Saturday, February 17, 2018

The DCCC Would Rather Lose An Election-- So Long As It Can Make Sure Everyone Gets Paid Off


If CA-39 is any indication, the perennial losers at the DCCC appear ready to give up on the House. It's not even March and they are organizing their puppets around one of the worst and least electable candidates running for Congress in Orange County.

In the 39th district, which Hillary won by nearly 9% and where local activists forced out 24 year incumbent Ed Royce, the DCCC is rallying around lottery-winning, slumlord Gil Cisneros. Cisneros doesn't live in the district and has no ties to the community, but he is a rich conservative "ex"-Republican-- all that matters when the DCCC prioritizes lining the pockets of its revolving door consultants over winning elections.

By any measure, the 39th should be one of the most winnable seats this cycle. The district is 35% Latino and 30% Asian American. Democrats won the state Senate seat that covers the entire district for the first time in 40 years last cycle. Democrats and Republicans are basically equal in voter registration and the Cook Report rates the seat as "lean Democrat." The key to flip the 39th will be voter turnout, which means actually running a candidate who connects to voters.

None of this matters to the DCCC. While it's hard to imagine there are many more favorable seats across the country, the DCCC is willing to throw away one of the 24 it needs.

Why? Cisneros and his wife have donated nearly $150,000 since 2013 to California Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. One member of the Hispanic Caucus has a family foundation that Cisneros has donated tens of thousands of dollars to in just the past 3 years. Cisneros alone has given $16,000 in the past 3 cycles to the California Democratic Party and this cycle he and his wife have given $10,000 to the Democratic Party of Orange County. This doesn't include the tens of thousands he and his wife donated in 2015-2016 to the Clinton campaign and state parties on her behalf. I guess it's fair to say we know how much it costs to buy Democrats. Throw a few grand in several directions and even a former Republican slumlord can have the corporate version of the "progressive" label.

Here are the facts on the ground-- when local Democratic activists and clubs have had an opportunity to vote on the candidates, progressives Sam Jammal and Jay Chen have come out ahead. At the Democratic Party's pre-endorsement caucus-- a generally corrupt process driven by party elites-- Cisneros was so toxic to party controlled delegates that he only received just one (1) vote. Chen received the plurality of votes but fell shy of the endorsement. At a meeting of the Tri Counties Democratic Club, one of the few clubs in the district, Cisneros received 0 votes. Jammal received the majority of votes but fell shy of the endorsement. Time and again, when people have met Cisneros, they have chosen anyone but him.

You would think Democrats would have learned that you can't force a candidate down voters throats. Especially a candidate that local voters have shown no interest in supporting. But nothing has changed. If anything, it's gotten worse.

Does this look like a man trying to buy an election? It is

Cisneros has used his money to buy endorsements from the Giffords Campaign where he is one of their biggest donors and has a number of local elected officials who followed their congressional counterparts in Cisneros' pay-to-endorse scheme. He has also started to get the DCCC signal from their puppets to endorse. SEIU came on board this week and you can expect more to come as the DCCC tries to give Cisneros a clear path to defeat-- and the patina of being a Democrat.

This is all pathetic and why voters generally dislike the Beltway Democrats. Cisneros is a former Republican, who only became a Democrat 2 years ago, but a few bucks thrown around makes you a credible voice for Democrats so long as the checks keep cashing. If you are looking to lower turnout in a district that will only flip if Democratic base voters maintain enthusiasm, Cisneros is the perfect candidate-- uninspiring, pay to play and easily set up to be lampooned as an out of touch, out of district millionaire who didn't earn his money and is a slumlord.

There are few better positioned seats for a win but the DCCC is more concerned with getting paid. It's probably better for their consultants to lose the House and raise money off of Trump than actually be concerned about what 2 more years of an unchecked Trump will bring.

Yesterday I spoke with Nancy Leeds, campaign manager for Andy Thorburn, one of the candidates the DCCC is trying to pressure into leaving the race in order to clear a path for Cisneros. "Our campaign," she told me, "has amazing momentum. Andy is racking up endorsements left and right from nurses, steelworkers, teachers and grassroots leaders across the district AND he has the most cash on hand of any candidate in the race. He is the Democrats' best chance to flip the 39th district. Furthermore, our campaign believes is it against the values of both our system and our party for a candidate to be chosen by Washington rather than the voters. The idea that Andy would drop out is ridiculous."

Labels: , , , , , ,


At 1:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the DCCC were to actually take control of the House, they would be expected to actually rule. You know, like they blast the Republicans for NOT doing. That they don't work to take the majority when their prospects with the public are so good tells me that they don't want to. I believe it's simple to understand why.

As the bought lackeys of their wealthy donors, they know they can do nothing which won't anger them. Then the "donations" come to an end. Why shut off the Golden Nozzle when it's so much easier to just do nothing, lose, and still collect healthy checks?

They are covered from criticism from the public when they are in the minority. They can honestly claim that they don't have the numbers to actually govern. So with no accountability, no likelihood of having to take responsibility, and big checks coming in, they have opted for the easy way out and will don as much nothing as they are being paid to do.

Yet some advocate that this party can be reclaimed from within.


At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:46, you've figger'd it out.

The democrap problem will be to remain "bribe relevant" whilst remaining "governance irrelevant". Their best case, IMO, is to keep the house close and win the senate BARELY or vice versa.

2009 was their worst nightmare. Though they had insurmountable numbers plus the
WH, they could not govern except as the money directed and they found that they could not perform their collapses convincingly, so 15 million voters went dormant in 2010.

Eventually, as the democraps continue to take dive after dive, the money will figure out that giving Pelosi money for laying on her back is just flushing needlessly. I don't think the democraps have a plan for when that happens.

And, yeah, anyone who thinks the party can be reformed from the bottom has their head up theirs. Eventually they, as the money, will realize their hallucination... but in the voters' case, it will be far too late by then.

At 11:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Convenient lack of memory re 2009-10, 'Anonymous-es' above. Very convenient. Dementia praecox maybe? Or maybe your analysis is a crock that allows you to bloviate, vent, take a self-mockery victory lap, and then repeat. It's easy to carp and harp. I'm sure you don't even try to do anything else.

At 6:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So says the reigning queen of carping, 11:15.

At 6:34 AM, Anonymous ap215 said...

Yep as long as the New Dems Blue Dogs & ex GOP'ers reign in charge of the party & the bribery money flows in it's a losing mentality for the DCCC.

At 8:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet 11:15 is a Christian who devoutly believes in the garden of eden story but also devoutly believes incest is a sin.

If 11:15 could extract head from sphincter, maybe that would be the catalyst to make some progress.

At 11:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt it, 8:02. Using multi-syllabic words in such tends to indicate a self-appointed superior being who isn't about to heed anyone's advice. Besides, that tight sphincter tends to soothe the distressing fear felt when one is confronted by reality due to it indicating that a greater power is in control.

At 12:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

tight sphincter would imply micro-microcephaly. Otherwise it would have to be one huuuge asshole.


Post a Comment

<< Home