Dick Morris: The Democrats' Doomsday Dilemma

You know when there's a guy on second and there's a hit and so the outfielder throws the ball to second, to keep the man on first from advancing, and concedes the run?

The Democrat Party has to decide whether to throw to home to stop a run that there's no way to stop or throw to second, make the safe play, that at least keeps a runner out of scoring position.

With Republican prospects looking ever better for this fall, the House Democratic Campaign Committee and the PACs that follow its lead face tough triage decisions: Who will they fund?

Republicans need 39 seats to take away the Democrats' majority, so the temptation is to focus on protecting the weakest seats. But protecting a House majority is becoming more unrealistic -- so what should the party do? Will it mount a goal-line stand and pour funds into its weakest 39 races -- or tacitly concede the House, back up and defend the seats it can win?

By moving resources out of the races where they're weakest, Democrats would be swallowing a bitter pill by admitting that Nancy Pelosi's days as House speaker are numbered. But if they focus their funds and manpower on the most endangered seats, they may well let slip away dozens more seats that they might have defended successfully.

Futile efforts to protect a disappearing majority could lead to a loss of 60 to 80 seats, where a more prudent allocation of resources might hold the damage to 50 seats.

Condemning those dozens of "extra" Democrats to defeat would deny the Democrats the incumbents on whom they'd need to build a future majority -- opening the door to a longterm GOP majority.

Prediction: They throw home. Because they're stupid and led by a mental patient.

The run scores, the man flies to second and rounds to steal third, there's an error at third and the ball goes into the foul line gutter and rolls out to the outfield, and that run comes home, too.

The Spending... Is broken down by Patrick Ishmael, who writes:

The NRCC is intent on locking down the most accessible seats first, and then depending on the popular wave to take them over the 39 seat threshold. The DCCC anticipates that this will be a wave election but is intent on making the 39th, majority-losing seat the most difficult one to take by creating a last-gasp, ten seat firewall. Why the NRCC would anticipate a wave and spend a lot of money on seats most susceptible to a wave instead of the wave outliers, or why the DCCC would start its firewall so late in the vulnerability list, are a bit beyond me.

He concludes the NRCC is not being aggressive, as it's focused on the easiest 30 seats, whereas a confident and aggressive party would target the next 30 seats. (I'm making up the 30/30 thing as far as specific numbers but that's what he says, basically.)

I long ago decided that when I start pimping races, I'm not going to focus on the top 30 but the next 30. Everyone will be donating to and hyping the top 30. I want to lock in on 31-60.

I don't know how to go about doing that. At some point I guess I'll ask the RNCC for a list.

posted by Ace at 03:15 PM

| Access Comments