Why is the Democratic Party shelling out in primary challenges?

[Capitalocracy]

I wonder why the Democratic Party establishment, the DSCC in the recent prominent case of Blanche Lincoln vs. Bill Halter, is spending extravagent amounts of money to influence primaries in the first place. If it's all about getting Dems in office, shouldn't the Democratic warchest be saved for the fight against the Republicans, rather than wasting millions of dollars on primaries to try to influence the direction of the party from the top instead of from the grassroots?

The justification for this could be that they want a candidate who can win in the general election, but I don't think they necessarily know best. And it may not even really be the case... the corporatists among us may actually be willing to lose elections rather than let the party drift to the left and line up more closely with the actual will of the American people.

They had the nerve to say the unions wasted money on that primary... but how do they justify all the money they spent to snub progressive candidate who may have had a better chance in the general election and depress and anger their base? Maybe they should leave the primaries to us and save the warchest for the enemy.

What do you think?

[RandomThoughts]

1. heh.

What does a label like Democrat or Republican mean.

If you get a Republican with a Democrat label, all you are really doing is moving the entire Democrat party to the Republican ideology.

[mmonk]

2. The DLC gained control of the party and they are determined

the politicians elected are with their politics, ideology, and framework. They have been making that very clear lately. They want the party defined on their terms and their terms alone and work hard to enforce that. It is no longer a party of platforms created by its rank and file through the district and state party process. Their prescriptions are not up for a vote. It is now top down politics.

[dsc]

3. in fairness if they had spend some dollars in SC primary

we wouldn't have an indicted felon as our candidate. That said, I am uncomfortable with them spending money in contested primaries, as they did in my state. Now that their candidate lost here I don't see them pumping any money in despite the fact our incumbent Republican isn't even at 40 in the polls.

[Raineyb]

4. In fairness if they had bothered to look into what looks to be evidence of

primary day foolishness they wouldn't be in this position. But the Democratic party doesn't take electoral fraud very seriously and it's costing them yet again.

[BeFree]

10. Oh.... they do take vote stealing seriously

They only appear to be dumb idiots.

They know that if they can't have their way through honest actions, they can always get their way by stealing votes.

They know what's happening. How could they not?

[Capitalocracy]

5. It's the blue dog strategy I guess

it's like they're marginalizing themselves... no participation in "lost cause" areas (although I think more was going on in SC, it's just a little TOO fishy) and only putting money into "contested" primaries (read: let's make sure we get a conservative candidate so we can win in a more republicany area) so basically, in terms of actually making progressive change, they're completely removing themselves from the system. I'm more and more convinced that we need to wise up and only spend our money on the candidates we want, and not trust the leadership to spend our donations.

[dsc]

6. What galls me here (NC) is that they spent a decent amount of money on the primary

and now that they have lost I see no ads at all for the winner. They made her spend her money, not only in a primary, but a wholly unnecessary runoff, and now are letting her hang. I wouldn't call her a sure thing by any means but Burr is soft and could be picked off and money spent on her would help our legislative races immensely. I am terrified we will lose one or both of our state chambers and that would be horrible.

[Capitalocracy]

7. Entry barrier for progressives, total support for bluedogs

Even against their own party. I swear they're trying to push the country to the right.

[dsc]

9. frankly he wasn't much more conservative than she

She was much more liberal on Afghanistan but he actually was better on Social Security than she was. I think they just felt he was more electable due to his life story (he was a vet of Iraq) but she creamed him in the run off so I don't get the electability thing.

[Odin2005]

8. It's all about keeping Progressives OUT. It's that simple.

[SteveM]

11. Youuuuuuu got it! NO ONE to the left of D.D. Eisenhower! nt

[hfojvt]

12. seems to me that they always have

the established party picks a candidate and uses their resources to push that candidate. I don't like it, but it does seems to be how the world works, but its also why I will not donate to DSCC or the DNC. My money goes to DFA and the Sierra Club.

[Steely_Dan]

13. Is This True?

I thought I heard about this a few weeks ago. But I didn't believe it.

Are you shitting me?

You know...I think that's it for me. If the new Dems want the fucking party, they can have it.

I need a break from this board. It's too depressing.

I'll be back when I regain my strength.

-Paige

[Capitalocracy]

15. Don't drop out just yet

like if you're a Democrat donor, just circumvent these guys and give directly to the candidates you like, even if they're not in your district. That's how you build a movement.

[MisterP]

14. because it's not a purge when *they* do it

and, furthermore, it's often to support the less-popular of the two Dems, making it an utter fraud that they're doing it so "a Dem" can win in a conservative district

a liberal can certainly win in a conservative district, by acting populist and showing the voters how the Repub's plans are disasters