What is James Carville doing ?

He should be complaining about Rahm Emanuel. He pretty much did the opposite of what Dean wanted (namely expanding the Democratic party to all 50 states)

Not to mention Rahm's candidate choices were less than stellar in many places.

 

By the time public scrutiny slices and dices potential candidates, very few sane people -- regardless of party affiliation -- choose to run. You get what you can get sometimes. Sad, but true.

 

I disagree.

What's more important? Making sure that the Idaho Democratic Party has a few extra phone banks? Or taking advantage of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take 40 House seats by using your resources on unexpectedly winnable House races?

Dean's 50 state strategy is fine, but we're not winning some of those states in 08 and there were some very winnable House races this year. That's why something like 9 House races were too close to call the next day. I'd have put money in those races over party-building in places like Idaho and Alaska.

While some of Rahm's candidates weren't my cup of tea either, I just don't see how you can fault his strategy (or Schumer's). Carville actually makes a decent point, he just made it like an ass as usual.

 

Carville is no longer relevant, just a talking head.

Complaining makes him look a sore loser, an irrelevant one at that.

 

Speaking truth to power?

 

I must have missed something. I thought the Dems were just succussful in this past election. How is that incompetant? Rumsfeld, however, wasn't successful.

 

I think you missed this part:

"Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, instead of the nearly 30 they have so far. The reason they didn’t, he said, is the Democratic National Committee did not spend some $6 million it could have put into so-called “third tier” House races against vulnerable Republicans."

 

I like James Carville and he makes good points. But now is not the time for Democrats to whine about "only" taking control of a Congress that was dominated by Republicans for 12 years.

 

You are dismissing one of the prime Democratic Party strategists so lightly? He's far better at his craft than Howard "Foot-in-Mouth" Dean. IMO, the GOP would love to have Carville relegated to a place of non-influence.

 

This is exactly the attitude that Dean is swimming against. In any House election, there will be close races that "might" have been won "if only." However, the party base and infrastructure has been neglected since at least the early 1960's. There's no "good" time to rebuild it because you will always have close races every 2 years, but rebuild it Dems must. Carville's either just short-sighted here or the mouthpiece for those that don't like Dean. And the fact that Dems had more organization and ran candidates in more House races than they have in years definitely payed off, even if it was just in the Foley and Delay districts.

If you've ever worked on a campaign, particularly a Dem campaign and especially more than one, you immediately recognize how much disorganization and wasted effort and wasted talent there is and how many campaigns have to start from scratch and spin wheels figuring stuff out that should be common, shared knowledge. Dean's trying to fix this so the candidates can spend more time campaigning instead of managing their campaign.

Dean's working on the foundation... a foundation that hasn't really been cleaned or repaired since FDR... while Carville's worrying about the facade. You need a pretty facade to keep the investors (voters and candidates) supporting you, but ultimately, it's the foundation that will support everything.

 

^ I agree with Rimrocker and that without Dean putting the commitment to build a true national orginization the Democrats wouldn't have even been in the position to win 30 seats. With gerrymandering man traditionally swing districts are gone so to get a big sway in votes its necessary to try to broaden the party into areas that haven't traditionally been thought of as Democratic districts. Without building a 50 state organization there's no way to do that. Republicans if they want to return to the majority are going to have to do the same thing since its clear they can't rely on the South to win control anymore than the Democrats can rely on the NE and California.

 

but the democrats still can declare victory.. while rumsfeld's iraq is a total failure

 

By the way, where was Carville when Kerry left $15 million in the bank?

I like Carville... met him in Austin when I had a friend clerking at Lloyd Doggett's law firm and the Good Lloyd was running for Senate in 1984. One Friday or Saturday night, Carville taught all us youngsters the joy of the Andy Griffith Show by going off on an unbelieveable soliloquy that included humor and southern history and politics and all that was good about America. Just a fun, wierd, passionate, guy. That one meeting with Carville probably did a lot to spur my lifetime interest in politics and trying to do a few things that the make the world a little bit better. He was great for Clinton and awesome in The War Room.

Sadly, from what I can see, that Carville is gone. Hubris and money have given him the attitude that he represents the real party, and like many Southern Dem strategists, there is definitely a cultural issue there as well... that we must appeal to Bubba and must make amends for the history of the South. All well and good, but the strength of the party is now the NE and the Midwest and the West Coast and the idea that national candidates and parties must be driven by a strategy that appeals to the South is gone, as is much of Carville's relevence.