Residents of Paris Texas are certainly not lacking in a sense of humor about their plight:
How you gonna keep em down on the farm after they’ve seen DC?
That’s not “honest”. That’s stupid. If you are hated in a certain part of the country, do NOT get the national media crowing about the fact that you barged into a local race and dissed a candidate from your own party. Hand the compromising information quietly over to the local Democrats, and let them deal with it. The DCCC people were quoted, nationally, as saying they are being jerks, and are proud of it, remember? They’d rather be jerks than losers, and they are actually both.
DUMB
1 Like
If it is that weak of tea, it should not cause not her much trouble in the primary.
This is one of the things that a primary is for: to get the information out there and see who is the strongest candidate. Doesn’t always work well. Too fierce a battle and all the candidates end up damaged. Too weak a battle the information does not get out but the opposition uses it in the general.
I don’t know any more about this race than what I have read on line so I am not in a position to really criticize the DCCC on this one, but the DCCC needs to realize that the energy in the Democratic party is on the left end of the spectrum. They cleave to old time moderates and conservatives at their peril. I watched one state move red as old time Democrats tried to hold on. The current situation demands Democrats find and elect young blood even if it is idealistic.
3 Likes
Nope they are not idiots. When you use opposition research in a primary, you are apt to make that person’s supporters very angry which can cause you trouble in the general. They’d rather let the DCCC take the heat. Particularly if they are not sure whether that person and their supporters see purity as more important than advancing the policies of the Democratic Party over those of the Republican Party.
The idiot giving an idiotic quote is a separate issue from ‘put this info out y/n?’.
And if you hand the information over to local Dems, and they sit on it, you’re ok with that? You’re ok with the voters being kept ignorant as long as it’s the local Democrats who are being dishonest?
You have relevant information that may impact how people vote. The information is true. You have an obligation to make sure voters are informed. Additionally, as ajm points out: the DCCC is already despised by many voters. So they put this info out. The voters get mad at ‘Washington’, at the DCCC. If one of those local Dems puts it out, who do Moser’s people get mad at?
If there’s going to be fallout, let the negatives hit the national organization. Let the locals stay happy with the locals.
1 Like
Because by plugging the good candidates, the DCCC risks giving them the kiss of death.
Had the DCCC barged down to VA and screamed to high heaven that Rapey Roy was evil prior to that special election, the election would have stayed national tribal and Doug Jones would have lost.
But they didn’t. They shut up, invisibly supported Jones, and left the local Democrats alone and completely in charge. Jones won because they kept the criticism of Roy LOCAL. This TX candidate can only be successfuly criticized locally. Everything else has the potential to make things worse.
2 Likes
This is my district. I think Moser is one of 3 strong candidates (the one who has raised the most money does not actually live in the district, so I am not counting him, since this would be a clear liability) out of a total of 7. There will almost certainly be a runoff between the top 2, and - at minimum - the DCCC should have waited until after the primary to see whether Moser makes it into the runoff. Local Democrats are furious at the DCCC, and some I know who were undecided are now planning to vote for her. I’m not one of them - although I agree with her positions, I also agree w/ the DCCC’s conclusion that she is a weaker candidate for the general election. But this was a stupid, ham- handed move that tarnishes the other top candidates (as “Washington’s choice”, ironically), as well as Moser herself. Democrats shoot selves in foot - film at 11.
3 Likes
Primary is the first electoral test. I think this if we had nominated so and so instead is BS with a few exceptioms. If you can’t win the primary chances are you are not going to win the General Election.
BINGO
That’s for the update from the “field”
This is hardly an exercise in heroically informing the public. And they quite obviously do not simply provide information but characterize it in a certain way, and throw in some opinionating about the candidate being “establishment” and not going to change Washington.
2 Likes
Is there any truth to Alex T’s claim to being the dcccs dog in this race? If so, his non-residence in the district would make this particular hit piece unintentionally ironic.
And do you know any details of the precise issues between Fletcher and the labor fed?
Moser seems to be going the high road route on this for the moment, but is this true or her supporters, or is the DCCC shot going to be taken as an invitation to all to go bare knuckle?
Sweet Blessed Virgin Mary of the Hanging Chads! How dare the Dem committee support the Dem candidate they think has the best chance of winning. Don’t they know that the Purity scolds must be obeyed? It’s an outrage! Purity today, Purity tomorrow, Purity forever!
Pointing out the problems with one candidate is not ‘plugging’ the others. It’s informing the voters, and letting them make their decision with all of the relevant information.
1 Like
Who said anything about it being ‘heroic’? For me, the math is simple:
Is the information true? y/n.
Could this information reasonably impact peoples’ choices, where they might later say ‘if I knew that, I wouldn’t have voted for [candidate]?’ y/n.
If those are both ‘yes’, then the voters don’t just deserve to have that information, they should have that information. And if someone is saying ‘don’t tell the voters this’, then that person is advocating disenfranchisement and an attempt to steal an election, and no matter whose side they’re on, they should be strung up for it. Metaphorically, of course.
1 Like
As a progressive democrat who participates in the Resistance, I was angered to find that the DCCC was publishing opposition research on progressive candidate Moser, not because her values and political activity were wrong, but because the DCCC considers her unelectable in the general election. It is just poisonous to sabotage potential legitimate democratic candidates in that way. Especially, since the Democratic party will basically be relying on the tremendous energy and practical support of thousands of grassroots groups like “Daily Action”, who are outside the formal party structure, but support the party’s goals. This kind of cynical and manipulative behavior by the DCCC in opposing Moser completely discourages the passions of 100,000s of progressives who genuinely believe in progressive causes and like me are fed up with this type of underhanded strategy (shades of Hilary vs. Bernie conniving). Throw away your manipulative and unjust strategies. They won’t flip the 2018 midterms, the Resistance will - by honest and hard work as they did in the 2017 special elections in Virginia, Alabama, etc.
1 Like
Ahhh … so once again, Dems (my party BTW) are going to work toward snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory … and let me repeat - again. SMH
1 Like
Thank you!
2 Likes
This is 100% right, but at the same time… who cares why true information that may be relevant and important to the voters is distributed, as long as the voters get that information? You can use up incalculable sums of time and energy trying to force everyone to act out of public interest and pure motives, but at the end of the day, people are people, and most people are selfish shits. If the selfish shits do something that promotes an informed electorate for the most venal and cynical of reasons, point and laugh at them for being venal and cynical jerks, but be glad they did it, because the longer goal here should be an electorate that demands being as informed as possible. It’s the only way to prevent appeals to ignorance like the shit the right’s been pulling for fifty years now.
“make sure local activists’ efforts weren’t squandered with a flawed candidate.”
We’ve seen how well they’ve done in the last 20 years at deciding who is a flawed candidate and who isn’t. Given their record, I’ll go with flawed candidates. When Rahm was busy picking candidates, the “flawed” candidates who won their primaries despite him did much, much better than his favored candidates when it came to the general election. Why should anyone think that anything has changed?