Were other seats sacrificed so big names like Reid could win?

[MadHound]

Despite all the hullaballoo, Reid really had a puffball opponent in Angle. I mean really now, if you can't win handily against somebody who is so batshit crazy as Angle, you don't deserve to be in office.

Yet the Dems poured a tremendous amount of time, money and resources into the NV race to insure a win for Reid. Meanwhile, in other states, such as my own, the Dems didn't pour the same sort of effort and resources into various races. Here in Missouri Robin Carnanhan faced of the crookedest opponents in Missouri history. Blunt's name was mud here, thanks to his son's ineptitude in the governor's office. While this would have been a fight, with some help, Robin could have won. Instead, the party leadership wrote Missouri off early, withholding resources from Carnahan's campaign, diverting it elsewhere, to big names like Reid. I'm convinced that if she had gotten any kind of serious help from the national party, she could have won. But she didn't get that kind of help and lost.

Worse, in some races the Dems didn't even field an opponent. In the race for the US House, in Missouri's 9th Congressional District, Blaine Luetkemeyer, a 'Pug, was only opposed by the Libertarian and the Progressive write in candidates. They Dems wrote off the 9th, even though Luetkemeyer was a first term Congressmen, in a district that contains a large liberal college town, who was vulnerable.

So my question here is were the resources of the party distributed wisely. Or did threatened big names like Reid and Boxer suck all the oxygen out of the room, leaving other candidates to struggle and die on their own?

That's how it looks from where I stand.

[quinnox]

1. I don't care how they did it, I'm so glad that he won

Not because I like Reid, he has been mostly ineffective, but because one of the most goofy Tea party candidates was defeated. Thank god Angle lost! That alone is a sweet victory.

[zanana1]

2. Amen to that, quinnox!

That would have been a huge victory for the Republicans. They were practically drooling over that seat.

[quinnox]

8. Yup

The republicans were desperate to beat Reid.

[MadHound]

5. So it's OK to sacrifice others to keep an idiot out of DC

But it is more than likely that a bit of that helped diverted to Missouri would keep equally insane Blunt out of DC. Or better yet, Paul out of DC.

Sorry, but I think that the distribution of Democratic resources was tilted in favor of a few big names, and that a lot of good Democrats were sacrificed so that a few could have been saved. A horrible strategy that comes back to bite the Dems in the ass time and again.

[quinnox]

9. In this case, yes

I saw Angle debating and she was so loony and goofy that its worth it to beat her down. That is how I feel.

[MadHound]

11. Gee, thanks for cutting the rest of us off

Nice to see that you're willing to sacrifice us in order to save Reid's ass:puke: And you wonder why people aren't that happy with the Dems. I've seen the same sort of stunt pulled time and again, the Democratic "leadership" withholding money and resources from candidates they don't like. Sadly it is we who have to suffer from their decisions.

[elleng]

3. They always have to 'balance,' as with any budget.

New, bigger, worse problems now, after citizens united, we face MUCH LARGER opposition $. Problem will be with us maybe forever, and I have no ideas about quick fixes.

[MadHound]

6. I understand that,

But let's say you could have pulled out a couple-three Senate seats with money spent on Reid. It is a net loss equation then:shrug:

[Romulox]

4. Need a new Senate Majority Leader. Come on Harry--step aside for the good of the Party

and of the country.

[pstokely]

7. Carnahan did run a crappy campaign

Not much effort in Kansas City, although it's always ignored by St Louis politicians

[MadHound]

10. She did, but I think that her funding problems severely constricted what she could do

And frankly there is no excuse for the Democrats not to field a candidate against a one term Rep whose popularity isn't that great.

[cynatnite]

12. Millions of out-of-state dollars were poured in for Sharron Angle...

She said 80% of it came from out of state. Not only that Nevada has a 15% unemployment rate and the highest foreclosure rate in the nation. Despite how batshit crazy Angle is, Reid still had a hell of a lot stacked against him.

A lot of folks here don't like Reid, but it would still have been a hard blow for the Dems to lose the senate majority leader. I'd rather money go to where we have a chance of winning than to areas where we had no chance at all.

That's how it looks from where I stand.

[MadHound]

13. Let's say we would have used that money to pick up two or three Senate seats,

And Angle won, would that have been a worthy tradeoff?

But the fact of the matter is that despite all her money and all the economic problems that NV faces, Angle was demonstrably batshit crazy, and Reid should have had an easy win using his own resources. But frankly, I thought that the Dems wanted to hold onto Reid at whatever cost, and they sacrificed a lot of other candidates who could have won. I've seen it happen before, and I'll probably see it happen again. It is a deal with the devil, but the Dems never have seemed to learn that.

[BzaDem]

15. I'm not sure why you think just because a candidate is batshit crazy that they can't win.

When an incumbent polls as low as Reid does, it is MUCH more likely that he will lose to any non-convicted-murderer than it is that the crazy challenger will lose. To reverse this, you need an expensive campaign, though sometimes that isn't even enough.

[cynatnite]

16. What two or three seats could we have picked up?

Reid was very unpopular to begin with in Nevada and no matter who he went up against it would have been an uphill battle. The RW teabaggers wanted nothing more than to topple Reid and force him out of office. That was at the top of their agenda. They wanted him out the way we want Bachmann and Boehner out.

I think this was a loss we couldn't afford.

[BzaDem]

14. Robin Carnahan had zero cahnce of winning. Reid obviously did have a chance of winning.

Obviously, money goes towards the candidates that can win, and away from the candidates that can't. No amount of money would have saved Carnahan.

Though much of Reid's campaign fortune came from direct donations to him anyway.

[MadHound]

17. Really? Goes to show just how little you know of Missouri politics

But hey, the Dems kept Reid in office, no matter that they sacrificed a lot of others on the altar of his reelection.

[BzaDem]

18. I think the issue with your post is that they DIDN'T sacrifice others on the altar of his reelection

because the "others" you speak of wouldn't have won anyway.

[MadHound]

19. You claim that some of these candidates were unelectable,

Yet the record proves you wrong. Carnahan was actually ahead in the polls a year ago, running against one of the most corrupted men in DC. But she didn't receive the support she needed from the party.

Conway in Kentucky also had early leads, but without party support he withered on the vine.

Right now Mike Bennett is fighting for his life against Buck in CO, but again, with a bit more support from the national side, it would have been a win right now.

These are all candidates who weren't "fringe" who led in their races at one time or another, who simply needed a bit more help from the national party and didn't get it.

Instead, massive amounts of money, time and resources were showered on one man, one crappy excuse for a majority leader. And they left others, candidates, voters, citizens, out to dry.