« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Democrats start clearing out OfA deadwood.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  January 3rd, 2011 at 06:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Well, that didn’t take long.  I mean, when I wrote this post indicating that Tim Kaine’s retention as DNC chair meant that the Democratic leadership had decided to concentrate solely on the President’s re-election*, I did not expect that I would receive some sort of confirmation of this within minutes.  But, thanks to Doug Heye, I see this report that the DNC is laying off… selected… Organizing for America staffers.  Which ones?  Well, Roll Call didn’t give specifics, but it’s fairly clear that the firings reflect the final abandonment of Howard Dean’s Fifty-State Strategy: they’re removing field staffers, which means that the leadership is writing off entire states.  Smart move for a Presidential campaign that’s starting kinda-sorta on the rocks; dumb move for a political party that wants to avoid regional status.

Organizing for America has, of course, always been a tool for the President.  It was clear even before the 2010 election that it was permitted to persist after the 2008 election in order to further the President’s chances in the 2012 election, and not to further the interests of the national Democratic party  – a charge angrily denied by the same press hack who is now gamely trying to explain away the layoffs – and it should be noted that the Roll Call article is noting that this was only the ‘first wave’ of layoffs.  Which means: expect more people getting fired, and expect non-Presidential Democratic resources be reserved for Democratic candidates running for office in states that Obama did win in 2008 but might lose in 2010.  Everybody else in the Democratic party is simply going to have to make do with less.

For the sake of the Lightworker.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*At the expense of the Democrats’ rank-and-file, which would still be expected to fight fiercely, and presumably lose.  Or win.  It doesn’t really matter either way to their leadership.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • maindependent

    Does this mean there won’t be any rats left to abandon a sinking ship?

  • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

    ;)

  • edwyrd

    is it me, or has issa pulled his own fangs? what happened to the stupak investigation, not to mention the fraud in getting obamacare passed, and the blatantly currupt stimulus spending……

  • walter_hanson

    I thought the Democrat party was brilliant at raising money and Obama was going to haul in a billion dollars. They should be hiring people to put pressure on the Republicans by forcing us to defend our own turf. After all Obama won an easy victory and if the Republicans govern against the will of the people as the democrats are saying voters will be flocking to vote Democrat!

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • bobojake
  • spainishirish

    apparatus and its many tentacles solely to advance the career of The One. I wonder when congressional Democrats will realize how many of their brethern–with more to come–were thrown overboard for Obama?

    Although that is written with great glee, it happens also to be true.

    Nice confluence there.

  • spainishirish

    “expect more people getting fired, and expect non-Presidential Democratic resources be reserved for Democratic candidates running for office in states that Obama did win in 2008 but might lose in 2010.”

    Keep a close eye on those iffy Obama states. When OfA begins lay-off in them, they have seen a poll or two we will really, really like.

  • mikestephens

    They have no choice, cash flow. CA, IL and NY don’t have the money to pay the unions and the benefits they require. Chris Christie woke us up and the dominoes are about to fall on the states that have unionized. ACORN is dead and it’s tenacles soon chopped off. Thanks for the update!

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

    once it’s in place, and will create hordes of Democrat drones.

    So, they must hold the presidency for as long as possible to veto repeal of 0-Care and the other items of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.

    That’s the story for the rank-and-file, anyway.

    The real deal, of course, is that it’s all about Obama and always has been.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

    The governor just pushed through a bill to require municipalities to fully fund their pension plans, with tax increases as needed.

    Daley is coming to DC to ask for a federal bailout, since the state is broke. Who owes him favors … hmm, let me think….

  • Adjoran

    The Dean 50-state strategy was always stupid for either party. There are just some states either cannot win and have no business contesting in a national race – and in Presidential years, it’s all about the top of the ticket.

    Like the Bush California trip in 2000 – it probably caused the close call in Florida. If he had stayed in the Sunshine State to seal it up, we might not have had the legal battle.

    Heh- I remember two weeks before the election, it appeared Bush would win the popular total but lose the Electoral College narrowly, and all the lefties began lecturing us on how important it was to honor the EC tradition. Two weeks later, they began crying to abolish it!

    Obama’s always been about Obama anyway. Who writes TWO soul-searching autobiographies before he’s 45?

  • mvymvy

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

    In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state?s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters? voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes?that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state?s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO? 68%, IA ?75%, MI? 73%, MO? 70%, NH? 69%, NV? 72%, NM? 76%, NC? 74%, OH? 70%, PA ? 78%, VA ? 74%, and WI ? 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK ? 70%, DC ? 76%, DE ?75%, ME ? 77%, NE ? 74%, NH ?69%, NV ? 72%, NM ? 76%, RI ? 74%, and VT ? 75%; in Southern and border states: AR ?80%, KY ? 80%, MS ?77%, MO ? 70%, NC ? 74%, and VA ? 74%; and in other states polled: CA ? 70%, CT ? 74% , MA ? 73%, MN ? 75%, NY ? 79%, WA ? 77%, and WV- 81%.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 76 electoral votes ? 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  • cwilson

    WTH does this have to do with layoffs at OfA?

    BTW, here’s the fatal flaw in the NPV: all it takes is a populous, one-party state (say, CA or TX) to institute widespread vote fraud as official policy, and bang: 54M votes for the Dem candidate. That’s more than the rest of the country’s ACTUAL voters-who-show-up even if they all voted for the other guy. End result: fraud rules. At least at present, such single-state shenanigans are limited in effect to only the number of electors that state controls.

  • edwyrd

    my queston is this; if the republicans manage to frame the debate with obamacars and crazy deficit spending, and this proves as fatal as it should, HOW LONG will good dem indians continue to sacrifice their careers for the great one, and the holy 111th’s agenda?

  • gekster

    The more money, the more loyalty.
    But you do know that, don’t you.

  • gekster

    The more money, the more loyalty.
    But you do know that, don’t you.

  • gekster

    loggin off.
    It seams like it’s teasing me.