The DCCC And Identity Politics

Steve Israel, flanked by Steve Horsford & John Ewing, 2 politicians whose careers he ruined

Last week we talked about the experience recent congressional candidate-- and long-time North Carolina Democratic political operative-- Thomas Mills had when trying to deal with an imperious DCCC. Much of what the DCCC is crying about what went wrong for them this year are the things Mills was running on-- emphasizing rural working class issues; infrastructure, schools, jobs... a Marshall Plan to "connect small towns and counties to economic centers with pavement and rail as well as with fiber and cell towers." DCCC response: not interested. Yesterday Mario Solis-Marich reiterated his own experience trying to solicit help from the DCCC for a Latina candidate in defeating a crackpot Orange County Republican extremist, Bob Dornan. He wrote that the DCCC was dismissive and told him Latinos don't vote; go away. He did go away-- and his candidate beat Dornan while the DCCC sat watching, jaws agape, stunned. Solis-Marich's point, though, was that that is standard DCCC operating procedure and that they never learn-- not even when they have a Latino as the head of the committee! His story, he wrote, "is one that is experienced over and over again by consultants from African American and Latino communities every congressional election campaign cycle."

The current insular state of the DCCC (aka “the building”) should be no surprise to anyone. The nature of any insular organization is to become more so. The one thing that may come as a surprise to those mainstream political consultants who have suddenly found themselves outside the ever tightening DCCC circle this cycle is that it can get worse. The out-in-the-cold consultants only need ask their Latino and African American counterparts if they want an indication of how chilly it can get outside of 433 Capitol St.

Latino and African American Democratic consultants have had the now derided outsider experience for as long as any of us can remember. Just two years ago an independent group, Power Pac, conducted an analysis on the spending patterns at the DCCC and found that the organization that champions affirmative action at the policy level in Congress falls below the standards of vendor diversity met by most big box retailers. Progressives in DC don’t need to fly to the Silicon Valley to find a corporate culture that just can’t seem to find diverse partnerships. They can walk to one from any Capitol Hill office.

The DCCC has continually rejected offers from minority consultants to work with them and innovate the messages and manner they use to reach African American and Latino communities. While the internal excuses are that the vendors fall below the standards of those in their current stable, the committee has done little to nothing to develop minority consultants they are willing to work with.

The organization also suffers from real systemic problems in the bidding process that stymie diversity and are not in line with its own mission. One example is that the bidding process used by the national organization does not consider state-by-state political and economic differences. This lack of adaptability has created a situation where vendors from states with more progressive minimum wage policies are forced to compete without any special consideration against vendors from states with conservative minimum wage policies. The outcome is to penalize vendors who pay better wages to their employees, which is contrary to the basic philosophy of the Democratic party itself.

There is no no doubt that the DCCC must do better. Currently more and more Latinos are choosing to register as voters with no party preference in states where a serious investment of political and real capital could create a path to congressional relevancy by Democrats. This is not a short-term game. It is a mid-term play that if not taken can lead to all Democrats being left out in the cold.

Sinema-- terrible

If you're a regular reader here, you already know that we're not fans of identity politics. We hate everything about what EMILY's List, for example, has turned into but there's little doubt in my mind that if candidates were supported based on the quality of their ideas and strength of their character, at least half the members of Congress would be women-- maybe much more. As for the racial component, the DCCC didn't involve itself in the open seat races in CA-44 or CA-46 this year, CA-46, ironically, being the seat Solis-Marich's story was based on. One of the best candidates elected to Congress from anywhere in the country was a small-town mayor who took on Exxon-Mobil when they tried drilling off her city's beaches and she beat them. That was Nanette Barragan and her opponent was one of the bought-and-sold Exxon state legislators. Nanette's a woman and Nanette's a Latina and I'm sure there were people who voted for her because of those qualities. But it's her character, her vision and her experience that saw her peers elect her first freshman class co-president and then regional Democratic caucus whip for Southen California. Down the road in CA-46, Lou Correa is also Hispanic, but he's too busy on K Street trying to line up a flow of the kinds of bribes he got when he was in Sacramento to be worried about being part of a team to stand up for progressive values the way Nanette is. Correa, who immediately joined the Blue Dogs and New Dems and who is likely to quickly distinguish himself as the worst Democrat in Congress-- as he managed to be in Sacramento when he served in the legislature-- is what happens when identity politics goes awry.

Congress-- and the Democratic Party-- are filled with garbage politicians: men, women, white, black, Hispanic, gay, straight. In fact-- and this is literal-- among Dems, the very best voting record in Congress is held by a gay Democrat, Mark Pocan (98.95) and the very worst one is also held by a gay Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema (36.63).

Solis-Marich is right that the DCCC has been dismissive of the legitimate aspirations of Latino and African American politicians, especially, when notorious racist slime bag Steve Israel was running the show. Now that he's finally gone has he taken his rule of thumb that blacks can't run in white-majority districts with him? Let's hope so and let's hope we see the DCCC backing the best candidates, not the ones based on the identity politics that voters are sick and tired of.

Can A DCCC Ever Heal Itself If It Remains In Critical Denial?

I never met middle of the road New Mexico congressman and DCCC chairman Ben Ray Luján and, although we've been making a commotion here about Pelosi firing him, I bear him no personal animus. What I don't like is that the Democrats had a reasonable chance to take back a lot of seats in the House, which is Luján's job. He failed-- pretty miserably-- so Pelosi should have found someone better to do it in 2018. But that isn't how she does things. I've spoken to nearly a dozen members of Congress who have told me, more or less, that Luján shouldn't be blamed for screwing up because it was really Steve Israel's fault since he was in charge of giving Luján on-the-job training and he was pulling the strings. That was also Pelosi's fault-- keeping that hopeless loser around after he had already proven himself unqualified to have anything to do with the effort of winning seats (for Democrats).

At two times I was president of two different record companies. The first was my own, 415 Records, a small independent outfit in San Francisco, and one major label under the Time-Warner corporate umbrella, Reprise Records. Both companies did well... but that doesn't mean there weren't problems. There always were-- as there are in all businesses. And if things didn't go well-- you know the phrase, "the buck stops here?" That doesn't mean the buck stopped at the desk of my head of marketing or head of promotion or at the business affairs office or publicity office or international office... or any other office other than the president's office.

But that, apparently isn't how they look at this inside the Beltway. So Luján's back at the helm. But it's not all as horrible at it usually is. At least Luján is trying to slay the Nemean Lion, slay the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra, capture the Ceryneian Hind, capture the Erymanthian Boar, clean the Augean stables in a single day, slay the Stymphalian Birds, capture the Cretan Bull and, last but not least, steal the Mares of Diomedes. Personnel was a problem-- a big one-- but the underlying Rahm Emanuel ideology and operating procedures held over by Chris Van Hollen, Steve Israel and, most recently, Luján will prevent the Democrats from ever winning back the House so long as they're in place. Democratic voters don't want recycled Republicans, NRA shills, Republican-lite fake Dems, and more crap from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party which is, basically, the only kind of candidates the DCCC believes in.

Luján finally dumped incompetent and much-failed Steve Israel operative Kelly Ward, the executive director. Good first step! Last week Simone Pathé reported for Roll Call that Democratic incumbents have been complaining about DCCC staffers.

Whether or not disgruntled members’ grievances about the DCCC are legitimate, their complaints are indicative of a disconnect between parts of the caucus and the committee.

The griping isn’t directed at New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Luján, whom the caucus elected to a second term as committee chairman Monday night.

“We truly believe he never really headed the DCCC,” Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego said last week. The perception is that Pelosi ran the show, beginning with her appointment of the chairman.

Members generally like Luján and believe that making his slot an elected position is a step toward bringing transparency to a committee that they think needs more of it-- even if they’re not quite sure what it is they’re looking for behind the curtain.

Whatever it is, they believe it begins with wresting perceived power away from staff. “Our mission,” Gallego said, is “this is going to be a membership-driven DCCC instead of staff- and consultant-driven.”

...[T]he DCCC fell below expectations publicly set by leadership and came nowhere close to winning the 30 seats needed to take the majority during a presidential year when Democrats should have had the advantage based on turnout.

Midwestern Democrats have blamed the DCCC for abandoning its working-class base. Traditionally, though, crafting a national economic message is the job of Congress or the White House.

Pelosi put Steve Israel in charge of that and he failed dismally, as he failed at everything he's tried to do in terms of House leadership. Israel's horribly failed messaging offers nothing for anyone to vote for and that's why the Democrats failed to gain even close to as many seats they should have. Unfortunately, Luján and Pelosi insist everything and everyone is to blame for the serial failures (except themselves).

In its first post-election discussion with members last month, Luján said that many of their recruits were on a upward trajectory-- with Virginia’s LuAnn Bennett tied with Rep. Barbara Comstock, for example-- until the release of the letter from FBI Director James B. Comey about potentially reopening an investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails.

But some Democrats say they’ve heard similar excuses after disappointing election results in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

“As long as the storyline is, ‘Our polling was great! Our strategy was perfect. James Comey screwed us,’ then it’s a sign there’s no drive for accountability,” one Democratic consultant said. “Somehow, every cycle when the DCCC falls short, someone else is to blame,” he said.

That perception of failure exists among some members who are taking aim at a campaign committee that they don’t think has been working for them. A member’s opinion and understanding of the DCCC may be influenced by their reliance on the committee to get elected and re-elected.

...“I sat in all the recruitment meetings that were run by Cheri Bustos and Denny Heck, and I thought they did a great job,” said New York Rep. Kathleen Rice, elected in 2014 from a district Obama twice carried by double digits. “But I didn’t know anything about the staffers that were there. Was everything being carried out? We just don’t know.”

Three useless New Dems scratching each other's backs-- Kathleen Rice is a mess and Bustos and Heck are, if anything, even worse. These 3 are the very epitome of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Like Luján, all three of them have F scores from ProgressivePunch. Their lifetime crucial vote ratings:

• Denny Heck (WA)- 74.54
• Kathleen Rice (NY)- 61.84
• Cheri Bustos (IL)- 48.56

No one wants to openly talk about the self-enriching revolving door policy the Democrats tolerate or encourage between consultants and DCCC staffers. But it's certainly been a major factor in the performance of the DCCC since Rahm started running-- and ruining-- the committee in 2005.

As eager as they are to give Luján another chance, members are taking their frustrations out on the committee staff-- much more so than in cycles past.

“We realize that it’s also unfair to blame him for the direction of the DCCC when systematically that staff of the DCCC, starting from the top, and almost all the way through middle-management, has been nothing but bureaucratic and ineffective for many, many years,” Gallego said last week when answering a question about why he wanted to keep Luján on as DCCC chairman.

“He wasn’t given the time or the power to get rid of them,” the freshman Democrat added.

While Gallego and others suggested the staff was handpicked by Pelosi, that’s hardly the vast majority of bodies sitting in the DCCC’s South Capitol Street office.

“It’s far easier to blame a nameless, faceless, nebulous staff than it is to confront reality,” said a senior Democratic strategist not working with the committee this cycle.

Ryan, who’s had limited interaction with the committee, pointed his finger at the greater web of political consultants who do business for the DCCC and their recruits. “They need to go on a consultant detox,” he said.

“There’s a closed shop,” a Democratic consultant added. “That would be OK if there were a record of success,” he said, but “we’re not winning the close races.”

...The perception remains that a limited class of consultants contributes to a group-think culture, but the committee’s independent expenditure arm did add at least five new consulting firms this year, including Latino and women-led shops.

“There are favorites that get played and that tends to be with the larger firms, or the people staff think they can get a job from,” another Democratic consultant said.

Any consultant who feels he or she isn’t getting enough business could have an incentive to complain. But “the closed shop” concern is bigger than one consultant or even one party.

“It is something we faced,” Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said outside the speaker’s lobby Monday night.

After losing 30 seats in 2006, Cole said the NRCC opened up.

“You put staff in and tell them, ‘I don’t want a select group of people here. We want to throw this open, we want everybody who’s a reasonable consultant to have a legitimate opportunity to compete,’” he said.

Friday, Luján fired more DCCC incompetents-- though he didn't even consider getting some of the garbage members like Bustos and Heck out of the works, even though it was they, not the staffers, who set the policy. He hired Dan Sena, a Ward deputy?, to take her place, and made Aaron Trujillo chief of staff and Meredith Kelly communications director. "More of the same," is what one congresswoman told me in disgust after the announcement. Ughhh.

Thomas Mills started the respected blog, PoliticsNC and this year he ran for the NC-08 seat held by Richard Hudson. He spent $380,866 to Hudson's $2,431,160 and received 131,428 votes (41.2%) to Hudson's 187,909 (58.8%). The DCCC didn't recognize his race in any way whatsoever. Yesterday he wrote a post for Politico, How The Democratic Party Lost Its Way, which has been called to my attention by nearly a dozen former congressional candidates who have an equally dim view of the DCCC in the Pelosi era. Mills, though, started with a good DCCC experience-- in 1998 as the campaign manager for Mike Taylor. By 2016, though, with his own campaign, the DCCC experience was pretty awful, something dozens of Democratic candidates all over the country will tell you. "After the primaries," he wrote, "I reached out to them. But despite leaving numerous messages on both email and answering machines, I never got any response. When I eventually used my Congressional connections to get an audience, I took my pollster and media consultant to a meeting that lasted all of 15 minutes. We left with little more than a list of reasons why the DCCC wouldn’t be helping our campaign."

Back in the ’90s when I started out, the DCCC was tasked with contesting as many races as possible and providing staff, training and direction to the campaigns in the field. Today, they’re narrowly focused on a small number of highly targeted races. Other campaigns get little attention or support.

Democrats need to be sharper going into the next election cycle. With a 50-plus seat deficit in the House, the party will have to win more than just the most competitive seats. They’ll probably need a wave in which they figure out how to win some longshot races. That won’t happen unless the party actively recruits good candidates around the country and treats them with respect and encouragement. And it also won’t happen unless the party provides campaigns-- especially in the toughest districts-- with the training, support and infrastructure to create or take advantage of opportunities.

...Democrats should be thinking broadly instead of narrowly. Successful political organizations are entrepreneurial and opportunistic, especially when they are 60 seats in the minority. But despite the dismal record it’s racked up in recent years, the DCCC has become insular and myopic. Candidates and consultants can’t reach high-ranking staffers. Reaching ranking members is unthinkable. The circle of people influencing the political strategists rarely reaches outside of the beltway, which means the strategists-- like so much of Washington-- have lost touch with the people whose votes they need to attract. They rely on polling and focus groups to give them an understanding of the challenges facing families today. Those tools would be greatly enhanced if the people using them had regular contact with the people they are trying to reach.

Much of the insularity seems to be rooted in a lack of accountability. For staff, there’s little penalty for failure. They often either get rehired or go to work for consulting firms that have contracts with the DCCC. And the Democratic Congressional leadership comes predominantly from safe districts. Most ranking members haven’t run competitive races in many years, if they’ve run them at all. They don’t understand the skills and experience they need in a caucus staff since they don’t really know what a professional campaign organization looks like and they don’t understand what candidates in competitive districts need to succeed.

The DNC stopped providing its training academy in the late 1990s. Since then, training been contracted out to organizations like Wellstone Action, which has a heavy field emphasis or EMILY’s List, with a fundraising emphasis. We’ve lost the intensive trainings that focused on basic management and strategic skills.

It’s not only the training that’s taken a hit. Despite their 60-seat deficit heading into 2016, the Democrats didn’t appear to do much candidate recruiting except in the most competitive districts. In Texas, Hillary Clinton won in a congressional district where Democrats didn’t even field a challenger. Numbers, not potential, guided the DCCC efforts. Instead of looking for possibilities, or trying to create them, the committee only paid attention to the districts that looked viable on spreadsheets.

The DCCC and other campaign committees ought to retool their campaign operations looking back to the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, they introduced research and polling to campaigns. Now, they should be teaching campaigns how to use social media and online operations to reach voters early and build low-dollar fundraising operations.

Today, Democrats are so far in the hole that they could use the opportunity to try new tactics and strategies to see if they can win in some unlikely places. Longshot and marginal races are not won in the final two months of a campaign. They’re won because candidates put together campaigns that prepare them to take advantage of opportunities throughout the cycle. Social media and online fundraising give candidates the platforms to build profiles and low-dollar fundraising operations, as well as create excitement among their base before the paid media and field campaigns begin.

For Democrats to be successful, they need leaders, both campaign professionals and elected officials, who understand how modern communications and campaigns have changed. They would be wise to reach out to operatives and consultants who live outside the Washington, D.C., bubble to better understand voters. They should get back to their roots: recruit candidates to compete in as many races as possible; create an army of professional operatives across the country to run campaigns cycle after cycle; provide a base level of support for every candidate who files; introduce innovative strategies and tactics and teach campaigns how to use them. They’ll need the leadership to take them there.

And, alas, that's never going to happen while Nancy Pelosi is the House Democratic Leader. She should give it up and let the party she loves, and has served for so many years, get a new lease on life. This morning I was speaking with a recent candidate who told me he thinks he's better off with the DCCC not getting involved in his race in any way. "All they can do," she told me, "is diminish my chances of winning. They don't seem able to bring anything worthwhile to the table... They're from a bygone era. It's pretty sad... As you pointed out in your blog, the best people who won this year, like Pramila and Nanette Barragan, Carol up in New Hampshire, Jamie Raskin all won without any involvement with the DCCC."

Pelosi has turned the House Democratic Conference into a morgue

North Carolina; I Would Totally Vote There

Andy Millard battling it out with an increasingly weird Patrick McHenry

by Tracy B Ann

In a perfect world there would be no
urinals and it wouldn't matter who used
what bathroom.

I would have to go to the bathroom before I left my house to vote though, just in case. I don’t wait in line for bathrooms, I use whatever is available and I don't read “stick figure” too well.

If I were to vote I’d have a lot of good choices. May 12th is the deadline to register for voting in the June 7th Congressional Primary. One thing I like about John McNeal, candidate for the 2nd congressional district in NC, is that he provides all this voter information on his website. I like a candidate who focus’s on voter registration.

John McNeil is a veteran of the Marine Corps. Stationed at Camp Lejeune as a Scout with 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, he remained with 2nd LAR throughout his enlistment, eventually achieving the rank of Sergeant. He participated in the Panama Invasion, Desert Shield, and Desert Storm.

John McNeil (NC-02)

He attended North Carolina public universities to achieve a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science and attended law school at Wake Forest University. He currently owns and operate a law firm and mediation service in Raleigh, North Carolina. He’s got some impressive endorsements here and you can read his stance on issues here. I find it refreshing to have a candidate with opinions on the military, veterans, world affairs and student loans who knows exactly what he’s talking about. His donation link is here.

David Hurst is running in North Carolina’s 3rd district. He has a strong focus on protecting local jobs, especially those of the local fisherman. They seem to be regulated in a way that favors big fishing vessels over local fisherman and wealthy developers over local fishing rights.

He has some unconventional ideas about money, the minimum wage, and taxes. His campaign is self funded. He doesn’t seem to go negative against anyone and thinks it’s time for lawmakers to stop bickering and do their jobs.

David Hurst (NC-03)

David Hurst won my heart with this quote from the Daily Advance:

"'We spend too much on toys and not enough on military servicemen and women,' he said. Hurst said many local service members are on welfare because their salaries are too low. That’s unacceptable, he said. 'Why does the guy who sells the bullet make more than the guy who fires the bullet, or is ready to take one (for his country)?' Hurst said."

In the 8th district it’s Thomas Mills. The first thing that impressed me about him was that when he saw no one was running against the current Republican Congressman he stepped in at literally the last minute.

Thomas Mills (NC-08)

He calls himself a "reluctant candidate." I call him a good example of what should be happening in every district in the US. So in one way, who cares what he thinks about issues? He’s a Democrat on the ballot, something a lot of people don’t get to see on their ballots.

Better than just that though, he seems like a good candidate. He has his own blog, Politics North Carolina (and I like it, it’s good!)

Mills emphasizes rural working class issues; infrastructure, schools, jobs he has a Marshall plan to “connect small towns and counties to economic centers with pavement and rail as well as with fiber and cell towers.”

He has a lot of experience working political campaigns and sounds like exactly the representative his district needs. Donate here.

Christian Cano (NC-09)

Christian Cano is running in North Carolina's 9th district and I want to openly admit that I jumped to misjudge him. Partly because of the hat he wears and partly because of my dyslexia, I read his website as "A Christian for Congress" not realizing his first name was Christian. And I think he is a Christian, but makes it very clear that there needs to be a strong separation between church and state.

His message is of neighbors, neighbors, neighbors. Bringing them together and making sure they’re treated right. He is a fierce defender of equal rights for all, outspoken against any kind of discrimination at all. I mean any kind; age, race, gender. He has no interest in what bathroom people use. On abortion he says that while he is personally Pro-Life:

“...my stand on issues will never be based on my personal and religious beliefs. I firmly believe in the Constitution and its amendments...”

He seems wicked smart and funny too. You can get a real feel for him from his Facebook page and he’s got dog and cat video’s there. How can you not love that? Donate here. There more I learn about him, the more I like him and his hat.

Andy Millard is running in the 10th district. A former teacher, he now has a financial planning business. He says you can’t run government like a business because it has a different mission. He says:

"Congress used to prioritize on the well-being of our citizens and our nation. But we lost our way a while back and we must find it again."

His Facebook page is here and you can contribute to his campaign her. I’ll let him speak for himself:



Rick Bryson is running in North Carolina’s CD 11. His focus is on infrastructure and local issues because, well, "all politics is local." He is a proponent of universal health care, a huge defender of public education, and an advocate for veterans:

"Sadly, the veterans’ experience in returning to civilian life has not been without speed bumps. They have been ignored, lied to, passed over too many times by the Veterans Administration. Just ask one . . . almost any one of them. They know."

Rick Bryson (NC-11)

He wants an “economic revival” for Western North Carolina including roads to get people there. Bryson serves on his towns Board of Aldermen. That town is Bryson city where his dad was once Mayor and the town is named after one of his ancestors.

He likes blunt talk and one of my favorite quotes of his is “shoe leather trumps money”. That sounds like something Dr. Ferguson Reid from 90for90 would say and that’s what all these candidates have in common, they are supporters of 90for90, a voter registration movement started to honor Dr. Reid, the first black man elected to the VA Assembly since Reconstruction. I don’t have a litmus test for candidates but if I did this would be it-- they have to strongly support voter registration, and honor those who fought so hard to get voting rights for all.

You can donate to Rick Bryson here.

Another supporter of 90for90 is Linda Coleman, who is running for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina. She has a lot of political experience from being a Wake County Commissioner for 4 years, to being elected for 3 terms to the North Carolina General Assembly to being the Director of the Office of State Personnel.

She ran for Lieutenant Governor in 2012 and lost by only .02%, Reminding me of what Dr. Reid says, “Every election is a dress rehearsal for the next.” I liked that she didn’t immediately concede.

She is passionate about education from pre K to college, rebuilding the economy and the environment. She wants safe energy options and better mass transit. You can donate here.

Even the kids want in. The Wake Forest University College Dems (NC) are members of 90for90 as well. Sebastian Ivory heads this group and this group has good ideas and a great logo; though I have to say they missed out on a wonderful opportunity for fun with their school license plate. Still, they support voter registration and that’s good enough for me.

The Chair of the North Carolina State Party, Patsy Keever is an old friend of DWT and a 90for90 supporter which shows me that North Carolina really cares about voter registration and the more people register to vote the more Democrats win. Works every time!

----

NOTE: None of these candidates above have been vetted or endorsed by DownWithTyranny or Blue America yet, although we are in the middle of discussions with Andy Millard, whose opponent is the villainous Patrick McHenry. Andy has been making a very good impression on us-- and you probably already know a good deal about the odious McHenry.