I know that’s been an unpopular thing to say in some online sites lately, but I’m quite excited by a reinvigorated DCCC.
During the 2004 cycle I got to know the DCCC web team relatively well. Jesse Lee, Steve Olson and Peter who was then overseeing the initial effort. There was a consistent tension between the web team that wanted to be more agressive and the establishment base in the DCCC attempting to be very cautious. In the 2004 cycle the DCCC targeted essentially 22 races which simply wasn’t enough to make a serious run at a majority. That’s a problem given the difference between the Party’s isn’t that great. The year was complicated by Texas redistricting, but while I respect the DCCC web team and it’s effort, the moves above their pay grade made that year a tough year and brought a lot of flack from activists who were just starting to really find their voices.
Many, many people were upset that their candidates didn’t get backing from the DCCC claiming that just a little bit would have made them competitive. That is simply unrealistic. The DCCC on the other hand didn’t enlarge the playing field.
It did provide key support at the end of a few races, but on top of not having a large enough playing field, the extra defense in Texas cost ’em.
With the tragic death of Congressman Matsui, it was time for new leadership. I was hoping for someone with a strong edge and a fighter. I got him.
No one ever heard of Matsui making headlines, but within a few months, Rahm had angered both Denny Hastert and Bob Ney. The new assertiveness was recognized by many including Charlie Cook.
So it shouldn’t be surprising that the DCCC’s Communication Director Bill Burton
identified ArchPundit as a blog with a good relationship with the DCCC.
Burton also said numerous bloggers, including ArchPundit, Seeing the Forest and Sisyphus Shrugged, remain on good terms with the DCCC. “It’s an ongoing relationship and a successful one,” he said.
In 2004, I saw a very promising web operation do well given in the institutional constraints. For this cycle, I see a far less constrained institution with a great internet presence headed up by Jesse Lee. Jesse has even gotten a ‘seat at the table’ when it comes to discussing strategy which is positive.
Emanuel held a conference call the other night that’s already been discussed. I was on it with about 27 other bloggers. Overall it was more candid and open than most of these sorts of calls with actual public officials. That said, it was a punch to talk type of call which bloggers generally don’t like because it inhibits free discussion.
Emanuel has promised to double the number of targeted races of seats that Republicans currently hold from 22 last cycle to at least 50 this time with the potential to shoot for up to 75 or even better. Recruitment is in the high 20s this cycle already compared to about 3 candidates last cycle. He’s working to improve fundraising into the $100 million range if I understood correctly. If he were to recruit 75 it would be awfully hard to fully fund each race, but some candidates will show themselves with a chance while others will fade.
He has done a couple other things as well. First, he reduced the number of incumbents the DCCC would be supporting in terms of targeting their safety–with the reasoning that incumbents should be able to raise money for themselves and the majority aren’t really endangered. This frees up money for open seat races and challenges to Republican incumbents.
Second, he’s worked to enforce the collection of dues from Democratic Members of Congress. Dues are assessed based on leadership and committee membership. Luis Guitierrez seemingly is refusing to pay as a member of the Finance Committee and Lane Evans, ranking member on Veterans Affairs is delinquent as well (though he was just levied a large FEC fine)
Most importantly to me is that Democrats have an actual message this cycle already and it’s hitting hard on corruption. It helps that Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, the entire Ohio GOP, Richard Pombo and others have decided to implode, but instead of simply targeting those individuals with problems the DCCC is nationalizing the corruption issue. If a Republican is willing to support the current leadership, they are fair game. Good government is good politics in this case.
They DCCC has received a lot of flack recently though over two races in particular. IL-06 and OH-02 have been big in the blogosphere and for good reasons.
The arguments over Ohio center on the DCCC coming in late with commercials and not doing more on the ground. The response from the DCCC is that they wanted to keep the message on the candidate and not turn it into a DCCC versus RNCC fight. There’s good reason for that–Democrats lose that fight in Ohio-02. It’s a Republican district that a particularly talented candidate with a good team made competitive. Turning it into a national fight would have taken away from Hackett and put the emphasis on the bigger fight between the parties. DCCC did go in and went in with Axelrod’s team for the airwaves. There was one suggestion that the RNCC bought up most of the free air time because the DCCC was too late and for that I don’t know what the situation was.
In Illinois 06, Christine Cegelis is remarkably popular amongs the netroots and anything but Emanuel giving her a giant hug brings out theories about what the DCCC is doing there.
The 6th is a classic problem case for the DCCC. A candidate popular with some activists did well the last cycle, but didn’t seem to close the deal. Does the DCCC go with that person, or recruit other candidates.
If DCCC does nothing, it isn’t being agressive enough. If it recruits another candidate for the primary, they are pushing out progressives. They can’t win.
The 6th has also brought about a lot of questions regarding how the DCCC decides if someone is a good candidate. This was covered in the conference call and the answer was far more complex than the usual claims that it’s all about the money.
The answer Emanuel gave was more about an intangible quality that people got from a candidate. Did they have a sense of how they were going to win, were they compelling and can they handle a race. From that, the sense is that then people who pass muster should be able to raise a good deal of cash–and so cash is often used as a proxy.
Given Christine’s comments concerning Rahm’s message to her, my guess is that Rahm (and it is a guess) figures that if she can spark the kind of energy that brings with it cash, she’ll be viable, but if she were to overrely on cyber activism it’s not a good sign for the campaign overall. Complicating the matter is that Democratic Party in the District has a set of problems from atrophy over the years.
To Christine’s credit, she’s trying to match those expectations and prove herself to the establishment. I’m sure it’s incredibly frustrating with all the hard work and I certainly respect the commitment. I hope her supporters worry more about helping her do that than in trying to fight the establishment which only makes the job harder in my estimation.
I do know DCCC was in the field with a poll recently in 6 and will be analyzing the results as part of figuring out what to do. The working assumption of many is that if they do recruit another candidate, they’ll choose a bland white male who is pretty moderate. I don’t think that’s true necessarily. It’s probably safe to say that Christine’s ideology has them concerned in 6, but ideology can be overcome in some instances–such as a very hard charging Paul Hackett.
And everything I’m saying about proving themselves is also true of Peter O’Malley and Lindy Scott–it’s just they don’t have as much of a persona as Christine. I also want to be careful in pointing out that much of this is conjecture based on what Rahm said about recruiting candidates. He did not discuss Christine, O’Malley, or Scott in the call.
The challenge for the DCCC is both listening to netroots activists, but also listening to the District and sometimes not everyone can be happy. If the DCCC had a long history of assertiveness, perhaps there’d be greater trust. However, all signs are of a revitalized DCCC that will be increasing the challenges.
Some want DCCC to challenge every District. That isn’t realistic. The DCCC cannot be the first money into a District. In fact, being the first money in would not allow a natural sorting to take place. Good candidates find money. Giving any hint that there is a magical supply of cash out there for a candidate doesn’t point to the need to raise cash and raise a lot of it.
While this gets back to the issue of raising money, the key thing to keep in mind is that if a candidate can’t sell him or herself to donors who are relatively like minded, how are they going to sell themselves to the public which is more centrist oriented? That’s a far more complex situation than just who raises the most cash.
So if the DCCC isn’t going after every race does that mean every race they don’t target should be ceded? Absolutely not. It means that the DCCC may not focus upon it, but those building grassroots organizations and netroots outreach should absolutely go after at least some of the other seats. If those Districts then pop, the DCCC can then go in–but there are limited resources.
The DCCC can recruit candidates and throw the good ones over the top, but it can’t simply do independent expenditures to every campaign with a D after the name and be the primary source of funding. If a candidate is going to have a chance to win they have to demonstrate the ability to organize, raise money, and campaign on their own.
If every District is going to be contested, that’s fine, but that isn’t a realistic goal of the DCCC. Rahm isn’t playing it safe–but when he takes on a majority Republican District for targeting he is going after tough candidates who have a chance–a great example being Colleen Crowley in Minnesota–the FBI whistleblower. Another, I’m somewhat guessing from reading the tea leaves is John Pavich in IL-11. And the DCCC is going after Mark Kennedy’s seat in Minnesota.
In Illinois three races are likely to be big in the general election. 6, 8 and 11 are almost guaranteed to be competitive at some level and 10 or 18 could pop. Add to that a primary challenge to Dan Lipinski in 3 by John Sullivan and it’s a good year. A challenge to Lipinski has few bad consequences because it is a pretty safe seat.
Certainly criticizing the DCCC for it’s mistakes is fair, but a lot of the criticism I’m seeing isn’t based on what the DCCC is actually doing or it expects far more from the DCCC than it can do.
ArchPundit