I'm always complaining that the DCCC and DSCC are predisposed to oppose progressives. They recruit conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and when a progressive manages to win a primary, the two committees rarely offer them any support. But there's another context besides ideology at work here. Both the DSCC and the DCCC insist on candidates who will spend most of their energy on fund-raising-- dialing for dollars-- rather than on persuading voters by doing actual campaigning. This has been catastrophic for the Democratic Party. It winds up selecting really shitty candidates who don't know how to help voters understand issues and understand the inherent dishonestly of Republican attacks. And... the money doesn't make nearly as much difference as that ability to persuade does.
All but 3 of the House incumbents who lost (or are in races still too close to call) out-raised their Republican opponents:
• CA-21Maybe if Max Rose didn't spend so much time on the phone begging rich people for money-- and instead talked to his constituents about programs the Democrats want to implement that would make their lives better, he would still be a congressman after January. Oh, but he can't talk about this things... he opposes them all.
Rep. T.J. Cox (New Dem)- 48.2%-- $4,798,088
David Valadao (R)- 51.8%-- $3,721,619
• CA-39
Rep. Gil Cisneros (New Dem)- 49.5%-- $3,779,013 (self-funded $9,252,762 in 2018 and didn't want to spend his own money again-- only gave his campaign $370,887 this time)
Young Kim (R)- 50.5%-- $5,319,367
• CA-48
Rep. Harley Rouda (New Dem)- 49.2%-- $5,426,654 (although the DCCC spent $10 million to try to save his ass)
Michelle Steel (R)- 50.8%-- $5,627,779
• FL-26
Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem)- 48.3%-- $6,178,239
Carlos Gimenez (R)- 51.7%-- $1,946,504
• FL-27
Rep. Donna Shalala (D)- 48.6%-- $3,405,420
Maria Salazar (R)- 51.3%-- $3,126,831
• IA-01
Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D)- 48.7%-- $5,308,465
Ashley Hinson (R)- 51.3%-- $4,601,403
• MN-07
Rep. Collin Peterson (Blue Dog)- 40.1%-- $2,284,742
Michelle Fischbach (R)-53.3%-- $2,205,150
• NM-02
Rep Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog)- 46.1%-- $7,509,987
Yvette Herrell (R)- 53.9%-- $2,498,130
• NY-11
Rep Max Rose (Blue Dog)- 43.1%-- $8,350,467
Nicole Malliotakis (R)- 57.9%-- $3,052,007
• NY-22
Rep. Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog)- 43.4%-- $5,359,636
Claudia Tenney (R)- 54.5%-- $2,053,931
• OK-05
Rep. Kendra Horn (Blue Dog)- 47.9%-- $5,465,349
Stephanie Bice (R)- 52.1%-- $3,089,972
• SC-01
Rep. Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog)- 49.4%-- $6,278,942
Nancy Mace (R)- 50.6%-- $4,891,696
• UT-04
Rep. Ben McAdams (Blue Dog)- 47.8%-- $5,137,258
Burgess Owens (R)- 47.2%-- $4,021,248
• VA-07
Rep. Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog)- 50.6%-- $7,806,646
Nick Freitas (R)- 49.4%-- $3,182,940
And it was the same thing in the Senate, only worse. Schumer and the DSCC hammer it home several times a week that candidates must be on the phone raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's dehumanizing-- part of why none of their candidates seem human. Schumer-selected Democrats lost almost everywhere... but raised bucketfuls of money. In most cases they raised double, triple or quadruple when their Republican opponents raised:
• South CarolinaAll that financial firepower didn't do it for the Senate candidates. And now the Democrats are going to run the exact same kind of race (2 of them) in Georgia... money, money, money and not much messaging for working families. I guess it took 5 minutes for Schumer to forget that "money did not prove decisive for Democrats in hotly contested Senate races, despite a combined Democratic fundraising advantage over $200 million. Democratic candidates raised a whopping $626 million in 14 highly competitive races, vastly overshadowing Republican collections of $386 million in the same contests."
Jamie Harrison (D)- 44.2%-- $107,568,737
Senator Lindsey Graham (R)- 54.5%-- $72,690,495
• Iowa
Theresa Greenfield (D)- 45.2%-- $47,004,93
Senator Joni Ernst (R)- 51.8%-- $23,536,707
• Maine
Sara Gideon (D)- 42.8%-- $68,577,474
Senator Susan Collins (R)- 50.5%-- $26,511,555
• Montana
Steve Bullock (D)- 44.8%-- $42,773,128
Senator Steve Daines (R)- 55.2%-- $27,017,875
• Kentucky
Amy McGrath (D)- 38.1%-- $88,098,919
Senator Moscow Mitch (R)- 57.9%-- $55,500,67
• Kansas
Barbara Bollier (D/R)- 41.5%-- $24,265,420
Roger Marshall (R)- 53.6%-- $5,926,110
• Texas
MJ Hegar (D)- 43.8%-- $24,024,713
John Cornyn (R)- 53.6%-- $30,754,633
• Alabama
Senator Doug Jones (D)- 39.7%-- $26,377,442
Tommy Tuberville (R)- 60.1%-- $7,415,639
• North Carolina
Cal Cunningham (D)- 47.0%-- $46,795,495
Senator Thom Tillis (R)- 48.7%-- $21,474,728
• Arizona
Mark Kelly- 51.3%-- $88,856,406
Senator Martha McSally- 48.7%-- $55,772,809
• Colorado
John Hickenlooper (D)- 53.4%-- $39,303,249
Senator Cory Gardner (R)- 44.4%-- $26,063,229
“We just got completely slaughtered on Election Day. There truly was a red surge,” said a Democratic operative who worked closely with the Harrison campaign. “Turnout was just incredible, which isn’t necessarily a good thing for us, in red states.”
Democrats who had hoped to easily oust the 53-47 Republican Senate majority have instead won a net gain of only one seat so far. They could reach a majority, if they win two Georgia Senate seat runoffs on Jan. 5. Such a result would give them a 50-50 split, if Democrat Joe Biden is declared president and Kamala Harris vice president, allowing her to cast a tie-breaking vote.
Senate Democrats are already calling on supporters to send campaign contributions to Georgia candidate Raphael Warnock. Warnock, far more progressive than any of Schumer's candidates, is one of the only Democrats who was out-raised by his Republican opponent-- although in that case, his opponent, Kelly Loeffler, is both a well-documented crook and a billionaire. She out-raised him by $7 million, although "out-raised" might be the wrong word, since she contributed $23,345,292 out of her personal piggy-bank, so far.
Money talks the broken system & inept leadership continues to walk.
ReplyDelete"Maybe if (insert name of democrap) didn't spend so much time on the phone begging rich people for money-- and instead (lied his/her ass off) to his constituents about programs the Democrats ("want") to implement that would make their lives better, he would still be a congressman"
ReplyDeletemaybe even $cummer and pelo$i know that their candidates would be recognized as the liars they truly are by talking.
Or, more likely, they just wanted the money.
Democrats ran bad campaigns. AOC just explained why:
ReplyDelete"I’ve already started looking into the actual functioning of these campaigns. And the thing is, I’ve been unseating Democrats for two years. I have been defeating D.C.C.C.-run campaigns for two years. That’s how I got to Congress. That’s how we elected Ayanna Pressley. That’s how Jamaal Bowman won. That’s how Cori Bush won. And so we know about extreme vulnerabilities in how Democrats run campaigns.
Some of this is criminal. It’s malpractice. Conor Lamb spent $2,000 on Facebook the week before the election. I don’t think anybody who is not on the internet in a real way in the Year of our Lord 2020 and loses an election can blame anyone else when you’re not even really on the internet.
And I’ve looked through a lot of these campaigns that lost, and the fact of the matter is if you’re not spending $200,000 on Facebook with fund-raising, persuasion, volunteer recruitment, get-out-the-vote the week before the election, you are not firing on all cylinders. And not a single one of these campaigns were firing on all cylinders."
Republicans specifically targeted Latinos in Miami-Dade county with right wing propaganda and it worked. The only TV advertising in the entire cycle that was any good was Lincoln Project ads and they are Republicans! They will be making those ads against Democrats next time.
Interesting how AOC only focuses on the means to purvey lies about what you and the democrap party are going to do for those hapless voters.
ReplyDeleteOh well, she's not a true progressive, or she'd have railed about how the party is anti- everything that matters to voters and only the dumbest ones can still be convinced to vote for you ... if you use the proper social media (a sure indicator that they're dumber than shit).
At least she's still pretty.
I have two related questions about these funds: Who has the financial resources large enough to make these donations, and why do they continue to fund losers?
ReplyDeleteBack in the late '90s, I ran across a statistic which claimed that I as an individual represented 126,000 (yes, thousand) other people whose attitudes and belief were statistically close enough to me for a little generalization. So let's accept that at face value for a moment.
In 2020, I gave Bernie less than $100. How much does that amount to from an adjusted representative population sample?
The population of the US of A increased about 1.23 times since I first saw this statistic:
Nov 1, 2020 330.53 million
Jul 1, 1996 269.39 million
[Source]
Therefore, the 126,000 I once represented is now closer to 154,600. My 2020 donation rounded up to $100 for simplicity means that this should have produced a fund of $15,460,000. Measure this up against the listed Senatorial Democratic losers and the funds they spent losing, which I rough out to about $550 MILLION.
This kind of money did NOT come from people who work for a living.
So now we look (briefly) at my second question: What are these donors getting out of these funds?
For them to continue agreeing to donate to a loser Party, the results being delivered by this loser Party must be exactly what they are paying for, or they would cease supporting this loser Party.
And THIS is yet another reason to consider it time to leave the Democrats and get behind a party which represents us mere mortal humans.
It's the ONLY way things will ever improve.
AOC is too a progressive 8:18 check out her Progressive Punch score she's
ReplyDelete96.35.
http://progressivepunch.org/topic-scores.htm?x=15&y=7&house=house&party=D&sort=crucial-lifetime&order=down
9:07 - 8:18 is a full of shit woman hater.
ReplyDeleteOne can be a progressive. Or one can be a member of a virulently antiprogressive party/organization.
ReplyDeleteone cannot be both. AOC can, at times, talk a good progressive line. But she remains a member of a virulently antiprogressive party. And when it counts (like MFA during a pandemic and the example above), she doesn't even SOUND progressive. And, finally, tell me about all her bills on medical care, green energy, peace, voting security, tax increases on the rich, enforcing Sherman on TBTFs that she, as a "progressive", has proposed and the party has embraced and voted on. How about articles of impeachment against trump for kidnapping, murder, emoluments, treason, FEC crimes... How about articles of impeachment for Barr? How about articles of impeachment for kkkavanaugh or thomas or barrett?
I can wait.
she's a democrap. therefore she cannot be progressive.
and I've described how someone can get an A when the test questions are all written by pelo$i.
And the reaction of you and 12:51 are a large reason this is the shithole it truly is.
8:23, good comment.