Skip to main content

View Diary: CA-11: When is national intervention (DCCC) necessary? (w/poll) (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Eh? What's their motivation? (0+ / 0-)
    Why should they raise the money and make the effort and share the tools?

    None Dare Call It Stupid!

    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 02, 2006 at 02:20:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  you mean (0+ / 0-)
      getting more Democrats into office isn't going to make life easier for them?

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Tue May 02, 2006 at 03:09:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Suppose 'supporting the primary winner' ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ... were the best path to the goal of "getting more Dem's into office".

        Don't you then suppose they would already be doing that?

        And since they're already not doing that, don't you suppose it's just possibly not the best path to that goal?

        None Dare Call It Stupid!

        by RonK Seattle on Tue May 02, 2006 at 05:27:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, look at the path they have taken ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... up until now!  That hasn't exactly won us majorities, has it?  I like Dean's 50 state plan, which was also fought against by the powers that be in the Democratic Party.  It's time Democrats realize new strategies are in order.

          •  Nonsense on all points (0+ / 0-)
            The 50 state strategy is not premised on losing races and making it up in volume. It's not based on competing in losing races either. (It's based on building party organization - at the potential short-run expense of losing races.)

            The "powers that be" have remained competitive on a playing field that is tilted in the other side's favor (and further tilted by "progressive" vandals).

            And if traditional strategies were provably ineffective (which is demonstrably not proven), that wouldn't prove that the next guy who pipes up with an untested strategy is any better.

            And y9u still haven't offered any explanation for why the DCCC would deliberately adopt a more difficult and less effective path to their goal, cycle after cycle after cycle.

            None Dare Call It Stupid!

            by RonK Seattle on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:54:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Never said ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ... that the 50 state strategy was premised on "losing races and making it up in volume."  I said that the powers that be in the DCCC were against it -- and lately that has changed somewhat, a particular example being when Bill Clinton finally agreed with Dean on this strategy.

              You say that traditional strategies have not been "proven" to be ineffective -- well we don't have a majority in congress or the senate; how much proof do you want?  Being competitive means nothing if we don't win.  As for your comment about "progressive vandals," I shall give it the attention it deserves: none.

              I don't see why backing the winners of primaries is necessarily a more difficult and less effective path than the DCCC promoting their own people in state races for federal office.  Makes more sense to me to back home-grown winners who really represent their constituents than to put someone in there who represents more of a debt to the DCCC than to those constituents.

              •  Unmitigated word-salad confusion (0+ / 0-)
                Backwards: I didn't claim that backing winners of primaries was more difficult and less effective. Just the opposite. A "back primary winners" strategy requires no decisions and no effort. If it's an equally productive (or more productive) strategy at the polls, no need to explain why DCCC hasn't adopted it after umpteen generations of trial and error.

                The question won't go away: Why do you suppose "the powers that be" (elected House Democrats) are deliberately trying to lose winnable races (via their empowered and funded representative, the DCCC)?

                You still have no idea what the 50 state strategy is. It has nothing to do with automatically deferring to local party preference ... and nothing to do with the question we're discussing.

                As to "proof", the natural concentration of Democrats in urban districts (plus the artificial construction of majority-minority districts) puts us at an electoral disadvantage -- estimated at 25 seats in a 50/50 election.

                As to "progreessive vandals", consider Nader 2000 -- without whom we would currently hold the White House, the Senate, and probably the House (all within the strategy set you roundly disparage).

                And yes, "back primary winners" is a bid to ignore other factors that distinguish general election winners ... so you are proposing to lose races and make it up in volume. You might be able to make an argument in favor of this -- but you haven't.

                None Dare Call It Stupid!

                by RonK Seattle on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:26:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh calm down with your salad fantasies. (0+ / 0-)

                  You are again mischaracterizing what I said.  I have not said that the 50 state strategy had anything to do with "deferring to local party preferences."  I used it only as an example that perhaps the DCCC is not always right -- they were against that strategy and now are beginning to come around.

                  Agree with you about Nader, but the use of the term "progressive vandals" is misleading and, I believe, not particularly helpful.

                  You ask why I "suppose" that the elected house Democrats are "deliberately trying to lose winnable races."  I am not supposing this.  I am saying that the DCCC does not have all the answers, their strategies in the past have not given us the majority that we need, and there is definitely room for new ideas in that strategy.

                  •  You aren't saying much anymore (0+ / 0-)
                    You're not saying DCCC strategies are responsible for the failure to gain a majority.

                    You're not saying you have a better idea, or that a different idea, i.e., staying out, would produce better results.

                    You're not saying anything, anymore, as far as I can tell, about the ostensible subject of this diary: the assertion that DCCC should never play favorites in district races.

                    None Dare Call It Stupid!

                    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:45:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And you are saying something? (0+ / 0-)


                      Well of course the DCCC strategies bear their share of responsibility for our failure to gain a majority -- who else could be responsible seeing as the DCCC had the power and made the decisions on strategy?

                      All I said (and am still saying) is that the DCCC should be more in tune with the constituents of the states in which they are working.  You don't seem to be against the 50 state strategy - and the DCCC certainly was against it at first.  The question was not just that the DCCC should "never play favorites" in district races.  The question was asked when should the DCCC intervene?  You are mischaracterizing what I say as well as the question asked in this diary.

                      The only thing I am saying is that the DCCC could use some new strategies, and agreeing with the diarist in this instance.

                      •  Back to the salad bar, w/ unlimited seconds (0+ / 1-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hidden by:
                        ... and a side order of amnesia.

                        I gave two important explanatory factors (other than DCCC strategy) for our failure to gain a majority.

                        And you could read up through the thread to reacquaint yourself with the terms of the argument.

                        None Dare Call It Stupid!

                        by RonK Seattle on Wed May 03, 2006 at 02:37:34 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Aside from your rather ... (0+ / 0-)

                          ... odd fixation on salads and other weird metaphors ...

                          I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went through the thread to see if you had said anything substantive about how you think Democrats can win. You have said nothing.  Your "two explanatory factors" are progressive vandals and electoral disadvantages.  You do not in any way show how these problems are better addressed by the present DCCC strategy.

        •  well, for starters (0+ / 0-)

          those primary winners might not be members of their faction, or loyal to the same folks. thus "good for party" ends up being defined in terms of "good for my faction's interests."

          crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

          by wu ming on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:38:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  your faith (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          in everybody in the Democratic Party leadership who isn't named Howard Dean is both touching and appears to be faith-based, given that we do not control the Senate, House, and White House.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Wed May 03, 2006 at 01:47:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I outlined an argument from evidence (0+ / 0-)
            Mutually observable, mutually accessible evidence
            ... and I requested an evidence-based response to same.

            BTW, you don't see Howard Dean chiming in on your side of the issue, do you?

            Dean wants to win. What do you want?

            None Dare Call It Stupid!

            by RonK Seattle on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:06:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you doubt (0+ / 0-)
              the truth of my observations that the House, Senate, and White House are in GOP hands?

              Is Google your friend?

              Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

              by alizard on Wed May 03, 2006 at 05:18:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site