Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The 50 state strategy vindicated?
Posted by: McQ on Friday, November 10, 2006

I think the Howard Dean 50 state strategy was mostly vindicated. Atrios tells us why:
If you don't have credible candidates in place - and, yes, even ones who are probably going to lose - you can't take advantage of a potential "wave," or a sudden scandal, or surprise retirements. If nothing else it seems like every election about half a dozen or so incumbents are knocked out at the last minute by scandal or surprise retirement, and those are easy (sometimes automatic) pickups if you have a candidate who is actually running a credible race.

Also, if you don't run credible candidates regularly, and run real campaigns, you don't build networks of support, you don't build local knowledge, and you don't build a pool of talented and willing volunteers.
In the main, that's correct. Conceding races, not running strong candidates, not supporting all candidates leads to atrophy in the network needed to elect your people. I think this strategy has more potential further on down the road than perhaps it did in this one (although it worked, I'm not sure it is solely because of network support strength), if Dems remain on that road, they and their efforts could be formidable in '08.

If you're going to play a national game, you have to be in all the games. Even in areas you don't think you'll do well.

OTOH, I think it should be kept in mind as we review the Republican losses, that around 12 of those would probably have gone to the Dems regardless ... given the scandals associated with the incumbent Republican. But still, the Dems have a majority and I think part of that reason is the Dean strategy. A strategic tip of the hat to Dean on this one.

And just as I was feeling that Atrios was on a roll he said:
As for Lamont/Lieberman, well, that sucks, but a big reason we all supported a run against Joe was to force the party to Start Talking About the War. And they did, eventually.
Well, yeah, but as I recall, most of those againt Lieberman kept telling us it wasn't about the Iraq war, but the fact that Liberman wasn't a true Democrat. Now it's about the Iraq war and an effort to get Democrats talking about it?

Yeah, right.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Wow, it took them this long to figure out if you don’t have a hand in the game, you can’t win...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
Wow, it took them this long to figure out if you don’t have a hand in the game, you can’t win...
I’m not sure it’s that cut and dried, Keith. I think they’ve always had a hand in the game, just not a strong one. This time they tried to go out and recruit strong candidates even in districts where historically they’ve never done well and then they supported them financially better than they ever have. Before, as I understand it, the strategy was to pick key districts where they had a chance and support them heavily while giving minimum or token support in the other areas.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Atrios’ point about the Lamont-Lieberman primary race. Before that race, it isn’t at all clear that the Dems were going to focus their campaigns on Iraq. I think many of the beltway types thought that corruption was going to be their big issus. The CT primary showed that a very popular incumbent was vulnerable due to a single issue (and the fact that he ran a crappy primary campaign). Had Lamont lost big in the primary, I’m not sure the Dems would have focused so clearly on Iraq.
 
Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
Well, if you’re going to have a hand in the game, you play it, even if you’re bluffing or don’t think you’ll win. Sorry if I sounded too sarcastic. I think many people are going to have buyers remorse come this time next year, well except those who mostly wanted to punish the Republicans.

Isn’t that why the Libertarians often push candidates onto every single electable position, whether they have a chance or not. What the Libertarians lack most is the machine to get people elected. Sometimes they have the money, sometimes the qualifications. But you need the GOTV campaigns, communications with potential voters, etc, to actually get elected. That’s what the Democrats are starting to strengthen. And it’s something the Libertarians will probably never have, being the decentralized, anti-establishment party.

Note, no Democrat ran against Lugar here in Indiana, and the Libertarian candidate got 13%. (With probably a minimal campaign budget too.)
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
BTW my conscience is free and clear. Voted Libertarian for both the House (Burton) and Senate (Lugar) race here.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
There’s also the warchest factor. Incumbents in "safe" districts usually parcel out some of their extra millions (through party committees, etc.) to defend less "safe" seats or to take the battle to the enemy on his ground. By going on the offensive and running even nominally credible candidates in lots of "safe" Republican districts this year, the Democrats tied that money up.

Sure, Tammy Duckworth lost — by a surprisingly narrow margin — in Illinois ... but she made Roskam hold onto his money instead of sending it to boost J.D. Hayworth or Dick Pombo. Lincoln Chafee couldn’t cruise to re-election in Rhode Island while shelling out dollars to save Jim Talent in Missouri or George Allen in Virginia. Hell, in the end he couldn’t even save himself.

That’s the advantage of creating a "national election" at a time when your party’s looking better than the other party (or at least not as bad). It’s about the only way to break the logjam one way or the other in significant numbers after all the dealmaking, gerrymandering and writing off of "safe enemy" districts that tends to build a rough balance between the two parties, leaving one or the other always just barely in the majority and the other just barely in the minority.
 
Written By: Kn@ppster
URL: http://knappster.blogspot.com
It appears that not everyone agrees with your assessment Bruce.
Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Well, yeah, but as I recall, most of those againt Lieberman kept telling us it wasn’t about the Iraq war, but the fact that Liberman wasn’t a true Democrat.
Huh?? Let’s just say your memory is a bit faulty.

Sure, many libs complained about Joe’s constant visits to Sean Hannity and the like. But the reason Joe visited Hannity was purely the Iraq war and his support for it. Or do you believe Hannity invited Joe on to talk about universal health care and tax policy?

One needn’t look further than Joe’s 180 on Rumsfeld and stay the course to realize HE knew what had CT voters mad at him.

But as I’ve pointed out here before, you have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to Liebermans 2006 race and the dynamics behind it.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Before that race, it isn’t at all clear that the Dems were going to focus their campaigns on Iraq.
I think you’re missing my point, Steven. Whenever any of us would question the campaign against Lieberman being a single issue, namely Iraq, we were consistently told no, it wasn’t about Iraq, it was about Lieberman being too close to Bush and not a good Dem (in fact one of the fav comebacks was "if it’s about Iraq, then how do you explain support for Hillary Clinton?).

Now it was about Iraq. I call BS.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But as I’ve pointed out here before, you have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to Liebermans 2006 race and the dynamics behind it.
Well it does seem hard to grasp those dynamics when they’re so ... dynamic.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Keith repeatedly now misrepresents my views:
well except those who mostly wanted to punish the Republicans.
The very post you link to identifies as the primary reason I voted Dem, the upholding of the rule of law. What is there for a libertarian not to understand in that? And yes, I also wished to punish the GOP — sort of like most of the rest of the country, which did just that on Tuesday. The hubris from the GOP has been astonishing, which is part and parcel of the Bush Administration’s dangerous and bizarre notion that it literally is above the law and beyond congressional oversight.

Yup, plenty there for a libertarian to see worth punishing. Jim Henley advised everyone to vote Dem in national elections in his election-day post, titled Punish the Wicked.

We did.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
Wow. I return from the field today and proceeded to do what I commonly do, log onto QandO. And I see this,
Posted by: McQ

I think the Howard Dean 50 state strategy was mostly vindicated.

But still, the Dems have a majority and I think part of that reason is the Dean strategy. A strategic tip of the hat to Dean on this one.
And I thought…Nah…, there’s something wrong with my browser.
So I double checked and to my astonishment…
http://www.qando.net/
Sure enough.

You see, fella’s… McQ is not the RepublicanRed colored erectile quill clad partisan that some of you think he is. But of course, I’ve known that for some time now.

As many have already suggested, Dean’s strategy had heapins’ of help from Republicans gone astray. But no doubt Dean’s strategy had merit.

Winning in Missouri, winning in Montana, holding onto seats in GA, etc…

And of course, winning changes everything…
BTW - what gives with the obsession with Dean? Is he French?

Nah ... just an irritating, not-ready-for-prime-time putz.
Written by: McQ
Doesn’t it?

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
Mona,

In an amusing coincidence, I got to vote for the "other" Jim Henley for congress Tuesday.

Sadly he didn’t have a chance, but at least we know the real thing will keep blogging!
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Wow. Pardon me for a second, I have to go find my jaw. It’s the genuine unpredictability of this blog that keeps me coming back. this is the first complementary statement I’ve ever heard any non-liberal netroots member say about Howard Dean.

For a completely different perspective- in supporting a 50-state strategy, you inevitably end up supporting candidates who are not liberal ideologues.

It’s ironic that the netroots, very often proscribed as far left, and Howard Dean, one of their heroes, are out there heavily investing in a strategy that fills Democratic ranks with moderates and non-leftist ideologues, while all the "moderate" DC insider democrats are trashing them for how unelectably liberal they are, and fighting against the 50-state strategy, even though it elects.. non-leftist ideologues of the very sort you’d think they’d be looking for.

Life is more complex than it often appears, and personal vendettas often go far past the point of common sense.






 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Havingt said that,
As for Lamont/Lieberman, well, that sucks, but a big reason we all supported a run against Joe was to force the party to Start Talking About the War. And they did, eventually.
Well, yeah, but as I recall, most of those againt Lieberman kept telling us it wasn’t about the Iraq war, but the fact that Liberman wasn’t a true Democrat. Now it’s about the Iraq war and an effort to get Democrats talking about
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
It’s the genuine unpredictability of this blog that keeps me coming back
That’s because you and others (like your pal MK) think this is a conservative blog and are continually surprised when it is not expressing a conservative position.

If only you were such a partisan yourself.


fills Democratic ranks with moderates and non-leftist ideologues,
mostly blue dogs n’est-ce pas? Was that because he realized that he needed more conservative candidates to win?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
And of course, winning changes everything…

BTW - what gives with the obsession with Dean? Is he French?

Nah ... just an irritating, not-ready-for-prime-time putz.

Written by: McQ

Doesn’t it?

Cheers.
Not really. I had a battalion commander once who was a pretty good battalion commander ... but he was still a dick.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Huh?? Let’s just say your memory is a bit faulty.
Really?

Well here’sTito on a thread:
Lieberman’s lack of "loyalty" on specific progressive issues what the whole reason he lost.
Then Glasnost:
Lieberman sucked up to Republicans on their signature issues. He deserves to go down for it. I’d rather see him caucus with the GOP then with the Democrats- then we can finish him off next cycle. F*ck Lieberman. He’s a cancer in the system.
Tito again:
And so what that a "not liberal enough Dem" was ousted in the primary of a very liberal state.
Next thread:

Mona, the new Democrat:
The main issue that caused Democrats to recoil from Lieberman was the belief that he is not loyal to his Party.
Another thread:

Jennifer:
As a Connecticut resident who furthermore had to cover the primary as part of my reporter-job, I’ve long since reached the conclusion that the only reason Lieberman calls himself a Democrat is that his lips can’t shape the words "I am a Republican" whilst superglued to George W.’s butt.

The man actually criticized those who criticized warrantless wiretaps. And insisted that we shouldn’t question the president at this vital juncture in history. If Lieberman does get elected this fall the only noticeable difference will be that I don’t have to type (D)-CT after his name. It’ll be (I)-CT instead.
And another:

Mkultra:
Or take another example: The bankruptcy bill that recently passed. A very anti-progressive piece of legislation. While Lieberman voted against the final bill, he voted yes on the cloture vote when the progressive position was to vote no. Were the mainstream of Dems against the bankruptcy bill? Yes. Were the progressives? Yes. Was Lieberman? Apparently not.

There are a myriad of other issues where Lieberman has been out of touch. Indeed, just yesterday, Ann Coulter praised Lieberman and his stance on the war. If that doesn’t tell you how far out of the mainstream Lieberman is, nothing will.
Seems to me they’re telling me that it was all about his lack of loyalty, Davebo.

Plenty more where those came from.

And that’s just on this blog. Netroots was claiming it the entire time (just take a trip down memory lane at FDL and Kos).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Mona, the new Democrat
No, McQ. I remain what I have been my entire adult life: A libertarian. When those principles were best vindicated by the GOP, I voted GOP. When I hated both parties equally, I didn’t vote. When the GOP is a severe threat to fundamental principles of liberty and the rule of law and in the grips of insane people vis-a-vis foreign policy, I vote Democrat.

But at all times, my voting preference is driven by the fact that I am a libertarian.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
Not really. I had a battalion commander once who was a pretty good battalion commander ... but he was still a dick.
Yeah, I wouldn’t doubt that you would still think Dean a putz. But “not ready for prime time”?

The proof, they say, is in the pudding.

BTW – I’ve heard my uncle say, “all the good battalion commanders are dicks” or something of the like.
Ummm. You weren’t a battalion commander, were you? ;)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
But “not ready for prime time”?
Context Pogue ... I was talking about national office.
You weren’t a battalion commander, were you? ;)
Nope. Just a bee keeper.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Dean’s strategy is a long-term one. It’s hard to say if his 50-state strategy gave the Dems victories in unlikely races likely AZ-05 or NH-01, but it certainly didn’t hurt. The whining from James Carville about Howard Dean is just too much. More money would have killed Jim Gerlach or Heather Wilson? No, Lois Murphy lost to Gerlach because she ran a conventional centrist no-mention-of-Iraq campaign. Next door, Pat Murphy (no relation) beat popular incumbent Mike Fitzpatrick by focusing entirely on Iraq. Money wasn’t the answer. Message was. Then there was Patricia Madrid in NM. She had all sorts of funding from the DNC and the DCCC. But then she botched the debate and barely lost. Blaming tight losses on either campaign committee is silly.

But the long-term effect of Dean’s strategy will be significant. Dean himself has said that it’s a matter of basic respect that you ask everybody for their vote, even if they are a fundamentalist Christian, gun-toting, business owning, Marine from Alabama. More important, setting up ground games in Nebraska, Idaho and Kansas helped put those seats in play...and in Kansas, gave the Dems a stunning victory. Dean is right on this. Carville and the DC Dems are wrong and are showing nothing but sour grapes that their old methods have failed.
 
Written By: Elrod
URL: http://
Atrios said:
As for Lamont/Lieberman, well, that sucks, but a big reason we all supported a run against Joe was to force the party to Start Talking About the War. And they did, eventually. (Emphasis supplied.)
What McQ said about the above:
Well, yeah, but as I recall, most of those againt Lieberman kept telling us it wasn’t about the Iraq war, but the fact that Liberman wasn’t a true Democrat. Now it’s about the Iraq war and an effort to get Democrats talking about it?
First, it appears Atrios is saying that Iraq was a major reason to oppose Lieberman, but it wasn’t the only reason. I don’t recall anyone of any signifigance ever saying that Lieberman’s support for the war was most assuredly a non-factor.

Some quotes please.

Here is what I said at the time in response to the notion that Lieberman was a mainstream Dem.
The biggest issue out there right now is the War in Iraq. In the 2006 election, it will be the biggest issue of all, because the GOP will make it the biggest issue and the media will dutifully follow right along. So is Lieberman in the mainstream of the Dem party on the issue that will define the 2006 election? Not by a long shot. The mainstream of the Dem party - not the elites at the top, but the mainstream, was against the war in the first place. They certainly aren’t for continuing with More of the Same - more dead GI’s and more money poured into the cesspool that is Iraq.
Guess that Iraq thing sorta backfired on the GOP, huh?

Anyway, as I noted, Iraq was going to the biggest issue. As I also noted, Lieberman was way, way outside the Democratic mainstream. And most of us to the left thought the same thing. This notion that Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war and, more importantly, his support for Bush’s "Hunker Down in Dunkirk" approach to the Iraq war played no part in the opposition to Lieberman is nonsense, and not supported by the record.

I think it’s fair to say that the only reason Lieberman won may have been the absence of a serious GOP candidate. A serious GOP candidate wouldn’t have taken votes from Lamont, but he or she certainly would have cut into Lieberman’s total. But then serious GOP candidates seem in short supply these days, wouldn’t ya say?

Plus, it didn’t help that Lieberman kissed Bush. Images are powerful stuff.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Y’know its funny, when I used to criticize the 50-state strategy, the response that I always got was "it is a long-term strategy, nothing happens this election." Now, all of a sudden, Dean is some type of friggin’ genius who deserves a good degree of credit for bringing this election about?

I don’t think so.

What happened this election was first that Rahm Emanuel convinced Democrats not to retire or run for higher office in any vulnerable districts (except OH-06), and then recruited top-notch challengers in districts where Republicans had underperformed in the past. Republicans then lost a handful of solidly Republican districts where, inter alia, their incumbents choked their mistresses, took a ton of money from a lobbyist who was a convicted felon, or where Republicans had to vote for a pederast in order to vote for their candidate. Other than that, Democrats pretty much won in districts carried by Kerry or narrowly carried by Bush, with the exception of Boyda in KS-02, the only real "435-seat strategy" candidate who won. This is the same strategy the parties have been using for years, and it worked.

To be certain, in a bad enough year for the in-party you can pick up the odd seat here or there with a 435-seat strategy — heck, you can do it without one, as Republicans won in Toldeo and New Haven in 1980 and in urban Chicago in 1994 (and came close in places like Akron), and came relatively close (given the nature of the state and the year) in Vermont this year. Ultimately, though, the netroots would have been better off sending more of their cash to people like Maffei, Cranley, or Farrell to try to get them those extra couple thousand votes in seats where the GOP would not have been able to come back for decades than to get Maxine Moul and Scott Kleeb 41% and 45% of the vote respectively, or creating likely one-termers like Boyda.
 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
Mona claiming to be a libertarian. A ’big tent’ libertarian, one presumes. IN much the same way as Chafee is a Republican, eh?

Amusing.

(Sigh)
I’ll get back to Chafee.

As for Dean and his strategy, I have a couple of points.

The first one, being that the biggest push the democrats got from Dean was that they managed to get him to shut his mouth. If he hadn’t done that, strategy, or no strategy, the democrats would have lost entirely. Consider the embarrassment involved with John Kerry opening his mouth. The embarrassment with Dean would have been far more direct.

Secondly, Keith’s comment about being in the game or you don’t win, rings true. But that’s a balance act... as are all things political. That’s the point that some on the political fringes have yet to learn.

I will not, for example, lose any tears over Lincoln Chafee leaving the party, if he chooses to do so. The reasons behind his support being pulled back, and our stepping out of the game, were well-founded. He was damaging the party. The timing and strategy, however, leave everything to be desired, and was more damaging at this point, than leaving him in place. It’s the kind of move that you can only poll when you’re a lot stronger , electorally speaking. We now see the result of his not winning that race.

The ideological difference between he, and the democrat who ran against him, are small enough that you likely can’t fit water between them. So, on the basis of the one vote alone, a temporary unseating of a Republican in that district is no biggie... and in times of a bigger majority his removal would be helpful. Yet,in this one or two vote majority environment, his winning makes all the difference, on a national scale, and the damage far larger than just one vote.

While I sympathized on large scale, with the idea of removing Mr. Chafee from office for his wildly leftist viewpoints, (which certainly did not mesh well with republican mainstream,) I was not altogether comfortable with the idea of dealing out such punishment in an election year, where everything by all predictions was to be so close to 50/50 in the outcome.

Mind you, here, I’m using Reagan Shea fee is an example, and I would apply that to anyone so disposed.

How much damage ’punishing republicans who were not republican enough’ has done to our country we have yet to see. I’m convinced, however, that it won’t be pretty.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
No, McQ. I remain what I have been my entire adult life: A libertarian. When those principles were best vindicated by the GOP, I voted GOP. When I hated both parties equally, I didn’t vote. When the GOP is a severe threat to fundamental principles of liberty and the rule of law and in the grips of insane people vis-a-vis foreign policy, I vote Democrat.
Well presuming that you are a libertarian, for argument’s sake, did it ever once occur to vote for a Libertarian? You know, for someone who supports the same principles that (for argument’s sake) you do?

I mean, with libertarians like you, who needs Democrats or Republicans?

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Now, all of a sudden, Dean is some type of friggin’ genius who deserves a good degree of credit for bringing this election about?

I don’t think so.
Huh?

The 50 state strategy was always a strategy of opportunity. The old way was to pick your battles, way ahead of time, and try and predict where the opposition will be vulnerable. It didn’t work.

The 50 state strategy says try to have a credible candidate and an organization in place everywhere, so wherever the opportunities are, so are you.

Sure, it should take a while to have effective campaigns everywhere at once, especially in Republican strongholds, but because of the disapproval of Republicans, more people were getting involved than would have been otherwise expected, but the 50 state strategy laid the foundation for those that wanted to get involved.

I get DNC e-mails and this has been the message for 2 years. Be ready, everywhere.

You think there would have been a credible organization and candidate in Montana and Virginia (and all the other places where the opportunities did not present themselves) without this push?

Yes, it was a long term strategy, and yes, it was unexpected that so many opporunities came up, and yes, it was unexpected that so many people wanted to get involved in throwing the old bums out, but Dem’s make much smaller gains in the House and don’t win the Senate without the 50 state strategy.


By the way, this is nothing the new, it is straight out of the Republican playbook from the mid 70’s.

Cap


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Well, this was an extrordinary election, well, unless you look at other 6th year mid-term elections...

http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10605
From the riotous coverage of this election, starting months ago and ending with the November 7 crescendo, one might conclude that momentous events are afoot: To the Barricades! Out with the Old, in with the New!

Actually we have just endured a typical midterm election, when a president halfway through his second term suffers losses on Capitol Hill. On average that has meant 31 House seats lost and six Senate seats poof. Now, once the lawyers have conjured with the corpus delicti in all the close elections, we shall see that this is about what happened. Do not let the clang and bang of the media fool you. When President George W. Bush picked up seats in 2002, that was the unusual event, not his loss this time around.

We might well ask why the media’s near hysterics? To be sure there was enormous effort made by both parties, but in the end only some 40% of the electorate turned out and that was about normal for a midterm election. Once again the ordinary Americano is more sensible than the Washington elites. The 60% that does not vote is usually pretty much satisfied with the way things are. The economy is sound. No grave issue fevers the Republic, save for one, an issue that very much fevers the Washington elites. Namely, an Old Order is passing and fighting desperately to maintain its dominance in the political culture.
Mona - as I’ve said before, your venomous rhetoric speaks volumes.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Well, this was an extrordinary election, well, unless you look at other 6th year mid-term elections...
It was an extraordinary election, and it wasn’t.

In recent history, we seem to have extraordinary elections about every 10 years, which would ostensibly make them ordinary if you look at them over 50 years, but in the 10 year cycle, being that we have modest gains and loses every 4 cycles out of 10, this was an extraordinary election.

I love the way Ann Coulter tried to set the bar at 70 seats, saying that if the Dems won less than 70 seats, they may as well as "go away as a party".

Talk about spin!

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"If you don’t have credible candidates in place - and, yes, even ones who are probably going to lose - you can’t take advantage of a potential "wave," or a sudden scandal, or surprise retirements. If nothing else it seems like every election about half a dozen or so incumbents are knocked out at the last minute by scandal or surprise retirement, and those are easy (sometimes automatic) pickups if you have a candidate who is actually running a credible race.

Also, if you don’t run credible candidates regularly, and run real campaigns, you don’t build networks of support, you don’t build local knowledge, and you don’t build a pool of talented and willing volunteers."


The only sensible thing I’ve ever read from Atrios. Sounds like good advice for the Libertarian party.

 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Hi, there is great site! Thanks a lot for you job.
cialisnike shoehttp://tiny.pl/rz8vhttp://tiny.pl/rz8s
[URL=http://weddgift.4t.com]wedding gift[/URL][URL=http://kat.cc/edb9]http://kat.cc/edb9[/URL][URL=http://tiny.pl/r3w9]clenbuterol[/URL]
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://shurl.org/IsJoJ
Hi, there is great site! Thanks a lot for you job.
sex toy for manclarion ledgerclarion pa
[URL=http://gay-48274sf6.extdoors.org]gay[/URL][URL=http://anal-sex-toy.opiytr.com]anal sex toy[/URL][URL=http://clarion-pa.zaxswq.com]clarion pa[/URL][URL=http://samsung-t-mobile.zaxswq.com]samsung t mobile[/URL]
 
Written By: Bill
URL: http://buy-mobile-n95-nokia-phone.zaxswq.com
Hi, there is great site! Thanks a lot for you job.
playboy magazine subscription2006 magazine october playboyfree bingobuy dvd online
[URL=http://buy-nokia-mobile-phone.zaxswq.com]buy nokia mobile phone[/URL][URL=http://buy-mobile-n93-nokia-phone.opiytr.com]buy mobile n93 nokia phone[/URL]
 
Written By: Uoren
URL: http://playboy-magazine-mexico.zaxswq.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider