I Am Very Worried About 2006

The Democratic primary in the IL-06 was not supposed to be close. I travel to DC often these days (in fact, I am about to leave for DC now), and from everyone I had talked to down there, I was told more or less the same thing: Duckworth will win this primary, and win it huge. I did not have access to the data they were using to make that assessment, but I also did not question it. A big Duckworth victory made sense. She had the support of every major elected Democrat in Illinois. She had the support of the DCCC. She was endorsed by every major union and progressive advocacy organization. She had more money. She had a lot more free media. In pretty much every measure I cold think of, she looked very strong. It seemed as though nearly every Democratic and progressive organization that works to elect Democrats and progressives was behind her. A few months ago, I floated the idea of the netroots getting behind Cegalis full-force to a few other bloggers, but after we had all heard pretty much the same stories on how Duckworth was going to cruise, we agreed it probably wasn't a very good idea. Better to focus our resources elsewhere.

Last night, however, something happened that made me extremely worried about our electoral prospects nationwide in 2006. Nearly the full-force of the Democratic and progressive electoral apparatus "succeeded" in only helping Duckworth win 44% of the vote in the Democratic primary. This wasn't the blow out I was told it was going to be. This wasn't the blowout I imagined it would be considering the establishment support Duckworth had. It wasn't even close to a blowout. It looks like the final margin will be somewhere around 1,000-1,100 votes. IT was very close, and it was a real nailbiter.

This makes me very worried about 2006. The same people and the same organizations who supported Duckworth remain in charge of winning elections of nearly every Democrat nationwide in 2006. If they produce anemic results like this in IL-06, what results can we expect across the country in November? Believe me, whatever group of rag-tag GOTV activists Cegalis had in this election, using their theocon grassroots, the Republican machine will more than match that nationwide in 2006.

We can't win if we continue to operate like this. The netroots and grassroots can't win by themselves, and the Democratic electoral establishment is hardly any better. At some point, there is going to have to be a way for us to work together, or we are just going to keep losing and losing and losing. We can't go on like this. We can't win without them, and they can't win without us. There has to be a way for us to work together, but that doesn't mean just treating the netroots like an ATM, not even mentioning the name of our candidates on official literature, or simplistic, authoritarian demands that we all "fall in line." There is an activist class war taking place in the Democratic Party--I can see it even happening in my own neighborhood. Those who currently hold sway over the movement better recognize that it is happening as well, and they better be willing to work with the people who make their position possible. We can't simply continue to be told to go back and keep toiling in the volunteer activist salt mines. Something needs to be done to solve this mess. I'm sure there are thing that both sides can do, but the overwhelming onus to fix this situation and create some sort of détente rests on those people who currently control the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. You have to find a way to show us that you care, that you appreciate our efforts, and that you are willing to work together. My suggestion from last night probably won't fly, but whatever the solution is, the ball is in the court of the establishment, and they need to think of something.



Display:


Next question. (3.00 / 21)

Before you spend too much time worrying about what the establishment can and can't deliver and how you and the netroots can fix it, maybe you need to ask yourself why you and the bloggers you're counting on to make the big paradigm shift decided to buy the line you were hearing in DC and back off.

Saying you're worried about institutional Democrats' ability to deliver in '06 is an applause line.

Seriously assessing your ability to do anything about it is a real project.


by Kagro X on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:15:45 AM EST

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Bingo.


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:32:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (3.00 / 1)

Or mayube the "Top Bloggers" don't add up to much more than coffee clutches for dweebs.


DAGGER
by goplies on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:43:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bingo 2 (none / 0)

This seems to be the constructive way of approaching this.


by tparty on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:44:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (1.00 / 1)

Perhaps I am wrong, but Kagro X also bought the line from DC.  This is not entirely the fault of Bowers.


by illinois062006 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:46:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Yeah, perhaps you're wrong. Not that it would make any difference. The point of my comment wasn't that I'm infallible and everyone else is a chump. It was that all bloggers should be examining their potential for creating change and assessing it honestly.

But to get back to your issue, would you like to tell us all what line I bought and when?


by Kagro X on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

But you did not fully support Cegelis.  And neither did DHinMI and a whole group of DailyKos bloggers.  


by illinois062006 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

No, I didn't. But we're talking about people who supported her generally, but backed off because they thought she couldn't win.

I never supported her, period. I didn't support anybody. So it's a little difficult to rationally accuse me of being soft in my support because I bought someone's line. There was no support at all, soft or otherwise.


by Kagro X on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

But you did not support her, and you created a very difficult environment for Cegelis supporters.  As a result, you were part of the problem, not part of the solution, as were DKos posters such as DHinMI, AnnArborBlue, VirginiaBell, Kos and others.


by illinois062006 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 03:37:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

No, I didn't support her. But that's not my job, and I don't owe it to anyone.

Nor do I agree with your assessment of my creating a "difficult environment" for Cegelis supporters. Those I discussed the campaign with caught my attention because they were creating a difficult environment for themselves and their candidate, by approaching their advocacy irresponsibly. As a result, they were as much a part of the problem as anyone.

There are a few Cegelis supporters who can attest to the time I spent with them trying to improve matters, and thereby improve their advocacy.

If there's any point to individual participation in the blogosphere at all, it's that nobody but nobody is entitled to anything from us, simply because they show up on the blogs and claim to represent "the grassroots."

From an early date, many Cegelis supporters dug themselves and their candidates into a hole, fueled by their own outrage, that some never found their way out of. Right up to the primary, there were people continuing to fling utter bullshit around in the name of "fighting the DCCC" or what have you who did more damage to themselves and their candidate than was ever done by any of the people you'd like to blame for Cegelis' loss.

I don't owe you or Cegelis a thing. I don't have to support her just because I use blogs, and her supporters claim she's the "netroots" candidate. You and anyone else who ever hopes to run on "netroots" support had better get that straight ASAP.


by Kagro X on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 12:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with your first comment on this thread... (none / 0)

The question is-why was Mr. Bowers so willing to buy into the establishment CW? The leaders of the political blogosphere are going to have to decide whether they want to be agents of real change, or just want to wedge themselves into the front table.

Also, although off the topic of this comment, I'm wondering why the support for Duckworth was so lukewarm? I didn't pay much attention to this race and I'm really curious.


by bobbyk on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 08:22:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (3.00 / 3)

To me, it's not about bloggers. It's about the people on the ground in the state or the district. You ignore them at your own risk.


by anastasiap on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Real Fear of a stay-home liberal base (3.00 / 1)

The Dem. establishment is confident at the end of the day that the liberal/progressive base of the party will come out an vote for those the establishment has chosen as 'safe enough' (read DLC moderate) to vote for.  We are completely taken for granted.

The Repubs understand that their TheoCon base is subject to staying home and they feed and care for their base, although sometimes in only symbolic ways.

The Dem. establishment won't pay attention to the netroots/grassroots until they feel real fear (or respect) for the liberal base of the party.  They probably don't even know how many Dems have already written off Dem. politics as irrelevant to their concerns.  

The Dem. establishment hasn't yet learned and accepted the necessity of a worked-up and active base - they are concentrated on the important Independent vote.  Meanwhile the Independent vote is looking more like the Dem. base vote, in poll after poll.

What would it take to get the Dem. establishment to pay attention to the liberal/progressive wing of the party?  Would a crushing loss (again) caused by a stay-home base send the message?

Or, will the liberal base bend over once again and vote for non-fighting, non-principled, me-too candidates put forth by the DLC-style leadership?


"Pay any price, bear any burden"
by JimPortlandOR on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Real Fear of a stay-home liberal base (none / 0)

The bottom line is the electorate is divided on deeply partisan lines and the chasm cannot be bridged. There are no swing voters.

As a result elections are won narrowly and the difference is who gets a better performance in turning out their base voters.

The Repubs have done better because they cater to their base and play to that base. The Dems have lost elections as they shun their base and play to the mythical swing voter.

Unless this changes soon the generic ballot strength that the Dems see currently will vaporize in Nov as the Dems base will not turn out in the numbers to make the difference in closely fought races.

I predict that Duckworth will lose in Nov as the Cegelis grassroots will not come out in strength to offset the Repubs advantage. And the likelihood of this happening across the country is very high.

The Dems DC establishment and consultants seem to repeat the failures of every recent election in continuing to believe that Dems need to have Repub-lite candidates and non-confrontational campaigns and that the Dems base have no choice so will come around at the end. Since, electoral victories are so narrow those few percentage points that decide win/loss are lacking for Dems as their base is never truly energized enough to come out in strength. Unfortunately as we are seeing in the primaries right now, this looks like another repeat of the playbook for Nov 2006.


by ab initio on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:13:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Bravo-  totaly agree.  Love the applause line bit.


by guero on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (3.00 / 3)

Actually all Chris's comment demonstrates is how out of touch he is with the residents of that district.  

There were an awful lot of people who supported Christine Cegelis because she has been right there still campaigning for the last 2 years after running against Henry Hyde in the last election WITHOUT assistance from the DCCC and proving that it could be done.

The only real disappointment is that the DCCC didn't pick some other district in Illinois that needed a hero representative and we could have had 2 Democratic pickup seats instead of one.

And no, I don't live anywhere near the IL 6th but I have some very good friends who do live in that district and they are pissed, truly pissed at the DCCC.

I don't think there's anything that the DCCC can do to win them back.  Will they vote for Duckworth over a Republican candidate? Yes -- BUT the DCCC will never see a donation from them again in their lifetimes.

I don't think any general analogies can be drawn between the performance of the DCCC-selected candidate in this district and any other districts.


by dwahzon on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 10:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

You are right.

I got hosed. I got fooled. And I let everyone down as a result. I should have known better, but I didn't. Trust me when I say it won't happen again.


by Chris Bowers on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Well, I'm sure your support would have been welcomed, and probably valuable to some extent. But it was up to them to win this thing, so I wouldn't beat yourself up too much.

The real point of my comment was to prompt an assessment of just how valuable your support is, and what, if anything, could be done next time to make it valuable enough to actually sway a race like this one.

This is the unfinished business of last cycle. A post-mortem on the Dean/kos/anybody else Dozen. An inquiry into whether online fundraising is as powerful as it needs to be, and how it squares with our insistence that "we're not an ATM." Thinking about how online advocacy works, and how to make it more effective.

One of the things that I think handicapped Cegelis' supporters online was their early proclivity for some truly low-ball attacks on Duckworth. I know we all love the freewheeling nature of the blogs, and we hate "message control," but it was my impression that a lot of potential out-of-district online support slipped away over the base nature of these attacks. Plus, by the end, there was an unmistakable backlash against the DCCC-bashing. People got sick of it, whether it was deserved or not. It even worked against some other candidates who came around trying to make the same case about their primaries.

I encountered a lot of resistance from Cegelis supporters to whom I suggested things like, "Hey, let's maybe not make jokes about the fact that Duckworth has had her legs blown off, eh?" Or that maybe the hay you could make out of saying that Duckworth "refuses to move into the district" wasn't worth the backlash that might come when people find out the reason she wouldn't move (her friends and neighbors had just finished remodeling her home for handicapped access at their own expense). The most frequent response? "Fuck you! I'm speaking truth to power!"

Not good. And while I doubt it had anything to do with the outcome of the race, if there's any role to be played by the blogs at all, this race warrants a second look at things like this.


by Kagro X on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 12:09:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (3.00 / 1)

Absolute BS.  Cegelis supporters were strong proponents of our candidate, but we did not attack Duckworth.

Go back and re-read the posts on Cegelis' behalf, and then tell me with a straight face that we attacked Duckworth.  We attacked insane people who said they liked Duckworth because she was "hot".  We attacked the Democratic establishment.  We said Duckworth was a "made" candidate, which is true.  We said she had a "campaign in a can", a phrase that came from Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet, and is also true.

If that's "attacking" Duckworth, you ain't seen an attack.

Our fervent support of Cegelis didn't turn anybody off.  Those who pretend that it did have some agenda other than letting the people decide who is best for their district.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com


by Caro on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 04:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Oh really? Absolute BS? Nobody ever did it? That's a pretty sweeping statement. Are you sure you want to stand by the assertion that nobody, anywhere, ever attacked Duckworth?

I can point you right now to Bob Brigham's very commendable condemnation of just such an attack, made just days before the primary. And that's just something I can grab for you offhand.

Their style of "support" absolutely did turn people off. Me, for one.

Now, if you've got some credible evidence of my "agenda," let's lay it out onthe table. Whatcha got?


by Kagro X on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 12:42:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (3.00 / 1)

Kagro, I was going to call you a bad name, but I just want to be clear.  NOBODY who supported Christine agreed with Tim the Democrat's diary.  EVERYONE who commented on the diary, if you read the comments, condemned them.  It wasn't just Bob Brigham.  MOST of the rest of us chose to ignore it, figuring it was some kind of troll.

I know it's tough online but please don't conflate Tim the Democrat with a "Cegelis supporter" and given how insane it was, even addressing the diary would have been ridiculous from the campaign or any of the close supporters.  Saying "Christine condemns this diary" brings actual attention to the diary.

I, for one, didn't read it until just now.  And I'm very glad I didn't.  It was a distraction, and would have been stupid coming from the Cegelis supporters.


by jakester on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 04:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

You're right, it WOULD have been stupid. And my recollection was that there were others that approached the same level of stupidity. I had the same problem with "formalist," as I recall. And early on, some significant disagreement with Michael in Chicago, though I don't recall thinking his approach was nearly as destructive.


by Kagro X on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 05:26:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Well, you know, the great thing about the Internet is that you should be able to provide some links.  

"My recollection" and "as I recall" ain't gonna cut it.

Mostly what I saw was people criticizing the way Rahm and others intruded on the campaign; and pointing out Duckworth's failings in her public statements, positions, and chances in November (surely fair game) particularly for someone whose supposed to be the star candidate of the party!  And then being accused of criticizing a disabled war hero!

So you throw around a charge like Cegelis partisans were mocking Duckworth's wounds -- a serious charge -- and all you can come up with is one guy who NOBODY agreed with, and many people either ignored or lambasted?  And some "I seem to remember recalling..."s?  Do some research and come back with the real indicting statements.

Thanks!


by jakester on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 06:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/12 /11/14037/301/1#c1


by Kagro X on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Do you realize that.

Foramalist, ilyayavitz, and Illinois062006 and probably tim the democrat are all the same person.

Formalist had Ilyayavitz(sp) as his email before he was banned and Ilyayavitz repeated the same "fuckworth oh i'm sorry that was just a typo" line multiple times all while bragging he could type 95 wpm and tim's writing style and invective is very similar as both.  So just one crank who was roundly slammed by all is your justification for saying Cegelis supporters were cruel to Duckworth.  Granted I myself said some harsh things but nothing a seasoned campaigner like Duckworth shouldn't be able to handle if she even had a blog to post at and nothing she will not hear from the republicans.


by Delver Rootnose on Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 02:24:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

No, I hadn't realized that.

That would be a different story. Of course, it would call for completely discrediting all current postings by Illinois062006, no? And that's fine by me. Because he's current and active right here on MyDD, right now.

Are we saying that we have your agreement and the agreement of at least some substantial portion of Cegelis supporters, then, that Illinois062006 is a sock puppet whose views are to be discounted, if not ignored completely?


by Kagro X on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:19:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (3.00 / 1)

One or two assholes may have overstepped the boundaries of good judgement in their comments on Duckworth, but it's irresponsible to hold the Cegelis campaign responsible for something they can't control.  


by Feh on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 11:08:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

True. (none / 0)

Which is why I didn't do it. My caution to them was always that they were doing damage to their effectiveness as advocates, not that their candidate was responsible.

Though I will say that for a "netroots" candidate, Cegelis appeared to have precious little interest in organizing her online advocates to conduct themselves creditably.


by Kagro X on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 12:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. (3.00 / 1)

I don't consider Cegelis a "netroots" candidate.

Cegelis was a grassroots candidate.  If anyone was supported on the organized political nets, it was Duckworth.


by Feh on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 02:53:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair enough. (none / 0)

For a grassroots candidate, then, she did precious little in that regard.

Not that your version of what kind of candidate jives particularly well with the way she was oft times sold on the blogs.


by Kagro X on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 03:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fair enough. (none / 0)

Grassroots supporters can easily blog, but most netroots supporters are not able to show up at campaign HQ every day and go door-to-door in the district.


by Feh on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 05:35:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Absolutely totally BS.

I don't have a clue who posted what.  I do know it was NOT any Cegelis supporters I've been corresponding with.

On the contrary, every one has worked incredibly hard to say NOTHING against Duckworth.  Facts only.  I personally have been accused of bashing Duckworth just because I dare to state the facts.

Many supported her & voted for her because she had a "more compelling" story than Cegelis.  I doubt there were many that were combat vets.  She did her job.  She knew the risks.  Not qualifications for congress.  

After living in both worlds, I knew the difference between the two women.  Like many, knowing the difference didn't impress me.  A single mother successfully raising 2 sons on her own & working at a professional job is a lot more "compelling" than a weekend warrior rotorwing jockey cruising over the action at 2,000 ft.

My father's combat experience is "more compelling".  In his words, "deal with it!"


by Philosophe Forum on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 05:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

It wasn't a Cegelis supporter you've been corresponding with, so it's "absolute total BS?"

You're losing me with the "logic."


by Kagro X on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 05:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

What else is new?

Stereotyping & putting everyone together isn't a good thing.  Makes your arguments not exactly correct.


by Philosophe Forum on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 05:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Who put everyone together? I was very clear about this being limited to certain supporters.

Keep ignoring that. Makes your arguments not exactly correct.

Look, the alternative is to admit that you all did wonderfully and still couldn't convince the blogosphere that you could win. It ignores the existence on the record of the kind of lowballing I'm talking about, but I suppose we could just skip off into la-la land and see if the unexamined campaign plan does any better next time.


by Kagro X on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 05:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

I was very clear about this being limited to certain supporters -- Not really.  You based your entire perspective on whatever you interpreted as Duckworth bashing.  The core supporters are not the entire  blogging community.

As for the vote totals, the blogs had nothing to do with Cegelis losing.  Durbin took Duckworth on buses went around to senior citizen centers, loaded up, & went to the Early Voting.   There were several busloads during the several weeks prior to the election.  He was personally on 2 of the buses.  Duckworth made the rest of the trips on her own.

It's one way of giving her campaign a "personal" touch.  It's definitely good for eaking out a plurality.


by Philosophe Forum on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 06:14:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

Yes, they call it GOTV, and it's what Cegelis supporters said was her strength.

And you're right. This being the sixteenth time around with this business, I neglected to use the word "some" in reference to the Cegelis supporters I was talking about.

If I'm going to make sweeping accusations about them again, I'll limit it to their being pedants.


by Kagro X on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 06:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

I'm certain Cegelis would've enjoyed the personal touch that riding around IL-06 in a bus brings had she all the big-name backing & financial support that Duckworth had.  When Durbin supported Cegelis in 2004, he didn't come with a bus for senior citizen voters.


by Philosophe Forum on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 06:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next question. (none / 0)

I'm sure she would have. But you'll have to take that up with Dick Durbin, not me.


by Kagro X on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 04:41:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you, Chris (3.00 / 3)

It's exactly what happened in Ohio and the game is over here; all the hopeful predictions aren't going to change the fact that DeWine is going to retain his Senate seat in November, probably by a 60-40 margin.

I'm sick and tired of hearing from Sherrod Brown supporters that the grassroots people who supported Hackett need to "suck it up" and be vehemently enthusiastic about Brown, who has the support of all the progressive and party insiders as well as the national party, After we were denied a primary battle because of behind-the-scenes string-pulling.

The Democratic Party MUST stop imposing top-down dictates the way the Republicans do and realize that we aren't Republicans for a reason. They must stop undermining Howard Dean's efforts to reach out to the grassroots, the actual people who cast the votes. They must stop rewarding party loyalists with spots on the slate regardless of the viability of their candidacy. They must give up the idea that the Republicans made the rules and we must play by them.

Abortion is a perfect example. Instead of cowering, or trying to promote how many "limitations" we support, we need to realize that when it comes to being "pro-life", it is the Republicans that are vulnerable. We need to start saying LOUDLY that it is impossible to be anti-abortion because you care about "unborn children" so much when you favour abstinence-only programs and limiting access to birth control. We must hurl this contradiction out into the open and challenge anyone who cares about fetuses to link with us in banning abstinence-only programs. Won't do it? Well, you clearly  don't care about unwanted children! We must ask them to join with us in increasing funding for pre-natal health care and universal child care. Won't do it? You are anti-life and hate children. C'mon, Dems. You can do this!


by anastasiap on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:22:41 AM EST

Re: Thank you, Chris (3.00 / 2)

They must stop undermining Howard Dean's efforts to reach out to the grassroots, the actual people who cast the votes.

I think last night's outcome was a validation of what Howard's been saying since his campaign. I don't think I've seen so many establishment members mobilized against a candidate since Howard Dean.  But Cegelis had a really great grassroots campaign that seemed to embody so much of what Howard is advocating now in his 50-state strategy.


by KimPossible on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:34:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Chris (none / 0)

word, think outside the box. let the process moderate and let "the party" (the people) speak.


by PurityOfEssence on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:53:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Say Amen! N/T (none / 0)


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Chris (3.00 / 1)

You were denied a primary battle because Hackett quit.  Period.  There is ALWAYS string-pulling and side-taking in politics.


-- Seeing the Forest
by davej on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Chris (none / 0)

Paul Hackett was forced out.  When polls show that you CAN win if you can get your message out, and the party is cutting off your access to fundraising and insiders from somewhere or another are spreading dirt on you ranging from that you used to be a Republican to you committed atrocities in Iraq, sure, you can technically stay in, but they have essentially quite the race for you.

And denying us a primary battle is NOT a good thing. All the energy and excitement has fizzled from this race.


by anastasiap on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Chris (none / 0)

"The Party" cutting off access to fundraising?  Hackett sure raised a lot of funds when he ran for Congress and "The Party" had little to do with that.  

You say that "The Party" was making accusations that he committed atrocities in Iraq?  Are you saying that Howard Dean was accusing Hackett of this?  WHO are you saying did this?

I wonder if you can substantiate what you are charging here?

By the way, in the coming election who benefits the most from this stuff?


-- Seeing the Forest
by davej on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Chris (3.00 / 0)

By the way, just to be clear, I'm arguing here against a "conventional wisdom" developing over what happened to Hackett, that I think is just divisive and serves no purpose.  I really like Hackett, and I really like Brown.  But we all have to keep in mind that what we really want to accomplish here is sticking together to defeat the Republicans and literally save democracy and the planet.  Keep our eyes on the prize.


-- Seeing the Forest
by davej on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:08:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can win in Ohio (3.00 / 0)

if you decide that winning is more important that showing the Brown people you were right.


by Alice Marshall on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Chris (3.00 / 1)

I'm sick and tired of hearing from Sherrod Brown supporters that the grassroots people who supported Hackett need to "suck it up" and be vehemently enthusiastic about Brown, who has the support of all the progressive and party insiders as well as the national party, After we were denied a primary battle because of behind-the-scenes string-pulling.

I like Paul Hackett. I'm glad he's joined forces with IAVA, and keeping that "fire in the belly" he evokes so well, in himself and in others. When I listened to him speak, I got the rush that says, yes, we can fight! His sole liability was lack of experience, and time changes that.

I got calls from both campaigns seeking funding. I held off until I could gather my own information based on my own research. I concluded that Paul Hackett should not have run for the Senate. He will make a FANTASTIC Representative in the US House, or even the Ohio House. I truly, dearly hope he runs for OH-02 again and puts the Wicked Witch Of The South out to pasture for good.

I will be the very last to tell you to "suck it up" for anything. But I will be the first to tell you that WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER. If you want to take your money, your time and your vote and stay home because you think you got slighted or ignored, then DeWine goes back to Washington and NOTHING WILL CHANGE. I have it from the Senator himself that he supports President Bush and his policies.

I will vote for the last Dem standing, whether he's Beltway Blue, Ohio Red, or green with tentacles, because until we are in the majority, it's more of the same. We'll gain the majority with the Dems we have, and they will not always be the Dems we want.

It took the Republicans decades to get here, it may take us decades to get back. But it will be even longer if we keep up the pissing matches between ourselves.

Brown isn't perfect.
Strickland isn't perfect.
Duckworth isn't perfect.

But I will walk, petition, call, cajole and give every penny I have to get them elected. The alternative is simply unacceptable.

-GFO


by GuyFromOhio on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Chris (none / 0)

Guy from Ohio, this isn't about whether a candidate is "perfect." There is really nothing terribly wrong with Brown's positions. He just isn't a viable candidate for Ohio. As for Hackett running in Oh-2 against Schmidt, the way things are looking, Schmidt's career in politics may be over by then and if there's a respectable-sounding Republican, in that district, he or she won't be beatable by any Democrat. This has been hashed over so many times. Brown has little momentum. He's an uninspiring speaker. He isn't reaching outside his hardcore base. He's just a tepid candidate. And even if I were really, really  inspired and excited by him, I don't have the time, money or energy to campaign for everyone, so for me, it's the essentials: get Strickland elected governor, get Jennifer Brunner elected Secretary of State so we can have fair elections again and get Chandra or Dann elected attorney general so we can take over the reapportionment board and redistrict the state to get some Republicans out of office.


by anastasiap on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Anastasia (none / 0)

This has been hashed over so many times.

Well, then one more won't hurt. Chalk it up to my naivete.

... get Strickland elected governor, get Jennifer Brunner elected Secretary of State so we can have fair elections again and get Chandra or Dann elected attorney general so we can take over the reapportionment board and redistrict the state to get some Republicans out of office.

Beautiful! Please believe me when I say I will work for these things also.

As for DeWine 60/40 over Brown, that only steels my reserve to press that much harder. We have 7 months to watch that number change, and any one issue (just ONE!) could make the difference.

-GFO


by GuyFromOhio on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 10:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You should be worried (3.00 / 0)

The Dems like their "share the middle" position with Neocons. And they hate blogs ae equally as the Neocons.
It's going to get worse before it gets better for Democrats. They are negligently and directly guilty in the crimes of this government.
Independent who blames Dems for Republican crimes.
by Landsurveyor on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:28:18 AM EST

Re: You should be worried (3.00 / 2)

Might think about the fact that one candidate had years, and no money and therefore never would have a chance in the General, and another had a few weeks and lots of money...but no time.

That's a helluva combination I don't think you'll see played out elsewhere. If Duckworth had been recruited 1.5 years ago then the comparision would be valid.


just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:31:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If the support the DCCC (3.00 / 2)

had given Duckworth had been given to the existing candidate that nearly won without it then this thing would be a blow out upset in the general.

As it is we may well miss the opportunity to pick up Il-06 because of Rahm and the DC insiders lack of knowledge about how to win.


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:36:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If the support the DCCC (none / 0)

That's quite a prediction. A blow out in the general????

Did you look at the total number of votes for DuPage county for the 6th CD in the Republican primary?

44,000 votes.

Versus 25,000 in the Dem primary. That's quite a partisan difference to make up in the general. I wanted Cegelis to win this thing because I think that progressive messages give voters a reason to vote Democratic. But let's not kid ourselves here. This district is still republican, and there's no way anyone is going to blow out the Roskam.


by adamterando on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If the support the DCCC (3.00 / 1)

yeah, that's probably true. I do get enthusiastic upon occasion. The point of the statement is still true however. Duckworth is likely to lose this seat and it didn't have to be that way. The DC insiders made an extremely bad choice here and it has probably cost us this seat.


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If the support the DCCC (none / 0)

Cegelis got 110,00 votes against Hyde in the 2004 general.

But the Democratic Establishment has thrown away that lead and now they have to start over from 14,000.  Long way to go.


by Feh on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 05:39:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If the support the DCCC (none / 0)

"had given Duckworth had been given to the existing candidate that nearly won without it then this thing would be a blow out upset in the general."

Sorry, but there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between what happened or could have happened last night and the general election.

If there was such a correlation, it would stand to reason that Cegelis would have blown Duckworth out on the strength of the 105,000 votes she garnered in the 2004 election.

As for the whole "Rahm and the DC insiders lack the knowledge about how to win" stuff, well, whether you like it or not, they did win.

And they won with a candidate who no one had heard of a few months ago... by defeating a candidate who had been running a perpetual campaign for 2 1/2 years and had built up name recognition and a grassroots organization.

You obviously don't like the result, and that's fine.  But at least be rational.


by Politicalhack06 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If the support the DCCC (none / 0)

Did they win? Have they won? These guys have shown that they can get themselves elected but they have also consistently shown that their approach loses when it counts. The fact that they won a primary against a ragtag bunch of voters and activists with money, media, organization and all that jazz on their side means squat.

They lost congress and the presidency and have been losing ever since. They don't know how to win. If they knew how to win they wouldn't have just fought against the very help they need to win and they wouldn't have pissed off a bunch of people like me that can, when added to their existing strengths, make the difference that turns their losing ways into our combined winning ways.

People, stop getting lost in my angry statements and actually pay attention to the one and only main point I've been making all along here.

The DC party establishment needs to learn to share some of the power and work with us activists on the ground if we are... together... going to take back our country.

That is the point.

I want to work with these guys. I can't win without them and they have shown that they can't win without us.

So let's work together please. This means we need to get off our high horses sometimes and work for their candidates and it means they need to not challenge our candidates (Hackett and Cegelis being prime one and prime two examples but their are others).

It has got to be a two way street and they have got to learn to share and play nice with the new kids.


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if DC Dems hate blogs (3.00 / 1)

why is Harry Reid speaking at the Kos convention?????????


by Alice Marshall on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if DC Dems hate blogs (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/13/1521 3/2719


by blogswarm on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:42:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if DC Dems hate blogs (none / 0)

Cuz Kos has become rich and part of the MSD crowd.


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:46:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if DC Dems hate blogs (3.00 / 1)


Cuz Kos has become rich and part of the MSD crowd.

I expect his realtor would beg to differ.

-GFO


by GuyFromOhio on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

asinine (none / 0)

nt


by Teaser on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Am Very Worried About 2006 (3.00 / 1)

You should be worried.  I hope this does some real damage to the "Rahm Emanuel, Kingmaker" image that Emanuel's trying to cultivate.  He really could have accomplished much more had he not decided that the DCCC could manage without the grassroots.

It also shows just how weak the Democratic establishment is if with all that firepower behind Duckworth, Emanuel still couldn't manage a bigger margin of victory than 2 percentage points.  

I wonder just how many grassroots activists will do nothing more than vote in November?  I can imagine many of them will support Duckworth only in the abstract sense of "I hope she wins," but not willing to give their money or their time.  

The establishment tried to push the grassroots out of the way and the roots pushed back.


by KimPossible on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:29:00 AM EST

Re: I Am Very Worried About 2006 (none / 0)

Rahm Emanuel fired the first shot against Paul Hackett and no matter howe much the DCCC claims "We had nothing to do with that decision," I will not forget that.


by anastasiap on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:32:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Am Very Worried About 2006 (none / 0)

The DCCC deals with House races.  Hackett was running for Senate.  

The Senate version of the DCCC is the DSCC, which is run by Chuck Schumer.


by Josh Orton on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Consider this a warning shot (3.00 / 6)

The peasants are pissed, and they're starting to revolt.  

The folks in the manor house have totally misread the situation, and are trying to figure out how to keep the peasants in line.

This party can either try to play a lot of very smart and intrinsically motivated grassroots activists for suckers, or can listen to them and start actually SUPPORTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

We are not ATMs, and we are not children.  We are the people.


It's far better to uphold the Constitution and burn the flag than it is to hold up the flag and burn the Constitution.
by beemer on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:29:44 AM EST

Re: Consider this a warning shot (3.00 / 4)

"We are not children."

Children take their marbles and go home, and there is a lot of that on this thread.  

This is a very long fight.  It is a two-track fight, moreover, to reform the party and also to win enough seats to stop Bush in his last 2 years. We need both.  Is it so hard to hold both thoughts at once?  Primaries are for fighting for your candidate, but general elecions are for fighting the Republicans.  Period.
 


by Mimikatz on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Consider this a warning shot (3.00 / 1)

General elections, like primaries, are for voting for the best candidate in the race.  Period.


by rba on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which is exactly why (3.00 / 4)

I have been and remain pissed at exactly those traditional organizations and elected officials that chose to wage war against the netroots, DFA, and the people of Il-06 by backing Duckworth.

My argument every step of the way has been that we all need to work together and not in opposition to each other. Their choice... their choice... to work in oppossition to the rest of us was a serious, serious error on their parts.

Think of what could have been accomplished if they had thrown their considerable weight behind the existing high-quality candidate that had the support of the district, the support of the netroots, and the support of DFA. Think of what we could accomplish together if they worked with us instead of against us.

As it is I am, and I remain, pissed at rahm, durbin, the cook county party, the DCCC, and all those that undermined Christine Cegelis and told us all to go take a hike.

By themselves they will lose the way they always have. They may have the money and ability to defeat us... narrowly... but they will lose in the big races unless and until they learn to accept that... their... only... path... to victory is to learn to share power and work with us.

Together we can crush the republicans. Divided we all lose.

As far as I can tell the DC bunch are more concerned about keeping their dwindling hold on minority power then they are on winning and becoming the majority power in this country.

Rahm is an incredibly bad leader.


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:31:00 AM EST

Re: Which is exactly why (3.00 / 3)

I have been and remain pissed at exactly those traditional organizations and elected officials that chose to wage war against the netroots, DFA, and the people of Il-06 by backing Duckworth.

Wage war against the people?  Come on.  The "people of IL-06" voted yesterday, and picked Duckworth.

And there was no war waged; there was a political fight.  Each side fought with the tools it had, including using outsiders to fund/staff their efforts.  The traditional orgs beat the Cegalis backers.

The netroots asked for money outside of IL-06, and so did the traditional orgs.  The netroots asked for people to make calls from outside IL-06, and so did the traditional orgs.  

And the netroots were not united behind Cegalis.  Many of us like Duckworth as a candidate, and many more just didn't pay attention.  The claim that the entire netroots was on one side of the argument is simply an error.


by nathan on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:37:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who will this candidate owe allegence to? (3.00 / 2)

How many people go to the polls and vote for the most recognizable name instead of candidates positions?  

Duckworth won because she had the largest name recognition due to mass mailings made possible by the DCCC and friends.  She did not win because she had a great ground game.  Should she win against the Republican who will she owe her seat to?  The people she represents or to the corporate powers that funded her campaign.  When it comes down to the tough votes who will she side with. I bet it'll be with whoever Emanual wants her to side with.  He's remind her that she's here because of his and his friends efforts.

People  think that once we get a majority again that the Democrats will take care of the people.  But if the Dems are elected with corporate money can anyone please tell me how much things are going to change for the good?  

We need people who get to Congress because of the people they represent so that they when it comes time to vote they will fully represent the people of their district and not the interests of big money.


by lisadawn82 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:49:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who will this candidate owe allegence to? (3.00 / 3)

I still fail to see how that was declaring war on anyone.  It was an election, and to quote someone whose name I forgot, "Politics ain't beanbag."  Do better next time.  

In 2000 Maryanne Connelly was in EXACTLY the same position as Cegalis here in NJ.  The DCCC endorsed her opponent, most of the elected Democrats backed her opponent, money came in from all over, House members flew in for fundraisers, etc.  We beat the organization there because we outworked them.  

Also, you are setting up a straw man by saying many of us think that if the Democrats take control they will take care of us.  I haven't seen many people anywhere outside of Washington DC make that argument, and surely no one active in the grassroots of the party.

Most of us think that if the Democrats take control it will stanch the bleeding.  The body politic and the body America are receiving wound after wound and something can be done this year to reduce the damage and maybe even reverse some of it.

But we don't think the current crop of national Democrats are the answer.  That's why in addition to working to elect a Democratic House and Senate we are filling Committee seats, working on School board elections, fighting for Mayor's offices, etc.  

2006 is not the end of the war for the country, or for the Democratic Party.  Even if we win both Houses of Congress and Pelosi becomes President after Bush and Cheney both leave office simultaneously it won't fix the problems we have.  Things will be better, but not fixed.

We have to think long-term, and work hard to create a progressive bench of local and state elected officials to move to the national level in 2010, 2020, 2030, etc.  We need to be sure that our infrastructure is in place to raise the money, run the campaigns, staff the phones, place the yard signs.

But that doesn't mean quitting on trying to achieve a Democratic Congress this year.  A Democratic Congress -- with Cegalis or Duckworth or Casey -- is better than a Republican Congress any way you look at it.  

We are not strong enough yet to fight for the perfect.  There is a lot of work to do in order for us to get there.

So for now we have to do two things in 2006: 1) Fight for the better of two evils; and 2) Lay the groundwork to fight for the perfect.


by nathan on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who will this candidate owe allegence to? (none / 0)

"I still fail to see how that was declaring war on anyone."

Read my rely above. They declared war when they consciously chose to back a different candidate.


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who will this candidate owe allegence to? (none / 0)

That's called politics, not war.  War is what is going on in Iraq where people die, lose legs, are blinded, get their homes blown up, etc.

They backed their candidate, you backed yours.  They brought money from outside the district, you asked the progressive community to give money form outside the district.  They asked for volunteers from outside the district, you asked for volunteers outside the district.

They are more powerful, they won.  Get more powerful and beat them next time.

Still, it's not war.  It's politics.


by nathan on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 08:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who will this candidate owe allegence to? (none / 0)

You think war and politics are different things?

Interesting....

Peace,

Andrew


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:11:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who will this candidate owe allegence to? (none / 0)

Yeah, I think that making governmental change by making phone calls, writing checks, mailing letters and pulling a lever for my candidate without worrying about being killed is different from making governmental change while wearing body armor, carrying an AK-47, searching for people to kill, ducking bombs, skirting IEDs and risking life and limb.

Call me nuts, but I see a difference between war and politics.


by nathan on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 11:47:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes we have to (3.00 / 2)

think long term. So always voting for the lesser of two evils is NOT long term thinking. That's why strategic voting in IL06 in Nov. would be long term thinking. What's more important progressive, people, values or helping a corporate loving MSD win? It's just 2 years. Write in Cegelis and send a message to the rest of the DINOS: THEY CAN'T WIN WITHOUT US AND WE AIN'T GONNA COMPROMISE OUR VALUES ANYMORE!


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes we have to (1.00 / 1)

Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Your transparent efforts to help the Republican won't fly here.


by admiralnaismith on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who will this candidate owe allegence to? (none / 0)

Good thoughtful comment that I tend to agree with.


by PurityOfEssence on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who will this candidate owe allegence to? (1.00 / 1)

You might well ask, who will the Republican owe allegiance to?  We all know the answer to that, don't we?

Some day, our kids will turn up the television and whisper to us, hoping the government SpyMaster2056 doesn't pick up their voice, "What did you do when the Republicans were grabbing for power?"  Do you want to tell your kid, "I helped hand a swing district to the Republicans, to teach the opposition party not to take us for granted"?


by admiralnaismith on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, feel free to ignore (3.00 / 5)

the point I was making all you would like but I suggest you read your own words in the procss...

"The traditional orgs beat the Cegalis backers."

Yup. They did. They chose to fight against us and this is the outcome. I am assigning motivation to their actions by stating that they "waged war" against us and that is subject to debate but you know what? I'm right.

They made a conscious decision to back a different candidate. Whatever reasoning, rationalization, or justifaction they, or you, come up with, the facts remain the same... they made a conscious decision to go a different direction then the 44% of the district that voted for Cegelis last time around and were prepared to vote for her this time. They made a conscious decision to pour tons of money and effort into defeating Cegelis. They made a conscious effort and spent tons of money to defeat the popular candidate.

They waged war against us.

Bad mistake.

And it will probably cost us the district as a result. They need to learn to work with us and not against us. That is the point of my post. That is the point of every post I've written on this subject since Rahm decided to retain all power and control in his own hands (the same holds true for Schumer and a few of the senate races). Their vision is too small. They are far more concerned about retaining their grip on their minority power and don't have the vision to figure out to gain majority power. They do that by working in conjunction with us... not against us as they did in this case.

Feel free to object to my choices in strong words but the facts remains the same... the made a conscious decision to work against the popular, grass/net roots candidate in the district.


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, feel free to ignore (3.00 / 4)

I've been reading this blog for some time now, but this is my first time posting a message.

I am really confused (and quite frankly saddened) by some of the discussion regarding yesterday's primary.  Having been involved in various campaigns since the 6th grade, and having run for office myself, I understand the pain and disappointment involved with losing an election, particularly a primary.  However, some of the rhetoric here seems way off base.

I don't mean to pick on Andrew, but I'll use his post as an example.  His use of the "us versus them" dichotomy (I'm not sure what he means by us versus them, but for arguments sake let's take the us as the netroots and the them as the DCCC and related parties), the claims that "they" declared war by supporting a different candidate, and his assertion that "they" essentially overthrew a "popular" candidate in what he seems to think is a coup (though I am not sure how a candidate who lost the general in '04 by 8 and the primary can be minted the "popular" candidate) all seem to reflect a viewpoint that is not in fact reality.  

It strikes me that Andrew, and those like him, firmly believe that the netroots equals the Democratic party.  Frankly, that is a rather self-absorbed position.  Yes, the netroots is a part of the party, and arguably an important one at that.  But the do not represent the combined will and beliefs of the party as a whole.  No one group does.  That's why we have primaries, so that differing factions (I hate to use that word because it has the connotation of anamosity, which I don't necessarily think needs to be involved) within the party can compete for the hearts and minds of the voters, with the one doing the better job (be it through massive fundraising, door to door barnstorming, a better message...whatever) winning.

So here you have two different groups squaring off (though, it doesn't seem that the whole netroots truly coalesced around Cegelis the way they have other candidates), the people voted and the a winner was chosen.  The DCCC didn't support Duckworth in order to incite the netroots.  They saw the possibility of picking up a seat and felt that Duckworth had a better shot, so they supported her and the people agreed.

Your arguments against Duckworth support their proposition...namely, her ability to raise large amounts of money quickly and to garner free media attention because of her compelling story.  Like it or not, money and publicity are what it takes to win an election these days.  In two years plus of campaigning, Cegelis was able to garner neither.


by drpd02 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong (3.00 / 2)

The National Party and it's campaign organs have no business interceeding in any primaries. Their job is to insure a fair and impartial primary, and prepare to support the winner. Period.

And the fundraising was from the National party, which makes the "she's a better fundraiser" line utterly silly. Everyone would be a better fundraiser, if the connected heavy hitters fundraise for them. Duh. A small fuzzy Ocelot could be great fundraiser that way.


by ElitistJohn on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (none / 0)

First, the national campaign didn't intercede.  As for it's organs, the goal of the DCCC is to win as many House seats as possible.  Therefore, if they feel candidate A is more likely to win the general than candidate B, it strikes me that it is in their interest, and more importantly within their mission, to support candidate A.  

Second, politicians always endorse and lend their name to other politicians, be it in an election or a primary.  I live in Massachusetts where both Tom Reilly and Deval Patrick have received endorsements from sitting politicians (which they both tout) who help them in their fundraising efforts.  Politicians are people too and they can support whomever they want and use their position (much like the blogs use theirs) to raise money and awareness for a candidate.

Finally, why does the source of funds matter (so long as they are legal)? Duckworth raised more funds than Cegelis, ergo, she is a better fundraiser.  If the heavy hitters decided to support a small fuzzy Ocelot and it raised more money than Duckworth and/or Cegelis, than it would be the better fundraiser.  Because of her story, Duckworth is a draw...and draws will get money to them.  And, pray tell, what is the difference between John Kerry sending an email to his supporters asking to donate to a candidate and a popular blog doing the same?

I wonder if the anger here isn't so much directed at the DC establishment but at the realization that perhaps the netroots isn't as powerful (yet?) as people here make it out to be.  That spaces like this make people feel empowered, that they are making a larger difference than they actually can or are making.  The netroots experience is still young, and perhaps with time it will become the force for change that people (here at least) hope it will or can be.  But it doesn't seem that it is quite there yet, and maybe this series of posts represents a certain amount of frustration or impatience.


by drpd02 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:05:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (3.00 / 3)

First, the source of funds matters only because the justification for this by "Boss Hog" Rahm was that he didn't think Ceglis could fundraise. Then he carpetbagged ina  sock puppet who he proceeded to do all the fundraising for. See the logic fault?

Second, it is most assuredly not the business of the DCCC to instert themselves into primaries. It is their job to assist the people who were fairly chosen by Democrats in the voting population to win the General. It would always be more efficient to have Boss Hog pick our candiadtes for us...save a lot on the primaries. But that isn't how things work in a Democracy.

If he feels that makes his job too hard, he can happily go ahead and quit.

Third, no one is talking about individual politicians making choice on the merits as to who they endorse. They have that right (hopefully tempered with the wisdom that they should be very careful throwing their weight around). The objection is Boss Hog working in coordination so these are not individual choices but extensions of the DCCC apparatus.

This isn't about "netroots", it's about basic ethics. The party organs have no business telling the rank and file who should be their representative. The rank and file should tell the party who they will get. And organs like the DCCC have no business fundraising to "beat Republicans" while spending in primaries.

To remove the netroots, I'm on a State Committee, and I'm busy shooting down the old crony network that wants to endorse in State primaries. This is an old problem, and has more to do with the connected trying to get more connected.


by ElitistJohn on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 05:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (3.00 / 1)

Second, it is most assuredly not the business of the DCCC to instert themselves into primaries.  It is their job to assist the people who were fairly chosen by Democrats in the voting population to win the General.

Excuse me?  I don't think you understand what the DCCC is.  It is a PAC, set up by House Democrats and run by House Democrats, whose business it is to maximize the number of house Democrats.  They aren't owned by anyone except house Democrats and answer to exactly two (overlapping) groups:  their donors and house Democrats.  You may (as I often do) disagree with their choices of candidates and strategy, but the fact remains that they are what they are.  


by Jay on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 06:10:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Terrific (none / 0)

Then they can STFO of National Party business. Since they have no official association to the DNC, they can go blow.

No fair playing both sides. Either they're an official party organ, or they are a self interested group working solely for the interests of House members. Can't have it both ways for the most convienient argument at the time.


by ElitistJohn on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 05:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Terrific (none / 0)

They work for us.  We don't kowtow to them.  That's the difference.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com


by Caro on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 09:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (none / 0)

Why doesn't the national party have any place in primaries?

You can't complain that they don't help in the general election if you are going to tell them to stay out of primary elections.


by nathan on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 08:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (none / 0)

You continue to miss the point completely. Are you doing it on purpose or has it really been that unclear?


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

<