Who else thinks the DNC and DLC are infested with undercover freepers?

[devilgrrl]

That lack of support for Paul Hackett's campaign makes me wonder?

Set me straight, I'm confused.

[undergroundpanther]

1. The left and right are ONE

They are communitarian.
Remaking this country into a new kind of panapticon where all rivals to the Bush and his buddies No, it;s more the buddies than bush BTW..are cut off at the knees. A pseudo feudal ownership/slave state with a big does of the hypocrite god paid for by prison labor and mental health prison labor.
Until we decide to stop going along with this authoritarian new world order bullshit,and quit working for them,quit obeying"leaders" and organize and revolt... Than things collapse fema sweeps in,The market goes poof the mega billionaires close up shop and hide,and the culling and killing starts in earnest.

[jobycom]

2. They just didn't see it coming

They figured it was a lock for the Repub. That's my biggest complaint about the DNC--they concede too easily. I know some consultants who plan out what races to try in, which races to avoid, and they have it all reduced to mathmatics. They will only target voters who have voted Dem in one of the last three or four elections, for instance, to save money and time.

Considering this is in Texas where the Dems have lost most of the last four elections, this is a dumb strategy, but they are so convinced they shouldn't waste money that they don't try.

I suspect that's what happened to Hackett with the lack of Party money.

[Lorien]

3. It's the same here in FL

in 2000, the director in my Dem group told us that we should concentrate on the house and senate, because Gore didn't have a prayer. I and others like me wouldn't except that, and we won our district for Gore-but as we well know, Florida was hardly a "lock" for *.

[TruthIsAll]

11. Hardly a lock for *? Gore won FL by at least 30,000 votes.. n/t

.

[staticstopper]

7. I'm almost positive there are double agents

they have it all reduced to mathmatics.

MY question is why? politics are about personalities, right?

and why do they always concede?

Seems to me, some people are too trusting. (not a bad thing, but with these sorts of foes, one would think they would bump it up a notch)

[jobycom]

12. Well

The money guys reduce it to mathematics, because that's what they do.

And no, it's really not all about personalities. That plays a minor role--you assume the candidate has the personality. Campaigning can be boiled down to a science, on one level. You know that you will lose certain regions (whether precinct, district, or state) by a certain margin, based on history and pre-polling data and such. You assume you will win certain districts the same way. So that leaves certain ones in play. That's where you focus your energy and money. You try to steal the edge in those districts. If you are really crafty and feeling confident, you might try to campaign in one of your opponent's safe districts to steal a few votes, and maybe hit him on a key issue he is weak on. Then he has to waste money campaigning in a district he had the edge in, not so much to win that district, because he's already going to win it, but to minimize the damage.

There are other factors. Ballots, for instance. Say the ballot has an unusual number of Hispanics on it. You expect more Hispanics to vote. If the Hispanic candidates are all Democrats, you expect a boost from this. If they are women, you get a certain boost. If they are Republican, you may have problems--more Republican Hispanics will turn out to vote, upsetting the Demographic. Same with any demographic, or ideological bent.

Given the historical turnouts, the types of candidates on the ballots, and the races up for grabs (and other things I'm not remembering at the moment), a strategist determines what region to focus money on, what ideological bent has the best chance of winning (a ballot and race that is expected to draw mostly conservative and moderate voters does not encourage support of a progressive liberal, for instance. And vica versa.), etc.

A good analyst in a normal year can look at a ballot, look at the district, and predict the race within two or three points. If the race is expected to be eight points off, it might be worth a fight, but not likely. If it's ten points off, save your money.

That's basic strategy, and in normal times, it works well enough. There is a limit to your funding, your volunteers, and your time. There are three reasons I don't like it. One, you surrender your argument. If you don't bother to contest even in a district you can't win, no one hears your argument, and that strengthens the other side, ultimately costing you votes. Two, a good candidate can do amazing things, and you might miss that chance. Three, when times are changing, as they are now, you miss the change, and you miss opportunities. I think Hackett did well because of all three of those reasons: he had a message people weren't used to hearing, he has a great resume and personality, and people are beginning to turn against Bush. I think the DNC missed a great opportunity by playing the old rules.

No one is too trusting. They are just trained to do things a certain way, and no one wants to be the one to take a risk and fall flat. So they try the tried and true methods--which lately makes them fall flat. But if they fall flat doing what's expected, they don't get laughed at, or written off as a crackpot.

People like to see conspiracies, and imagine dark, smokey rooms where all these decisions are made, with money changing hands. That happens, but it's exagerated. Truth is, most of these decisions are made by the same type of mid-level managers who gum up all businesses in the same type of business-meeting climate that hounds all businesses. There are geniuses, but they can only work so many places at once. Mostly there are just a lot of people trying to figure out what to do, just like around here. And there are a lot of liberal/progressives in these meetings, but they, too, when the money is on the line, agree that the best strategy is what has been tried before.

That's been my observations, anyway. I imagine all districts are different to some degree. But that's how and why the decisions are made. I imagine there could be a couple of plants here and there, but more than likely, they would be spies, only. It's no harder to spot a disruptor in a meeting than it is on DU.

[Lannes]

4. It might be something less sinister but also bad

The "old boys club" not wanting new blood and trying to preserve their power.Look at how bent out of shape some dems got when Dean was made head of the DNC.

[nosmokes]

5. not infested with freepers just addicted to power &

feeding at the corporate trough. just like their 1st cousins across the aisle, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the republocrats from the demublicans, especially by their votes on most legislation involving spending or nebulous wars on terror.

[wli]

6. guaranteed

The Congressional Black Caucus is probably the last bastion of honest politicians, and even that is probably thoroughly infiltrated (Conyers and McKinney are the only ones besides Waxman really questioning things).

[Is It Fascism Yet]

8. Yep. It's one party by two names. Why else would Kerry play dead

in the 7th round?

[Tigress DEM]

9. DNC and Howard Dean DID support Hackett

AirAmerica Radio says Dean in particular has been campaigning for Hackett for a long time, but not on the National Level so much until recently because it was a local race.

http://www.democrats.org

<snip>



The First Wind in a Hurricane
In a stunning showing in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District, Democrat and former Marine Paul Hackett came within a handful of votes in one of the most Republican areas of the country. Paul was a great candidate and a perfect example of why we need to fight everywhere. Read More...




Copyright © 1995-2005 DNC Services Corporation · Paid for by the Democratic National Committee — 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.· Privacy Policy
Technical Problems and Comments

[Tigress DEM]

10. DLC is afraid the DEMS will fall if they let go of Corporate America's...

apron strings. They are the part of the party that keeps in touch with corporate America and gets big money for DEMs campaigns.

Their rhetoric wasn't completely offensive to me if it had been phrased as "bi-partisan" areas of agreement or something... but I remember there was only one item that looked blue to me, the rest were purple... a couple were red.

But their group is probably working on the Republicans that can see Bush is crazy... so I'm not sure they are all bad. It would be nice to talk with someone who has had a lot of direct dealings with them.

I feel suspicious because they talk like Republicans... and I want to make sure I'm not dealing with spies either. Still I give them the benefit of the doubt even as I watch carefully.