Rahm in The Thumpin: "We have no base." Said only thing matters is who can win.

[madfloridian]

Doesn't matter what they stand for, only matters if they can win. That's what he believed as head of the DCCC during much of the time covered in the book. What he thought mattered...a lot.

From The Atlantic 2007:

The Meaning of the Midterms

But the more compelling story, which continues to unfold even today, comes when Bendavid pulls back from the day-to-day of the campaign to examine what the midterm elections meant for the identity of the Democratic Party. In an election where more moderates and centrists were elected than in any year past, many -- bloggers being the loudest among them -- have wondered whether the party has abandoned its base.

Certainly Emanuel holds no such romantic notions that there even exists such a base of voters loyal to core Democratic values. He is adamant that "we have no base!," a view that clearly guided his strategy for selecting candidates. As Bendavid writes, "he would not support the most loyal Democrats, or those whose populism was purist. His only criterion, he said, was who could win." This kind of single-minded, values-be-damned vision is anathema to some on the party's left. Writing for The Nation after the election, John Nichols complained that "many of the Democrats who prevailed on November 7 did so despite Emanuel's efforts, not because of them" and argues that liberal candidates could have won had Emanuel made the decision to support them. Yet as Bendavid points out, "of the 30 candidates who took seats from the Republicans, about 20 had been nurtured, funded, advised, and yelled at by Emanuel for months. Perhaps a half dozen had been supported by grassroots activists with little help from the DCCC."

Howard Dean was chair during that time. Rahm simply appeared to despise him. He screamed at him, treated him rudely. Once that we know of for sure Rahm cussed Dean out.

The relationship that epitomizes the rift between Emanuel and the party base is the congressman's tenuous partnership with Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean. As the book relates, Emanuel spent most of the campaign furious with Dean, whose Fifty State Strategy to build up party infrastructure nationwide he saw as little more than a way to throw money to the wind. In May 2006, Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer, his counterpart in the Senate, met with Dean to ask for more money for their respective campaigns. Banging his hand on the table, Emanuel chided Dean's grassroots plan, "No disrespect, but some of us are arrogant enough, we come from Chicago, we think we know what it means to knock on a door. You're nowhere Howard. Your field plan is not a field plan. That's fucking bullshit." The two wouldn't speak again until election time.

Rahm worked with our Florida Democratic party chairwoman, Karen Thurman, and together they forced any progressives out of the race. Then they put Republican-Lite in their places.

Sometimes it is necessary to lose if by winning you lose the soul of your party.

To be sure, there's some benefit to breaking fundraising records. But any Emanuel-style strategy of focusing on the wealthy is sure to exclude from candidacy all but the wealthiest and those who know how to attract them. If the Democrats continue on this path, finding candidates who represent a district's constituents will become increasingly difficult as those very constituents are shut out. Too bad that this, as Bendavid points out, is no longer Emanuel's fucking problem.

Now Rahm is Chicago's problem. He is the problem of Chicago teachers. Thank God he is no longer Obama's Chief of Staff.

We took that "Thumpin" Bendavid referred to in 2010, but that was not enough. We took an even bigger "Thumpin" last week.

[DeSwiss]

2. K&R

[djean111]

3. Explains a lot. A LOT. That attitude is pervasive, to this day.

But any Emanuel-style strategy of focusing on the wealthy is sure to exclude from candidacy all but the wealthiest and those who know how to attract them. If the Democrats continue on this path, finding candidates who represent a district's constituents will become increasingly difficult as those very constituents are shut out. Too bad that this, as Bendavid points out, is no longer Emanuel's fucking problem.

As Dr. Phil would say, how's that workin' out for ya?
It looks to me like some in the DNC would rather lose than run Progressives or be Progressives, because the deck is stacked against Progressives due to the money.

I think the DNC likes Citizens United just fine. More money for them. And Citizens United was born from a nasty campaign film about Hillary. The "other side" hates her that much. And, of course, the DNC could care less about whatever they think their base is. They seem to think condescension and jeers, Rahm-style, will work.

Um, nope. It is the issues, stupid. The economy, the jobs, Social Security, how safe are the foods we feed our families, how safe is the water. All of that seems like chump stuff, is the attitude I get from today's DNC.
All those things are bargaining chips, nothing more. Thrown on the table, undermined by a TPP.

[Triana]

4. I already can't STAND Rahm Emmanuel. This just gives me another reason.

They need to DUMP goddamned DWS and PUT. DEAN. BACK. IN. CHARGE.

Who the Hell is Emmanuel now? He no longer works in the White House.

Rahm is a hysterical little prick and the Democratic Party needs to STOP following his lead. He's NOWHERE (as he told Howard Dean).

[whathehell]

6. +1000 n/t

[bemildred]

5. Right, elections have nothing to do with policy, you just need a pretty face. nt

[Octafish]

7. Maybe the Base doesn't like to be considered ''Fucking retarded.''

Not only does that show a mind lacking in compassion, it shows a mind lacking in understanding what it means to be a Democrat -- a person who considers all equals, including those with physical impairments, learning disabilities, and unacknowledged hypocrisy.

[Martin Eden]

8. "His only criterion ... who could win ... values-be-damned vision"

Winning is the same as surrender when the Democratic Party is co-opted into serving the plutocracy.

And eventually (as we saw on Tuesday) that strategy will cease to win elections because the people whose interests are no longer represented will stay home and others will choose a real Republican over a DINO.

Rahm Emanuel is either blind or his ambition is to be a well-paid servant of the PTB.

[MineralMan]

9. Actually, 2010 was much worse, overall.

When you consider state legislatures, for example, 2010 gave even Minnesota Republican control of both state houses. This year, the GOP regained control of just one, and all of our state-level Democrats were re-elected, along with Al Franken. 2010, being an election following a census, was far more important in the long term, and the Republicans got to dictate the redistricting the next year.

We often forget state-level politics during mid-term elections, and those influence politics for years, even at the national level.

That's not to say that 2014 was a good result, but it wasn't as bad as 2010, at least where I am.

[madfloridian]

10. Rahm's philosophy is that of the Third Way, New Dems.

That there really is not a base of folks who want certain things.

They really believe it firmly, and they do have contempt for liberals.

[MisterP]

11. it's a loss if it can be blamed on Dean; if the DLC loses it isn't losing, because by definition

DLCers are all winners

I don't know how I can make it any more logical than that!