Skip to main content

View Diary: DCCC fails Schrader (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  C'mon (none)
    You are implying that the DCCC might push her out because they are afraid she might win. Is that really what you think is going on here?  C'mon.

    I'd say a more likely explination is that, assuming they do try to find another candidate, it's because they believe that she CAN NOT win (based on her fundraising and other reasons we are not privvy to that are specific to her and the district)

    2 other points:

    1) We have no idea if there is something like Torricelli's problems in her closet.  I doubt may of us here know as much about her vulnerabilities as the DCCC.

    2) Torch didn't get dumped because he was under investigation. He got dumped because he couldn't win.  We've let plenty of candidates stay on the ballot who are under investigation because we believe in innocent until proven guilty... or proven likely to lose.

    •  no (none)
      I'm not suggesting they are forcing her out because they think she'll make trouble if she does win.  I'm just saying that any effort to select the best candidate to run for the race should happen well before the primary, and then you back off a let a true primary race happen and the voters pick the nominee.

      Upthread I posted my frustration with party chairs meddling in/predetermining the results of primaries in WA state.  So I'm coming into this topic with a fair bit of baggage already.

      Long story short, vet your candidates for all races early, then let there be a fair primary.  

    •  District Race Now Competitive (3.75)
      The issue isn't that Schrader isn't electable.  The issue is that the district is now very winnable. Timid candidates who refused to dirty their "electability" reputations before now feel it is their due to be placed on the ballot.  If the DCCC is pressuring her to step aside, it's because someone is playing politics and checking off a political debt by enabling some other "worthy" to be placed on the ballot in what is likely an easy win.

      This situation is no different than whan Clinton won the Presidential nomination in 1992 because other, quite frankly, more qualified and electable, candidates chose to sit out the 1992 race.  Clinton was presented with a gift in 1992 - Bush Pere's tin ear regarding elections and a soft economy and Ross Perot.  Clinton had no crystal ball telling him in 1990 that such a concantenation of advantages would shower upon him in 1992.  He just happened to win the primaries.  Who would have demanded he step aside in 1992 so that another candidate could take his place.  Just as the party rallied around Clinton, the party should rally around Schrader.  Period.  

    •  Crap (4.00)
      If they knew she was laden with that kind of baggage... where was their candidate for the primary?  Where was the public unloading of her skeleton closet?

      Why didn't her Republican opponent slag her with it already?

      You're creating a hypothetical and running wild with it.

      I've been involved in a couple candidacies that remind me of what I see of Ginny's.  Good, decent, normal folks who've had enough and can't afford to do this... take up their lances to go after windmills anyway.  And sometimes, they get one of those SOBs.

      Yeah, it's the DCCC's job to vette candidates and recruit them and so on and so forth.

      Before the goddamned primary is over.  Not just when one of our quixotic candidates has a windfall.  Dammit, this kind of thing happens.  It happens all the time.  Every election there are unexpected drop-outs and retirements.  You get to take advantage of them by being prepared, by assuming that each and every one of those races might be one of the windfalls, and being ready to catch it.

      Schrader got lucky--and so did the DCCC, and they ought to be halfway to the goal already, running like hell to lock this one up.  Not dicking around looking half ready to investigate navel-lint.  Gee, I dunno, we dunno, we'll figure it out soon and we're sure we'll have an answer.

      The penalty good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. -- Plato

      by ogre on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 09:25:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe its about money (none)
        Maybe the DCCC thought she'd be able to have more than $7K in the bank through 6/30.  I know I look at that figure of a remarkably ill-prepared candidate.
        •  If it's about money... (none)
          then the DCCC has fallen down on the job.  Who is supposed to help "make rain" for the candidates?  Particularly for a new candidate?

          And if money's the issue... then the $3000-$3500 an hour rate ought to get some respect.  It WILL draw more money behind it--both from the blogs and from people who will donate when they can see that other people have donated.

          If it's all about money then why a lukewarm DCCC embrace?  Money's a problem that CAN be solved.

          Lack of a candidate, lack of a competent candidate--those are killer issues.

          The penalty good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. -- Plato

          by ogre on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What lukewarm embrace? (none)
            I think you are reading WAY too much into those comments (and you are not alone in that).

            As I understand it, a reporter asked Greg Speed about a rumor he had heard, Greg Speed said he knew nothing about the rumor, and the reporter chose to print it as "no comment".  How does that constitute a lukewarm response?  He actually said some good things about our prospects of winning that seat -- his only sin was not commenting on a rumor that he wasn't familiar with.  

            Should the policy of the DCCC be to deny every rumor that a reporter poses to them?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site