DNC Restructuring

[Athas]

Historical voting patterns I'd assume.

[archibaldcrane]

Ability to fundraise, obviously. The frontrunner Crow has 4x the cash of Tilleman.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Deftscythe]

Ah, the famous rolodex test. Long live the oligarchy, I suppose.

[Salodin]

Internal polling? Working with the candidate in the past when the candidate worked for some other elected official? What makes you think you know who the DCCC would work better with then the DCCC? If the voters don't approve then they can just vote for someone else. Name recognizition also matters, and if relublicans start on all of this before the primaries then democrats need to too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

I'm curious as to what indicators the DCCC has that they believe allow them to predict the outcome of a general election before the primary has begun.

For every blue collar democrat we lose we'll gain 2 republican votes.

[tyven]

Yeah that doesn't sound like a good strategy

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

To be fair current strategy has proven to be quite worthless as well. The only way D’s win house seats is on the strength of historically bad republican Presidents.

Very excited to watch the Dems congratulate themselves for the wins given to them by Trump.

[archibaldcrane]

To be fair current strategy has proven to be quite worthless as well. The only way D’s win house seats is on the strength of historically bad republican Presidents.

Very excited to watch the Dems congratulate themselves for the wins given to them by Trump.

Dems gained seats in the House in 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2016.

4 of the last 6 House elections were Dem gainers. The only years they lost were midterms when they held the presidency, which noone gains in unless there's a 9/11 or some equivalent fuckery.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[tyven]

Dems gained seats in the House in 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2016.

4 of the last 6 House elections were Dem gainers. The only years they lost were midterms when they held the presidency, which noone gains in unless there's a 9/11 or some equivalent fuckery.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Sure, president's party always loses seats at midterms but they lost more seats in 2010 and 2014 than they gained in the 4 "winners". All on the back of a disastrous republican president and once in a lifetime dem president. If the blue wave is going to deliver the house, I'd like to give the voters a chance to decide since no matter who the fuck wins in November is likely to win again in 2020 on Gillibrand's coattails.

Dem leadership has no interest in letting voters decide. A) They don't want to move left, even where it would be safe. And B) their handpicked candidates end up beholden to them and will never vote these crypt keepers out of power. These old fucks don't even have a bench. It's such a disaster.

[archibaldcrane]

If the more progressive candidates ran ahead of the shitlibs, you'd have a convincing argument that the DCCC is strategically wrong.

But they weren't consistently topping Hillary's margins in 2016.

It's much more honest to simply say "I don't like this because the candidates DCCC supports most often don't line up with my policy preferences."

And I'd agree!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[tyven]

If the more progressive candidates ran ahead of the shitlibs, you'd have a convincing argument that the DCCC is strategically wrong.

But they weren't consistently topping Hillary's margins in 2016.

It's much more honest to simply say "I don't like this because the candidates DCCC supports most often don't line up with my policy preferences."

And I'd agree!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

So it's not honest to say leave it up to the voters in a blue wave election? I'd have no issue with the neolibs winning, aside from being disappointed.

[Deftscythe]

So it's not honest to say leave it up to the voters in a blue wave election? I'd have no issue with the neolibs winning, aside from being disappointed.

This is my issue. Divorce this entirely from the progressive v lib struggle that is ongoing in the Democratic party; I don't think anyone should be comfortable with party leadership telling voters who they should support in a primary. Further, I don't think this is about ideology in the first place, rather I think Tyven's point B in his earlier post is correct and the DCCC is supporting candidates who will not challenge party leadership. This is about cementing positions of power that are rightfully being questioned in the wake of 2016 and numerous losses at the local, state, and federal level in the past decade+.

[Andalusian girls]

as long as the playing field does not get illegally illeveled i see no issue with parties selecting favored candidates and making that favoritism known. are you suggesting they should have zero say in their own primary process and only engage when it comes time to hunt a rhino?

voters can still vote nay, as Trump proved party preference is not destiny.

[Deftscythe]

as long as the playing field does not get illegally illeveled i see no issue with parties selecting favored candidates and making that favoritism known. are you suggesting they should have zero say in their own primary process and only engage when it comes time to hunt a rhino?

I have no issue with the national party getting behind a candidate who has established themselves as the frontrunner, but coming in before the process has even begun in earnest to decide who that frontrunner should be is something else.

[tyven]

as long as the playing field does not get illegally illeveled i see no issue with parties selecting favored candidates and making that favoritism known. are you suggesting they should have zero say in their own primary process and only engage when it comes time to hunt a rhino?

voters can still vote nay, as Trump proved party preference is not destiny.

strategically it makes a lot of sense, there's no arguing that, even if i personally don't like it. However, Democratic leadership is a bunch of haggard fucking losers so it's hard to put aside personal feelings and have confidence in the strategy. Archie pointed out that progressives weren't consistently topping Hillary's margins in 2016, so then why meddle, especially in a blue wave? All the handpicked 06 and 08 candidates got their shit absolutely rocked in 2010 so why not let the voters decide? Just makes everyone look worse and perpetuates every shitty flaw, whether accurate or not, about dems and their leadership.

[archibaldcrane]

To the "why not let the voters decide" point:

They aren't, and can't, force Dems off the primary ballot. What they want is for the presumed frontrunner not to feel the need to blow a bunch of cash in the primary so he has it in the general, for there not to be a bunch of hurty feelings after a close primary that depresses turnout, and for the frontrunner to get as high of name recognition as possible as early as possible for the purposes of winning the general.

Progressives have the built-in advantage (like ultra-conservatives do for Republicans) in that they are playing more to the center of the primary voters who are much further from the center than the general election voters are. Even stunts like secretly recording Dem leadership could work out for this guy given how partisan primary voters are, I hope he pulls it off.

[tyven]

To the "why not let the voters decide" point:

They aren't, and can't, force Dems off the primary ballot.

come on, you know what i meant by let the voters decide. this is so disingenuous and I'm so hurt that I'm not even going to reply to the rest of your post.

okay i am because i don't think a cakewalk primary will do more for name recognition than a close primary. Also the DCCC has already raised 139 milly in 2018 with 57 milly still on hand. that number gonna double once primaries are over, they'll be fine funding whoever they gots to fund. especially since incumbents have been raising money for their own campaigns non-stop since taking office.

I agree that the recording stunt could work out for tilleman, assuming its getting more coverage in colorado than in the main stream. would be lit

[Fiye]

Highest-ranking Latina braces for backlash over Pelosi snub
Rep. Linda Sánchez called for a new generation of Democratic leadership. Her allies fear it might cost her her own spot in the upper echelon.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...dership-607969

[Zetanio]

Cannibalize your own party! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP!

[Fiye]

How dare us leftists challenge the status quo during primary season.

[Zetanio]

You'll never get elected unless you're just like us!