I've known him for many years, through many campaigns and he would lose his job-- and his ability to get jobs-- if he were to use his real name. So this guest post, a message to grassroots candidates, is by "Anonymous Operative." I didn't change a word, although we've tackled this topic in the past.It’s A Sad, Pathetic RacketBy Anonymous OperativeIt’s a shame that so many Democratic donors are quick to contribute their hard earned money to the wrong cause. Cycle after cycle I hear donors tell strong progressive candidates “you sound like a great Democrat, but we just give our money to the DCCC and trust them to use it to win back the House.”I continually wish that I-- not the candidate-- was the recipient of this cop out because I would offer the simple response: “well how’s that going for you?”The DCCC and organizations of the like operate under a model similar to the vile financial corporations that single handedly destroyed our economy. While basic macro economic principles promote national economic growth to ensure a nation’s long run economic success, Wall Street is allowed to destroy our national economy to benefit short-run business interests.So, what is the actual operating model of the DCCC if it is not to actually win back-- or in the oddest of times-- protect a majority? That question could be answered by the Wall Street villains because it is the same concept as they operate under: as long as the organization can continually raise/earn incredible amounts of money and keep share holders-- or in the case of political operations, consultants-- happy, the cycle is a success.One needs only to look at the DCCC’s payroll/operating expenditures over the course of multiple election cycles to understand the racket that is being run. In one cycle, a slew of names fill positions referred to as “regional service director,” or “regional finance director.” It is the job of these individuals to strategically set up candidates’ campaigns across the country to enhance their ability to win.Part of this operation entails placing consultants (mail vendors, polling firms, and media buyers who are retained on campaign budgets) who theoretically offer advice that has been proven to win House races. On the surface this sounds great, which is why candidates willingly offer to raise thousands upon thousands of dollars to pay these firms. However, as one continues to analyze the DCCC expenditures over the course of multiple cycles, an interesting trend emerges.The individuals-- often the sons and daughters of high dollar DCCC donors-- who one cycle are the “regional directors” in charge of hiring consultants miraculously change form the following cycle and become consultants on House race budgets.Meanwhile many individuals who cycles earlier were the consultants, are now the regional director hiring consultants. If we, as Democrats, won, I suppose we could credit this model. However we don’t win. We lose year, after year, after year. Meanwhile, the DCCC and similar organizations continue to raise millions of dollars and the individual consultants get richer and richer.This is in deed a well-hidden racket. The average donor watches the Sunday political talk show on a weekly basis and listens to commentary from folks who are referred to as Democratic strategists. These donors assume that their $1,000, $10,000, or $50,000 DCCC contribution goes to paying these specialists for robust strategy that can be implemented to achieve our goals.This thought process is akin to saying Larry Summers will fix our economy because he has been proven to understand economic behavior. We all know what a bad joke that is…So for candidates out there who wonder why the DCCC and similar organizations continually maneuver in ways that seem detrimental to winning, I offer the simple question:
If your campaign has limited money [as most do] and you want to do one activity but the DCCC says “no, just stay back in the office and keep raising money,” why do you think that is?
You, the candidate, are not the important chess piece. Your budget is. As long as you continue to raise money to pay the consultants, your campaign will be deemed a success and you will in deed waste a year to two years of your time. But maybe, you will be recruited to run the next cycle…From today's Washington Post-- and believe me, there's a connectionUPDATE: A Word From Danny Goldberg On ResearchDanny and I were in the music business together. Like Beltway politics, there was a tendency to allow consultants to take over, or to at least get very, very wealthy. And like with Beltway politics, there was absolutely no correlation between money spent on these crooks and records sold. In 2008, Danny wrote a brilliant post on the topic for DWT. I recommend you read or re-read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:
Wherever the winds of political conventional wisdom blow, the word “research” is sure to be in the air. As someone, like Howie, who has made my living in the music business, I am very familiar with the value-- and the limitations-- of focus groups, polling and other forms of research. A friend of mine who has done focus groups for dozens of rock radio stations as well as for two network news divisions put it succinctly “looking at research is like looking in the rear view mirror.”Pollsters will always caution clients that their work product is just a tool. However, for many politicians, public interest group leaders and funders, the security blanket of "data” is processed as "reality." Good research can indeed provide valuable insight into the attitudes of one particular group at one particular time generated with one methodology but treating research as the complete truth about public opinion is just as silly as ignoring it altogether. To use research for every single political problem as akin to using antibiotics for every health problem. Polling is much better at measuring past views than future ones. Focus groups cannot replicate every kind of environment in which people are exposed to.What does this have to do with politics?Well,although no one wants to admit it publicly, it is widely known that many Democrats were inclined to vote against the Iraq War resolution in 2003 but were persuaded to vote for it by “pragmatists” sporting “research.” John Kerry might be President today if he had resisted, and Hillary Clinton certainly would be the presumptive nominee if she had.After the 2004 election there was widely published pseudo research showing that Bush was re-elected primarily because of the “moral issue.” In this wake, “pragmatists,” convinced most Democrats not to argue vigorously with Republicans about the absurd Terry Schiavo legislation, depriving Democrats of a strong identification with opposition to the Republican bill, of what turned out to be 80% of Americans.In 2006 a lot of activists had an intuitive sense that Joe Lieberman was vulnerable. Professional politicians and their funders did polling that made it seem like Lieberman was unbeatable. I am sure than many of them looked at Ned Lamont’s primary victory wishing that they had taken the plunge. And when Lamont proved unable to compete with the savvy Lieberman in a general election, many of us wished a more experienced progressive had run. How different the Senate would have been the last year and a half if someone like Rep. Rosa De Lauro had been in the Senate instead of Lieberman!Looking through a rear view mirror and determined to avoid negatives, many research driven consultants told Democratic congressional candidates in 2006 to avoid talking about the war. Two who appeared to be influenced by such “pragmatic” advice, Lois Murphy in Pennsylvania and Francine Busby who ran for Duke Cunningham’s seat in San Diego narrowly lost. Others who defied the conventional wisdom and campaigned as anti-war candidates, Patrick Murphy and Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, Jerry McNerney in California, John Hall in New York, Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire, and Bruce Braley in Iowa were among the winners who gave the Democrats their first majority in a decade. Obviously each race had unique characteristics but these examples are a cautionary tale on the real life limits of the conventional wisdom.