At Netroots Nation 2014 in Detroit, myself, Meteor Blades, Navajo, and several others sat at a table in the main hall and talked about the upcoming midterm election. What could we do to help improve our odds and where were the campaigns we could get onboard with? David Nir joined us and offered his thoughts, and the discussion was informative. I quickly had a list of a few people I wanted to contact, working to collectively build a network between multiple state campaigns to give a few a shot at winning.
As we were sitting discussing the upcoming election, a fleet of young individuals, rocking cut out hats and kazoos and the like strode in handing out “Ready for Hillary” material.
“What the hell is this” I said to Meteor Blades. My immediate unhappiness was pretty clear. RFH wasn’t a candidate direct group, Hillary Clinton wasn’t even a candidate. But, they had already begun organizing fundraising events around the country and now they had a major presence at Netroots Nation, where many of us were in attendance hoping like heck to bring attention to some down ballot races we were hoping to win.
“This [referring to RFH and a Draft Warren PAC] is a disaster to down ballot candidates who want to raise money” I contended in a panel. A few people I knew as reputable consultants provided the tsk-tsk to the idea: “This is how you get things going”. Later that day, I stood up in the election panel hosted by Daily Kos and said: “We have to get past this, why are we giving money into a presidential race two years away when there is a major election in less than 6 months we need to be focused on??” Fortunately, many fellow readers here and long time followers were far more supportive.
While many, including Bernie supporters, have focused on the DNC, the real problem isn't about the DNC.. it is about the general attitude of consultants, fundraisers and supporters of the Democratic party. If we want to have a way forward, we need to change the way we do business. It is time we talk about money. How we invest it. How we should invest it. Who needs it. And the strategies that need to just go pound sand.
Candidates who sit on war chests in guaranteed districts do not need your money.
We will get to national party issues later, but if you want to know why we struggle with some candidates, it is because of how party members determine whether or not they will invest in a campaign. Too often, I see this as the criteria: “I’m only going to give to a candidate I think will win.” OK.
This is contraction logic. By giving repeatedly to “sure thing” candidates, what we do is build up candidates with giant war chests who have absolutely no reason to spend the money they have in their campaign coffers.. or they just fail to do so, over and over again.
I’m going to name some names, but I am trying to not single people out; the problem is wide spread. So, picking out of a hat, let me just choose Betty McCollum, Minnesota. She’s in a very safe Democratic seat; one which she prevailed again to the tune of 57.8-34.3. A crushing win. She had a great fundraising cycle, about $350k. Fan-freaking-tastic!
Business as usual would say we keep this up. I’m asking openly: to absolutely what end? As Democratic party members, including small donors and unions, pour money into already well-funded campaigns, we starve out other campaigns because “ooh.. well, I don’t know if I want to put money into a campaign that is iffy..”
Now, the Democratic party members who fall into this trap aren’t bad people. From everything I know, I like the way Rep. McCollum stands on the issues. That said, donors should say: “OK, are you ever going to face a race, in the next 20+ years, where you will need more funds added to your warchest” and second, they should ask: “What did you do with the money you had in 2016 to increase turnout in your district to help down ballot candidates below you or increase turnout in your district for the national party” ?
These are significant questions. Republican playbook is simple: they expend money to expand the map; and while their candidates also build big warchests, they work hard to help those who may not make it.
So, again, let's look at that Minnesota 4th. In 2012, Democratic turnout: 216,685; Republican turnout: 109,659. In 2016, Democratic turnout: 202,558, Republican turnout: 120,871. Super safe Democratic district. But Democratic turnout was DOWN 14,000 votes, Republican turnout was UP 11,000 votes.
This is the math Republicans play with; it isn’t always about winning.. it is about reducing the margins. Democratic party members, however, find it laughable to even invest a dime into a campaign that is unlikely to win, so we don’t make the effort. Republicans, though, know that minimal investments into these races can make up margins that will help them state wide, district wide and in down ballot races.
To repeat the point: From this point forward, Democratic small money donors need to seriously ask potential recipients of their donation, especially incumbents: What is your cash on hand? Do you NEED the funds? And what did you do in 2016, 2014, 2012 etc. to help increase the turnout in your district or any other district?
I’m picking on a single congressional district, but I could choose hundreds of Democratic party members elected nationwide who serve in state senate, state house, US congress and US senate.
People don’t give you campaign money to sit on and build a warchest. They give it to your campaign because they want to be part of a win. We spend TO WIN. If you are giving money to a candidate who isn’t spending it to help the party win or grow our numbers, then you are WASTING YOUR MONEY.
The lack of money and support in state & local parties is shameful.
In a letter to the DNC, Barbara Moore, executive Director of the Democratic Municipal Officials urged the national party to “get more involved” in caring about local races, from county commission, city council and county legislators nationwide. After all, this is the breeding ground for future state legislators, US House members, and US Senators. Even more important, these officials make serious decisions that impact the living standard of the residents inside their community.
Her argument is smart and it is only the tip of the iceberg. In several states, Republican Party executives work from a simple logic: if you run for office within the party, the party will offer you a guarantee of a baseline of support; whether it is a single piece of mail or a small start of campaign cash; in some cases, they offer more. But Republican candidates are assured that there will be some support available for them to run.
In most red and even purple states, Democratic candidates are offered a small pamphlet and encouragement to “go out and raise your own money”, something a state executive director once referred to as the “Tom Wat sales pitch”. Thanks a lot for showing up! Now, go out there and get ‘em!
This has made recruiting of candidates in numerous states a nightmare; who wants to enter a race where your top goal is likely to net 36-44% of the vote, and you will receive minimal to no support? And while it is easy to blame the state party, a big part of the fault relies on us, the small donors who give bunches of money into national campaigns and almost nothing into local parties, state parties or organizations that actually must support the people who will knock on our door.
We must change this narrative. As a national party, Barbara is right, the DNC must plan to commit resources to state parties that allow them to be effective and provide some actual support for recruitment and treatment of candidates; and frankly, it isn’t that expensive. In Kansas, the average cost of a mailpiece, including print & postage, for a Kansas House seat was under $3,000. If the state party had said: “Well, you know what, if you get into this race and we can see that you are working (knocking doors, trying to raise money), we will guarantee you a piece of mail in your campaign!” how far would that have went? Pretty far. For many red states, the total spend in that would be in political terms small — less than $300,000. Remember those safe US House members with no real races? That’s less than several raised in a year. That same amount could have paid for support and recruitment of almost a complete slate of candidates into several red state legislatures. We have to be frugal with our money and get bang for the buck.
We must also commit to thinking about how we service the party. While I had many disagreements with our former state party chair, Larry Meeker, on one point I would back him as far as it would go — and I and others did so. During his tenure, our state party chair attended a function out of state for the national party. State party chairs and national committee persons and state coordinators must attend these events, and in many red states, all cost of travel and stay come out of your own pocket. In this case, the state party paid for attendance at the event, along with staff. This was something already provided for in our budget.
The result? We had several activists in the state FURIOUS that the state party would pay travel expenses. They were absolutely wrong. Former chair Meeker was right — the state party SHOULD compensate those who serve in these roles, and it should be up to them as to whether or not they take the stipend or not.
At the national convention this summer, numerous new members of the DNC emerged who were former Bernie supporters. When some of them realized there would be real travel requirements and cost involved, several announced they would have to run gofundme schedules to attend meetings.
This is ridiculous. By turning major party roles into positions that have a significant cost to hold, we shut out a lot of voices from the party. We make sure that those who can handle these roles tend to be retired and financially well off. In other words, we lock out new blood. If someone can win a race for major party office, the national party and locals should work harder to make sure the state can at least provide travel compensation to those in those positions.
I had dreaded bringing this up, because I’m aware of how negatively this argument would be perceived. I am openly willing to say: I’m OK with being grandfathered into an old program where I would not be eligible for travel stipends. But we cannot make holding party positions financially punishing if we want to be an inclusive party, period.
FOCUS, Damnit.
Right now we have several special elections around the country. If you haven’t found those diaries on Daily Kos, then you owe it to yourself to find them and participate. Win or lose, we should show support to those candidates who put themselves out there. It is difficult to be on the ballot, it is up to us to make sure they know we appreciate their sacrifice and we are doing what we can to help them win.
To that end, I want to go back to the story at the beginning of this diary. If, going into 2017, the Democratic party is actively floating “Ready for … “ anyone, or promoting PACs to instill early frontrunners, we will have problems. We must start focusing on the races right in front of us. Spring elections in many states; fall 2017 state house and local elections elsewhere; 2018 house & senate races.
If we allow ourselves to get stuck in the cycle of looking for the White House in 2017, then we are a party who hasn’t learned very much. Voter fatigue is real. A good friend once said to me regarding “Ready for Hillary” — and pardon the offensive language — “getting ready for something that takes this long is the worst foreplay I’ve ever experienced.”
People get tired quick; a 2 1/2 year long election cycle is just too damn long. Trump first appeared a full year and two months after the first Ready for Hillary fundraiser I was aware of — which means we had an extra year of time for Republicans to attack and go after Hillary while they laid in wait of a candidate.
Final Thought, and tomorrow.
There is one other piece to this: candidates who run, successful or not, deserve to know that they have our respect for their efforts. They put their life on hold to run for office and sometimes face real financial penalty in doing so. We also need to remember that sometimes the jobs within the party are particularly thankless, unpaid and frustrating.
Tomorrow in part 3, I’m discussing the thing that matters most. How you, personally, can fix things; and why our failure to try and do it this time is my biggest regret of 2016.
For More:
Part 1: If you want to talk a rural strategy, try visiting.
Part 3: Mea Culpa. How people like me screwed you.