Will DNC get behind Skinner or Peters this time?

Nancy could have beat Joe in 2006 if the DNC had put a little effort behind her campaign. Will they hang the Dem candidate out to dry again?

Just like they're supposed to.

Dean was scheduled to come into town for a fundraiser for Peters;
which he PROMPTLY canceled when he learned that Nancy had declared
her candidacy.

Just like he's SUPPOSED to.

Can't say the same for the local party.

Not at all.

THEY jumped the gun, and continue to crap all over the primary process.

:hi:

They say they stay out of it if there's a primary, but they haven't.

Howard thinks this is shaping up to be just like the Christine Cegelis-Tammy Duckworth situation in Illinois last time. It certainly is very similar.

In the end, though, I agree that whoever wins the primary will get support from the DNC. Until then, they should stay out of it.

Usually the Governor doesn't get involved in races where there is a primary, which it looked like there was going to be one last time. But when the Nancy went after and got the Governor's endorsement, she sure took it and then used it to knock John Ashcraft out of the race.

So I'm sure she wouldn't mind if the DCCC and DNC get behind the better candidate this time, Gary Peters, right?

Of course, she won't consider graciously stepping aside, like Ashcraft did last time, when the momentum had swung to Nancy. Grace under fire is not one of Nancy's skills.

of endorsing candidates BEFORE a primary. Period.

NOT if they expect to raise money for and from the PARTY AS A WHOLE.

The process has been cheapened.

It isn't time for ANYONE to "graciously" step away yet.


On Edit: The Governor can endorse WHOMever she wants, WHENever she wants.
I don't send money to the Governor, only to have her hand it out
to candidates on her political whims. I don't care who she endorses,
as long as she's not giving them MY money during the PRIMARIES.

Since you haven't responded to my e-mail, Sharon, I thought you might be gone for the holiday. Now that I see you've posted here, looks like you're in town. How about posting the video from the TDC so people can see what Nancy said on her changing Obama's mind on the war in Iraq and compare it to the video of Obama in 2002 and what Nancy said over at DailyKos? That way people can judge Nancy's truthfulness for themselves and see if what Nancy posted on DailyKos vs what the evidence of the video shows.

I see Nancy hasn't responded to my post either. I know you're proud of her performance in Troy. Why not post it for all to see. I'm sure people want to see this woman they support on video going up against Gary Peters.

Nancy could also have beaten Knollenberg if she would have raised the money necessary to be competitive in MI-09. She did not. She will not this time either.

MI-09 is not some crazy republican district. Cooks political reporting rates it R+0 giving no political party an advantage. Nancy would have got the same amount of votes she received if she would have just put her name on the ballot.

Nancy Skinner is a novice. This Race is too important to leave to a candidate with no resume and no credentials, without any endorsements of note and the baggage of a sad loss and the label of Radio talking head.

Nancy Skinner is not a serious candidate if we ignore her she will just go away. Maybe a county commissioner seat will open up, she is qualified for that... almost.

Peters is an obscure ex-state senator and former LOTTERY COMMISSIONER for cripes sake.

Skinner NARROWLY lost her last election while being OUTSPENT nearly SEVEN TO ONE!

And NO help from Rahm Emanuel and the "New Dems" of the DCCC, thank you VERY MUCH!

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/peters-to-challenge-knollenberg-2007-08-08.html

snip>"Peters had been heavily recruited by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which set its eyes upon Knollenberg almost instantly after he beat a relatively unknown challenger, Democrat Nancy Skinner, by only 5 points.

Peters is a former state senator and Navy reservist who narrowly lost an attorney general race in 2002. He was appointed to his current post by Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) but will leave it Friday to accept a part-time position as a professor at Central Michigan University."

Notice I DON'T SLAM Peters OR his supporters.

They have a right to run and VOTE.

After all, this IS a primary.

Jeez.

Nancy Skinner has as much name recognition as Tim Melton. We are not talking about Name recognition here as much as we are talking about who would play best in a general election.

Gary peters Has been an elected official before. Gary served as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy Reserve. He has been awarded Sierra Clubs Environmentalist of the year(which they don't give out every year).

He is a proven leader and a trusted ally on all of our Liberal issues including the environment. He is simply the best person we could have as a Congressman in this race.

Nancy has never been an elected official and the republicans have enough ammo from her talk show and her appearances on tv to blow er back to the stone age. She was a Radio Host who got fired twice ad now wants a comfy job in washington. I don't want someone like that to represent me in congress.

Nancy Skinner is not a serious candidate if we ignore her she will go away.

A couple of threads ago I was leaning toward Peters (as I said, I'm in the wrong district, so take this all for what it's worth).

Your posts here though are giving me a really strong negative association with Peters because they are so over the top obnoxious and unpleasant to read. I don't recall seeing this sort of animosity in our state forum before and I'm sad to see it now.

Nancy seems to wear with pride the fact that she was outspent 7 to 1. That's a BAD thing that she wasn't able to raise the money necessary to beat Knollenberg last time, not a good thing. It's sure something I wouldn't be proud of. And that situation will only be made worse by having a strong candidate like Gary Peters, whose fundraising has been doing very well, raising over $200,000 in six weeks after he got in the race.

She had the wind at her back last time and was only able to raise $400,000.

So here's my question: How does she improve on that performance this time when virtually all the local politicians are supporting Gary Peters? How does she improve on that performance this time, when all the powers that be are behind Gary? Oh, I know, you'll say she was let down last time by the DCCC and find all kinds of excuses why Nancy didn't raise the money necessary last time. She did have union support last time. She had early support from Governor Granholm. But the fact is she had the same chance as anyone else and the only person that was left in at the last minute bowed out, allowing Nancy to not have to face a primary. I think you might want to ask Nancy if she really did do the hard work, getting on the phone and spending the 30 hours a week raising money, that everyone getting into politics says is necessary to have a successful campaign and successful fund raising effort. Maybe it was Nancy that let us down with her lack of direction of her efforts into fund raising, instead of attending public events, etc. Nancy loves to be on stage, but maybe she wasn't doing the hard work behind the scenes necessary to win.

Nancy says she had polling showing her pulling a possible upset and yet in the 6/30/06 fundraising quarter only raised $60,146, according to her FEC report. That is not a strong showing for our "strong" candidate that came within 5% of beating Joe.

And of course you left out the fact that Gary has actually won an election to the Michigan State Senate and was the minority leader during the time of the Engler administration. He's actually passed legislation, was the Sierra Club Environmentalist of the Year for preventing drilling for oil in the U.P. Gary's Senate district included most of the 9th Congressional District.

I'd say Gary has earned his stripes in politics and will represent the citizens of the district well and with distinciton.

"She had the wind at her back last time and was only able to raise $400,000."

Check this out:

I heard that the Goopers are struggling (I think on Ed Schultz in a ref to Fred Thompson, but not sure). The GOP will have to turn the richies upside down and shake the spare change out of them. Fundraising arguments on our side are moot, IMHO.

If my memory serves me right (to quote Iron Chef, a favorite show on TV), he got like 2M, yet he got an ass whoopin'. Why? Do yo have 2 hours to read my post on that? I reckon you do not, so why waiste your time, and mine.

Nancy did her .5 or whatever, and nearly beat the odds. The wave is on our side. To go back to loosing game plans for a non-winner is just nonsense. Bruce, give it up, please.

Did Nancy win an election that I slept through? Nancy is still a loser. Your case is like saying the Lions came close to beating Green Bay, therefore they will beat them next time. That is just faulty logic. But that assume you even know what logic is. My mistake.

Just asking.

Maybe I missed something. How is that relevant to Nancy's fund raising? Are all the people that used to give money to the GOP going to write Nancy checks?

What I thought I was saying was that the fundraising gap has closed between Dems and GOP nationwide. Your constant assertions about fundraising don't carry the kind of weight they once did.

I did not imply GOP givers would give it up for Nancy. It is likely they will sit this election out at all levels, because their party is in the porcelain receptacle. You would do well to listen to folks such as Richard Viguerie. This piece is a good example of why normal GOP givers won't be there this time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901770.html

I am by no means a conservative, but Mr. Viguerie is an extremely sharp dude. Whatevver their politial bent may be, I respect intelligent people.

Nancy should brag about coming so close despite the 7 to 1 fund gap. That gap will close a lot, when it is Skinner or Peters running against Joe. To me, it's about persona. Skinner proved that last time, and she will prove it again.

There's really something ... "unbalanced" ... about the antipathy for Skinner in your posts here. Sheesh ... get over it, bud.

:eyes:

LOL. That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Thanks for cheering up my morning.

Seriously, why don't you people that support Nancy call her or e-mail her and ask her how many hours per week she spent on the phone raising money? If the number isn't at least 30, then she wasn't doing the work of running for office. And if she didn't do it every week, then she didn't do the hard work of running for office.

Ask Nancy the questions in my post, get her answers and then decide if she really did the hard work required of someone running for high office. Oh, and once you get the answers, why don't you post them here for all to read. I think you might find the answers really enlightening. Oh, and don't take anything but the real answers to the questions. If she says she "worked hard", make sure she tells you exactly how many hours she spent on the phone every week talking to potential donors. Ask her to show you the campaign phone bill to back up her statements. Then let us know if you think Nancy is still a good candidate.

Peters has good experience for the job. I don't live in that district, I live in Sander Levin's-I doubt he's going anywhere, as long as he wants to stay in office, I think the voters will keep him.

Nancy needs to get some better endorsements than Marianne Williamson, too. MW's ethics are lacking.

I don't personally know her, or anything about the ethics issue you are referring to, but I know a fair amount of people who definitely would look favorably on that endorsement.