Skip to main content

View Diary: Stuart Rothenberg flashback (126 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  I'm almost sorry... (0+ / 0-)

      ...that this takeback is happening in 2006 and not 2008, because the Rothenbergs are bound to say that it's due to Iraq, Foley, whatever.

      And in doing so they will miss one of the greatest features that commends the fifty state strategy to anyone interested in long term political change: what happens when the Democratic challenger loses?

      Democratic losses would be the time for a Rothenberg to crow. It would be another two years before the wisdom of challenging the "unbeatable" incumbents became clear, because two years later, they'd be a little less unbeatable for some strange reason. And two years after that, they'd be beaten.

      This victory may come too quickly and too dramatically to really teach a Rothenberg the real lesson: that it's not necessarily the current election you're expecting to win when you challenge a strong incumbent.

      •  PS it's not necessarily even that district (0+ / 0-)

        ..that you expect to win. As a national party you can be tying up national RNC resources (money, heavy-hitter face time, the incumbent's own face time in his fellow's districts) that can make the difference between winning and losing in those very "battleground" districts that a Rothenberg claims are so vital to winning.

        If a battleground district is important enough to spend Democratic effort on, isn't it important enough to siphon Republican effort away from?

        Especially since a Democratic volunteer in "Republican-safe" Wyoming (say) can hardly be asked to trek to Ohio and help in the good fight, but she can help right at home in Wyoming as well as if she were there on the battleground.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site