Skip to main content

View Diary: DCCC fails Schrader (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Give me a break (4.00)
    Ginny won the primary. She's the Democratic candidate. I'm sure she's no one's "sacrificial lamb". You suggest that she might withdraw because she now has a chance to win. Why would anyone expect her to do that?

    There's too much analysis going on about this race. The community's instinct was right. "There's an opportunity here let's go for it". Ginny is the hand we were dealt and that's who we go with. It's crazy to waste this opportunity by writing the race off because of anyone's judgement that she's a marginal candidate -- and I'm certainly angry at any attempt by the pros to strong arm her out of the race, which would be the implication of replacing her.

    The best intentions in the world, placed on a shelf, are worthless.

    by chuco35 on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 03:22:49 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  RE: (none)
      Of course there are sacrificial lambs in House races and given her money on hand (upthread I learned it what under $10K) no one was taking her chances very seriously.  I would be interested to read how Mr. Liberal or other House watchers handicapped this race prior to Greenwood pulling out.

      If you are curious about other sacrificial lambs check out any number of safe House seats on either side of the aisle.  I will give you one:  

      Katherine Fox Carr (D) running against Dan Burton in the IN-5th.

      Raised:  $2,317  
      Spent:  $2,464  
      Cash on hand:  $63  
      Last Report:  4/14/2004  

      She won the Democratic primary as well, which is a race every two years to be a sacrificial lamb to go against Burton.

      There are many of them out there and I would supsect that Schrader fit the definition prior to Greenwood pulling out.  

      This politics - this is about winning back the House - this is about Pelosi as Speaker - the stakes couldn't be higher.

      If Scharder is a solid candidate, fine - she should win this open seat in a lean Democrat district (Gore carried it by what 50,000?  Nice).  If she is not a solid candidate, and there are many out there who run, (think "Champ" Walker down in GA-12 in 2002 who was upset by Burns-R in a heavy Democratic district), and she loses, then we are going to be thinking about
      "what if".  

      Yet, at the end of the day, I still can't help but think that she deserves this run, but I will be holding my breath hoping she performs up to the opportunity given her as it is a golden one.

      ... now watch this drive.

      by jg on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 03:37:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Deserves (3.50)
        "Yet, at the end of the day, I still can't help but think that she deserves this run..."

        "Deserves" is not an applicable word in this situation, IMHO.  It should always be about us, not about our politicians.

        That said, I obviously agree with much of your post.  And it would obviously be a better feel-good / rags-to-riches story if she is indeed a solid candidate and she wins the seat.

        But as you correctly note, this should be about winning the seat, nothing more and nothing less.  It shouldn't be about what Ginny Schrader deserves, and it shouldn't be about the blogosphere's outstanding fundraising response on Monday.

        •  You're right (none)
          it should be about whether she's a solid candidate, but not about the D-trips judgement as to whether she can win -- or whether someone else has a better chance.

          And of course it's about winning the seat. But why should some politician/analyst strong-arm a perfectly good candidate simply because they think they know better, when they've shown otherwise too many times?

          It seems to me that our party would send a terrible message of crass opportunism if Ginny were forced out, and we shouldn't do it unless it's absolutely necessary because of some character or other similar electoral fault

          The best intentions in the world, placed on a shelf, are worthless.

          by chuco35 on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 04:04:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: You're right (3.00)
            "it should be about whether she's a solid candidate, but not about the D-trips judgement as to whether she can win -- or whether someone else has a better chance."

            Given that this decision needs to be made in a matter of days, if not hours, who else is going to figure out whether she's a solid candidate except the DCCC.  That's their job.  That's what they're there for.

            •  but (none)
              if she wasn't a good candidate, why didn't they say anything in April?  I'm not saying she isn't good or credible, but if she isn't then the DCCC should have worried about that before, instead of just now that the race is more favorable to them.  Why not put up credible candidates across the country in the first place instead of letting races you deem unwinnable be run by nincompoops who will make people with progressive values seem like idiots?

              Always put up a credible candidate from the get go, otherwise you'll make the voters think dems are loony, which will make your job for statewide and national races that much harder.

              •  Beause... (none)
                ...the DCCC doesn't worry about seats, because of multiple factors, that they know they have no chance of winning.

                With Greenwood in the race--and he ran in the primary, then dropped out after so he could take a job, so fuck him for disprespecting his constituents--this was much less winnable than probably 80-100 seats in the country.  So, the DCCC isn't even the entity that would really worry about fielding a sacrificial lamb candidate, that usually falls to the state party.  

        •  How can you dismiss a legitmately won primary... (3.80)
          ,, with a statement like, "this should be about winning the seat?

          Democracy be damned, eh?

          What the fuck country am I living in?  I'm reading you and a couple of other party shills suggesting that we overturn official election results so we can run the candidate of choice for Washington party elites.

          What kind of message does that send to voters in Pennsylvania?

          "Fuck you.  Who needs voters?  We'll pick the candidates... understand?"

          For christ sake, get behind her and make it work.

          Reading this thread makes me think we've switched parties.

          What a load of crap.

          •  100% Agree (none)
            Forget this hard-nosed stuff. Let's have some faith in democracy. I'm speaking party-wide, I'm not trying to disparage individuals who don't have any control over the strategy. Why can't our party let our primary-elected candidates know that we will back them 100% unless they do something illegal or unethical? Or even if there was not enough interest for a primary, shouldn't we honor the person who stepped up for the thankless job of running for an unwinnable seat? Wouldn't that be a morale-booster for the many sacrifical lamb candidates all over the country? Shouldn't back room deals be out of style already?
        •  she won the primary (3.20)
          "Deserves" is not an applicable word in this situation, IMHO.

          She deserves it because she won the primary.
          I notice that you and you apologists and/or sock puppets (who are here because of the money yourselves, certainly not because of any deep seated belief in participatory democracy) absolutely refuse to address this central fact.
          Instead you spin base motives and attribute them to the guy whose blog this is as a distraction.

          Really low.

          "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

          by colleen on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:04:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site