The NRCC's futility

Is one of the reasons why I can't see the Republicans taking back the House this year.  They've been getting pounded monetarily by the DCCC all cycle long, and $16 mil is an extreme amount of money when spread all over the playing field.  Lack of national assistance is going to cost Team Red at least 5-10 seats that they conceivably could have had if they will running close to even with the DCCC.  

At the very least, the NRCC is going to have to make tough decisions about where to spend.  

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 13:03:36 PM UTC

I totally agree

and that is one reason I'm not worried about Leonard Boswell. Why would the NRCC spend money in IA-03 when Iowa's about to lose a Congressional district? The winner of that race will probably face Tom Latham in 2012 anyway, depending on how the districts are redrawn.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 13:47:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah

I agree they are going to have to make some tough choices, but I don't like that they are outraising the DCCC.  It is a bad sign.

---

by: rockymmdreamin @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 17:23:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be fair

Both R-Trips haven't outraied the D-Trips by that muxh (each less than a million) and we have large CoH on both of them. I don't like that there outraising us obviously but it's not a bad sign or the end of the world for this month.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 17:27:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no excuse

for Menendez spending DSCC money in the North Carolina D primary. And on behalf of the less electable candidate! Stupid, stupid, stupid.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 13:48:34 PM UTC

More wasted money

Spent on behalf of Lincoln. Hopefully we'll write that off as a lost cause and give it to Marshall, Hodes, or even Melancon.  

21, Dem, NY-15 (formerly NJ-05)

---

by: kruton @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 14:44:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

DSCC number 1 priority

is to defend incumbent Democratic Senators. Why would any sitting Senator donate to the committee if they will be left for dead. Imagine if the NRSC hadn't left Conrad Burns for dead during the summer of 2006. An extra million dollars in that state could have made the difference in that race.  

---

by: gomer @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 15:06:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup, the DSCC's 1st duty is to help its own, and 2nd duty is...

...to get Democrats elected in Republican-held seats.

I'm always astounded that people question our party committees helping our party's elected officials.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 15:28:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

#1 disaster scenario

Is the DSCC spending millions of dollars in Arkansas on a totally worthless cause while they fail to give enough assistance to WINNABLE states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Kentucky, Indiana, and Missouri, and as a result Team Blue loses in all those states.  I understand the reason for wanting to protect your own and that's arguably one of the major goal of the DSCC, but at some point you've got to realize that your #1 goal is to get the most possible democrats elected.  One way not to accomplish that is to spend gobs of money on Blanche Lincoln, who is at this point totally unelectable against John Boozman.

The 2nd way to not accomplish the goal would be to spend national money in Nevada on Harry Reid's re-election when he's got millions upon millions to burn against Sharron Angle.  

Seriously, if the DSCC does the smart thing and gives up on Blanche early in the game, that could be the difference in whether or not we have Joe Sestak, Jack Conway, Lee Fisher, Brad Ellsworth, and Robin Carnahan in the Senate next cycle.  Blanche isn't going to win regardless so Menendez and company have to ask themselves whether or not they are going to screw themselves over in the name of incumbent protection.  If they do, then I hope Menendez gets primaried in 2012 because it would be a clear poor demonstration of democratic leadership.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 15:39:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bob Menendez

is as incompetent as Jon Corzine was when he was heading up the DSCC in 2004. Especially now that Wall Street is opening up their wallets to the NRSC over fears that the Democrats will crack down hard on them.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 16:09:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

but no excuse for spending in NC

before the primary. The DSCC wasted money there.

I get that the DSCC has to do something for Lincoln, but they shouldn't blow tons of money on her if she's behind by 20-25 points and we have winnable races in OH, MO and elsewhere.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 17:26:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed

But it's no certainly that Blanche will get tons of dough from the D-Trip and I can see them cutting her off before the election since we do have more winnable races like in the states you mentioned.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 17:29:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bingo. Why does everyone assume Blanche will get lots of DSCC help?......

My comment above was in reference to the DSCC helping incumbents in primaries, although I admit my comment didn't make that clear.

But in the general, they're going to triage based on the candidates having viable paths to victory and needing the extra help.

I won't be the least bit surprised if Reid gets no DSCC help, since he thinks he can raise $25 million on his own for what is an inexpensive state with just two media markets.  I'm sure OFA will get involved helping with GOTV, as they should do everywhere.  Maybe at some point the DSCC will chip in a little help to head off a media narrative of "DSCC won't help Reid, have they written him off?!"  The political media pulls that shit all the time, and sometimes you have to be prepared to counter that.  But there won't be a big DSCC investment in Reid because he likely won't need their help.

With Lincoln, I'd be surprised if she gets any help if she's down by double-digit margins and can't shrink the gap on her own.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 17:53:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Im sure there is plenty of precedent of party committees

Cutting candidates loose.  Maybe throwing them some dollars, but not much.  I dont remember seeing much for Nick Lampson last cycle.  He was a total lost cause and if Blanche appears that way and is down 20%, I doubt they are going to be going all-in any way.  They may do a mailer, maybe one round of ads, but if that doesn't do anything, they can't really justify spending money on her.

Imagine the response Menendez would get from his potential donors, "Why the hell should I give the DSCC money when you are pissing it away on races we dont have a shot in."

Didnt the NRSC cut Santorum and Dewine loose at some point?

---

by: Andrew @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 21:34:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Didnt the NRSC cut Santorum and Dewine loose at some point?

Yes, Samtorum was cut off months before the election. Also last year in CO they cut off Bob Schieffer a month before the election or so when they found out that Mark Udall was going to win.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 22:45:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They did

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 - Senior Republican leaders have concluded that Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, a pivotal state in this year's fierce midterm election battles, is likely to be heading for defeat and are moving to reduce financial support for his race and divert party money to other embattled Republican senators, party officials said.

The decision to effectively write off Mr. DeWine's seat, after a series of internal Republican polls showed him falling behind his Democratic challenger, is part of a fluid series of choices by top leaders in both parties as they set the strategic framework of the campaign's final three weeks, signaling, by where they are spending television money and other resources, the Senate and House races where they believe they have the best chances of success.

..............

Even before this development, Republicans had been bracing for the defeat of three sitting Republican senators: Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns of Montana and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, based on polling.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 22:48:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Melancon

What makes you think he has a better shot in LA than Lincoln has in AR? I'm not convinced at all.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 22:39:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Melancon

What makes you think he has a better shot in LA than Lincoln has in AR? I'm not convinced at all.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 22:40:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry for the double post

I wish the moderators would delete the extra posts.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 22:41:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I must say

Menendez has been quite an awful DSCC chair. If we do well in the Senate this year, it will be in spite of his leadership. The fundraising has been terrible, especially considering that we have 18 more members in our caucus than Republicans, and recruitment could have been somewhat better in a number of races. Even after considering the recruitment and retirement misses, Menendez has erred in giving money to an equally or even less electable candidate in the North Carolina U.S. Senate primary race.

It's really amazing how much establishment Democrats have done to damage our chances of maintaining a large majority in the Senate, from flawed replacement Senators in Colorado, Delaware, and Illinois to the Obama administration taking away potentially great Senate candidates in Arizona and Kansas to the inability to prevent retirements in North Dakota and Indiana, as well as recruitment failures in Delaware, Kentucky (somewhat), North Carolina (somewhat), and Florida. Of course, there is the major candidate failure in Massachusetts, as well. I would hope that Democrats could at least pick up the fundraising pace so we could maximize our opportunities in November.

I think in the end that we will do all right in the Senate elections, and we definitely have great shots at picking up North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, and New Hampshire still, as well as Florida if Crist would caucus on our side. I really hope we can hold onto Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Indiana. Unfortunately, Delaware, Arkansas, and North Dakota are not looking good at all.

In the end, the idea of a return of corporate-backed Republicans in control of government will probably be what saves Democrats in this election.  

---

by: Progressive America @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 16:31:38 PM UTC

The chair next cycle has an even bigger job

I imagine it will be somebody elected in 2008 correct? One of the Udalls perhaps? Warner maybe?

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 16:47:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like the idea of Warner

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 16:51:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Me too

Money being the reason.

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 16:56:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I dont know if Franken is sharp enough politically

and he certainly has baggage, but the dude knows A LOT of rich people.  Ive seen his call sheet binders from being an intern, and they've probably even grown since I saw them when he first started.  Maybe he's added a DC and a Chicago binder by now....

The MN race was already the most expensive, and that was Franken being able to keep par while not ever being elected to anything or needing to raise real money for himself.  I have a feeling he may be blowing us away in 2014 each qtr announcement.  (I'll predict now T-Paw will definitely be running against him.  He already wanted to run in 2002 but Rove told him they wanted Coleman.)

---

by: Andrew @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 21:51:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He already wanted to run in 2002 but Rove told him they wanted Coleman.)

I thought it was Cheney that wanted Coleman for Sen and Pawlenty for Governor?

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 22:43:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah

The next cycle will certainly be difficult, although we elected some impressive candidates in 2006. Tester seems to be fairly popular and Webb should hold on. Missouri will likely see another close finish of course. And with an aging caucus, retirements are always a possibility. That's why it is crucial that we do as well as possible this year. Just protecting the majority is not enough.

I think one of the Udalls would be great, particularly Tom Udall. He seems to really have a populist appeal. A return to Schumer would not hurt either, if he's not majority leader at that time. He knows our candidates from the 2012 cycle well.

---

by: Progressive America @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 16:54:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Couldn't disagree more

The biggest disappointment for me was North Dakota--I think Dorgan could have hung on, but let's face it, a lot of these entrenched Dem incumbents haven't actively campaigned in years. Beating Hoeven would have been a challenge, and I don't blame him for retiring with grace, considering he's been in the Congress since '81. I wish Boxer had the dignity to do the same. There are plenty of other deserving Dems in CA who could win.

Delaware and Arkansas aren't lost causes.

There are no "recruiting failures" as I see them.

MA actually was a win because having Brown for two years instead of Coakley for eighteen is good for everyone.

Fundraising is an issue because the momentum is on the Republican side, but a unique combination of creative advertising and timely legislation may keep the Dems' firm hold on power intact.

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 17:18:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No DE and AR are ost causes

But I agree with your statement, but don't worry about Boxer. She didn't need to retire and she can hold her own.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 17:25:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I

do not agree about California Arkansas or Massachusetts. Arkansas is a lost cause, we have no chance whatsoever, and trying to convince ourselves we do is not productive. IDK about Delaware, I could see an upset but I have it as likely R for now. As for California, why is Boxer being selfish running for re-election? That is ridiculous, she is scandal free does decent in polling and I see no reason why she should not run. Another Democrat might be doing better now, I do not know but I do know that she is not doing bad and if she wants to run let her. If she was trailing Failorina and it was obvious she was a lost cause and would be a drag on the ticket then she should have stepped down, but neither is the case. I suppose Mass was positive in a way since we got a better HCR bill, but besides be a god awful campaigner I see no evidence why Coakley would not be a good Senator or why her win would be a negative. Also there is no evidence that Brown will not be around for eighteen years, he stands a very good chance in 2012 and to write him off is foolish.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 20:48:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah

I wish I would have edited  my post above before posting. I apologize if it sounds like I'm a fourth grader.

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 23:49:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why should Boxer have retired?

She is a very good senator, wants to continue serving, and is likely to win reelection.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 22:52:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who would have run to replace her?

Gavin Newson?

---

by: Kolgare @ Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 00:30:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope not

My brother and various friends who live in SF really dislike Newsom. Boxer is much more dedicated to helping ordinary people, not just rich yuppies. Again, that's my perception; it's OK if others have other perceptions.

And maybe more to the point for this blog, Newsom didn't exactly catch on fire with his attempt to run for Governor, so I doubt he would have been a strong Senate candidate.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:21:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, that's my perception; it's OK if others have other perceptions.

No, your pretty spot on regarding Boxer and Newsom.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:35:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you on most parts

Menendez's leadership failure and us keeping the Senate and picking up seats but this statement is ful of misinfomation and FAIL:

It's really amazing how much establishment Democrats have done to damage our chances of maintaining a large majority in the Senate, from flawed replacement Senators in Colorado, Delaware, and Illinois to the Obama administration taking away potentially great Senate candidates in Arizona and Kansas to the inability to prevent retirements in North Dakota and Indiana, as well as recruitment failures in Delaware, Kentucky (somewhat), North Carolina (somewhat), and Florida. Of course, there is the major candidate failure in Massachusetts, as well. I would hope that Democrats could at least pick up the fundraising pace so we could maximize our opportunities in November.

Wow where do I start. First the establishment Dems haven't screwed up anything. My opinion Bennet isn't flawed and can beat Norton or Buck. Deleware's Senator is a placeholder who was holding the seat for Beau Biden and he chose not to run, blame him for that. Ilinois has a choice to vote for David Hoffman who chose to still side with Alexi and despite the bank situtation, there's nothing wrong with him and is still competive with Kirk. This is where I have the most problem with your statement:

to the Obama administration taking away potentially great Senate candidates in Arizona and Kansas to the inability to prevent retirements in North Dakota and Indiana, as well as recruitment failures in Delaware, Kentucky (somewhat), North Carolina (somewhat), and Florida.

Your joking, right? Obama disn't take away none of these guys to his cabinet and none were shoo-in's to win. Napolitano would of never beaten McCain and if she would run for the Senate it would be againist Kyl and Sebelius has no intrest in running for the Senate and she would far from winning in a State that hasn't elected a Dem to the Senate since the 1930's. Failure to prevent retirements in ND and IN, are you kidding me? Dorgan would of got crushed by Hoeven and he can'r helped that Bayh bailed on the last minute and we have a great candidate in Brad Ellsworth.

Recruitment fail in DE is because everyone was on what Beau was going to do. He waited to long and when he decided not to run it was too late to find someone else, blame him. NC what? Elaine Marshall is a credible candidate and certainly Jack Conway in KY. Honestly, come on man.

As for MA, it was all Coakley, it was her race to lose and she blew it, blame her. Really DE, AR and ND aren't looking at all? no kidding espically since Blance is unelectable in AR, Castle is popular in DE and no one can beat Hoeven in ND. Not hard to fathom.

I agree with most of what you said. I agree Bob Menendez is a terrible chairman and that Chuck Schumer took a leadership position at the wrong time and thet we can pick up seats and maintain the Senate but this paregraph you wrote is really out of whack.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 17:23:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comments...

Wow where do I start. First the establishment Dems haven't screwed up anything. My opinion Bennet isn't flawed and can beat Norton or Buck. Deleware's Senator is a placeholder who was holding the seat for Beau Biden and he chose not to run, blame him for that. Ilinois has a choice to vote for David Hoffman who chose to still side with Alexi and despite the bank situtation, there's nothing wrong with him and is still competive with Kirk.

I agree, Bennet can beat Norton or Buck. I suspect we will win this race, especially if Buck wins the Republican primary, although it will be close. I only said that there could have been a better choice like Perlmutter and Hickenlooper. I do blame Beau Biden for not running, although it's still a recruitment failure for not getting him to run and of course not the best decision for choosing a placeholder candidate when Biden was not a certain candidate. And yes, ultimately the people of Illinois decided on Alexi. Nevertheless, better recruitment would have found a way to get Madigan in the race. I agree, the recruitment is difficult in a negative election year and many candidates do not want to damage their careers with election losses. That's why I blame much of the failures on establishment Democrats in general, which I also consider to mean people like Beau Biden and Lisa Madigan. I do not blame them for not wanting to face difficult races; I am only saying that by them not running, our challenge is more difficult. And I think we will still hold Illinois, as well.

Your joking, right? Obama disn't take away none of these guys to his cabinet and none were shoo-in's to win. Napolitano would of never beaten McCain and if she would run for the Senate it would be againist Kyl and Sebelius has no intrest in running for the Senate and she would far from winning in a State that hasn't elected a Dem to the Senate since the 1930's. Failure to prevent retirements in ND and IN, are you kidding me? Dorgan would of got crushed by Hoeven and he can'r helped that Bayh bailed on the last minute and we have a great candidate in Brad Ellsworth.

Recruitment fail in DE is because everyone was on what Beau was going to do. He waited to long and when he decided not to run it was too late to find someone else, blame him. NC what? Elaine Marshall is a credible candidate and certainly Jack Conway in KY. Honestly, come on man.

As for MA, it was all Coakley, it was her race to lose and she blew it, blame her. Really DE, AR and ND aren't looking at all? no kidding espically since Blance is unelectable in AR, Castle is popular in DE and no one can beat Hoeven in ND. Not hard to fathom.

Again, I consider Coakley as an establishment Democrat, and I believe she cost us this race. Where did I say that I blame someone else? I do not blame it on Obama or the DSCC, I blame that one on Coakley. However, it's very clear that we could have won it with someone else.

As far as Dorgan, he could have won that race. Sure, he has a mind of his own, but by him leaving, that has hurt us. I do not necessarily blame Democratic leadership for that race.

I do like Conway in Kentucky. However, I would argue that Crit Luallen would have been a better candidate. I am sure that she will run in the future. It's unfortunate that she did not run this time. We still could win the race and the same for North Carolina. I think there could have been some better candidates in North Carolina, although Marshall could win, as well.

Finally, while it is not a sure thing that either Napolitano or Sebelius would have run or that they could have won, there is no doubt that Obama reduced those chances to zero for certain.

---

by: Progressive America @ Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 14:57:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're way off on a lot of these......

Regarding the appointments in CO, IL, and DE, yes, those were weak.  I would have preferred politically stronger people there.  But at least in CO, I'm not sure we'd be any better off.  Romanoff was a top choice of many, but he's proven weaker than Bennet, and who else would do better this November?  Frankly Bennet actually some "outsider" cred from never having run for anything, and yet still benefits from being the incumbent; that wouldn't have been true of others.  In DE they wanted to keep the seat warm for Beau Biden, but he passed, probably because he didn't want to risk a loss to Castle that would tarnish Beau's star.  But yes it would've been smarter to appoint Beau or another strong incumbent right away.

Regarding AZ and KS, you're speculating badly that Napolitano and Sebelius would have run at all.  They were OUR dream candidates who never gave any indication of wanting to be Senators.

Your worst exmaple is KY, where it's baffling what you're talking about.  Conway is the most electable Democrat we possibly had, and we got him.

North Carolina saw only a modest DSCC investment in Cunningham.  In the end the DSCC didn't lose anything financially or otherwise that harms us.

Florida had a weak Democratic bench.  It's strange given that it's a purple state at the Presidential level, but it's a very slight red lean at the state level, and Republicans gerrymandered effectively enough to squash us further.  So a Congressman like Meek is about as good as it gets.  And for all that, there's a good chance Democrats will win the seat anyway, with a guy who doesn't even have to run in the Democratic primary!

Regarding ND, Dorgan sprang his retirement on everyone as a sudden surprise.  There was no "failure."  He's not a computer program that needed to be debugged, he's a human being who made a choice about what to do with his own life going forward.  Same thing in Indiana.

And Massachusetts is not anyone's failure but Coakley's.  There was never any hint that she would run such a bad campaign.  She was the strong frontrunner in the primary and rolled to a strong primary win.  I've heard people say "Capuano wouldn't have let that happen," but that sounds purely speculative to me.  How do you know that?  Everyone thought this was a safe Dem hold, how do you know Capuano wouldn't have gone on vacation for 3 weeks for the holidays?  And Capuano had his chance, it's not like there any "recruiting failure," he just lost the primary.

On balance, our fortunes this year aren't really about party committee failures.  There were a mix of things that put us in this position.  But very little of it is on Menendez.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 18:09:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Response

As I just said above...

For Colorado: Perlmutter or Hickenlooper

I agree with your speculation on Delaware. I blame that one on Biden, as well as the the Kaufman appointment.

For AZ and KS: Yes, it is not certain that either would have run or could have won, but by choosing those Napolitano and Sebelius as Cabinet officials, it reduced most doubt about winning those races.

For Kentucky, I think Crit Luallen would have been much better, although Conway is significantly better than Mongiardo. I am definitely hopeful that Conway can pull off the race.

For North Carolina, Marshall and Cunningham both were down the list on recruitment preferences, although once again Marshall does have a great chance still. And nonetheless, the $100,000 was a waste of money; there was no reason to wait until after the primary to spend that money, particularly since both candidates are equally electable candidates.

For North Dakota, clearly the fault is on Dorgan and the same for Coakley in Massachusetts. They are part of the establishment to me and cost us these races.

---

by: Progressive America @ Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 15:07:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who else could have run in FL, NC, and KY?

Most of the better Democratic candidates in those races likely concluded early on that with Democrats in control of both the White House and Congress, 2010 was likely going to be a bad Democratic year and decided to keep their powder dry.  

---

by: Kolgare @ Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 00:34:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Adding to the indictment

As DSCC Chair, Menendez is a member of the Senate leadership.  For a member of the leadership to blackmail the Obama administration by placing holds on nominees in order to prevent changes in policy toward Cuba is completely unforgivable.  

---

by: Vadranor @ Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:22:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What the hell are you talking about?

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:36:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

citation

http://www.grist.org/article/B...

---

by: Vadranor @ Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 20:35:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]