Skip to main content

View Diary: Why are the Democrats Missing Opportunities? (NM-2) (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  50-state strategy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I believe that this exact kind of situation is why Dean is promoting the 50-state strategy.

    •  Will it kick in in the NEXT election cycle? (0+ / 0-)

      I didn't think we could afford to just write off seats.

      •  it takes time (0+ / 0-)

        Dean is trying to drag the entire top-heavy Democratic Party Beltway insider circle jerk into the 50-state strategy, but they're kicking and screaming and fighting all the way - especially those with something to lose.  It's going to take more than one election cycle to get the 50-state strategy fully vested and supported.  In the meantime, potential seats will fall through the cracks. :(

        I want justice
        but I'll settle for some mercy
        - Kris Kristofferson, "Pilgrim's Progress"

        by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:09:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Afford (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        We're targeting more seats in this cycle than we've targeted in the last several years. "Afford" is an interesting word--the national party simply can't afford to target half of the Republican-held seats in the country. They don't have the money, the money buys the people, end of story.

        If Kissling runs a small campaign and pulls a respectable amount against Pearce, this district may move into national sights for '08. But for now, though, I don't see the argument for shifting resources away from a currently targeted seat toward NM-2. Candidate recruitment starts at home and if no one has come forward, you can't blame the national party. And you do need a candidate with some sort of base, hook, or elected history that he can build upon to make it across the 50% line.

      •  We literally can't afford NOT to write off seats. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The maximum amount of funds that all Democratic candidates and the Democratic party can raise is far less than the maximum amount the Republican party can raise. That's why the DCCC has to make tough choices on which seats to contest based on (among other things), whether the seat is open or how popular the incumbent is, how good of a candidate can be recruited, and how Democratic-leaning the district is.

        These are the districts currently (or in the case of CA-50, last) represented by a Republican that I don't think the DCCC has written off (probably an over-estimate, but I don't want to underestimate)
        AZ-5, AZ-8, CA-4, CA-11, CA-26, CA-50, CO-4, CO-7, CT-2, CT-4, CT-5, FL-8, FL-9, FL-13, FL-16, FL-22, IL-6, IL-10, IL-11, IN-2, IN-8, IN-9, IA-1, KS-2, KY-2, KY-3, KY-4, LA-7, MI-8, MN-1, MN-2, MN-6, MT-AL, NE-1, NV-2, NV-3, NH-1, NH-2, NJ-5, NJ-7, NM-1, NY-19, NY-20, NY-24, NY-25, NY-26, NY-29, NC-8, NC-11, OH-1, OH-12, OH-14, OH-15, OH-18, OK-5, PA-4,  PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, PA-10, TX-22, VA-2, VA-10, VA-11, WA-8, WI-8, WY-AL (67 districts)

        If we can win 1/4 of these districts, we'll probably win the House.

        Don't take my bluntness and attitude personally-the best weapon for the Democrats is the unvarnished truth, and the truth usually hurts.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 09:20:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm glad they've not written off CA-11 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          What Pombo does affects everyone - especially in the West.  Pearce is merely his minor flunky, and not so likely to do major damage on his own.  Could be wrong of course.  But if I had a choice, and could send but one of them packing, it would be Pombo - no contest!!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site