re: #340 Targetpractice

Compare that to all the money that the RCCC plowed into the GA-06 race and their best candidate still came 30 points behind the guy who was mostly getting grassroots support until just before the end. It’s arguable that Thompson and Ossoff did as well as they did because they had little party support, relying upon word of mouth and support of local voters rather than big ad buys by the national party.

But the other big reason both went far: They were running in open fields, rather than running against incumbents who have the advantage of relying upon name recognition to do most of the campaigning for them. That’s the real thing I don’t think you quite understand: A 50-state initiative (which I support wholeheartedly) is going to be a massive undertaking when a great deal of the seats we’re running against are incumbents who have been around for years or decades. And while we want to think otherwise, the DNC does not have a bottomless warchest, especially not when you’ve pricks like Bernie out there saying that you can’t be pure and support “the establishment.”

Nope. In both campaigns (Thompson’s and Ossoff’s) the Republicans immediately tied them to the Democratic Party and its policies. That argument from the DCCC was ridiculous: the GOP will always tie a Democratic candidate’s run to the party, just as the Democrats will to a Republican candidate.

As for that fifty-state strategy? Great idea, when do we start? Unless there is some double-secret plan here I don’t understand, not supporting your candidates isn’t a fifty-state strategy.