A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN MANAGER GIVES US THE INSIDE SCOOP ON THE DCCC

There are some fine dedicated people who work at the DCCC and who believe in the same progressive values we do. There are others who could switch to the NRCC at a moment's notice and nothing whatsoever would change for them except their phone number. Washington is one hell of a screwed up place.

When I started blogging, one of the first things I noticed is that our side actually had someone every bit as rotten and loathsome as Tom DeLay, the rottenest and most loathsome person in politics. On our side, Satan went by the name Rahm Emanuel. He was rewarded for shoving NAFTA, as a Clinton operative, down congressional Democrats' throats with a Chicago congressional seat that is the closest thing to a rotten borough in America. Unless this is the first time you've been on DWT you've probably heard Ken or I railing against him in the past. Today, however, it's someone else's turn.

A couple of years ago I met Amy Little when she was managing the insurgent grassroots campaign of John Hall in upstate New York. Like Jerry McNerney's grassroots campaign in California, Hall wasn't the candidate preferred by the Inside the Beltway establishment. He was against the war and he was too independent minded. Emanuel likes right-of-center hacks who can be depended on to do as they're told (by him). There were dozens of races in every part of the country where Emanuel Party insiders chased grassroots, anti-war progressives out of their primaries to make room for Republican-lite shills, many of whom ultimately lost to Republicans and some of whom are now in Congress voting, quite frequently, with Republicans (though only on crucial and substantive matters). A few days ago, Amy addressed the following to November Victory, an ongoing Internet chat session/list serve for Democratic candidates and their staffers.

When I was Campaign Manager in '06 for the upset victory of Congressman Hall, we were in a 6 way primary and DCCC was working behind the scenes for our top primary opponent. It sucked. We heard rumors that they were telling donors not to give to us, even a few of Halls music friends were cut-off at the pass. Many of the top Dem givers and activist organizations had been told to support our opponent. I was on the phone with DCCC often; they kept wanting me to share my campaign plans with them. Of course I didn't, that would have helped our opponent.

Later we slammed everyone in the primary getting more than double the DCCC choice. I was in DC the next day pounding the pavement. The attitude of DCCC changed of course. However, it wasn't until only 2 weeks out when they came through with an endorsement and some money! I was glad to get it but also very glad that we had won this campaign without them!  (By the way, our state party is NOT like the DCCC.)

The DCCC is not the same every cycle, but some things remain the same. Understandably they  should be more aligned with the Dean 50 state strategy. However, you can also understand that they are gambling their efforts and resources-- just like every election is a gamble, and if they don't target they won't be able to get their desk staff into the field (dangerous), or their money concentrated enough to have an impact. 

What has angered me most in the past is their back-door support, when they say they are not "involved" in primaries. To make it worse, those have often been Republican-Lite candidates because they think they are more electable. Even worse has been their disregard for the activist base Democrats in the field. It's plain stupid strategy. Also flawed in their strategy is the method of designing campaigns around the middle voters, whitewashing the candidate and whitewashing the issues, and stifling Democrats from being truly Progressive (or however you want to describe Democratic values of social and economic justice, peace and respect for humanity and the planet). In many districts, if Dems don't act like Dems should (progressive and back-boned on those issues), their moderate Republican challengers will take their votes.

In my experience you have to do it yourself, take what you can, keep asking for more, but make sure you don't let them think they can run your campaign (make decisions for you or hold you hostage to their strategy). In the end they will respect you for it because you will have run a smart campaign and done it from in the district. Most important you are more likely to have an elected official who is accountable to the voters.

(Please note: Not all DCCC staff or leaders are alike. Also, not all political consultants are nasty or use the same strategy)

Amy Little
Political Advisor
Strategic Consulting

Rahm, now Democratic House Caucus chair, has moved on to bigger and better things, although he still has a major say over what goes on at the DCCC. The new chair, Chris Van Hollen, unlike Emanuel, won a congressional seat by beating the favored Insider Democrat and then taking on and beating a Republican incumbent. In terms of a voting record he is marginally more progressive than Emanuel. He appears less of a corporate shill-- a traditional Republican stance-- and more of a traditional Democrat who looks to serve the interests of working and middle class families. And yet the complaints from candidates just keep on coming. A couple days ago we heard from a grassroots candidate in northwest Texas, Roger Waun, who like Amy, gave me permission to air his DCCC story. I hear these kinds of complaints from candidates constantly; most candidates specifically ask me to keep them to myself or to at least not implicate them or their campaigns. Democracy has to start somewhere.