Is anyone else mad that the DCCC didn't try to take back the house?

[Obviousman]

This was over at mydd. I was speechless when I read it.

"I would like to point out that the DCCC targeted only 13 Republican held seats in 2004. Democrats needed a net gain of 13 seats in order to take back the House. Since the DCCC knew that Texas redistricting would result in a loss of at least one Democratic incumbent, they clearly did not even try to take control of the House in 2004"

Seriously, what the hell are they doing?! I was demoralized abot not winning the House, but to find out later that the Democratic party litterally did not want to win feels like a slap in the face.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/27/133629/315#readmore

[sandnsea]

1. 96% reelect rate

It's incredibly difficult to defeat a sitting Rep. I can't help but see the ulterior motive involved. Too bad people can't run on a vision for the Democratic Party instead of destruction.

[Obviousman]

2. Maybe that low rate is because of lackluster opposition

I know what you mean though. But still, the DCCC's job is to win the house. Even if they won all 13 seats, they would have a baaaaaare minimum majority. The people who are organizing seem to be idiots.

[sandnsea]

5. Or it's a blatant lie

Nah, Jerome wouldn't be pimping for Dean again. Geez. Get a clue. The DCCC targeted house seats they thought they had a chance to win. We lost 5 seats in Texas due to redistricting. If it weren't for that, we'd have picked up seats this election. The post is biased bullshit.

[Cheswick2.0]

3. You can't win if you don't run

it is disgraceful that the party doesn't run more candidates.

[Warpy]

4. My district was stolen for the pubbies

in the national races. Democrats swept the races for judges, which were the only other offices on the ticket.

The election in NM was astonishingly, hamfistedly fraudultent.