Why do national dems care so much about the Cegelis/Duckworth race?

I'm not really picking a side in this race, but here is what I am wondering. I've read that Duckworth has been getting massive fund-raising aid from Kerry, Clinton, Boxer, Clark, as well as Rahm Emmanuel and the DCCC.

I agree with those who have stated that these individuals have the right to support and raise money for whoever they want. That being said, I have a simple question. Why in god's name are they investing so much effort into a primary race? Is it really THAT important that Duckworth beats Cegelis in the primary? Does the fate of the entire democratic party depend on it?

To me it just seems like a better strategy would be for the national Democrats to save the massive fund-raising for congressional candidates when they are running against Republicans, not other democrats in primary races. But hey, what the hell do I know?

running as Dems to make a march into Congress to get their voices heard. Many of them are progressives and some are moderates. They asked Kerry, Clark and Cleland to stand with their movement.

They did help him out when he was running for congress but you certainly did not see Kerry, Clark, and Cleland endorsing Hackett over Sherrod Brown.

I don't think we have all the answers to that. I sent money to Hackett and would have loved to see him run. Had he gone for it, he would have been part of the movement and Kerry is supporting that movement, as are Clark and Cleland.

I think the bigger problem was that the Ohio congressional Dems were uncomfortable supporting Hackett OVER Brown. Really, could anyone honestly ask Dennis Kucinich to support Hackett over Brown?

I didn't mean to bring up the Hackett vs. Brown race because that one has just been beaten to death on DU.

Duckworth is getting an incredible amount of national support in a PRIMARY race and not all of it is from veterans (Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer). It seems like she is getting more support to defeat Cegelis than any congressional candidate will get to defeat a Republican in the GE.

been working on supporting Dem vet candidates for over a year now. The motivation of others is not something I have looked into.

Come now. Why should 'filing papers asking for an endorsement' be so important? Hackett was easily the best-known Iraq War vet running for U.S. Congress.

What makes you think Dennis Kucinich is such a power in Ohio politics? I like Dennis, and even voted for him in the '04 primary, but he's only a big noise in Cleveland and up there. Elsewhere in the state, he's that guy who used to be mayor of Cleveland when the city defaulted on some loans, or something. Besides, I doubt very much that Dennis Kucinich would have objected to letting OH primary voters decide who their nominee was going to be.

Hackett's out of the race, for better or worse, and I don't want to argue about him anymore. I support Sherrod Brown now. But I don't think we need to misrepresent what happened with Hackett in order to stand by Brown. Indeed, we need to be concerned about other manifestions of the same trend, as with this Illinois race.

The point of the OP here, I think, is that there's a concern among many Democrats that empowered Beltway Dems are trying to hold back a growing wing of Democratic office-seekers which does not really represent the left or right so much as it does a POPULIST agenda which reflects widespread public opinion, but offends powerful special interests. What this suggests is that maybe these insider guys don't believe that our corrupted political system is REALLY a democracy -- or maybe they're worried that it might become one if they don't keep putting fixes in.

over the past year.

And why shortchange Dennis Kucinich's influence on the Ohio AND national scene? He's earned the respect of many people on a national level.

If Hackett was in the race for Senate in a committed way, then I expect the vet movement would have backed him. The difficulty for Hackett was the congressional delegation in Ohio, not the national one - they were NOT going to support Hackett OVER Brown.

There's no sign that Cegelis stands any fucking chance at all at taking the seat

For another, Duckworth and our other veteran candidates strike right at the heart of the "Democrats are soft on defense" meme.

And Cegelis did get 44% against Henry Hyde who is one of the most powerful Republicans in congress and now this seat is open so "There's no sign that Cegelis stands any fucking chance at all" is not fair.

Duckworth may very well have a better shot at taking the seat than Cegelis but I am very worried that all of this primary fundraising is running the well dry in March when we really need to be saving our resources for October.

Like Cegelis, Hackett was the favorite of internet cowboys...but Ohio voters didn't think much of him. Deport 'em all Paul was more than 20 points down and had about a tenth of the cash Sherrod Brown had when he hit the silk.

How desperate does somebody have to be to try and spin a 12-point loss as a plus?

"all of this primary fundraising is running the well dry"
Jeeze, Cegelis has blown through $200,000...almost all of it before Duckworth was even IN the race. She's got $39,363 in cash, with $39,179 in debts NOW. How much drier does that well have to go before the Cegelis supporters stop claiming it's a geyser?

It is not consistant if we are supporting some veterans but not others.

And looking at a 12 point loss in a district like this is not desperate. To begin with, this is the closest challenge that Henry Hyde is recieved in years. The DCCC starts picking out targets where the incumbent won by 10 points or less. They consider the other factors and figure out how they can make up those points. Considering that Henry Hyde, one of the most powerful members of congress, will be vacating the seat leaving it open that automatically gives whoever is running for the seat AT LEAST a five point bump to start with because the Republican doesn't have incredible seniority and name recognition. Also take into account that Bush is less popular now and that this is a midterm election year. To say that these HUGE factors wouldn't give Cegelis enough of a bump to make this seat competative is like saying that Tom DeLay has just as much of a chance of winning his seat in 2006 as he did in 2004. I'm not even saying that anything about Cegelis as a candidate made the 44% possible. I'm saying that a democrat competed seriously against Henry Hyde and got 44%. That simply means that the same democrat can compete for that same seat but this time an open one in a more favorable year to democrats and have a chance of winning. Anybody who can't see that doesn't understand politics.

Now as I said above, would we have a BETTER shot at the seat with Duckworth? That is certainly a possibility that I am open to.


And I'm not here to defend or attack the Cegelis candidacy along with its spending habbits. I'm talking about the national party putting a considerable amount of fundraising effort into a primary race.

another candidate rising like a genie from bottle. i guess the big dems like astroturf better than real grass roots.
looks to me like an awful lot of people are seeing right through it, tho.

I am not concerned about the issue positions of the candidates. I start this thread with the premise that both are good democrats. This is more a discussion of political strategy.

a General Election does not a winner make.

This is all about taking back the House in 2006, and not much more.

It is very simple: Henry Hyde, the 32 year Republican Extremist Representative from that district is retiring. The Republican money machine is raising money at a fast clip for the Republican candidate (yes, there is an actual Republican candidate running...and she who is the winner of the Dem primary will have to face him for the "ol' hat" all or nothing, aka a "New" house seat in the Dem's aisle or a seat that remains Republican.

Losing a Republican House seat....and gaining a new Dem house seat provides Dems with an edge....i.e., republicans become -1, and Dems get +1. That means not only one less for GOP, but also means one more for Dems.

Obama and Durbin, both who represent Illinois nationally obviously know what it takes to win in their state....and specifically in that particular district. They both have endorsed Duckworth.

Nuff said!

And when the circumstances change for 32 year incumbent and presidential election year to open seat and midterm election year with the opposition party in the white house that shows that the same candidate is automatically competative.

I'm not arguing with Durbin and Obama's judgement about Duckworth, as I am not taking sides in this race. I am arguing with their decision to raise an assload of money for a primary race when that money needs to be saved for the general election.

44% is not as competitive as you are describing. Maybe if you'd say 47-49%, than yes, that might be called "competitive". But 44% is losing by a rather large spread (12-7 points).

But I do think there will be a need for primary voters in that conservative ass area of Illinois to decide, and I don't think that they will be getting their "points" from DU.

I think they will go Duckworth, which is why the national Illinois Democratic Senator are backing her....cause they seem to think so too!

The DCCC starts looking at targets within a spread of about 10 points. When you consider Henry Hyde's seniority and name recognition 12 points is a sign that the GOP is in trouble in that district, just as Richard Morrison getting 45% against DeLay was a sign that DeLay is in trouble.

Again, Duckworth may very well be the better candidate as a lot of reputable sources have said so. But 44% against someone like Henry Hyde is AT MINIMUM 47-49% in an open seat situation which as you say yourself is competative. Duckworth may have the best chance but Cegelis has one too. That is why I don't see why it is best strategically for the democratic party to be raising several hundred thousand dollars on a primary race.

so actually he did quite well in his last race....considering.

on Clinton when this was found out....

from 1965 to 1969, Hyde conducted an extramarital sexual affair with Cherie Snodgrass. At the time, Snodgrass was married to another man with whom she had had three children. The Snodgrasses divorced in 1967. The affair ended when Snodgrass' husband confronted Mrs. Hyde. The Hydes reconciled and remained married until Mrs. Hyde's death in 1992. The Snodgrasses remarried in 1969 but re-divorced shortly thereafter. Although Hyde was 41 years old and married when the affair occurred, he dismissed it as one of his "youthful indiscretions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde


Hyde and his former mistress Cherie Snodgrass

And surprise surprise, a hypocritical Republican.

win this particular district, as opposed to her chickenhawk GOP opponent.

Hyde served in the United States Navy.
The US Vice-Chairman of the Atlantic Partnership, Hyde is one of the most senior Republican members of the House. From 1985 until 1991, Hyde was the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

He has also been one of the most vocal and persistent opponents of abortion law liberalization in American politics, and was involved in some of the highest level debates concerning the response to the events of September 11, 2001.

Since 2001 he has served as chairman of the House International Relations Committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde

Because the issues (single payer health care & troops out of Iraq) are winning issues. They win Dems, they win Repubs, they win non and no-longer voters. But maybe you're wondering what strategy will be used to combat the winning issues?

:shrug:

the difference between us having a single payer vs. not...and Out of Iraq vs. staying?

Don't think so....cause even with a Democratic majority; single health taxpayer system is not just round the corner....nor are there enough Democrats "for" out-now to make this race about those issues that you speak of.

This race is about "winning" the general election in a very conservative Republican (for the past 32 years) district....and therefore increasing the likelihood of a Democratic majority.

I originally thought the OP wondered why "people" were interested in the race. Then I realized the question was about why Dem Reps were so focused on a primary race, shoveling $$ at a candidate, etc, when (as OP asked) $$ would be needed to fight Repubs instead.

Ultimately, the OP's question is very interesting.

the more money the Republicans will ALSO have to pour into the GE election....and that's money they won't be able to put elsewhere in other races? You thought about that too, right....?

:shrug:

Or DeLays.

These elections will empty their warchests!
LOL

He has been the toast of the WH fundraising machine since Hyde announced retirement. Cheney's coming to the District for a fundraiser soon.

But I like to discuss strategy as well because I believe that a democratic victory is best for the issues and to get a democratic victory we need good strategy.

. . .opportunity to make it a Democratic pick-up.

The GOP candidate has no Primary opponent.

which has been severely lacking in our form of democracy, especially frustrated with the fact that the measure of "success" or "popular support" is dictated by how money is raised for a candidate, not by the number of actual individual citizens ..

that's my guess..

Clark, BTW, supported Hackett very early on. But we have moved on. This is about the future of this country. Henry Hyde's seat? You tell me why it matters. Cheney campaigning for the Repuke? Why is it so important? If nothing else to support an American who sacrificed a lot for her country, and still wants to serve to help others.