“There’s not an ideological test of where we’re standing,” the staffer said.
Also, the Tooth Fairy is real.
AOC is right. Election to Congress is for a 2 year term. If a Congressperson is doing a bang up job opposing him or her would be futile, but if a Congressperson isn’t doing his or her job opponents shouldn’t be frozen out. This rule is all about rich people wanting to protect their investments in Congress Critters.
I have no problem not donating to them again while they feel the need run a protection racket. I’m with AOC on donating directly to the candidates.
All things being equal, I’d agree that this is a bad proposal. But all things are not equal and having to defend Congressional seats in contentious primaries is really not where I think the party should be putting its resources right now. AOC’s, Tlaib’s and Pressley’s election show that this provision has not real practical effect. Too bad. I miss the fact that the caucus no longer has a tax expert like Capuano.
My issue is not with the DCCC trying to protect incumbents – that’s ostensibly why they were formed. It’s when they try to put a thumb on the scale in races where the seat is open that I get ticked off. If the DCCC had been successful here in Texas, John Culberson would still be a sitting Congressman – and not Lizzie Pannil Fletcher… I’ll take her winning back a seat that’s been held by Republicans since 1967 to AOC beating out an incumbent from a super-safe Democratic seat that phoned it in during the election.
AOC & company trying to Tea-Party people that aren’t progressively pure enough isn’t just stupid – it’s reckless. Super-polarized government doesn’t govern: it stalls & fails. And the surest way for us to lose the House and not pick up the Senate is to keep on this path.
Their purpose should not be to protect incumbents during the primary season; it should be to advance the party’s stated agenda even if it means not protecting incumbents.
2020
“Dearly beloved, we’re gathered to remember Representive Bustos chairmanship. Though the insurgents should have acted like true guerillas, at least nothing terrible came from this.”
The term vendors confused the hell out of me. Who or what the hell is a vendor in a political campaign?
Yes, and if anyone objects, let them offer a cogent explanation.
Does the word “consultant” help? It’s not exactly synonymous in this context, but it’s close enough.
Every time I talk to lefties who distrust the party, I go through the whole first-past-the-post song and dance about the futility of voting third party. “You have to support the dem,” I tell them. “If you don’t like the party, get involved, change it from within, promote candidates that reflect your values, but when it comes down to it, in the general, be a team player and vote straight dem.”
“It’s rigged,” they say.
“Bullshit. You’re just lazy,” I reply.
Thanks, DCCC, for helping them win the argument.
Exactly this.
And it happens not infrequently. For example, in 2000 candidate Gore opposed the inclusion of Nader in the presidential debates: a cowardly move and, to my way of thinking, ultimately counter-productive.
According to whom, cervantes?
Not really this article needs to be more specific. I gather that what is really meant are Candidates. And as far as I am concerned the DCCC should not be involved in Primaries at all. Those are up to the voters.
Edited for clarity, as Cervantes points out.
According to me, obviously.
But if you don’t think that the organs of the Democratic Party should work to advance the party’s stated agenda regardless of what happens to particular incumbents, perhaps you can explain.
Candidates should not be involved in primaries? (I’m missing your point, obviously.)
What’s the stated agenda?
No I meant the DCCC