Question for those upset about Hackett dropping out, and. . .

. . .and the presence of Duckworth in Illinois' 6th District. First of all I'm sick that Hackett is dropping out of politics entirely, I hope that he will reconsider and run for Congress.

Now on the question

I just saw a thread in which the original poster asked (paraphrasing here) "Why do they have to sell us on Brown? We did not need to be sold on Hackett." I looked at the OP's bio and found that he or she is from Texas. In my support of Duckworth I have been told that she is not the "grassroots" candidate (I did not realize the grassroots spoke with one voice). In both cases I've been told that people are sick and tired of the party picking candidates, but in reality many of the people making these statements are not from the districts or states involved. Also some are reporting that Hackett is 20 points behind Brown. That being said my question is this:

Is fair to say that the party is forcing candidates down our throats, when in many cases there appears to be support for those candidates in the districts/states in which they are running?

I ask this question because there is an obvious backlash against any candidate that has the backing of the DSCC, DCCC and party leaders, especially when there is another candidate that some DUers prefer.

He could have forced a primary battle and divided the Party.

:kick:

see who the VOTERS want as a candidate.

Is there some reason you wish to bypass that process entirely?

If so, why hold primaries at all?

. . .as a matter fact that is most likely what will see in Illinois' 6th district, a primary is not a bad thing at all. But the post I was reply to in this thread talked about dividing the party and that is what I'm asking about, does the poster want to divide the party?

a candidate has to strut his stuff into the primaries for ALL of us to see. With the party just picking candidates and telling us to show up and vote, it's no longer a democracy.

if "dividing the party" is an issue, then running off a candidate is NOT the solution. Address the problem. WHY would the party be divided? What crystal ball is giving the party "leadership" that information?

:kick:

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

. . .I'm very interested in what the Democratic voters of Ohio think, who they want. A lot people who have opinions on this are not in the district or state being discussed.

could happen anywhere

If you agree with the premise that we should just mind our own p's and q's and let a political organization make our choices for us, then the Hackett thing won't bother you regardless of whether you liked him or not.

But bothers me. Our strategists suck, and if they didn't we would have won by a landslide in the LAST election. If it "almost worked" before, why should I be all gung ho about seeing more of the same from them?

We need candidates who appeal directly to the people they will be representing. When one of those comes along and is told to take a hike, I get cold feet.

By the way, many people NOT from Ohio gave Hackett money because we believed in his message and liked what we saw.

guessing from your handle.

ok, I'd say Ohio dems like both men. They have respect for Brown, but Hackett was speaking truth to power.
Hackett is the kind of man that needs to attack the current regime. If not him, than someone like him.
Brown would do a good job in the position. However, people need a visible voice against the administration, and that is not what they see from Brown at this point. Whether that's the fault of the media or not, I have no idea, but Hackett's message was getting out there and Brown's was not.

Better to have a firebrand to tear down a fascist govt than a bureacrat.

IMHO.

. . .I think its important for all of us to know what is going on in other districts and states, but I always yield to the people in those state. Looking at that one poll that had Brown with a 20 point lead I was interested to see what was happening on the ground.

1. it was internal, so we dont' have access to methodology or how the questions were asked, or even size of sample.
2. The percent of undecided and hackett added together would beat Brown. A good primary race could convince undecideds one way or another. Maybe not all undecideds would go hackett, but then again, maybe some browns would go hackett if he impressed them.

I'm just saying its not the same thing as Brown 80%, Hackett 20%. it was like Brown 40someodd% (going from memory here)
If hackett had stuck it out, its POSSIBLE that warchests would not have overshadowed grass roots popularity.

For god's sake, if its all about the warchest, then voters don't matter at all, and that's the problem lately with Dem strategists

That was annoying.

Hackett has not earned any right to be taken seriously as a Senate candidate. He lost his last election for the House to a right-wing maniac. He hasn't proved anything yet. Let him run for Congress and win and then we can consider the next Senate race.

counter argument is: Well, then run your little progressive candidate in the primary, no one's stopping you.

I"m not saying the DLC is behind this, it appears to be the DCCC or the XYZ or whatever, but regardless, doesn't this give the lie to that sop?

The point is, whoever is "choosing" candidates is doing so in such a way to PREVENT primary contests. Why is that?

to play his hand differently, however, I also think that this was handled badly. Nobody has a crystal ball. We really do need charisma and character, and perhaps Hackett would have modified some of his more objectionable stances, but he spoke with a clear voice and a clear heart, and we don't have enough of that.

If I were from Ohio I would have wanted the chance to choose for myself. The party IS split on a bizarre fault line if we're pretending we need to select the most progressive candidate only, no other qualifiers required.

Im pointing out two behaviours that seem contradictory in two different cases: when progressives are told its ok to challenge in the primary, and then when wer'e told as democrats that primary challenges are destructive.

I'm looking at the logistics of primaries, not claiming Hackett is more progressive than Brown.

In Nevada District #3 in 2004, Harry Reid backed a candidate that was a former law partner of Ken Starr and Ted Olson's, who had attended a Bush fundraiser in Las Vegas and given Bush $2000.00, and who is best buddies with Merv Griffen, Nancy Reagan's chum. Now why would our Minority Whip do a thing like that? It makes no sense to me, and it worries me. I am not dissing Brown here...my problem is with people like Reid, who can't seem to do shit to fight Bush, yet they think they should pick candidates for the rest of us. Why should I trust them?

Suppose Schumer, Reid, and Emmanuel pulled the same stunt to sabotage Ned Lamont's challenge to Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary? When will this shit stop?

:shrug:

don't rock the status quo, it's been working so well for us you know! :sarcasm:

Yeah, clearly only underhanded tactics can save a candidate like Joe Lieberman with an 70% approval rating among all voters from an obscure challenger like Lamont with no record on any issue......</sarcasm>

Paul Hackett quit becasue he was getting trounced by Brown. It is the DSCC's job to recruit and support the most viable candidates. In this case, given how far behind Hackett was, the DSCC decided to back Brown...a wise decision if you ask me. They did not force Hackett out, he could have stayed in if he had wished. The DSCC simply backed the stronger horse...which is their job.

You're making way too much sense and that's just not allowed here

:tinfoilhat:

in this case, they helped out Brown. Corporations, the media, can do the same... Howard Dean was the closest thing I've seen to someone breaking through from the outside (and Dean wasn't much of an outsider, lol).