Dem lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored

[Miss Mia]

exactly.  hillary lost, IMO, because she thought she would coast to the nomination, and she had no game plan after super tuesday.  then she got annihiliated by the biggest thing to hit politics in about a hundred years.  I think if she had run the campaign that she ran since super tuesday before super tuesday, and even made an effort in all those western and midwestern caucus states, that this would be a very different race right now.

but having said all of that, there are some things you avoid because they just send the wrong message;  disenfranchising florida was the wrong thing to do irrespective of the closeness of the primary race.  howard dean just screwed that up beyond recognition;  he is lucky that it isn't a bigger disaster than it already is.

One thing I do like about Dean's helm is the 50-state plan. Working the way up from grass roots as opposed to the DLC's way of doing things.

Hillary's campaign didn't even realize until just a few weeks before Texas that there was a primary & a caucus.   

Losing Iowa was big.  She chose to do that Hill-copter  tour instead of straight to the people town halls.   

Oh well, she's over and done.  And I doubt there's a very nice welcoming committee for Hillary when she goes back to the Senate.  LOL  She needs to get back to NY and starting wooing her constituents and pray that no one comes to run against her next go around.

[Wretched Excess]

exactly.  hillary lost, IMO, because she thought she would coast to the nomination, and she had no game plan after super tuesday.  then she got annihiliated by the biggest thing to hit politics in about a hundred years.  I think if she had run the campaign that she ran since super tuesday before super tuesday, and even made an effort in all those western and midwestern caucus states, that this would be a very different race right now.

but having said all of that, there are some things you avoid because they just send the wrong message;  disenfranchising florida was the wrong thing to do irrespective of the closeness of the primary race.  howard dean just screwed that up beyond recognition;  he is lucky that it isn't a bigger disaster than it already is.

One thing I do like about Dean's helm is the 50-state plan. Working the way up from grass roots as opposed to the DLC's way of doing things.

Hillary's campaign didn't even realize until just a few weeks before Texas that there was a primary & a caucus.   

Losing Iowa was big.  She chose to do that Hill-copter  tour instead of straight to the people town halls.   

Oh well, she's over and done.  And I doubt there's a very nice welcoming committee for Hillary when she goes back to the Senate.  LOL  She needs to get back to NY and starting wooing her constituents and pray that no one comes to run against her next go around.

I think the dems would have won both houses of congress in 2006 with or without the 50 state plan;  although, the individual margins of victory were almost all extremely small.  a factoid I held onto from the midterms:

The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast.

I suppose an argument could be made that every little bit of effort that the DNC exerted helped, and in contests that close, dean's plan could have made the difference.  personally, I think it was DCCC chairman rahm emmanuel.

[Miss Mia]

I suppose an argument could be made that every little bit of effort that the DNC exerted helped, and in contests that close, dean's plan could have made the difference.  personally, I think it was DCCC chairman rahm emmanuel.

I think of the 50 state plan as more of a sustaining plan.

Rahm Emanuel did a good job as well. 

Dean has said (I read) that if a democrat gets in the White House he's stepping aside.

[Wretched Excess]

I suppose an argument could be made that every little bit of effort that the DNC exerted helped, and in contests that close, dean's plan could have made the difference.  personally, I think it was DCCC chairman rahm emmanuel.

I think of the 50 state plan as more of a sustaining plan.

Rahm Emanuel did a good job as well. 

Dean has said (I read) that if a democrat gets in the White House he's stepping aside.

50 state plan strikes me as common sense if you are trying to win the house and senate, but suicide if you are trying to win the white house.  there is no way the democrats are going to win some states; utah, mississippi, idaho just off the top of my head, and just for example, and every dollar they spend campaigning for president in those states is wasted.  and I have heard the argument about obama bringing millions of new people into the party, and that he will put states into play that have never been competitive before.  I don't buy it;  at least not to the extent that I hear it being sold.  the "new voters" that he is bringing into the party, if they show up at the polls in novemeber, will make it hard to win crucial swing states -- ohio comes to mind -- but I I don't think even he means it when he says that he is going to be competitive in every state in the country.

I think the party chairman of the party in control of the white house serves at the pleasure of the president;  I'm not sure it formally works that way, but it works that way as a practical matter.  so, if obama wins in november, he will put his guy in charge at the DNC.

[Miss Mia]

I suppose an argument could be made that every little bit of effort that the DNC exerted helped, and in contests that close, dean's plan could have made the difference.  personally, I think it was DCCC chairman rahm emmanuel.

I think of the 50 state plan as more of a sustaining plan.

Rahm Emanuel did a good job as well. 

Dean has said (I read) that if a democrat gets in the White House he's stepping aside.

50 state plan strikes me as common sense if you are trying to win the house and senate, but suicide if you are trying to win the white house.  there is no way the democrats are going to win some states; utah, mississippi, idaho just off the top of my head, and just for example, and every dollar they spend campaigning for president in those states is wasted.  and I have heard the argument about obama bringing millions of new people into the party, and that he will put states into play that have never been competitive before.  I don't buy it;  at least not to the extent that I hear it being sold.  the "new voters" that he is bringing into the party, if they show up at the polls in novemeber, will make it hard to win crucial swing states -- ohio comes to mind -- but I I don't think even he means it when he says that he is going to be competitive in every state in the country.

I think the party chairman of the party in control of the white house serves at the pleasure of the president;  I'm not sure it formally works that way, but it works that way as a practical matter.  so, if obama wins in november, he will put his guy in charge at the DNC.

That's what I meant for the 50 state plan, for the rep/senate seats, local/county seats.  Those are important. 

I think Obama can put some different states into play.  Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio.  Florida will go republican.  I think this can be an election where the swing states of the past can get replaced with new ones. 

But really, it's still far out.  I think we'll have a better idea of how states are lining up around August/Septemberish.