Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Why National Democrats Rolled Over for Chris Christie"--- The Daily Beast [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)34. Math is math.
Democrats threw money at McAuliffe because he had a very good chance at winning, and he did win.
There is literally nothing the national party could have done to defeat Christie. Nothing. Elections are local matters. Out of state endorsements and money carry very little weight.
Fighting for the sake of having a fight isn't strategy.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Why National Democrats Rolled Over for Chris Christie"--- The Daily Beast [View all]
bvar22
Nov 2013
OP
So what? What does ANY of that have to do with Democrats slamming the Dem candidate and endorsing a
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#23
National party didn't play in NJ because it had no chance of changing the outcome.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#7
Especially when the Republican gets FREE ADVERTISING from prominent DEMOCRATS.
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#24
I never expected the current DNC chair to come out for a Progressive Dem. Has that EVER
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#40
Yes, after intense criticism from Dems for their LACK of support, we get a few words,
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#43
Dean showed this to be bad politics. He ran in every state and WON. Of course that other
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#47
Their support of Lincoln cost Dems that race. It was another example of what happened in
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#37
Enough whining about the national party not being too smart to waste money on an unwinnable race.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#6
Sure, Obama could have gone all in and turned New Jersey into a national referendum.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#10
Instead, the choice was made to give an extremist Republican tha National Stage.
bvar22
Nov 2013
#15
Odd analogy--going all in on a single high profile race is almost the exact opposite
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#19
It's not the national party's function to bail out a dysfunctional state party.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#22
And, yet, they go all in to "bailout" a dysfunctional conservative like Blanche Lincoln
bvar22
Nov 2013
#45
Really? Then why did he do it for Lincoln, who had no chance of winning? It did stop the other
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#38
quid pro quo for Lincoln--she votes for ACA, he endorses her in the primary.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#39
BS, Christie's 'handling of Sandy' was under serious attack and you would know that if you had been
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#27
No, I'm facing the reality that the Dem Leadership did not support its own candidate nor did it use
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#30
When your own party is joining the opposition to derail your campaign, denying you the financial
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#33
Many centrists prefer republicans over progressive Democrats. It's the "Third Way" of thinking.
Zorra
Nov 2013
#12
Yes, that is the truth. I think they would be happy if they could get rid of Progressives out of the
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#29
they didnt want to appear to lose to christie in a proxy war for 2016
La Lioness Priyanka
Nov 2013
#41
Now wait a minute. I regularly see Obama supporters here insisting that liberals support
Marr
Nov 2013
#57
Many people are defending Chrisite and his endorsers AND in reaity if a contest is actually
Bluenorthwest
Nov 2013
#67