Bloodless Coup

i don't think majikthise and her entourage is going to be too happy, either.

Indeed. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth all around the left blogosphere.

Uh - why on Earth would anyone bother to still like Hackett after this? It looks to me like he's being a great big baby. Booh-hoo-hoo big party leaders don't like me so I'm going to take my football and go home - and let down the people who've flocked to my side - and let down the people of Ohio (be it the whole state or the 2nd district) who would have benefited from having my as the senator or rep.

Gosh, Democratic party leaders were scheming to try to have strong Dems in 2 races instead of one - yeah, THEY'RE the problem Mr. Hackett. Of course they are. Not.

so is you're feeling that hackett should have taken his medicine and gone run the house again, or that he should have stood his ground against the entire party and tried to run an insurgent campaign for senate.

while i recognize the importance of picking up as many seats in congress as possible, i really question the propriety of a party marching in and telling people who will and won't win a primary. especially, when they're arm-twisting donors to give their money to other candidates against -- so it would seem -- said donors' first impulses. seriously, wtf? should we just bag the primary system altogether? that's not cool at all.

hackett raised a ton of money from all over the country through a massive blog campaign. i think he should stand his ground against the dems, emphasize his challenge to insider politics as usual, expose in every way possible every donor who cows to party pressure and every democrat who won't rally to his side because the party says so, and kick the shit out of the party's choice for the senate race.

then let's see the party not back him in the general election.

Parties (both of 'em) threw out any sort of philosophical affiliation with primaries years ago. They have lots of data, figure they often know the ground and the possibilities better than candidates, especially new candidates, (sometimes this is true, sometimes not) and they want to concentrate resoureces in ways that they think can be used most effectively.

I'm not thrilled with all that, but it's nothing new, and from a self-interested actor perspective it's exactly what you'd think parties should be doing. If you want them to act in their best interest - well, they are trying to maximize their resources and wins.

If he won the primary, of course the party would back him then. The party seems to just think he wouldn't, didn't want to see party resources spend on (from their perspective) unnecessary primary, and hoped he'd give OH-2 another shot given the serious possibility that the majority of the US Hous will be decided by just a handful of seats.

I don't care one way or another about what exactly public service path Hackett chose to puruse - Senate, House, or go back to the military like he'd first said he was going to do. But to bow out altogether of the political process b/c Chuck Schumer isn't siding with him 110% - I think that's not being helpful to anyone. If he cares about the country's politics he should try to change it. Not get all huffy and storm home offended.

And there are still plenty of straight-talkers (and ones with more of a spine) that bloggers can back. Perhaps this will put a greater focus on Jim Webb's campaign.

Uh, because it was the party itself that recruited him to run to Senate. The same people that called his donors and told them not to give more money were the ones who encouraged him in the first place.

And? C'mon I've taught Realism to long to believe in lasting alliances. Brown entering the race doubtless changed their perception of what was in their interest.

Dan Drezner posted on this too, and his point was that it showed that the netroots nutters weren't in charge of the Democratic party. I suspect that additional message was a bonus.