The War Loses, Voters Win (Only 8 of Rahm's 22 hand-picks won)

[katinmn]

(I'm glad Walsh analyzed this. This settles it for me. Rahm may be claiming he's the man, but some, me included, believe Dems won despite RE.)

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh11112006.html
Rahm's Losers
By JOHN V. WALSH

...
Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) (One is still undecided.) And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million ­ and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war (60% according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates were not antiwar.

So Rahm Emanuel nearly seized defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems fully intended to pursue the war and the neocons thought that they had found a new host in the Dem party ­ but the voters now perceive the Dems as antiwar and if they do not deliver, they will be damaged. After all Ralph Nader and Chuck Hagel are waiting in the wings for 2008. Either Emanuel is completely incompetent or else Emanuel is putting the interests of Israel ahead of Democratic victories. You decide. In either case why would he remain in a position of influence in the Dem party? A good question.

[wakeme2008]

1. Kick and nom for Dean :) nt

[Buzz Clik]

2. What is this bullshit? Dean's hard work is more important than someone else's?

There must be a dozen active threads bashing Rahm Emanuel. Half of them don't know who he is or what committee he represented. He worked his ass off, as did many, many others. We won the house. We won the Senate.

END OF STORY.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. today's chi tribune had a full section tribute to Rahm.

It barely mentions Dean, and makes just a passing reference to the numbers of losses Rahm candidates suffered. A real fan-based article, with someone either paid by Rahm's PR staff or worse.

[ray of light]

4. Many points:

1. We all won the election. Just like a jigsaw puzzle with 1500 pieces working together, each and every group did it's part to complete the picture.

2. The 50 state strategy worked.

3. Rahm's money infused into those races helped because even if the candidate lost, it caused the Republicans to have to SPEND more of their own money in districts they thought were safe.

4. John Kerry supported over 53 candidates in many different offices. I don't have the exact count, but I believe it was close to 43 of those candidates won. (via hotline or something like that. I saw it a few days ago and lost the link.)

5. John Edward's campaign win/loss ratio was second to John Kerry's.

6. Even though, Hillary campaigned for the least amount of candidates and did it 'behind closed doors' and took the least amount in the win/loss ration....even that little bit helped.

So let's congratulate all of us and keep working to make 07 bring good reforms, investigations, etc.

[katinmn]

5. Yes. And I want Carville and whomever he's representing to STOP IT

Let the Republican Party be the Kingmaker party.