Democrats prime recruits to try to take back the House

[highplainsdem]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/29/politics/democrats-house-election/index.html

(CNN) -- Just 15 months after taking a thumping in the 2010 midterm elections, House Democrats have seized on the current anti-Washington fervor and are confident they can win the 25 seats they need to regain control of the House.

-snip-

To flip control of the House back just one cycle after losing it, the House Democrats' campaign operation is relying on a class of new recruits, just inducted into its "Red to Blue program" that targets Republican seats.

CNN obtained exclusive access to campaign chief Steve Israel's briefing for the 18 handpicked candidates earlier this week in Washington.

-snip-

The DCCC's "Red to Blue program" -- created by its former chief Rahm Emmanuel in 2006, when Democrats took back control of the House for the first time in 12 years -- identified three dozen Republican-held seats in swing areas that Democrats believe they can win in 2012. In half of these districts, the committee is backing a candidate. In the other half, it is awaiting results from primaries, but is already committed to helping the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be, with money and other organizational resources this fall.

-snip-

Fascinating article.

CNN interviewed three of the 18 recruits: "Jose Hernandez, an astronaut whose family worked on farms in central California; Val Demmings, the first female police chief in Orlando, Florida; and Jamie Wall, a businessman from Wisconsin."

This sounds promising. We need to take back the House.

[peacebird]

1. So are these real dems, or dlc-bluedog-repukelite-rahmbos?

Seriously, Rahm gave us a lot of losers with more in common with repukes than progressives.....

[Indydem]

3. Most of which were promptly elected out.

Because they were "conservative" democrats who voted party lines and got kicked out by their constituants.

Not a good plan to try to run repuke light in heave repuke districts.

Save the cash.

[pinto]

7. No, most lost due to Repub voter turn out and lack of Dem support at the polls.

Their Dem constituents didn't kick them out. Many didn't show up. The Repubs did. We need a Dem House back. To vote, or not vote, otherwise is self-defeating.

Not every district will carry a solid progressive Dem to a seat. Yet many of the Red to Blue targeted seats may well carry a centrist / moderate Dem back to a seat.

I'd rather work with that than the House we have in place now. Save your cash as you will, but encourage you to GOTV.

[jaysunb]

10. +1 n/t

[Liberty Belle]

11. well if they'd vote like Dems, maybe more Dems would show up

instead of staying home out of disgust.

[joshcryer]

13. So Grayson and Feingold didn't vote Dem?

'cause their people sure didn't show up...

[DonCoquixote]

33. sorry

but josh has a UGLY point.

[bvar22]

36. Maybe because the White House and the DSCC and DCCC were too busy

....spending Party Resources and TV time trying to "save" Conservative Blue Dogs like Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas),
and elect Republicans to Democratic Seats, like Arlen Specter.
Perhaps if they had spent more party resources and TV Face Time helping good Liberals like Feingold and Grayson,
they would still be in office?



You will know them by their WORKS.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[joshcryer]

37. That's just preposterous, yes they did spend big on some conservadems, but overall...

They spent massive amounts of money in Democratic areas. And given our losses in 2010 it was a good decision, because the disillusioned liberals, duped by the MSM and the tea party, didn't get out the vote.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/242481/why-dccc-spending-so-much-heavily-democratic-areas

DCCC went into full on retreat because of the demoralized base, duped by the tea party.

[bvar22]

38. Blaming the voters is a poor excuse, and is counter productive.

The PRIMARY job of LEADERSHIP is to motivate the troops.
If the troops are not motivated,
it IS a Failure of Leadership,
not a failure of the The Troops.
It IS that simple.

Blaming the Voters does feel good,
but never produces any corrective measures.
The voters will be just a stupid in the next election.
However, IF leadership is willing to address their failures,
corrections can be made.

Are YOU willing to look at where the Democratic Party Leadership failed to produce motivation for their voters?


[font size=5]Obama's Army for CHANGE, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=5]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

Here are a couple of good threads currently on DU that can help you answer that question:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002241760

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101610677




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[joshcryer]

41. That's just a copout for progressives sitting home, demoralized.

You don't need the almighty leadership to get you to get out the vote. I know I didn't listen to a damn thing the Democratic leadership did, I got the vote out in 2010 and we kept Colorado blue. We didn't lose the Senate or our Governor. And we only won by a few thousand votes. Meanwhile the leadership, cowards like they are, following polls, put their money in Democratic districts because they saw the writing on the wall. The MSM created teabaggers had demoralized the base, the media had demoralized the base, and the base fell for it.

The onus is on the base, the onus is on the grassroots, we didn't have it in 2010, and it's a damn shame that we blame everyone but ourselves.

You will know them by their WORKS, not by their excuses. The liberal and progressive base, historically responsible for GOTV, did not WORK. They merely made excuses.

[AndyTiedye]

40. "Citizens United" Changed Everything

Feingold lost because he was outspent by over 4 to 1.

The Koch brothers and their ilk will be handing out even more money this year.
We can expect some more unpleasant surprises if we don't respond more quickly when our opposition suddenly acquires a huge amount of money and starts spending it.

[joshcryer]

42. Yes, they bought the elections. The key is that we bought into their propaganda.

The voter turnout in Wisconsin for Democrats and Liberals was something like 10 points less than in previous elections that went for Feingold. The Republicans paid for the demoralization, but by the same token, we believed it. We convinced ourselves there was no difference.

[AndyTiedye]

43. What You Mean, "We"?

I assume nearly all DU'ers voted in the 2010 elections. I certainly did, in California.

The group "Democrats and Liberals" would be likely to include a significant number of swing voters and occasional voters.
Swing voters are called that because they are so easily swung by the Tee Vee.

[joshcryer]

8. Erm, you don't kick out politicians by not voting.

That's like getting credit for not doing something.

[Beartracks]

12. Plus. One. n/t

[stockholmer]

15. Of course voters can kick a politician out by not voting, this happens all the time

If the base of a party is unhappy, for example, they can send a clear message by staying home.

As for credit for NOT doing something, if I choose to not run into an unoccupied burning building, I certainly get credit for not being burnt alive.

[joshcryer]

16. So, Grayson and Feingold were kicked out by Dems?

Interesting twist!

[stockholmer]

17. not every defeat's due to people(who voted for the now defeated candidate in the previous election)

staying home. Swing voters can actually switch and support the other party. But, in many cases, a low turnout for a Democrat can result in a win for a Republican (and the Republican gets the same or even less number of actual votes they did when they lost the previous election. This also happens, albeit less likely, in terms of a Dem win.

Each case needs to be looked at individually.

[joshcryer]

19. In every single case people "staying home" was the cause for the loss.

That is an indisputable fact. I have looked at every loss, and that is the case.

Pretending as if Grayson and Feingold were the only cases where "people staying home" was the reason is just an attempt at self-delusion. Feingold and Grayson were hit by the same reasons the others were. There was no mythical boycott. And not voting is not the same as achieving something. Blue Dogs were ousted because they lived in areas where Republican and Democrats were very evenly divided. Even a small lack of turnout from Blue Dog voters resulted in failure.

This is not to say you cannot champion the loss of the Blue Dogs, but you cannot then act as if it was through a concerted effort to oust them. They lost because we failed, and we almost, in some cases, failed across the board, to get out the vote. We let down the very people who are historically disenfranchised, and we celebrated it.

[TheWraith]

14. Not that crap again, please. .

Really, if you want to run DU Approved, Purity Tested ultra-liberals in red-leaning districts, go ahead and give it a whirl. But please don't come back and expect sympathy or wide-eyed expressions of shock when you lose 70 to 30. At least not from me, because I've actually done that and worked on the campaign of a candidate who was too liberal for the voters. When you do that, you lose. Believing anything else is just the left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party believing that any Republican losses are because they're not far-right enough.

[A Simple Game]

32. Do you really think an ultra-liberal candidate could

be approved on DU? If an ultra-liberal were to run for president of DU they would lose to who ever was running to the right of them. And believe me there would be a candidate from the right running.

Just how do you know when a candidate is too liberal for a district? When they lose? 90% of winning a campaign is money, marketing, and more money. Ideology is not as important as money or marketing. Was your too liberal candidate out spent by their rival? If two conservatives are running against each other, don't be surprised if I don't get excited enough to vote for one of them just because they have a (D) after their name. Voting for conservatives is not going to help the country no matter what letter they have after their name. If a liberal is not running, it is not possible for a liberal to win, it really is that simple. If you are not a liberal, they I guess it doesn't matter.

Perhaps we could use the left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party, they didn't seem to do too bad in the last election. But it appears the left wing is something that is not to be desired by some here.

[arely staircase]

2. not yes

but hell yes

[existentialist]

4. One of my friends is running

against Kristi Noem here in South Dakota.

He does face a primary, and he's probably a slight underdog in the primary, but I think the Democrat will have a decent chance here in the general election. Noem has sounded stupid with her comments many times, and she hasn't been very effective. This is so to the extent that some who supported her in 2010 have recently been mocking her.

Also, she only won by a plurality and about 5,400 votes in 2010.

This may not sound very exciting, but it is one more seat that I believe to be in play.

[onestepforward]

18. I hope your friend does well!

Every single seat we can get matters.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Yay!

I know here in the rim counties of Philly, there were at least 2 seats up for switch (Sestak, who ran for Senate and lost to teabagger Toomey, afterwhich his House seat in the 7th congressional district flipped back to repuke & Patrick Murphy, who lost his seat in the 8th congressional district after having squeaked in for 2006). This was due to low turnout. There are probably others out there that could flip. However the 7th was recently redrawn to be a slippery snake running through 4 counties, so not sure if that is going to mass muster with the courts.

Am glad the part is on it though!

[blue neen]

6. I think the court issue is with the state house only.

I could be wrong...let me know if you have different news.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. The state house plans were thrown out by the courts

The last I read on the state issue was that the existing districts may end up remaining in place for the next 2 years. The result however is causing alot of heartburn:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/138302634.html

In addition, the 7th congressional district is raising concerns that may result in court action.

The below link probably shows one of the best visualizations of what they did to the 7th (and confirms it's actually 5 counties that it is snaking through rather than 4... )

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/our-money/135708878.html

The suggestion though, is that unless it's shown that minorities are impacted or there are disproportionate population shifts, then chances are a challenge wouldn't prevail.

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/12/22/news/doc4ef30b310216e540016855.txt?viewmode=fullstory

[blue neen]

22. Oh yes, it's the "Goofy Kicking Donald Duck" fiasco!

The gerrymandering there is ridiculous! It doesn't look like a challenge would survive, though.

I'm in District 12. Mark Critz and Jason Altmire have a runoff coming up in April. I can remember when Murtha had to go up against Frank Mascara for the Democratic nomination in 2002.

I'm getting sick and tired of Republicans picking off Democrats in this part of the state every 10 years!

[pinto]

9. See also - Red to Blue (DCCC)

http://www.dccc.org/pages/redtoblue

[66 dmhlt]

21. I Like the way our Vice-President thinks!

[NewJeffCT]

23. It's possible if Romney depresses turnout among evangelicals

and also picks a bland VP candidate (Pawlenty)

If he picks Palin or Perry or somebody else popular with the evangelicals, it will help Republicans down ticket, but less so nationally.

[kemah]

24. Democrats will take over the house: 25 seats is doable

Hispanics, union supporters, and GOTV by team Obama will carry the day. Look at Reid, he should have lost. Turnout will be great and Obama has coattails.

[NRaleighLiberal]

25. So do I....K and R for visioning a successful election!

[WheelWalker]

34. +1

[JTFrog]

26. Damn right.

K&DUrec

[Iliyah]

27. I see a win win for both the house and senate for the dems

BUT that said, and as the goppers know, many Americans voters are frickle as hell PLUS they have Citizens United, voter suppression laws, redistricting and anti-union busting bills, civil rights violations, pissing on women's rights (especially women's body parts) and so forth. They claim they have GOD on their side. They have the corporate media in their pockets and to be honest with ya all, this all sounds very closely to the building up to WW1 and WW2.

[bayareaboy]

28. Don't forget the Tea-baggers ... ...

Those folks were a blip on the screen for a while, or perhaps a bug on the windshield. I don't think they are close to prime time again. There funding went away and they are just sitting back looking for a second dance with someone ... anyone.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

30. Teabagger funding will be a factor

As the elections get near, I think money for busses, beer, burgers will entice teabaggers to once again disrupt town hall meetings, etc.

[tomg]

29. Well, my district just took a hit.

Maurice Hinchey recently announced he is retiring. A very strong progressive (95% of the time whenever asked to ask to write to my rep to support or oppose a progressive stance on an issue, I only had to email a heartfel thanks) and a great rep. Actually as Rocco5955 put it in another thread ( and I agree), Mo is no progressive - he is an old school Liberal in the truest sense of the word. Unfortunately, right now, there is no clear successor to Hinchey, while the Republicans have two contenders, Phillips and Engels, one of whom has name recognition and the second of whom comes out of Hinchey's area of core support (Ulster County).

It is going to be a tough battle in the district under any circumstances. This district is split, but still leans slightly left in numbers. The left, though, is left, not blue dog. If they go with a Republican lite for Mo's seat, I would not bet the ranch on holding the seat.

[DreamsOfEquality]

31. The problem is...

The republicans are thinking the same thing we are and preparing according.

This is going to be a tough election for both sides.

[colsohlibgal]

35. We Need Real Dems only

We also need a "red posing as a blue" to real blue campaign as well, to root out fake dems like Ben Nelson.

If we get workable majorities again the clock immediately will be on Obama, to see if he caves like in his first 2 years.

[onenote]

39. Go to Iowa and run against Steve King as a "true blue" progressive

and then let us know how that works out.

Every district is not a blue district in disguise.

[Tx4obama]

44. 'Tea Party 10' Targeted In Multimillion Dollar Campaign By Liberal Super PAC

'Tea Party 10' Targeted In Multimillion Dollar Campaign By Liberal Super PAC

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12516665