Democrats Ready to Cut Off Most Vulnerable Incumbents

[babylonsister]

Good or bad idea?

Democrats Plan Political Triage to Retain House
By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
Published: September 4, 2010


WASHINGTON — As Democrats brace for a November wave that threatens their control of the House, party leaders are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority.

In the next two weeks, Democratic leaders will review new polls and other data that show whether vulnerable incumbents have a path to victory. If not, the party is poised to redirect money to concentrate on trying to protect up to two dozen lawmakers who appear to be in the strongest position to fend off their challengers.

“We are going to have to win these races one by one,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, conceding that the party would ultimately cut loose members who had not gained ground.

With the midterm campaign entering its final two months, Democrats acknowledged that several races could quickly move out of their reach, including re-election bids by Representatives Betsy Markey of Colorado, Tom Perriello of Virginia, Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio and Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland, whose districts were among the 55 Democrats won from Republicans in the last two election cycles.

Representatives John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, chairman of the Budget Committee, and Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, who is seeking a 10th term, are among the senior Democrats who have appeared to gain little ground in the summer months in the toxic political environment. A sputtering economy and discontent with Washington have created a high sense of voter unease that has also put control of the Senate in question.

To hold the line against Republicans, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, issued an urgent plea for members in safe districts to help their endangered colleagues by contributing money. She called out Democrats who were delinquent on paying their party dues and instructed members with no re-election worries to tap into a combined $218 million from their campaign accounts to help save their majority.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/politics/05dems.html?_r=2&hp

[Imajika]

1. Sounds demoralizing to me....

Maybe this is necessary, but just cutting off some of our people is going to be pretty divisive. Those getting the rug yanked out from under them are liable to take their anger out in public. It won't be helpful to have a bunch of Democrats who feel the party let them down out in the media blasting the party. A couple handfuls of Democrats feeling betrayed between now and November will not be good.

[FBaggins]

3. Yes. It's most certainly demoralizing.

But not half so much as 11/3 would be if they don't.

[Cosmocat]

34. It is worse than I thought ...

I have been pretty strident that the Rs won't win the house or senate, but would make good gains since the day after the 2008 elections ...

But, 2 years and 10 months of the Rs acting like complete lunatics and the MSM carrying water for them have taken its toll ... It is going to be worse than I thought, and sadly this is the only way to potentially avoid the Rs getting the house and spending the next 2 years investigating the every loving snot out of BO ...

No one is going to feel "betrayed" ... You don't get where these people are without knowing the game ... IF the Ds were not in such a bad shape, they could try to help most everyone, but there comes a point in every election where the national party puts its chips into the seats it thinks it can win ...

Unfortunately, instead of trying to keep the loses in the house around 20, it now looks as though losing 30 will be a good night ...

They are overextended in a LOT of house districts that are R leaning or even split, Rs are going to turn out, and witness this, the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, of all places, democrats are taking great joy in eating their own ...

[rurallib]

2. didn't learn a thing from Howard Dean did they?

[babylonsister]

4. Can you explain that? It's too late for a 50-state strategy. nt

[rurallib]

5. Well, that is sort of what I was thinking.

Just never give up.
I am so tired I am not thinking straight.

[JamesA1102]

41. You mean fund blue dogs who vote with the GOP

more than they vote with the Dems?

[WhiteTara]

6. oh for the return to the 50 state plan

we need everyone, not just the strong poll people.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. This is the backwash of the 50 State Plan

I'm not criticizing Dean -- his approach was correct -- but when you win a lot of previously Republican seats, in the first two election cycles after the switch, those Democrats are going to be vulnarable. Just the way it is. Gov. Dean would be struggling with this if he were still DNC Chair. But I do suspect he'd be doing a better job of it.

[Ikonoklast]

43. The other problem is that those seats held by Dems in marginal districts

tend to be centrists or condervadems; they have to be in order to garner the votes.

[provis99]

7. translation: money for DLC candidates, none for liberals.

[babylonsister]

8. Can you prove that? How about money for anyone that has a

chance in hell of winning? Are they only DLC candidates? Can't wait for you to back this claim up, because it has a lot to do with who is challenging the weaker candidates and nothing to do with anything DLC.

:boring:

[Go2Peace]

11. There is plenty of history that shows they prefer to support DLC candidates

I would love to be proven wrong. But I see no signs that the administration and party leadership are questioning their approach so far.

[JamesA1102]

40. Well if there is so much history

can you provide any links that prove it?

[Go2Peace]

9. You said it. Almost seems like this is what they wanted all along

That's more cynical than I have been, but I am beginning to wonder. The stupid mistakes. This election was theirs to lose. People were fed up with Bush and to some extent the Republicans. They are giving it all away.

[Jennicut]

10. Markey , Kratovil and Pomeroy are Bluedogs.

[bornskeptic]

30. Spratt and Periello are also among the more conservative Democrats.

[FrenchieCat]

12. They are going to be cutting those folks from conservative areas.....

that might not have normally won their seats if it wasn't for the 08 presidential election...
that does not translate into more money for DLC candidates......and none for progressives.
You just made that up based on nothing. Why do that?

[Jennicut]

14. Look at my post above...3 bluedogs were listed in that article

and some of the others, like Kilroy, are in traditional Repub areas. The post was based on un-reality.

[FrenchieCat]

15. The post was based not on reading anything,

as usual.

[boppers]

25. translation: money for those who can win, not for those who can't

If you assume liberals can't win, well, there ya go.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. That pretty much sums it up (DLC = Dumb Lazy Clintonites)

[Gman]

13. My guess is 90% of the list is blue dogs

That probably never should have won in GOP districts to begin with.

[Bitwit1234]

16. DAMN IT PROTECT THEM ALL YOU WIMPS.

[babylonsister]

23. Why? $ talks. If they're not viable, why throw money at them? nt

[FBaggins]

36. Easy to say... Impossible to achieve.

Let's simplify the discussion. You have 25 seats on the bubble. Could go either way. Two million dollars will save a seat... But one million just won't get the job done. You have twenty million dollars to spend... What do you do?

"Defend them all" in this case means losing them ALL. The "wimpy" thing to do is to NOT have the guts to place the money where it can do some good.

Of course it isn't that simple. There are far more than 25 seats in play and they are NOT equally vulnerable. Some are as good as lost and some will be won without help. Picking which seats can be (and need to be) helped is where the game is won or lost.

[msongs]

18. when ya don't give people something/somone worth voting for....ya lose oh well nt

[kentuck]

19. Or maybe it's part of a larger strategy??

They know if Repubs do not win the House or the Senate this year, they will be even more desperate to win in 2012, a presidential election year.

If the Repubs win, they will do a lot of crazy shit in the next two years and they will make themselves weaker in 2012. The most important matter is that the Democrats keep the White House in 2012.

Maybe?

[babylonsister]

20. No way. boner vs. Pelosi? Mcconnell vs. anyone?

I can't imagine any Dem wanting this.

For starters, Pelosi has accomplished so much. Why stop now?

[smalll]

29. Yes, she's accomplished so, so much. Such as Health Care Reform!

So, so much! :eyes:

[Exilednight]

32. Let's be honest, she didn't have much backup from the President. She could of ................

gotten the whole package through if Obama actually stood up and said something.

[Cosmocat]

33. Right ...

cause he can control the twits in the the Senate ...

Do people understand the american legislative process, or are the under the illusion this is a dictatorship?

[Exilednight]

37. I perfectly understand the American legilsative process. I also know the power the

presidency holds. Although, it seems like many on DU have this idea that the presidency is only a ceremonial position that holds no real power. The bully-pulpit only works if you actually use it.

Sure, he might of failed to deliver if he actually stood up and became a very loud voice in favor of the PO after taking office, but at least he would of gone down swinging, and I think many liberals and progressives would have given him an A for effort. And they would probably be more likely to back him with as much enthusiasm as those that blindly support him.

[golfguru]

21. That strategy guarantees that Democrats will shrink in numbers

because by cutting all those who need help most will certainly cause
their defeat.

[babylonsister]

24. In your dreams, dear. nt

[FBaggins]

35. Nope. It's the response to the knowledge that our numbers will shrink.

It moves money from races where money won't help to races where it can make the difference... Thus reducing the number of seats lost.

[JamesA1102]

42. Well said nt

[donheld]

22. Betsy Markey of Colorado has voted against Obama most of the time.

[craigmatic]

26. It's a bad idea these are the ones who need aid the most. What good is it to just send money to the

ones who don't need the help? I don't get it.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

27. It's just being practical really, where we can help them we should.

[smalll]

28. This is what defeat looks like. But it's unavoidable.

Do this sort of triage, there's the chance we may win, or at least, Speaker Boner will only have about a 5-seat margin.

Don't do it, and we will lose, and Speaker Boner will have a 15-seat margin.

As the kids say these days, "it is what it is." :shrug: Sometimes the best you can do is manage decline.

[impik]

31. Anyone who runs AGAINST Obama and Pelosi can find their own money

[Exilednight]

38. This thread is the funniest thing I've seen ..........

Some in this thread are defending why some Democratic seats should not be supported. YET, these are the same people who argue in other threads how Obama can get nothing done without large majorities in both chambers.

If he can't get legislation passed with the seats we hold now, how is he going to get legislation passed with Democrats holding even less seats.

[elleng]

44. Awful. Hate this,