Carville Says Democrats Are 'Addicted to Hopeless Causes'

[brooklynite]

Political Wire

James Carville told Vox that Democrats need to be smarter about how they prioritize their resources.

Said Carville: “Just look at how Democrats organize and spend money. For Christ’s sake, Jaime Harrison raised over $100 million only to lose his Senate race to Lindsey Graham by 10 points. Amy McGrath runs for Senate in Kentucky and raises over $90 million only to get crushed by Mitch McConnell.”

He added: “They were always going to lose those races, but Democrats keep doing this stupid shit. They’re too damn emotional. Democrats obsess over high-profile races they can’t win because that’s where all the attention is. We’re addicted to hopeless causes.”

To anyone who's going to complain that Carville is "washed up" or "out of touch", answer the underlying question: what was the value in burning all that cash in hopeless races when we had competitive candidates in need of support?

[Celerity]

1. wow, a rarity indeed, as I completely agree with the old swamp rat about us shitting away hundreds

millions on extremely dubious Senate races in 2020 (especially SC, KY, and TX, and to a point, ME) due to wish fulfilment bias. All that whilst cash starving IA and especially MT, who were both ahead until hundreds of millions of dollars in late-in-game dark money RW hit spots buried both, and neither had the cash to counter (whilst at least 100m or more usd in excess funds were sitting in hopeless races' coffers, and were never distributed correctly, nor spent).

[qazplm135]

2. what race would have been decided by more money?

Most of that money those two raised isn't magically transported to other races.

Nor is it possible to fully predict which upsets aren't possible.

The polls for Harrison in particular showed him up or tied most of that race, should we have ignored that because AFTER the fact it turned out not to be true?

Carville hasn't been relevant in a long, long time. The triangulation politics he championed worked in the 90s. They don't work today because there is no longer a large center third that sways between the parties.

[intheflow]

8. That triangulation politics of the 90s is what has brought us to this point in time.

His corporatist, centrist rhetoric actually helped move our party so far to the right that we had liberals jump ship and vote for Trump in 2016. I haven't had any respect for him since he married his GOP counterpart because anyone who can marry someone with such onerous politics is not really someone who cares about little people like me, or my (way) left of center politics even as my donations to the DNC helped fund his salary.

[qazplm135]

13. It worked at the time

it doesn't work now. I don't villify him or praise him. The country changes but what we see is most politicians can't seem to change with the country. It's why Gingrich is irrelevant as is Carville. There stuff worked in their time, but not now. The 90s was the last decade that truly had a mushy middle of significant side that either party could sway them one way or the other.

Now most independents are more aligned with one party or the other than even partisans are according to studies.

So what's left is a tiny sliver.

Rove and Howard Dean were ahead of their time and are correct now, it's simply about base turnout...whomever wins that battle, wins the game.

The pro is our base is bigger than theirs, the con is our base is much more varied than their base. So we have a lot more of a struggle getting to unity while they just vote for whomever isn't a Dem. They fall in line, we have to fall in love. Which works great when it's Obama, less so when it's Clinton or Biden.

The difference this time is that for the first time a lot of our side was motivated by fear of Trump to work together, which led to victory, but that's harder to replicate when Trump isn't on the ticket as we've seen so far.

Instead of doing this silly Monday morning QBing of who we should support or not, we need to adopt the same mindset the other side does, voting for anyone who is a Dem with total enthusiasm because the alternative is ten times worse.

Exhibit A: Virginia.

[MadameButterfly]

25. The con is voter suppression, gerrymandering, and disproportionate Senate representation

or we'd have won enough seats that we wouldn't need every last senator to agree with the overwhelming majority of Dems.

Carville's stuff worked to get Clinton elected, but I wouldn't say his policies, moving to the right, has worked for Dems. And as I recall Gingrich crashed and burned.

[qazplm135]

28. Demorcats were getting their butts kicked

at every level.

He's wrong about the crack about progressives only being single digit percentages, but they never have and are not now a majority of Dems, so how could they be a majority of the country?

Short answer is, they aren't.

so, guess what, to win, to hold office, gonna require a coalition with centrists. And no voter suppression or gerrymandering are not centrist Dem creations. Every centrist Dem signed on to voter reform and getting rid of gerrymandering. Two jerks blocked it.

Manchin is a jerk but he's right about one thing, until progressives actually get the numbers to have a majority of the party and a majority of seats in Congress, they aren't going to be able to rush to the left with policy or legislation.

So it's on them to find the voters willing to vote for those policies to elect the politicians that put it forward. Until then, yeah, gonna have to have a compromise with centrists and moderates. Just like centrists and moderates have to do the same with progressives if they want to hold power.

The smart move for progressives would in fact be to adopt progress in chunks. To stop seeking wide ranging bills that solve every issue and ill in one fell swoop. To spend each election with a couple of targets, reach them, and then move on to the next set. Whittle it away and pretty soon it's gone and you have everything. Try to eat it all at once, and you choke and then republicans get 2-4 years to fuck everything up.

But as long as progressives demand that everything must be done NOW, they are going to battle part of their own party and play into the silly fears that the right gins up about massive change.

[MadameButterfly]

71. The BBB bill had 48 senators

moderate and progressive, plus a president and a VP. This wasn't crazy far reaching. We just have 2 Dems who are undercover for their Republican donors. The real Democrats of every stripe get what we need.

The reason everything was put together in one bill is the fillibuster. They only get one more bill under reconciliation. Without the fillibuster, sure they could bring up each bill and try to whittle away at it. But that isn't an option.

Show me the issues Manchin, Synema, or Republicans would vote for if Dems only went for one target issue. Republicans want to torpedo everything. Manchin promises then changes his mind as soon as we compromise to his demands.

Don't keep putting on Progressives what Trump and Republicans are doing to this country. The Right's goal is to be against anything just because Democrats do it, especially if it will make things better and make Biden look good. You can't compromise enough for these guys. They have a fundamentally different purpose.

[Demsrule86]

57. I disagree. we had real majorities back then and were competitive in states that now

are a total loss for us.

[Demsrule86]

54. It worked. We had way better majorities. I believe people are

kidding themselves...I am a progressive and believe fervently in those ideals but this is at best a center left country...and it seems to be moving more right at this moment to me. Had Clinton not been able to triangulate, the GOP would have held the presidency for a minimum of 16 years and likely longer. Clinton for all people like to attack him saved us.

[qazplm135]

64. that was over a generation ago

yeah it worked then, now it won't. Because there is no center.

It didn't even work by 2000 and 2004 when Rove moved to the base turnout model and then Dean copied it for 2008 and 2012.

[iemanja]

29. Liberals did not vote for Trump

Fascists did.

[intheflow]

40. I personally know two who did.

One is definitely a fascist now (not when we became friends 20 years ago, in the peace movement of all places!), but the other had buyer's remorse almost as soon as they pulled the lever on their 2016 "protest" vote. They honestly didn't dream he'd win. Both these folks live in Massachusetts. If my two previously liberal friends jumped ship in uber-liberal MA in 2016, you know damn well white "liberals" in south of DC and west of the Mississippi River.

[iemanja]

59. I suspect a few myself

close to "home," but they manage to hide themselves among decent people.

My point was that a vote for Trump means one is a fascist, regardless of what one poses as. Fascism is as fascism does. Your repentant friend may be an exception, as long as they didn't repeat the mistake.

[Demsrule86]

55. Those who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, and we know those that voted for Stein were on the

left in fact voted for Trump. Any vote not given to Hillary in 16 was a vote for Trump.

[radius777]

12. +1. There is a much smaller 'center' than there was

in the 80s and 90s. Rachel Bitecofer talks about this, and how our politics is driven more by negative partisanship, where voters hate the other party even more than they love their own. There are very few voters who are open to persuasion. We're dug in and divided and will be for the foreseeable future.

[intheflow]

50. Yes.

On all points. There was a center once, before the two parties colluded in 1984 to control candidate debates exclusively themselves so that third party candidates are effectively blocked from national presidential debates and thus, denied them an affordable national platform to deliver their platform for the nation. Once they declared only two opinions were legit, the population followed choosing one side or the other.

http://|The League of Women Voters and Candidate Debates: A Changing Relationship
(Link source: League of Women Voters)

[Autumn]

3. Not a fan but he's right. There are some races that can't be won by a Democrat. So focusing on

places where we can win should be a no brainer but they would rather tilt at windmills.

[Samrob]

34. I am one who believes every race should be challenged by a Democrat. We need not spend obscene money

for "lost causes" maybe no money at all but every ballot should contain a Democrat challenger. One might even win. Stranger things have happened.

[Autumn]

38. Over $100 million to lose a race is obscene. There are places a Dem won't win.

Beto spent $80 nillion to lose to Ted Fucking Cruz. No telling what he will spend this time.

[Samrob]

39. I agree, just put a name on the ballot. Only costs a couple thousand dollars. Give voters a choice

we might be surprised.

[Capn Sunshine]

68. I Came here to say this

Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy" means you have a Democratic challenger in EVERY single race. This approach resulted in historic gains and the BLUE WAVE midterm victories.
No reason to just concede that ground without a fight!
Division of resources will always be at issue but no race should be deemed unwinnable.
That's not how you win.
#BLUEWAVE2022

[dsc]

4. Honestly he is right here

but I don't know what the solution would be. Individuals are giving the money. We can't ban them from doing so.

[brush]

31. The money would not have been raised if the republcan opponents...

weren't so high-profile, so to say the money was wasted is illogical as it wouldn't have been there to spend on other races.

[Emile]

5. Carville would make a terrible football coach.

[BlackSkimmer]

20. This shit ain't football.

Not by a long shot.

[Emile]

22. No this is all about losing and giving up!

[BlackSkimmer]

23. I don't see Carville as a quitter.

Not by a long shot.

Ymmv.

[Emile]

24. He is spreading a losing message!

[Demsrule86]

51. Nope if we listen we would win more elections.

[Emile]

58. We are going to win more, by losing on purpose. Ok

[calguy]

6. There's a lot of wisdom in his words.

[Celerity]

9. broken clocks and all that

[brush]

7. That cash would not have been raised if Harrison and McGrath...

hadn't run against such high-profile republicans. I usually agreed with Carville but that's a chicken-or-the-egg bit of evanescence that dissolves into nothingness the more you thing about it.

[Demsrule86]

49. An that is an issue isn't it...why don't folks fund races that we have a shot at winning?

It makes way more sense.

[poli-junkie]

10. I think that our candidates need to be more cut throat

against our Repuke opponents — draw attention to their criminality & corruption. Back them against the wall, make em defend their “record” in office. I’m tired of playing nice.

[Demsrule86]

48. I don't see that working...I don't care how cut throat you are, we won't win say Indiana or lately

Iowa. At the moment, there are a number of states where we absolutely have no chance of winning statewide and it killing us in terms of Senate majorities.

[radius777]

11. The polls were wrong in SC

that showed a tie, just as the polls were wrong across the country that underestimated GOP support. Trump was supposed to lose by more than he did, and we were supposed to do much better in the Senate and House races.

I usually agree with Carville in terms of the need to play hardball politics - but I think he misses the point that politics is indeed emotional, and the money spent on those races would not magically have gone to other races, and getting people involved in the political process is never a waste. There are people who may've donated to those races simply because they so despise Turtle and Flimsy.

[roamer65]

26. Maybe the polls were right.

…and the 10 percent was the actual amount of voter suppression?

That wouldn’t not surprise me in SC.

[Demsrule86]

45. I don't think so. He lost that race and honestly, South Carolina is not winnable statewide

at the moment IMHO.

[Demsrule86]

47. That is the rational folks use for emotional electioneering and IMHO, it costs us elections

every time.

[Bettie]

14. So, we just have to wait for the old man to tell us who we're allowed to donate to?

because most races are "hopeless" and only the bald oracle can tell us who to vote for?

[nycbos]

15. No but we need to use logic instead of emotion.

Neither Harrison or McGrath ever had a chance.

For the record I donated to both of them and I use emotion instead of my brain as well.

[PTWB]

16. Pragmatism isn't a dirty word.

[peggysue2]

36. No, it isn't

Because if we are not pragmatic in 2022 and beyond, we will cede the whole enchilada to the right-wing nuts-o-sphere. Once they get a firm footing, the rest will be history as in Roman Republic history.

We must be as ruthless and pragmatic as the Republicans to keep the country from entering a tailspin, one from which we're unlikely to recover.

Under the circumstances, pragmatism becomes a stealthy tool in elections going forward bc it's all about winning now: electing more Dems than Repubs into positions of power. It's always about the numbers. That means supporting and financing candidates that have the best shot to win in their districts or regions. We don't have the luxury of wishful thinking or fanciful 'I've gotta be excited by the candidate' nonsense.

Drop the emotions, start using our strategic heads.

Because if we lose, we lose the ability to change anything. Or even holding the line.

[BlackSkimmer]

19. The "old man"? Seriously?

He’s younger than Biden lol. Barely.

[brooklynite]

27. I'm happy to tell you...

I do months of data crunching to figure which races are actually competitive, and I don’t let “I hate X” emotions distract me from races that are realistic.

[Demsrule86]

44. It is not that you can't donate to whom you choose, but do with the understanding that in a

hopeless race, the money could be spent on races we can win. It is about limited resources and using said resources to elect more Democrats.

[BlackSkimmer]

18. K and r.

[quickesst]

21. Everything Carville is saying...

.... he is right about, and it's my opinion that anyone who disagrees, or dismisses what he is saying would be the very reason he is saying it. No one ever said, "Speak Softly, and Carry a Wet Noodle".

[MichaelSoE]

30. After reading his statement I immediately flashed on Howard Dean

As chair of the DNC he espoused the Fifty-state strategy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-state_strategy

I thought it was the way to go. When I moved here (FL) 12 years ago I was shocked that we didn't even have a candidate on the ballot for the congressional district where I live. The republican ran unopposed. WTF was my reaction.

Since that election the maps have been redrawn to further enhance the odds that they will win. The democrats that ran in the last 2 elections lost, but not by margins that that might have been different had more? funding were available.

Think about it. A lot of people think FL is a really RED state but in reality there are many democrats here. Andrew Gillum lost by only 4/10's of 1%. A bit more support from the top for the smaller contests could be very beneficial. I have high hopes both DeSantis and Rubio eat it next year.

[Demsrule86]

43. I adore Howard Dean. I supported him when he ran for President and believe to this day,

he would have beaten Bush...and he was the best DNC guy we ever had. He handed Pres. Obama a sixty-person Senate for Ted Kennedy got sick.

[DFW]

52. And for his trouble

Obama let Rahm Emmanuel kick Howard out of his government, instead of placing his as Secretary of HHS, and having Howard's wise counsel at his beck and call, just down the road from 1600.

As smart as Obama was, he blew that one to the detriment of his whole presidency.

PS--as many here know, Howard is a personal friend, has been for 20 years. That doesn't change one word of what I said. It would be true even if I had never met the guy.

[leftstreet]

66. +1

[Kid Berwyn]

32. Yeah, like "Universal Health Care" and "Equal Rights."

“Democracy” is another “lost cause,” itself a loaded term for this Democrat.

[Johonny]

33. That money would go a long way to establishing a social media presence to combat

disinformation. Democrats are decades behind FOX news etc. . .

[GoCubsGo]

35. He would know about that kind of thing.

Look who he married.

[MineralMan]

37. I can't disagree with you on that.

However, people will do what they do. Carville is a pragmatist and a practical man. Politics, however, is an ideological sort of endeavor. Many people will spend a great deal of money and time on ideals. All too often, symbolism seems to be more important to many than practical things.

Sometimes they will even vote for a third party candidate, rather than for a Democrat they don't prefer to one who isn't even on the ballot. Politics doesn't always make any sense at all.

It's a pity, really, considering long-term goals that go unrealized because of short term ideals.

[Calista241]

41. Can't argue with him on those two races.

Same with Beto in 2018.

[Demsrule86]

42. He is absolutely correct.

[JHB]

46. I'm not seeing where he proposes a more strategic-minded funding apparatus

In the full Vox interview, that is, not the clickbait intermediary page, which has even less.

Does he do that somewhere else?

[Meowmee]

53. Take the money out of it

At least one issue will be gone. I doubt any dem would ever win in those races anyway even it was a system that didn't require millions to run a campaign.

[JanMichael]

56. Talk about addicted to a lost cause he should look as his marriage.

It was never cute the Democrat withe the Republican.

That said too much burned money went into 2018 and 2020 races.

[dwayneb]

60. Sometimes call them "hope fiends"

Back in the day, marijuana smokers used to be called "dope fiends", and the Democrats that Carville is talking about ought to be called "hope fiends". Yes hope is a good thing to have, it's a positive, but there is also a pressing need for canny planning and strategy and getting boots on the ground in the places they are needed.

The fascists clearly have a roadmap to seize control of our government in 2024, why didn't we have a roadmap 30 years ago to actually stop them, because anyone with half a brain saw this coming? This is NOT business as usual folks. We are fighting for our lives.

[Ohio Joe]

61. To be blunt... He is a moron...

You fight the good fight, you do not give up. That was the money they raised and they spent it doing their best. To say someone like McConnell should be given a free pass is insane. We should fight every race in every state.

[brooklynite]

63. Tell me: which candidates did you not support?

Unless you gave to everyone, you made choices. I can answer that question because I did thoughtful research into: 1) which candidates were competitive (not McGrath) and 2) which candidates had as much money as they needed (not Kelly). However, plenty of people here decided to contribute to McGrath and other hopeless causes because the emotionalism of "getting" Mitch McConnell was more important that the actual value of winning the Senate (perhaps with two more seats so Manchin and Sinema wouldn't be critical factors).

[Ohio Joe]

65. Well...

I rarely give money to out of state candidates. I’m simply not that wealthy. I have on occasion but it’s $5 or $10 at most and I’ve done that maybe 3 or 4 times since I started voting back in ‘80.

That aside, I’ve lived in some very red areas where the Dem candidate had pretty much zero chance of winning and still gave… Still hit the bricks for them.

This year, I live in a very safe Dem district so I will donate to one that is red (Boeberts) and the Dem (I think it will end up being Sandoval) who will probably not win.

I think to cede a race in politics is a dumb idea. I think you need to keep at it in order to eventually get the victory.

That is my opinion.

[Emile]

69. +1 Cede a race is s dumb idea! Spot On!

[JCMach1]

62. Simple Answer- 1990's Clintonian Pragmatism is way out of fashion...

Doesnt mean he's not right, just out of touch...

[wellst0nev0ter]

67. Maybe we should have spent some of that money

Building up Democratic party building apparatuses in those states and grooming future leaders and candidates.

Just a thought.

[Paladin]

70. I lost my addiction to James Carville a long time ago.

Talk about a hopeless cause...