Since When Did Losing Become Good Strategy?

Lowell at Raising Kaine speculates at the top of this post that it's possible that the lack of national funds into the 1st CD race from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC, I think I've got the name right, ah well I'm close enough) was a strategy to force Republicans to spend campaign money that they don't have (the Congressional GOP is actually in debt), while saving money for other races.

Also, at the same time, Dems at Raising Kaine and other blogs are SCREAMING bloody murder at the DCCC for not pumping more money into this race, as they thought it could've been a win for Phil Forgit. Even Forgit's campaign is practically saying "hey, we could've won with some money".

They totally ignore the fact that Rob Wittman was a good candidate in a solidly "red" district. Also, they also ignore the fact that money was being pumped into Ohio's 5th CD because they thought they had a better chance there...which they didn't, and I think that it was wasted money either way. All the money pumped into Ohio did not earn their candidate any more percentage points than she had received the previous year in the general election.

I think that a serious commitment from the DCCC financially would not have won this campaign for Forgit...but maybe earned him a few extra percentage points...Dems thought that they could get 43%-45% easily here...they only get 38%. They seriously underperformed by their own expectations. A good showing here would have been promising for the Dems...but the national Dems punted this election and it probably was a good thing in the end. They've got bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

The Dems who are mad at the DCCC seem to just be looking for a scapegoat, because they want to believe that Forgit would have won this race with some money. I think it would've taken a bit more than money for even a mildly moderate Dem like Forgit to win in the 1st.

Even Ben at NLS is calling the anti-DCCC sentiments from Virginia Dems "absurd".