Democrats decide to play real hardball, and it's not pretty.

[TayTay]

There have been a few threads over in GD and GD - P on comments Chuck Schumer made about Dems not having real primaries and about getting real support to those candidates that certain party elites believe have the best chance of winning. This does indeed circumvent the primary structure. Sen. Kerry, as everyone who gets his e-mail already knows, is also playing this game. What do you guys think about this?

A while ago, I got an e-mail (actually a few e-mails) from my greatly esteemed Junior Senator asking me to donate to the PA Senatorial Campaign for candidate Casey against that moran Santorum. I think the primary for this race is about 10 months away (or more.) There are at least two candidates who will be running in the PA primary for the Dem nominee. Now, ordinarily, nationally known Dem outsiders to PA wouldn't be this naked about soliciting donations for a specific candidate (unless they were related to them.) I think this means that the Dem Senatorial Campaign folks have gotten together and decided that they are not leaving some of these races to pure chance. They have decided now, this far out of the actual primaries, to send seed money to certain people and freeze certain other people out from the official streams of Dem money. They are afraid that the Dems stand a chance of dipping below the 44 seats they now possess in the Senate and are taking a strong hand in deciding who gets to be the nominee in certain races.

This will piss off the liberals to no end. (I know it will in MA where this gambit is being used on a lot of races. I saw this at the MA Convention when the Con voted to de-power itself, cut the number of delegates to the nominating con next year and allow the State Dem Committee the power to not endorse or be obligated to give money to the candidate endorsed by the Con if the Ma State Committee doesn't like them. It happened in a vote on a measure that no one knew about at the time. We essentially voted blind on a major plank that depowered us. That was interesting.) This is hardball with a vengeance and carries big risks.

So, what do you think of this strategy? The goal is to come up with the strongest possible candidates in states where there are competitive possibilities. The larger and very laudable goal is to make sure that the Rethugs don't get a 60 seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The sacrifice is, in some instances, genuine primary races as the candidates will be all but chosen by the Party Elite. (And of course Kerry has a say in this. He has spent millions on contributions to other Dems since the start of this year and asked folks on his e-mail list to donate to specific candidates.) Do you think this is the way to go? Will it fatally piss off the liberals, who don't like the idea of tightening control under the elites at DLC/DNC/DSCC. (And Howard Dean is definitely in on this. It is unimaginable to think that he is not.)

Let's read some big friggin tea leaves together. What do you think. does the ends justify the means? Should we play power politics because the idea of losing seats is just too dangerous or should we play nice and respect every aspect of the primary process and not take sides until after the primaries have taken place?

[Noisy Democrat]

1. Very good questions

I need to think about this before I can formulate anything that even resembles an intelligent response. But I wanted you to know how much I appreciate the post.

[TayTay]

2. The question behind the question is:

Liberals are always berating the Dems for being weak and for not formulating tough enough responses to the Rethugs. Well, this is some hardball politics. And it is very tough. Some leadings Dems are doing this in a sort of under-the-radar way, but it will come out.

So, will the libs like the idea that the Dems are dead serious about not losing anymore seats (and hope to even gain some seats) or will they rebel at the idea that the elections are being sort of 'fixed' or made meaningless? What do liberals want?

[LittleClarkie]

5. They will rebel in that they will disagree violently

as to which candidates have a chance. Some of these folks are very unrealistic as to who can make it and who can't.

It's funny. There are constant calls to be as smart as the Republicans about this stuff, and yet when the party does start to get organized in such a way, some of them freak.

I will only be upset, I think, if it doesn't work. I'm more interested in winning than in pushing any one candidate.

And you KNOW there will be some screaming "DLC!!! DLC!!!" even though two of those reportedly in meetings on this issue, Schumer and Reid, ain't DLC.

I wonder what the response in the real world will be. We know what it will be here. But then I suspect we're quite a bit more "green" than in the real world.

[Noisy Democrat]

8. This is a very interesting point

If the Dems gain seats, I'll be happy, and I think most liberals will be. For about five minutes. Then they'll go back to complaining.

On balance, I'd rather the Dems play hardball and get their act together than be pure and defeated.

[Island Blue]

3. My first instinct is to say

we should play power politics because we really can't afford to loose any more ground, especially in the senate. I don't really know that I LIKE the thought of doing business that way, but I like the thought of perpetual Republican control even less. I can see where this would piss off the party's liberal/purist branch (and some folks in GD/GDP would go down right nuk-u-lar at the thought), but then they also get upset when we lose so which is more acceptable? Very tough questions.

[karynnj]

6. Also, it may depend on how far it goes

PA may end up a good example. If the LW begins to think that anyone could beat Santorum, there will probably be criticism of the Kerrys and others essentially crowning Casey as the candidate. But, if they realize that the election could be closer than they are assuming - Casey may be a winner where the prochoice candidate would have lost. The question is can they accept a moderate with an excellent chance of winning over a perfect candidate with a less likely chance of winning. (I also see the value of having the party more broadly defined. Otherwise a lot of people will realize there is no party for them.)

I think that some of this has always happened - it was not odd to read of party leaders suggesting to a talented good person that they should think of running. An alternative candidate can always try to win - even over the candidate favored by the party. (In fact, didn't Kerry himself win the primaries for both lt. gov and Senator the first time over party favorites)

It's hard to really see the impact on the 2008 race. It is likely that several candidates will have a lot of money, but if the DLC/DNC etc has the support of most of the superdelegates it would seem they could make it hard for any but their favorite (who seems to be Hillary) I still think a focused candidate who has people support can still beat the "choosen " candidate. Last year, Kerry was nowhere until Feb 2004 - and he was clearly not the Dlc or DNC favorite.

[Noisy Democrat]

7. Of course

to hear the people on DailyKos tell it, Kerry was the insider favorite and had all the support anyone could want from the get-go. (I guess that's why his campaign nearly went belly-up and he had to mortgage his house -- because he was getting such a flow of sustenance from the DLC. Funny how the Dean supporters never talk about that part of the story.)

I've never had the impression that Kerry is fully DLC. Does anyone really know, once and for all, whether he's ever said he is?

And who was the DLC and/or DNC favorite last time?

[karynnj]

14. DLC favorite? Likely Gore, then Clark, and after he was winning, Kerry

It may be that they were very demoralized by 2002. Looking at fall 2002 / early 2003, the main thing I remember was there were many politicians were still saying that if Gore wanted to run, he should be allowed to run again because he really won in 2000. Gore didn't make a decision for a long time. Lieberman made a promise not to run against him - though there was really no cry for Lieberman to run on his own. But, after Gore declined to run, Liberman (at least in the NY/NJ area) seemed a favorite. I remember Kerry being spoken of more in terms of he should be the front runner but isn't - almost saying he was losing before he was really even running.

The Dean explosion was weird and seemed to come of the combination of the press being bored, the furor of the anti-war movement, and the internet, rather than the DLC/DNC. The NYT's magazine article on the Deaniacs was the weirdest political thing I ever read. Starting it, I expected something similar to "Clean For Gene" (McCarthy), but it ended up being more about internet connections and finding soul mates on the campaign trail than why they support Dean. It was interesting that when Dean surged he was endorsed by many party people - including Gore and Harkin (important in Iowa). This kind of suggests to me that the established Democratic politicans were willing to quickly get behind ANYONE WHO WON and at that point Dean looked possible.

Once Dean started to falter and Clark announced*, Clinton and many of his former people seemed to suddenly be making Clark comments. Clinton was quoted as saying the Democratic party had only 2 stars, Hillary and Clark. The first set of articles on Clark in all the papers and magazines I saw described essentially a perfect knight on a shiny horse. Here again, it looked like Clinton et al trying to quickly get behind a winner.

* That these happened at the same time and because so many DLC people were pushing Clark, who essentially came out of nowhere, a reasonable case can be made that he was the DLC candidate. He probably was a Anybody But Dean alterative who was also suppose to neutralize one of Kerry's potential strengths.


Kerry was noticably good in the debates, but the strongest thing I (like probably others)remember from before the Iowa caucus was the meeting with Rassman. In addition to the story, I was struck by how emotional Kerry seemed at the meeting and loved his almost shy comment that anyone would have done what he did. Even when Kerry won Iowa, the story was that both he and Edwards did better than expected and I'm not sure the party favored one over the other. (In spite of Kerry's qualifications dwarfing Edwards'.) After Kerry won NH, he was clearly the one to beat and I think he became the party favorite at that point.

In retrospect, looking at the candidates, if the goal of the DNC / DLC would have been to pick a candidate and support him at a level that made opposition hard, who would they have picked?

[Island Blue]

9. Would Casey be doing as well as he's doing now

in the polls vs. Santorum if he didn't have some major Democratic muscle behind him or would he be just another candidate trying to unseat an incumbent?

I certainly think that for this approach to be successful especially in regards to house and senate races, the candidates who best fit the constituents they hope to represent have to be chosen. Obviously, if you choose to back a liberal candidate in North or South Carolina you're gonna loose, but backing a more liberal candidate in California (or at least certain areas of California) would be fine. Choosing moderates just for the sake of choosing moderates in ALL situations will upset some people though. (And rightly so I feel.)

We need to do something though to get the pendulum swinging in the right direction. (Or in the left direction I guess I should say.)

[MH1]

12. Casey would be doing as well in the polls.

That's why he's being supported by the Dem establishment. A big part of it anyway. Last time they ran a no-name - Klink - and he got creamed. Casey inherits his father's popularity in the western part of the state, which is a tough nut to crack for any typical liberal.

It may not be "fair" but in this case you have two choices: "fair" and six more years of Santorum, or "unfair" and a very good shot at replacing him with someone better, albeit not perfect, who will also cast the vote for a Dem as majority leader (who controls the Senate agenda). Which do you choose?

OTOH, if one of the maverick candidates (there are two others in the primary that I know of) had shown they could raise $$ and support in western / rural PA, a lot of people would be ecstatic that they could feel safe dropping Casey and backing a more "progressive" candidate. But, it won't happen.

[TayTay]

15. Ends do justify the means

Yes, Kerry played some interesting games in Ma when he ran for Lt. Gov. He had to pass the threshold of getting 15% at the State Dem Convention. That was all inside baseball as it was a contest among delegates to a State Nominating Convention (who cares after the convention) but it was interesting. (It took 6 ballots to get a convention approval for another candidate, which was promptly ignored by the wider electorate.) But this team did manage to keep two women on the ballot for the primary, which split the progressive votes and he won narrowly over the whole field (getting 28%. Cheesus, 28% in a primary launched all that, the Lt. Gov, the Senate and the Dem Prez nomination? Yup!)

Skinner made a post today in a thread about DINOs and other not-pure-enough candidates. Skinner simply said he wants more Democrats in the House and Senate. I concur. I got an e-mail from Barbara Boxer (the liberal saint of DU) who asked me to pledge money to Bill Nelson of FL. No Nelson probably won't have a primary challenger so it is safer to endorse him and ask for money for him, but still, it's awfully early.

And I would rather have Casey in PA than that idiot who occupies the seat now. And I sure as hell want his vote in establishing Dem Committee Chairs and such. So I agree with this wholeheartedly. I am giving money to Casey, through Kerry's website appeal.

Do any of the challengers stand a chance of getting enough money and statewide appeal to finish ahead of Casey in the primary in PA?

[jillan]

4. Tay Tay -

It is really crazy in my house right now, so I'm trying to digest what they are doing, but I can't concentrate!:silly:

Tommorow I will read this "better" but I have a couple questions.

How do they make the decision of who they like and want to support?

How do they freeze people out of the flow of $? Especially at a time when a candidate can solicit his own $. Just look at Hackett!

I want to learn more about this whole process. But, if what they are doing is a way to insure that more democrats will win seats in the Senate and the House next year, than I am all for it, no matter how
they do it.

Alot of the people in the grassroots will be pissed, they want to have a candidate that is as far on the left, as the neocons are on the right.
Which in many ways, so do I, but things have to be taken in steps.
We can't go from one extreme to the other. Just getting back somewhere in the center would be a relief at this point. Even moderate dems would be better than some of the repugs we have now.

It would be nice if we had some candidates picked out, and started promoting them now. Not wait until next year, when it's crunch time.

[TayTay]

10. Good Questions!

Paul Hackett ran in a special election. He was not one of 435 races going on in the House and 33/34 Senate races going on. He stood out and he could have a singular appeal on the internet and not get lost in the din of candidates seeking money and volunteers. He was the exception. (And he was a damn good candidate who was a near perfect fit for that place at that time.)

As to how candidates are chosen and how the decision comes down as to who gets money and who doesn't, well that's the big question now isn't it? I would say that a lot of it comes down to polling, a look at how states and districts went in the last election and an honest assessment of who the candidate is and how they fit into a state or district.

Check out this article in the WaPo on the race to replace retiring Sen. Sarbanes. Obviously, someone is getting money and someone is not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071701150.html?nav=rss_metro/md

Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin of Baltimore, who entered the race more than a month after Mfume, has trumpeted his early fundraising success and rolled out several dozen endorsements, including that of House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Southern Maryland.

Reports filed Friday showed that Cardin raised $1.1 million during the past three months compared with Mfume's $134,432. Meanwhile, many of the state's most prominent African American leaders whose support could bolster Mfume's campaign have held off on taking sides in a primary in which party officials expect about 40 percent of the electorate to be black.

The lack of money, particularly, could be crippling during a campaign in which spending for each candidate could top $10 million, analysts say.

Mfume took issue with such assumptions last week and suggested there was "a huge effort to sort of guide the process" in favor of Cardin by "the political pundits and the so-called experts."

"This campaign is not going to be won on political commentators' observations," he said after his Thursday night appearance at Leisure World. "It's going to be won by political outreach."

The stakes could extend beyond a disgruntled candidate. Mfume -- and to a greater degree, some of his supporters -- also have cautioned that Democrats risk losing black voters in the 2006 general election if party leaders are too quick to declare the primary over.

This may be a case of people stepping in to stop a vulnerable candidate from wounding the Party in a primary. (Or not.) What do you see?

[beachmom]

11. "Pure" primaries not particularly democratic

I don't think I will lament the loss of a truly open primary race with the way it is going now. My first primary experience here in Virginia taught me that the more extreme you are (left or right), the more likely you are to win the primary. Why? What, with a 10% turn out rate you only end up getting die hard supporters, and in the case of the Democratic side, union members at a disproportionate rate. We now have a lietenant governor candidate who is a TOTAL liberal in a very red state, with no chance in hell to win in November, not helping Tim Kaine out at all. I am rabidly pro-choice, but it isn't the only issue for me, so I made a calculation, a shall we say, "smoke filled room" calculation. It would have been much better if my guy, "Chap" Petersen, had been greased by the Democratic political machine, so he would have had a chance in the primary. To say that the primaries now are real democracy doesn't take into account the total apathy of voters, and the fact that the majority of them only vote on Election Day.

This approach, taken to the most extreme limit, could lead to corruption (especially on a local level like the way Rep. Randy Forbes (R) controls Chesapeake, VA which is right by me), so I think that would be our great worry. But it is a bit arrogant of us, "the people", to think that if 10% of us show up at the polls, that we have more wisdom to know who the Election Day voters would be more likely to vote for than the party leadership. Since the Democrats have NO power whatsoever in the federal government, I say "what the hell", go for it, pick your favorite primary candidate and throw some money at it. You produce results without too much elite corruption, and I won't complain.

[TayTay]

13. Motivation in posting some of this

This is a big friggin topic that we can talk about endlessly. Part of the reason I posted this was yet another snide comment about Kerry from our friends at DKos. (Someone posted in a snarky way about Kerry meeting with Schweitzer of Montana.)

DKos and some old Deaniacs are/were pissed at Kerry because he won and Dean didn't. (In a nutshell.) They were off the scale pissed because of the 'Osama ad' that had a tiny run in Dec. of 2003 in Southern NH and parts of Iowa. Some Deaniacs thought it was dirty politics and should never have run. (I have heard this ad nauseum.)

Okay, what if it was? That means someone was playing for keeps. Someone was trying to take out an opponent by using a 'hard' ad that wanted voters to think about Dean as a possible Commander in Chief and if he was really tough enough to confront bin Laden. I thought the ad was tough, but fair. A lot of DKos folks thought otherwise.

A lot of these same folks think Dems are wimpy and lack the intestinal fortitude for a real fight with Rethugs that confronts them relentlessly with their bullshit. Of course, I think this is hypocrisy. They want tough Dems who aren't afraid to hit their opponents with political nukes. They hate people who hit their guys with political nukes. Hypocrites. You can't have it both ways.

So, that is the background for this thread. This type of argument, in one way or another, is all over DU as well. People want it both ways. We want the Dems to fight like hell, but fairly and accordingly to the MArquis of Queensbury Rules. Be bastards, but remember to wipe your feet, and wash your hands and take care of the niceties.

Can you do both at this point in US History. (And I do think they are naive hypocrites. I really do.)

[jillan]

16. There is not one candidate that is going to please everyone in this party.

I like Dean, as the head of the DNC. I could NEVER see him for president. I love John Conyers. But, sorry, he is not presidential.

Alot of the dems that speak out against this administration just don't have that presidential quality. Boxer? Nope. Schumer? Nope. Reid? Nope.
Dorgan? Leahy? No and no. And I don't see it in Hillary. I remember seeing her in Jan when * was giving his state of the Union speech and she was sitting there rolling her eyes. I get mad at my teenage daughter for doing that, I definitely don't want that in a Pres.
And on the other side, I don't think McCain has it either. You're right Tay Tay, you can't have it both ways. You have to have someone that speaks for the base, but has leadership qualities.

Kerry - Hell Ya! He's got it.
Biden - I'm the lonely one that sees it.
Clark? VP! Then president.
Edwards? I don't see it. I like his wife better than him.

I think maybe Clark would have the most support from the grassroots.
At least until we can convince them to give Kerry another look.
(Whatever happened to that thread anyway??)