Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

              •  You seem incapable of following an argument ... (0+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Hidden by:
                ... even your own. No point in further discussion.

                None Dare Call It Stupid!

                by RonK Seattle on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:32:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well that is one thing ... (0+ / 0-)

                  I can agree with you on no point in further discussion -- your posts have devolved into insult and nothing else, although they started that way as well.  I have lost patience with you.  You are being a troll and I am rating you accordingly.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site