I unsubscribed from a Dem LOSING-candidate's e-ltr

[UTUSN]

This was a Dem I had invested hugh hope and activity in, as with almost all of my Dems, for having the best chance in years to unseat the a-hole Rethug incumbent. He lost by 10 points.

Specifics aside, I'm a total Dem voter with lots of crushing losses. Decades ago, I used to pine about how noble, intelligent, idealistic, honorable----the works-------our Dems were. But as time went on, I concluded that only WINNERS do any good for our Dem agenda: Even failed office holders get to appoint and influence things for years to come, and, as 2000 showed, appointees can be crucial a long way down the road with unintended effect. So, I swallow my losses in the primaries and get TOTALLY supportive of whatever Dem nominee it is, but once they've lost the General, they're GONE for me.

So, I had already chalked up this recent candidate's loss to History, when just now, an X-mas e-mail greeting arrives from his campaign. I doubt he will be around as a candidate again, and I also don't believe now in second chances anyway.

So I unsubscribed.

[SharonAnn]

1. Interesting. I appreciate hearing from candidates, even if they lost

First of all, I appreciate them remembering me as one of their supporters.

Second, I appreciate them for stepping up and running for office. It's really a tough job and especially so when they're in an environment where the odds aren't good.

Thirdly, I like to know what they have to say after the election. It gives me an idea of the kind of person they are and the type of candidate they might be in the future.

Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! Happy New Year! Happy winter solstice! etc., etc.

[UTUSN]

2. I appreciate how hard and thankless running is, but the agenda is what

it's about. We've got a winner takes all system.

And, frankly, losing candidates usually have clear, often GLARING, fault lines in their insight, so I don't really see that they would have much more to say. In this case, the Xmas e-mail emphasized his cluelessness for me.

I think that winning/losing is not rocket science and rehashing with the losing candidate is time and energy taken away from moving on to find somebody else who might win someday.

"Not rocket science" means: A candidate with honesty for starters, then add on a modicum of charisma especially of the people-skills variety, plus media skills. What we need is a street-performer/carnival-barker (like Tom BERGERON), who will after the campaign switch into management/administrative/governing mode.


NOTE: I cite BERGERON for his personality. He started as a street performer.

[JDPriestly]

4. Most of the candidates who won were liberal and left.

Maybe you did not DO ENOUGH, THAT IS WALK PRECINCTS AND TALK TO VOTERS ENOUGH EARLY ENOUGH. Giving money is only a small part of winning an election. You have to shake people's hands and speak out for your candidate.

[UTUSN]

5. Ha-HAH!1 So many assumptions, so little time!1

You *do* realize it sounds like *I* personally am responsible for this or any person's losing -- or winning, for that matter!1


This reminds me of the SNL skit with Tina FEY and Amy POEHLER, with a smug FEY-PALIN saying to a steaming POEHLER-Hillary, "I guess what made the difference was WANTING IT more!1" And a fuming POEHLER says, "Oh yeah, *I* just didn't WANT it bad enough!1"


But maybe I set the course by indulging my own yen for giving advice (to our candidates)!1 Ha-HAH!1

[JDPriestly]

3. The losers of one generation are the winners of the next.

Ideas too shocking to discuss in one generation become the common sense of the next.

I back those who are forward thinking. They will shape the future.