much difference. But as I said above... it's a cheap race. It doesn't hurt us much either to get involved.

blitz early, etc. and gain momentum early on. (Early Money Is Like Yeast, motto of EMILY's List.) When it doesn't back you from the jump, you lose to Joe Lieberman or Scott Brown, even in a blue state.

He's seems like he's a bit on the fringe (not to the level of a Sharon Angle, but similar in some ways), but he starts off with two big advantages. Alaska is one of the redest of states (so a democrat needs the credibility of a Tony Knowles or a great deal of luck), and his resume is more attractive (West Point, Bronze Star, Yale, degrees in both law and economics - vs deck hand, cannery, school teacher).

McAdams is the "salt of the earth" type that we love, but there aren't enough of us in AK to get the job done

When Democrats abandon their core values, what made them different from the GOP, they lose their voters.

Incrementalism doesn't work at a time of great economic pain, just ask Herbert Hoover.

Fifty percent of voters now identify as independents. They are rejecting both parties!

anything that may help people. It's just amazing that the GOP can be so blatantly transparent and even have the slightest possiblility to regain power, of anything. It's tragically madness.

A national campaign trumpeting Democratic accomplishments on health care, education and Wall Street regulation has given way to a race-by-race defensive strategy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/politics/05dems.html?_r=1

Does this means that we won't be bothered anymore with those "accomplishment" threads with their blue linkies?



Whose fault was that? Who bailed out the banks but not the people? How do you think those health insurance mandates will play out while people are still struggling, as they will certainly will when they come into effect?

what the DLC sees as an "accomplishment"; not things that benefit middle or working class Americans or the planet in general.

And on a related note:

Dems shrink from health care

By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 9/5/10 7:24 AM EDT

A handful of House Democrats are making health care reform an election-year issue — by running against it.

At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.

One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an ad now.

Democrats have taken that advice to heart; it appears that no Democratic incumbent — in the House or in the Senate — has run a pro-reform TV ad since April, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ran one

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41777.html#ixzz0yf9tErnI

they are the same folks that told us it was okay to ditch the public option, and that today are telling us that Social Security is not under threat by the Catfood Commission?

and 30+ million people currently without health care insurance won't get it.

Businesses won't be compelled to provide health insurance to employees.

People will continue to be denied insurance based on preexisting conditions.

There won't be subsidies for people who can't afford it.

Medicaid won't be expanded to childless adults.

There are more things about it too that are subject to repeal if the Pub tards win. Take a gandar: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

But yeah, no public option, let's throw it all out. Even if this can be a good stepping stone toward it.

Right.

... there would be much less possibility of the GOP gaining control.

A bill that inflicts pain almost immediately while the benefits are years away is "fucking retarded".

And the support for this horrible piece of shit legislation is going to drop as time passes and more and more people see what a joke it is.

Bookmark the thread dude, come back in a year or two and tell me I'm wrong.

7/1/10 (or sooner)?


Or even a strong public option, also effective ASAP?

Or even no mandate?


Aboutt as far as Dummya got trying to privatize Social Security, is my guess.


If the bill is repealed, it will be the fault of D.C. Democrats for passing a health care industry giveaway, not of those who have valid critisms of the bill, such as, gee, Obama and a significant number of Reps promised us a public option. We worked for them and voted for them, but we didn't get one."

Go ahead and blame the victims, though.

when they lose, you're a psycho psychic genius!

you'll know that there wasn't anything you could have done and your dollars were better spent on the race that you held by half a point.

Votes?

I bet that you and the guys making these decisions are the same guys who think a high school football game is over when it's 40-0 at the half. But it wasn't, and my old team beat the defending state champs 48-40 final score.

There's no science that can tell you someone is going to lose an election. But lack of resources and support will lose 'em every time. Why does a party holding both houses of Congress and the Presidency lack for resources? Because they've done nothing with their time in office that amounts to shit. So now people don't want to ante up, and they have little to distribute, so they attempt to blame others for THEIR lack of performance and resources.

It's really quite stupid to be in this position, but rest assured, a whole bunch of rich people are richer tonight because of it.

If they lose by nine votes of course you would know that backing out had been a mistake.

I bet that you and the guys making these decisions are the same guys who think a high school football game is over when it's 40-0 at the half.

Lol. No... it's not over at the half. But if you've got a chance to bet straight up on this game or the one down the street where the score is tied... you would be an idiot (or a rabid homer) to put your money into this game. You would be almost as mistaken to bet half as much on each of them.

There's no science that can tell you someone is going to lose an election.

Sorry... that's simply wrong. Or better put, there is a science that tells you that of ten races that all score as 95% chance of loss, you're unlikely to win more than one of them.

The key here is that there will always be close races in any election. The question is whether those races cluster around the +20 seat line... the break even line... the -20 seat line... etc. If that line is at -20 and you spend the bulk of your resources around the break-even line... then you're going to lose almost all the races in both categories. This is exactly what happened in '94. We lost races that we didn't even think were competitive. It would be like losing WV, CT, and NY senate seats. Saying "invest in all of them" sounds nice, but just has the same effect. The races that need the money/time to make the difference don't get enough.

But it appears that my party is abandoning me.

I teach for a living, have for 30 years, and longshots come in all the time.

Numbers guys never have enough info.

you play defense while they set the narrative. Instead of going on the offensive telling the American people what the Republicans are all about and what YOU stand for, they want to do "triage". In other words, the party has accepted defeat already when no vote has been cast.

when you stand for incrementalism.

Liberals need iron will, discipline of steel, and rigid strategic unity. Without that, the Democratic Party cannot be captured and used as a tool to implement progressive change. I thought we were closer to that than we indeed are. All is not lost. Cultural and demographic trends demand it. If not "liberals," someone else will step forward. Perhaps the two party system will be replaced by regional parties. Who knows...

We need to all participate in GOTV through September...

The Corporate Dems are on the same side as the pukes and anyone who supports them is an enemy just as anyone who supports a Republican is an enemy.

This is NOT a political struggle between "Democrats" and "Republicans", this is a struggle between WE THE PEOPLE, and the parasitic capitalist elites, and the elites are wining.

Two party system MAY be being replaced with any one of many things, including a political system comprised solely of several flavors of Right, none of which will be as liberal as was Nixon.

Don't know if that is the right strategy or not. However I think the 50 state strategy is only good in primaries, otherwise it's a waste of money if resources are limited.

Some states are ruby red, teabagger states and that's not changing anytime soon. No need to waste time or money on them, and then democrats in many of those states are democrats in name only.

As for Dean,(mentioned in some messages of this thread), I like him and voted for him, but there is a reason he lost. He couldn't get himself out the Dean scream mishap which he shouldn't of had any trouble doing, Obama got himself out of a lot worse than that.

So while, I wish they could have kept Dean, I don't necessary think he is make or break.

Also, it is always the same thing, there are people who always, always think we(the democrats) are in trouble. I was shocked by the number of delegates that Obama won by because they even had me believing(even on DU), we were going to squeeze by because we nominated Obama.

Not sure, what really is going to happen in November, but I'm also wary of Doomsayers and in some instances, their motives.

Not his fault.

A candidate can't get elected if they are not willing to stand up for themselves during an election.

Love Dean, but you've got to get in the war room and formulate a counter attack or strategy immediately. Republicans come up with all these silly little insignificant events and make them look catastrophic.

A winning candidate has to set/control/redirect the dialog.

Also, for now, a lot of people aren't even paying attention to the upcoming election yet, only the die hards and the bitter republicans hoping for a come back.

Come on now. He had every opportunity to defend it.

I don't know what was in the man's head, but I assume after all the hoopla, and Faux News continual rotation of and remix of the Dean scream, he felt silly, and instead of reacting, he went silent.

As, I said I voted for him and I even went to one of his primary events to see him in person which is more than I did for Obama even though I do and did support Obama during the primaries.

However, Dean's lack of response to that situation was a disappointment.

A friend was in the room at the time and didn't even hear "the scream" because the crowd was so boisterous. The media played the clip over 600 times within the next few days and that was it. Diane Sawyer later apologized and explained the noise-filtering microphone; even CNN apologized. You're naive if you don't understand the sway of the CM and how easily Americans are manipulated.

Tell the sheep plausible lies enough times and they believe it hook line and sinker. Manipulate the video or audio (like in "The Scream") and the Sheep will take it as reality.

:shrug:

Yes, Obama had Rev Wright business playing on every channel every second which was much, much worse, but he responded, repeatedly, his team also had a strategy.


Dean did nothing, he was attacked, but he should have responded.

by playing that bullshit "scream" clip ad nauseam. There was no way in hell the Wright rant was played 600+ times in a matter of days. And the comparison is not legit; those were not Obama's words (or Obama's media-manipulated words), they were the words of someone else. Some may have assigned guilt by association, but most others were able to differentiate. If there was a clip (manipulated or not) of Obama god-damning America, then that would have been a different story and a fair comparison.

I knew Dean was done the moment I saw the clip. Although he had been a CM darling, it went into attack mode when he stated: 1) his desire to break up media conglomerates; and 2) that the United States needs to be more even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians. Although he was up by double digits in the polls, CM decided he was "unelectable." It created a false reality with that manipulated tape, and opined that he was emotionally unstable and un-presidential. Unfortunately, voters bought into it. Damage inflicted by images is extremely powerful: think back to tank-riding Michael Dukakis or a "tearful" Ed Muskie. It can't be undone.

You are naive if you don't think that it is possible for a candidate to overcome a simple display of excitement which was exaggerated into a "scream".

Hillary and Obama overcame a whole lot MORE.

Hillary's teary moment helped her rebound. Obama had oh so many moments that could have been the end of him had he been slient.

Many Right wingers are still using the.. "Grandmother comment", and "Clinging to guns and religion" and some are still talking about the "Preacher situation.

Also, the preacher business was all over You tube and on every television channel and talked about constantly on radio.

Dean didn't even have to contend with You tube like Hillary and Obama did.

But that doesn't mean that the district shouldn't be worth fighting for.

Especially because there are upticket and downticket races, as well as propositions, that we should be getting ALL the democrats in my district out for.

There are good democrats in Mt. Shasta, Chico, Yuba City, Yolo County, Trinity County, and even Redding that we NEED to get to the polls to vote for Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, and several critically important propositions as well as democratic city council members, state assembly members, state senators, and other races.

To wit: If the anti-h8 campaign had been statewide, it might have lost, but there was NO anti-8 activity in this part of the state at all. Even though there are tens of millions of people in the state, giving up on a few hundred thousand people here and there is no way to win an election.

The first rule of winning is showing up, and even though I expect that jackass Wally Herger to get in for another 2 years, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to fight him.

If funds are limited, it's a waste of resources.

"As for Dean,(mentioned in some messages of this thread), I like him and voted for him, but there is a reason he lost. He couldn't get himself out the Dean scream mishap which he shouldn't of had any trouble doing, Obama got himself out of a lot worse than that"


Dean was not the one pre-anointed by Democratic leadership; Kerry was. So was Obama.

Dean had Republicans AND Democrats against him, neither of whom, in conjunction with media, would LET him get out of anything during a primary. Ask Hillary how that goes.

First, let's get this straight, Hillary was pre-anointed and NOT Obama. Obama was able to raise funds which is the name of the game period. He also had a legion of supporters.


Second, Democrats decide by supporting and donating to a candidate. If the candidate does not have a large following or donations the Democratic voters have decided.

Also, Dean had an enormous following and he also had the money. Kerry was going broke before the Dean scream business. Dean had it all, just didn't follow through.

Whether, it was bad judgment on Deans part or that he just didn't have the fantastic team Obama had, I don't know.

(Didn't want to make the first too long.)

Also, Hillary messed up, she was fake. She was also trying to lean too much to the right because liberal had become a dirty word. Her and Harold Ford were brother and sister from another mother in that respect.

Also, democratic voters are NOT progressive period, and they also don't necessary lean to the right either. However, even people who vote democrat that I know are influenced by fox news at times it's up to the candidate to set them straight.


In fact it is imperative that the candidate set them straight.

What is the difference between a Puke and a Dem that votes like a Puke?

:(

I think this is more about raw politics than ideology.... if you cannot possibly win, there's no reason to spend money there, when somebody in another district has a reasonable chance of winning.

They are going to throw the money at the DLC people.

general.


Lamont was no liberal, but at least he would not have campaigned against the Democratic Presidential nominee. National Democrats attacked the hell out of him during the primary campaign, leaving him damaged goods, then let him twist in the wind during the general campaign. Pubs pretty much did the same with their candidate.


Oh, look. DLCer LIEberman won! Told ya so!

And the more Democrats depart from the 50 state strategy, the more ground we lose, including down ticket races and ballot initiatives. Not to mention a self fulfilling prophesy (which seems to suit DLC types just fine).


We are going forward to the less successful past, rather than building on what Dean did with great success. And I don't much care why--anti Dean, pro DLC (who in the DNC isn't anymore, anyway?), anti innovation or garden variety error. It's a mistake.


But, let's all always find reasons to justify whatever happens to be current policy, preferably using current front officce rationales for same. If "they" are doing/saying it, it must be the best of all possible worlds--wel, until they say something different, anyway.

Also, Obama was expected to win, regardless of what many people who supported other candidates thought, and when the election was said and done, they were wrong.



Also, Obama was the democratic candidate for president. There is only one of course, so it's not the same thing.

The Democrats are trying, I assume to reserve a limited amount of resources that have to go to many places.

and on ballot initiatives in the short term and be a self-fulfilling prophesy long term, ensuring red states get redder.

Remember, Alaska looked as though it was turning to Obama just before Palin got in the race. IMO, that would not have happened without a 50 state strategy.