Using Terry McAuliffe's targetted state strategy, Hillary would win __ states in 2008.

Remember - we are applying ONLY the DNC's national strategy that was used in 2000, 2002, and 2004 - with NOTHING changed. And Terry McAuliffe at the helm as he was before, and doing the EAXCT same effort he put in to the other 3 elections.

Hillary would win __ states.

so desperate to discredit Dean and his 50 state strategy. Like the man who stayed up all night wondering where the sun went-it finally dawns on me.

That he is...

n/t

Since you're already spending so much time with your normal slandering of Democrats, and now you've moved onto McAuliffe next, give us the link to McAuliffe's targetted state strategy so we know you're not exaggerating or spinning tales....not that you'd ever do something like that or anything.

Dean wrestled hold of the DNC and CHANGED IT to a 50 state strategy?

Why do you PRETEND that there was no such thing as the DNC's targetted state strategy? What was Dean changing over from then?

You want to try and convince DU that McAuliffe DIDN'T oversee a targetted state strategy all those years he chaired the DNC?

HAHHAH - good luck with that.

You're running around spouting this and that about McAuliffes strategy as if it's his official current policy, yet you can't even give me a link to back it up??????

win IF McAuliffe's targeted state strategy from 2000, 2002 and 2004 was in effect for 2008?

And if Terry DIDN'T have a targeted state strategy for those years, then what the heck has Dean been REPLACING the last two years?

Dean Defends the 50-State Strategy
Borrowing a page from his goal-oriented fundraising during his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination (who can forget the bat?), Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean launched a two-week cash-collection campaign, Wednesday, aimed at answering critics of his 50-state strategy.

"For most of us the 50-state strategy seems pretty obvious: a truly national party must build the infrastructure to fight everywhere for every level of office, period," Dean writes in an e-mail to Democrats nationwide. "The Republicans realized this over 30 years ago and have a monopoly on our government because of it."

To send a message to the party establishment, Dean says he hopes to receive 5,000 donations in support of the 50-state stategy over the next 14 days: "Now is the time to get the word out: we have a choice to build a new Democratic party and a new way of doing business, and it's up to ordinary Democrats to stand up and be counted to make it happen."

Dean has run into considerable pushback from party leaders in Washington -- particularly from the chairmen of the House and Senate campaign committees -- for his commitment to put field staff and dollars in every state rather than stockpiling funds to be used on the handful of targeted contests on the ballot this November.

Asked today about grassroots organizing and turnout for the midterms, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) said "that is one thing the DNC is doing, helping us with get out the vote in some of our key states."

In his e-mail missive, Dean acknowledges his detractors before shooting them down. "Some critics say that our early investments in a permanent ground operation will hurt our chances to win this year," Dean writes. "That's a false choice. The fact is that our 50-state strategy has already laid a nationwide foundation for victory this year, in 2008 and beyond."
>>>
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/06/dean_defends_the_50state_strat.htm

you're trying to give everyone the impression that Terry McAuliffe's strategy today is the same strategy that you keep repeating over and over and over again.

Just because Kerry voted for the war back then doesn't mean he'd vote for the war today.

Give McAuliffe the same courtesy...Just because he might have had that strategy in 2004, it doesn't mean he'd have the same strategy in 2008. All you're doing with all these threads and posts about McAuliffes limited state strategy is painting him as someone who isn't up with the times, when that is simply not the case. It's all about your attempt to discredit the Clintons as much as you can. You don't give a rat's ass about McCauliffe. you're just worried to death that you'll be calling Hillary "President Clinton" in a couple years.

Would Hillary win easily with a targeted state strategy while Gore and Kerry did not?

Would Gore and Kerry have won easily with a 50 state strategy in place?

If Terry is saying honestly TODAY that Gore and Kerry were to blame for losing, then of course he would stick to his targeted state strategy because the only thing wrong in 2000 and 2004 were Gore and Kerry - so unlikable, unlike Bush who is likable.

So - how would Hillary do with that DNC policy in place in 2004 OR 2008?

2004 doesn't apply to 2008, so why are you spending so much time on it, other than to give everyone the impression that McAuliffe's strategy today is just as you paint him from 2004, when you just don't know that.

so YEAH, he doesn't GET that he focked up with his DNC national strategy in place in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

If he did GET that his strategy was wrong, then why doesn't he have the character or the basic decency to say that HE made mistakes in the national strategy and that HE would approach it differently now?

Let me know when THAT happens. THEN you might be closer to having a point.

Just like the Clintons are, too. Suuuure they are.

Just like Kerry didn't lose to a moron because of any faults of his own. It was everyone's fault but his, according to you.

A huge waste of bandwidth, a pathetic, desperate crusade to make excuses for a failed politician and tear down and blame everyone else, a broken record stuck in the same groove with the same whining and grotesque exaggerations at best thrown out over and over and over again. I'm surprised anyone even bothers to respond anymore other the same high-fives from the same choir.

* yawn *

Rod Serling would be very proud of you if he were still alive today!

:toast:

With a captain at the helm like that, who needs icebergs.

Dean's 50-state strategy had the Democrats GAIN BOTH the House and Senate and gave the Repugs one nasty black eye.

Who do I trust in 2008? That's a rather silly question. A loser? Or a prove winner... hmm...

I'll never forget him going on Air American Radio and saying words to the effect, "If you don't like what we're doing then GO AWAY!" The foregoing was a thinly veiled threat toward the liberal base of the party. Shame on him, the sooner he fades (Hillary fires him) the better for everyone in the Democratic Party, Moderates as well as Liberals. He's a lightening rod in his own right. :(

spewing things about his policies as if those policies are still in effect at this moment.

all over the airwaves while he escapes unscathed for having the targeted sstate strategy in place in the first place.

I never mentioned a word that it was McAuliffe's CURRENT policy. I want people to ASSUME that strategy was STILL in place at the DNC and to predict how WELL Hillary would do with it. Or is it only OK with you that Gore and Kerry were SADDLED with that strategy in THEIR races?

Otherwise you wouldn't keep posting the same non-stop jibber jabber over and over like a broken record. The more people hear it, the more they might believe the impression you're trying to paint....and the impression you're trying to paint is that McAuliffe would still have the same strategy today as he had years ago...and that simply is not the case, not with him or not with any other Democrats either.

And don't give me this crap that I condone McCauliffe for blaming Gore or Kerry about anything. I've never posted any such nonsense.

to him, the only problem was Gore and Kerry who should have won by 10% using HIS DNC targeted state strategy.

McAuliffe brings this on because he hasn't been shutting up about blaming Gore and Kerry the last few weeks, has he?

Ever hear him ONCE admit the targeted state strategy showed some problems in practice?

then at least give us a link so we can see the exact context of this.

Gore is being thrown out there as subterfuge.

he turned the DNC into a strictly fundraising arm.

and I will throw in PA because knowing people from all over the state, I have found very little enthusiasm and much opposition to voting for her.

Newsflash: 2006 was a second term midterm for a Republican president. Look that up for historical perspective.

We also had a president with a 30ish approval rating.

The 50 state strategy benefitted from that second term dynamic more than it contributed. Likewise, the contribution from the netroots is dramatically overstated. We won big in a cycle we were supposed to win big.

Good luck, though, Billary. See you in 2016.

Is that Senator Clinton is in this to lose?

Mr. McAuliff will not be in charge of strategy: President Clinton will.

Sen. Clinton, if the Democartic Party nominee, will carry every state carried by Vice-President Gore, plus Ohio, New Hampshire, and probably several others in the upper south and the plains.

wife?

What does THAT tell you, since McAuliffe was chairman of the DNC at Bill Clinton's direction?

And then proceeded to do WHAT?

Sabotage the 2002 and 2004 elections by not countering the RNC's suppression tactics.