Democrats betrayed by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

[Cleanelec]

Giving the mid-terms away. Nothing else it can be called IMHO. Vote with us and get screwed, defect and get rewarded.


By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 15, 9:18 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Grasping to keep control of Congress, Democratic leaders are turning their backs on some of their staunchest supporters in the House and propping up stronger candidates who have routinely defied them on health care, climate change and other major issues.

Raw politics — the drive to win a House-majority 218 seats, no matter how — is increasingly trumping policy and loyalty in these decisions, as Democrats shift money and attention in the closing days of the campaign toward races they can win and pull back from those seemingly lost.

The Democrats are shelling out $40 million in 59 congressional districts in the last three weeks of the campaign for TV advertising. Republicans, boosted by well-funded outside groups, are working to expand the political battleground by pouring money into 82 races next week alone.

Feelings are being hurt along the way.

In a fundraising video in Ohio this week, Rep. Steve Driehaus lashed out at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for "walking away" from his race after he "had the guts" to cast tough votes for key measures.

The House campaign arm has in recent days canceled millions of dollars worth of advertising it had planned for Driehaus and other endangered Democrats including his fellow Ohioan Mary Jo Kilroy, Suzanne Kosmas in Florida, Betsy Markey in Colorado and Steve Kagen in Wisconsin. All of them voted for President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and for legislation to curb carbon emissions — only to be savaged by Republicans on the campaign trail for doing so.

The list of Democratic candidates being lavished with national party help in the final days of the race includes many of the defectors on those marquee votes: Reps. Michael Arcuri in New York, Bobby Bright in Alabama, Travis Childers in Mississippi, Larry Kissell in North Carolina, Jim Marshall in Georgia and Glenn Nye in Virginia, among others.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_el_ge/us_democrats_trumping_loyalty_9

[Scuba]

1. If you feel this way, then right AFTER the election, you should get involved...

In the meantime, don't confuse a disappointing friend for a deadly enemy.

[Tesha]

4. The folks in the Democratic Party who have *DESTROYED* the Democratic "Brand" *ARE* our deadly enemy

They are the precise reason why nobody understands anymore
what Democrats sand for: with these Bozos on our bus, we can't
be said to stand for *ANY* unified policy; we're all over the map.

Here's a clue: only elect Democrats who:

1. Stand for the working person.
2. Are firmly for women's rights.
3. Are firmly for gay rights.
4. Oppose starting unwinnable wars.

Tesha

[Scuba]

6. So you're suggesting we elect Republicans in all other instances?

[Tesha]

7. There's a thread here called "The stupid has metastasized"

No, of course I'm not suggesting that as a long-run policy.
But I'm VERY VERY WILLING to see a bunch of DINOs removed from
our party if it means that we get back to running (and seeing elected!)
REAL DEMOCRATS WHO AREN'T ASHAMED TO BE CALLED DEMOCRATS.

And if this election is the perfect opportunity to see a lot of DINOs
forcibly retired, then rather wasting money propping up these Bozos,
we might as well accept that and make better plans for the future.
Meanwhile, our "party" is allowing good Democrats to go down to
defeat while spending money on these DINO Bozos. Why is that?

Tesha

[Scuba]

9. I agree, but that work comes AFTER the election, or more accurately...

...that work comes BEFORE the next election.

For the time being, we have what we have.

If we allow the Republicans to take either chamber, the next two years will be spent on the defensive.

[Tesha]

26. It's *ALWAYS* "before the next election".

Sooner or later, it'll be time to eject the non-Democratic Democrats.

It looks like this cycle, the Republicans are going to do it for us.

Tesha

[jgraz]

20. I'm suggesting we STOP electing Republicans posing as Democrats.

As long as the DCCC supports my enemies, they don't get a single dime from me.

[bobbolink]

21. And you have expressed just why so many of us aren't considered in the party:

You left our POVERTY, once again.

The vote of poor people, formerly considered a given for the Democrats, has been tossed aside.

Your loss.

[Tesha]

27. I numbered the poor among "the working people". Don't you?

Or was your reply not intended for me?

Tesha

[bobbolink]

29. NO. I have expressed many times why this meme of "working poor" is hurting us.

But, most don't care to listen.

[Tesha]

30. Well, I haven't heard it, so tell me; I'll listen. (NT)

[bobbolink]

35. Thank you for listening.

First, just saying "working people" doesn't include poor people. Many people here at DU, for instance, are working, but are quite comfortable and don't understand poverty issues at all.

Second, the overused phrase "the working poor" leaves out all of us who are too old, too sick, or too injured to work. Using that phrase has made it easier to cut out those of us who don't fit in that mold, and we definitely feel ignored.

[Tesha]

37. Thanks -- I need one more thing from you.

What brief phrase would encompass both "the working poor"
and the folks you're thinking of? Perhaps "the working and
non-working poor"?

I don't want to drop "the working poor" from the phrase
because one important dynamic of the recent hard times
is that many people are working as hard as the system will
let them work (being underemployed, shorted on work
hours, etc.), yet are still slipping into poverty or remain
firmly-entrenched in poverty. Yet you're right -- there
are many who can no longer work in our system, struc-
tured as it is today but our society provides little or no
remaining safety net for them.

If the phrase is memorable enough to stick in my head,
I'd be glad to adopt it from here on out.

Tesha

[bobbolink]

38. "If the phrase is memorable enough to stick in my head, I'd be glad to adopt it from here on out."

Well, my goodness.

So, it is up to me to impress you?

I remember the days when members of the Democratic party CARED enough to *make* it stick in their heads.

Sorry that just our pain isn't enough to "make it stick in (your) head."

[Tesha]

39. So suggest a phrase; don't just gripe in my direction.

I was trying to have a conversation with you that would
hopefully reach a conclusion favorable to you. But if you
"just came here for an argument", then I'd prefer to watch
the Monty Python skit.

Tesha

[bobbolink]

40. Don't put words in my mouth! What you put in quotes is NOT what I said or implied.

Looks to me like I was suckered into an "argument".

That's what I get for being too trusting.

Lesson learned.

Have fun with Monty. I'm sure that's a lot better than caring about those beneath you.

[dkf]

2. Let's face it....a lot of the legislation we forced our people to do isn't so popular.

That means they sabotaged themselves and made them unelectable.

Even Obama is personally popular but his policies aren't

[bobbolink]

36. That is not at all what the polls indicate.

[Cleanelec]

3. They are turning their backs on loyal Dems

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reasoning:

"Stand with us on the tough votes, and we'll cut and run on you."

"Cut and run on the tough votes, and we'll stand with you, because we're sure you'll vote with us NEXT TIME."

[Tesha]

5. That's why I *NEVER* give money to the DCCC, DSCC, or the DNC.

I target individual candidates who are loyal Democrats and
who support policies I like.

Tesha

[hobbit709]

11. Same here.

[cascadiance]

18. Exactly, which is probably why they now have less money to spend too...

Since they are probably arguing internally that they have to keep the doors to corporations more open (as DLCers would do) with less money coming from us each year, since many of the rest of us see through their crap and donate to them any more.

If we had Howard Dean back in charge of the DNC, or other more progressive leadership of these other organizations, I bet they'd be amazed at how much more campaign cash from the Democratic voters they'd get then, and then would realize that depending on corporate donations is a losing strategy. We just need to get rid of the Rahm Emmanuel types in those organizations, and not by bouncing upwards onto Obama's staff either like Rahm did.

[Tesha]

28. Precisely. (NT)

[OHdem10]

8. This is nuts. That list have ads shown on Fox dissing Pelosi

and the Party.

If they are so strong, they should not need help.

One of the ads "I vote with the Republicans 65% of the time."

Does our party even want to pass Democratic Legislation. Giving
Republicans money and walking away from real support boggles the
mind. If they are so darn strong, why do they need money?

[Unvanguard]

10. This is a silly complaint.

Any congressional campaign committee worth its salt will fund candidates who have a chance of winning, not ones in hopeless races. Candidates actually involved in the races are, of course, the least reliable source about their prospects.

[OHdem10]

12. I am glad to know they wrote off Ohio early on. Sarcasm.

Right now it shows.

[Unvanguard]

13. They are probably looking at individual districts, not states as a whole. n/t

[Toots]

15. That is utter BS

Three weeks ago in Alaska the polls had Murkowski at fifty percent and Miller at forty percent and poor ol' McAdams at a lowly ten percent, so DCCC and DNC gave him virtually no support at all. The only money he has raised other than the token $42,000 given by DNC was from individuals. Now the polls say they are all within three points of each other so it is virtually a toss up except for the fact the McAdams has been steadily gaining while the other two have been losing support..Dean had it right with his fifty state strategy and the proof of that seems to abound everywhere...

[xchrom]

16. That race has been particularly satisfying because I really don't like

He DCCC.

[Unvanguard]

17. Three-way elections are notoriously volatile.

Most elections are pretty predictable, House elections especially. The fifty-state strategy is valuable insofar as it exposes vulnerabilities in incumbents you wouldn't have guessed, but it does that early in the campaign, not with less than one month to go. At this point, we know more or less who is competitive and who is not.

Edit: For the record, I have just looked at recent polling in the Alaska race, and I see no poll that has McAdams doing any better than four points down his nearest competitor, and six points down the plurality winner. With less than a month remaining, those are bad numbers.

[Cleanelec]

22. Silly? I'll tell you what is silly

Conceding defeat a month before the elections are even held.

That's exactly what is happening.

[Unvanguard]

23. I agree; many elections should be conceded long before that.

Only a fairly small subset, where polling or background conditions provide some firm grounding for suspecting a competitive election (fairly rare when it comes to Congress), should still be fought over by the time the one-month mark comes along.

Elections are pretty predictable. We have gotten quite good at it. We know who is going to win in the vast majority of both House and Senate races, and moving around some DCCC or DSCC money will not alter those outcomes. The money should be spent where it counts.

[fascisthunter]

14. I will never vote for a conservative dem again

nor those that claim to be "moderate"....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Brilliant! Give more money to Blue Dogs to vote against progressive legislation.

And, then blame the progressives for their "lack of enthusiasm". :crazy:

[XemaSab]

24. They've never given a dime to the democrat in CA-2

n/t

[emulatorloo]

25. There is a lot of fucking spin in that article. Is this news or an "Opinion" piece?

Look at all the negative words.

Grasping to keep control of Congress, Democratic leaders are turning their backs on some of their staunchest supporters in the House and propping up stronger candidates who have routinely defied them on health care, climate change and other major issues.

OK for an opinion piece, but this is supposed to be reporting, right?

[Cleanelec]

31. One thing that isn't spin

The DCCC isn't dancing with the one(s) that brung'em.

[Autumn]

32. Okay, spin or not, news or opinion.

Is it a lie? Seems to be what they are doing.

[Curmudgeoness]

33. Our Congresswoman was reported to be among the ones

who were losing funding. It turned out to be untrue, at least from what she says and what the DCCC stated on MSNBC the next day. Always take everything you see in the press as suspicious.

[Buddyblazon]

34. Fuck the 50 state strategy...

let's go back to the way we did it before because that worked so well for the party for decades.

/sarcasm