2018 Congressional Recruitment/Fundraising/Ratings Megathread

[BundouYMB]

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dccc-democratic-primaries-congress-progressives/

Big piece in The Intercept hightling how the DCCC and Dem establishment groups are once again choosing terrible centrist candidates over good ones because they can fundraise better. Essentially the same stuff they did in 2006 that gave them an unworkable majority filled with business-friendly moderates that got decimated in 2010.

PA-16, MN-02, AZ-02, NV-03, TX-07, TX-21, and VA-02 are amomg those mentioned in the story. The PA-16 example is particularly egregious because 1] The left-leaning candidate is outraising the DCCC's choice, 2]The DCCC's choice spent record breaking amounts of money in 2016 to end up not ony underperforming Clinton but the 2014 D candidate. The Angie Craig campaign in MN-02 comes off as looking especially bad.

Raising money doesn't prove someone is a good candidate. Candidates who raise more money lose all the time.

The DCCC is obviously backing the candidates they think have the best shot of winning, and whether they're right in every instance or not anyone who thinks they're conspiring to choose bad candidates on purpose to slight the party's left or whatever is living in lala land.

The DCCC is ran by members of congress, and every member of congress becomes massively more powerful if their party is in the majority. Do you really think Ben Ray Luján or whoever is saying "well, on the one hand I could be in the majority and wield massive amounts of power and influence every major bill as a top House Democrat, but on the other hand I really don't like those Bernie Bros." Oh please.

I'm about sick of hearing this nonsense from Our Revolution and co. It demonstrates an incredibly childish attitude toward politics in general to think that the only reason voters aren't picking your candidates is because of some shadowy establishment conspiracy. More likely the voters just don't like your candidates.

Also, spoiler alert, if you change nothing and just blame other people it doesn't make it terribly likely the voters will be picking your candidates next time around either.

[BundouYMB]

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dccc-democratic-primaries-congress-progressives/

Big piece in The Intercept hightling how the DCCC and Dem establishment groups are once again choosing terrible centrist candidates over good ones because they can fundraise better. Essentially the same stuff they did in 2006 that gave them an unworkable majority filled with business-friendly moderates that got decimated in 2010.

PA-16, MN-02, AZ-02, NV-03, TX-07, TX-21, and VA-02 are amomg those mentioned in the story. The PA-16 example is particularly egregious because 1] The left-leaning candidate is outraising the DCCC's choice, 2]The DCCC's choice spent record breaking amounts of money in 2016 to end up not ony underperforming Clinton but the 2014 D candidate. The Angie Craig campaign in MN-02 comes off as looking especially bad.

Raising money doesn't prove someone is a good candidate. Candidates who raise more money lose all the time.

The DCCC is obviously backing the candidates they think have the best shot of winning, and whether they're right in every instance or not anyone who thinks they're conspiring to choose bad candidates on purpose to slight the party's left or whatever is living in lala land.

The DCCC is ran by members of congress, and every member of congress becomes massively more powerful if their party is in the majority. Do you really think Ben Ray Luján or whoever is saying "well, on the one hand I could be in the majority and wield massive amounts of power and influence every major bill as a top House Democrat, but on the other hand I really don't like those Bernie Bros." Oh please.

I'm about sick of hearing this nonsense from Our Revolution and co. It demonstrates an incredibly childish attitude toward politics in general to think that the only reason voters aren't picking your candidates is because of some shadowy establishment conspiracy. More likely the voters just don't like your candidates.

Also, spoiler alert, if you change nothing and just blame other people it doesn't make it terribly likely the voters will be picking your candidates next time around either.

I don't think they are purposely picking bad candidates, I think they are putting their thumbs on the scale for candidates that are friendly to the business interestests that supply the livelihood for Democratic consultants and advisors, and those candidates tend to be out of touch centrists who lose races.

Have you ever once thought that maybe Pelosi and co. are lying to you when they say they want universal healthcare, an end to money in politics, and fairer income inequality as much as they claim to?

Yes, because I don't know any politicians personally, I don't particularly trust any of them.

However, I don't think someone is less trustworthy just because they've been endorsed by the DCCC. The DCCC for the most part isn't funded by 'business interests' -- or at least, not business interests I find particularly objectionable. According to Open Secrets in 2016 the largest donors to the DCCC, by far, were House Democrats and 'retired' after which there's a huge drop off followed by lawyers and people employed in 'education.'

The DCCC took a million dollars from people working in the pharmaceuticals industry, yes, but that's less than half of one percent of the money they raised in 2016. That doesn't make me think "wow, every DCCC backed candidate who says they support single payer must be lying through their teeth."

[BundouYMB]

I saw some tweet that apparently Randy Bryce "ironstache" has *spent* nearly $1m in Q4 2017, at least half on direct mail. Scam candidate.

What do you mean by this? You do realize his campaign adviser is Kirsten Gillibrand's 2012 Senate campaign adviser. You know, the race where Gillibrand won every county in New York but one. (You can tell he has a great campaign adviser from his excellent videos and twitter account).

I don't think a high class campaign adviser would waste their time with a joke candidate, lol.

Direct mail is an extremely inefficient type of fundraising that generally results in large amounts of money raised but also large amounts of money spent, because direct mail is extremely expensive. What this means is that his fundraising numbers are hugely inflated and he isn't raising nearly as much as he appears to be raising.

For example, if he spent 1 million on direct mail I would assume he raised like 1.05 million from that 1 million dollar expenditure (that's usually how direct mail is.) This means that money accomplished basically nothing other than making it look like he raised 1 million dollars more than he "really" did. I would generally say a candidate using direct mail is certainly a bad sign. That doesn't necessarily mean his candidacy is going to fail though. Obviously other factors matter.

Fun fact: the last congressional candidate I remember making use of direct mail was... Allen West!

Also, I'm not saying Bryce is doomed or anything, but a candidate isn't necessarily running a good campaign just because they have good YouTube videos.