Do you support concessions to banks to win elections?

[JHan]

42. women ( and men) on this board keep asking for the statistical evidence..

that sending a public signal of welcome to pro-life candidates as it pertains to reproductive choice will result in significant net gains - you , and others, have yet to provide that evidence.

Worse yet, in the face of understandable concerns women have about the impact of this, you condescend as if we don't understand that Democrats have gain the house and take control of state legislatures - well no shit, really?

We already have SIGNIFICANT data why dems lose, and it's not because Dems don't run enough pro-life candidates. A voter for whom pro-life ,as it relates to reproductive choice, is their singular issue will NOT vote Democrat.

So what is the point ? The DCCC will see a drop in funding as a result of an announcement which was unnecessary, that's some kind of winning strategy right?

so much winning right??

(And that's not even to get into the completely unnecessary explosion that Congressman Ray Lujan, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, set off when he said the DCCC would support anti-choice candidates as long as they "fit the districts" in which they're running. Realpolitik or no, it is not a smart thing to declare publicly that you're open to pitching the privacy rights of 51 percent of the population—and of what is generally your entire margin of victory around the country—overboard. If an anti-choice Democrat wants to run, you let that candidate stand up and take the heat alone, instead of telegraphing to your most loyal voters that the party establishment is open for business on this issue. Where do they find these guys?) "

...... That's from Charlie Pierce and he's right. It's a dumbass strategy.