Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections SC-01 special election liveblog thread #3: Mark Sanford wins (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm really glad we wasted $2 million bucks on this (4+ / 0-)

    oh wait... the DCCC should never have spent here as I've always maintained. Outside groups could have banked that million to spend on Ann Callis in IL-13 or Andrew Romanoff in CO-06, but no. Oh well, maybe I'll get lucky and work there one day and make the decisions and you guys can trash my mistakes on a message board somewhere :)

    •  ^^^THIS......is completely wrong (21+ / 0-)

      The DCCC did the right thing.  They did their job, which was to play hard in any and every competitive U.S. House election.  And this was a competitive U.S. House election.  For them not to play here would've been political malpractice.  The only time you cut loose your own candidate is if the candidate is scandal-plagued and a liability personally no matter the outcome, which is why the NRCC cut loose Sanford.  That was not the case with ECB.

      The money is a nothingburger.  It's the off-year, the DCCC is doing an excellent job fundraising, they have all the time in the world, and they're smart enough to go into debt and take out a loan to win elections as a general election gets close...since they exist in perpetuity, they're always around to pay off the debt later.

      45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Tue May 07, 2013 at 06:00:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sure folks like John Ewing (NE-02) and (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jncca, Big River Bandido, erush1345

        Larry Kissell share your perspective. It's self defeating to play where you can win once but never again when it does cost you in terms of spending for other seats. Sure it's the off year and let's say the DCCC only raised 60% of what they spent if it weren't advertised as against Mark Sanford. They should have known this would be an 18 month rental with someone who could never vote with us on anything major, whereas we could hold a district like CO-06 or IL-13 for several years with a solid Dem and it would contribute to a majority if we ever win one under these lines.

        SC-01 was never going to contribute to a majority as Sanford wasn't going to always be their candidate. Or put another way, do you think ECB wouldn't be #1 on their triage list in 2014?

        So I ask again, why was it worth playing here when we were never going to count this seat as part of our majority when there are plenty of other better opportunities. Winning for its own sake is all sorts of shortsighted.

        •  Here's the problem with this logic (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          myboo, mrsgoo, marshstars, gabjoh, Munchkn

          It sounds fitting "save money here and there" and fight the races you can win.  In the end, the DCCC may preserve their money with the districts they think they have a shot at.

          But the goal isn't "only invest in districts we will hold forever" you invest in a district because their are democrats who LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT.   Those same democrats vote, send money to the national party, and care about the message.

          Look at it this way:  In Kansas, five years ago we had two democrats in the House of Representatives.   Dennis Moore served for several terms, and Nancy Boyda served just one..

          So the question would be: why run Boyda if she could only win one term?   Because one term is two years.   One term is two years of representation of a viewpoint within the house.  If you win quite a few seats, even if you just hold them for two years, you've won quite a few seats for two years... and sometimes, that's what it will take to change things.

          When Dennis Moore first won in his district, people thought he wouldn't last two years.. nearly a decade later, he was still there.

          That's how this works.. you can't worry about "future elections will be unwinnable".  

          "Winning for it's own sake is short-sited", well, that's only true if you don't live in that district and you don't want someone with your ideals to represent you.  If you do, it's not a matter of shortsighted or taking a long view, it's seeking representation that matches your beliefs.

          Whether the DCCC or others support it, in a representative democracy everyone feels the need to be represented by someone who represents their views.

          Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

          by Chris Reeves on Tue May 07, 2013 at 06:33:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, but boyda was part of a majority (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stephen Wolf

            ECB wouldn't be. We can't get a majority before 2014.

            20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
            politicohen.com
            Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
            UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

            by jncca on Tue May 07, 2013 at 06:39:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You don't assume an incumbent will be doomed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NMLib, Munchkn, Jacques Kallis

          Your kind of thinking in this subthread would guarantee Democrats stay a permanent minority if the DCCC folks shared it.

          You win the seat now, you have one more Democrat in the House for the rest of this Congress.  That's worth something for its own sake.  Then you worry about the next election later, but you don't just assume a scandal-free incumbent in a non-wave year is doomed, because they usually aren't.  We have a recent history of holding seats like this for more than one term, even if sometimes by pure luck.  Chet Edwards was purposely redistricted into oblivion in the early 2000s along with 4 Democratic colleagues in the state, and yet he survived and would go on to survive the decade before finally losing in the 2010 wave.

          People here routinely complain when the DCCC doesn't invest in a district.  You're doing just that above!  But hinsdight is 20-20, the DCCC simply didn't see signs of a Ewing surge, and Larry Kissell was a lazy candidate who looked dead in the water to everyone for a long time in a remapped nightmare of a district even after bucking his party on some votes.

          I won't say the DCCC doesn't make a few mistakes.  With so many races going on, a few are inevitable, probably in every cycle.  But this wasn't one.  And most of the DCCC critics I see on the internet over the years, including many on Daily Kos (although less so DKE) would make far, far, far more mistakes than the DCCC ever does.

          45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Tue May 07, 2013 at 07:59:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site