Lawrence O'Donnell: "Worst political strategy idea of the year" goes to Democrats . . .

[markpkessinger]

. . . He's spot on, IMO.

http://on.msnbc.com/1dKbYG0

[DJ Lance Rock]

1. A link? No summary?

That's it? Will you expand a bit on what O'Donnell said?

[markpkessinger]

2. Talking about the Democratic Superfund's decision . . .

. . . to reserve much of its spending for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. As O'Donnell points out, they really had better focus on 2014, given that Republican PACs are spending on that race in unprecedented levels. He also says -- quite rightly -- that if Republicans are permitted to take the Senate in 2014, it will render a Hillary (or any Democratic presidential candidate's) victory in 2016 pointless in any case.

[JHB]

4. Do the (party insider) math: If it goes well in 2014...

...they were far-sighted in keeping their powder dry for 2016.

If it goes poorly in 2014, it's because pouting <sneer>liberals</sneer> sat on their hands and didn't GOTV.

[Adrahil]

6. Concur....

Fact is, I don't think pumping a lot of money in this election turns the House Blue. It just ain't gonna happen. The BEST they could hope for is marginal gains, and frankly, I don't think the money is going to make much a difference. Our hopes in 2014 rest on turnout (as you observe) and you don;t need a ton of money for a get out the vote effort.

Better to focus on 2016. If Hillary wins big, she COULD have some long coattails. Better to try and capitalize on that, IMO.

[markpkessinger]

9. It isn't so much about turning the House blue as it is keeping the Senate blue n/t

[Adrahil]

11. Two things....

1) That still is a matter of turnout, really, in an off-year election.

2) Even if the GOP takes the Senate, they won;t have Veto-proof majority, and it's not like the Blue Senate has really helped us that much.

OTOH, Having a Democratic President in 2016 is pretty vital, since we NEED to be the party selecting the next Supreme Court justices and a big victory could have long coattails.

[markpkessinger]

12. Disagree . . .

Either party having a veto-proof majority isn't likely in any case. But even with a simple majority, they can sure as hell stymie anything a Democratic President tries to do.

And as O'Donnell points out, a Republican-controlled Senate will flatly refuse to confirm a Democratic President's nominees to the Court. Without at least a simple majority in the Senate, any Democratic president will be rendered impotent.

[Adrahil]

13. Fair enough.

But the GOP MINORITY in the Senate has pretty much stymied anything the President tries to do. If the party were spend on some close races in the Senate, that'd be fine by me, but IMO, the real important fight is in in 2016.

[markpkessinger]

14. If we lose the Senate in 2014 . . .

. . . and a Democratic candidate wins in 2016, we will see what has happened with GOP opposition to Obama on steroids.

[Adrahil]

17. Well, my thought is...

that if we lose control in 2014, it would only be by a seat or two. A coattails election in 2016 would pull that back plus more. We could even take the House again, I think.

[hatrack]

21. Do. Republicans. Sit. Out. Elections?

No, and that's why they win so Goddamned often.

They're stupid and crazy, but they spend the money and they show up to vote.

Maybe we could learn something from them.

[Adrahil]

24. I'd love to hear your strategy and analysis....

I'm not opposed to going all in if there seems to be some hope of benefiting from it. I'm just not sure there is. It's not a game of unlimited resources.

[JHB]

25. Is that true? (the "don't need a ton of money for GOTV effort" part)

It seems as though in 2010 not enough was spent on outreach. The main dropoff in turnout appeared to be among the more casual voters who lacked the focus of national attention and (for lack of a better term) star power of a presidential election.

[nenagh]

8. Maybe that's what those big donors want.. a figurehead Hilary Clinton president..

having lost the Senate and the House to Republicans in 2014.

[Chathamization]

10. I'm hoping they learned that bashing the left isn't a great strategy for the mid-terms

One would think that they learned something from 2010.

[Berlum]

16. Oh jeez - The Stupid is Uber Strong with the Dem Superfundies

How do you spell F-A-I-L ? Did they consult the Republicons for advice on this strategery?

[seveneyes]

3. Something about a superpac

That's all I got out of it before the POS msnbc+flash+bling website crashed my browser and pegged the cpu.

[liberal from boston]

22. 2014 Election

Thank You for posting this MarkPressinger. I saw Lawrence's Rewrite last night & was amazed at the Democrat leadership's lack of comprehension that Democrats need to keep the Senate & should be putting needed resources in the coming 2014 election. David Axrelrod's tweet states it perfectly.


http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/2014-already-a-fundraising-battle-159351875933

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. Here is an early post and article about this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024453098

If they sit on their hands in 2014, then I don't want to hear one word about those who supposedly don't vote and are responsible for lost elections.
They don't have to support every single Dem candidate. There are many races that could use some help.

[Loudly]

7. They're also blowing it unless they campaign on Medicare for All.

Campaigning on the success of the ACA isn't very promising.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. If fucking 2014 over is the price of having a Clinton candidacy, let's skip that candidacy

and go with another. This is such stupid thinking that those delivering it should be chased out of our political leadership at once and for all time.
If they do this, they wear the blame for the failures they are endorsing. And really, I don't want to vote for Clinton anyway. Too many years voting for war and discrimination, refusing to support marriage equality until it was a done deal, she's craven and does not represent me.

[hatrack]

23. Couldn't agree more with your headline

[Scuba]

18. It seems obvious to this cynic that the Democratic leadership in this country doesn't want to win.

[markpkessinger]

19. That's pretty much what I am left to conclude as well n/t

[bullwinkle428]

20. I'm assuming the decision not to run anyone against Jeff Sessions

in Alabama this year is also tied into this.

Something tells me the greasy fingerprints of Al From are all over this.

[unc70]

26. That is how we "lost" NC in 2010

This kind of stupidity is what cost us control of state government in NC in 2010.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. WWHDD?

What would Howard Dean do?

A: the opposite, of course.

[TinkerTot55]

28. WWHDD?

> What would Howard Dean do?
> A: The opposite, of course.

Meaning:

1.) Dr. Dean would put money in MANY races, in MANY states.
2.) Dr. Dean's strategy WOULD WIN SEATS FOR DEMOCRATS AND SURPRISE MOST OF THE CHATTERING CLASSES.
3.) Dr. Dean would not receive credit for his brilliant strategy, and he would be marginalized.