Democratic campaigns are almost always eager to be added to the DCCC's Red to Blue list. Only novices think that being on that list means the DCCC will automatically contribute money towards the race. The DCCC-- and Pelosi's House Majority PAC-- spend millions of dollars towards some of those candidates' races, but not towards most of them. So why bother jumping through the DCCC hoops to get on that list-- including some very toxic and dysfunctional hoops, like hiring incompetent and clueless staffers-in-learning?For one thing, media outlets, polling firms, political professionals and pundits, tend to ignore or discount candidates who aren't on the Red to Blue list. For another, many institutional Democratic contributors will not give any money to any candidate who isn't on the Red-to-Blue list. Even otherwise independent-minded members of Congress shy away from contributing to candidates who aren't on that list. And big independent PACs-- like Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC and Tom Steyers' PACs.In the last week of the cycle, for example, Steyer's Need to Impeach campaign announced it would be focussing on "43 key congressional campaigns to help Democrats flip the House." In a press release Steyer's outfit wrote that "in the final few hours before Election Day, Tom Steyer’s Need to Impeach campaign is focusing its resources on mobilizing 636,688 supporters living in 43 key congressional districts across 50 states to help Democrats flip the House and secure progressive victories up and down ballots."
The targeted congressional districts are: AZ-02, AZ-09, CA-10, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, CA-49, CA-21, CO-06, FL-07, FL-18, FL-26, FL-27, IA-01, IA-03, IL-06, IL-12, MI-11, MN-01, MN-02, MN-03, NH-01, NJ-02, NJ-07, NJ-11, NV-03, PA-01, PA-07, PA-17, MI-07, MI-08, NV-04, PA-06, PA-08, TX-32, TX-07, VA-02, VA-05, VA-07, VA-10, WA-08, WI-01.“Our internal polling shows that Need to Impeach supporters are eager to vote and hold this reckless, dangerous, and lawless president accountable for destroying our democratic institutions,” said Need to Impeach Lead Strategist Kevin Mack. “Their participation is projected to exceed our turnout goal of 75 percent, even though only 34 percent have reliably voted in previous midterm elections. We are using a wide range of unique tactics created specifically to engage and mobilize them to vote, including addressable TV and digital ads highlighting issues we know they care about.”Need to Impeach turnout goal is based on the results of the PA-18 and OH-12 congressional special elections which took place earlier this year. In those races, campaign supporters voted at 30 percentage points higher than the general population after receiving one of the campaign’s paid communications.Additional tactics in the Need to Impeach mobilization program include:• 78,650 supporters hand-writing 1,645,805 notecards to infrequent midterm voters in 43 key congressional districts across the country, urging them to vote.• Serving 1,615 get-out-the-vote digital ads-- watched 73,874,046 times-- focusing on getting out the vote on social media.• Two addressable TV ads targeting voters nationwide have been seen 14,875,080 over the last three weeks.• More than 9.2 million pieces of direct mail have been sent to Need to Impeach supporters.The campaign’s turnout goal of 75 percent could result in an additional 1.9 million people-- who normally don't vote during midterm elections and are overwhelmingly overlooked by other groups-- turning out nationwide this year.
Bloomberg Independence USA PAC spent millions of dollars on a few dozens candidates. Which candidates? Generally speaking, Red to Blue candidates. I noticed, for example, the PAC spent $4,525,779 (positive) + $568,856 (negative) in the race to replace Republican Steve Knight with DCCC-favored moderate Democrat Katie Hill. $5 million. WOW! That's a lot of money for any campaign and in a close election like Hill's-- she eked out a narrow, 4,000 vote, 51.3-48.7% win-- it could be victory or defeat. The choice seemed odd to me since Hill has been very public about her support for more pro-gun stands than Bloomberg, which has usually motivated his political spending.But what about, let's say, Mike Siegel. He was running a text-book perfect grassroots campaign in Texas' 10th district. He didn't win but he took an impressive 46.9% of the vote against a powerful and entrenched incumbent in a super-gerrymandered district. The DCCC refused to add him to their Red to Blue page because they saw him as too progressive.One candidate who the DCCC didn't see as progressive at all-- because she isn't-- was Nancy Soderberg (FL-06). She joined the New Dems and was put on the Red to Blue list early. Pelosi's PAC put half a million dollars into the race. Bloomberg's PAC then followed with $1,623,370. She wasn't a very good candidate and, despite despite having the luxury of an open-seat, she only took 43.7% of the vote, losing to Trumpist Michael Waltz. Too bad Bloomberg wasted that $1,623,370; he could have spent it more productively in TX-10.The DCCC moved quickly to disappear the full Red to Blue page. Luckily I remembered that they do that immediately after every election, to foil research into their failures. So I copied the districts they had included. The percentages represent the final scores of candidates who didn't win Tuesday. Blank spots are districts the Democrat won.
AK- 45.8%AR-02- 45.8%AZ-02AZ-08- 43.3%CA-04- 44.6%CA-10 (uncalled)CA-21- 46.2%CA-25CA-39 (uncalled)CA-45 (uncalled)CA-48CA-49CO-06CT-05 (red to blue?? This would be blue to blue)FL-06- 43.7%FL-15- 46.9%FL-16- 45.4%FL-18- 45.6%FL-25- 39.5%FL-26FL-27GA-06 (uncalled)GA-07 (uncalled)IA-01IA-03IL-06IL-12- 45.2%IL-13- 49.5%IL-14IN-02- 45.2%IN-09- 40.6%KS-02- 46.4%KS-03KY-06- 47.8%ME-02 (uncalled)MI-06- 45.7%MI-07- 46.2%MI-08MI-11MN-01- 49.8%MN-02MN-03MN-08- 45.2%MO-02- 47.1%MT- 46.0%NC-02- 45.7%NC-09- (uncalled)NC-13- 45.5%NE-02- 48.4%NH-01NJ-02NJ-03 (uncalled)NJ-07NJ-11NM-03NV-03NV-04NY-01- 46.4%NY-11NY-19NY-21- 41.8%NY-22NY-24- 46.9%NY-27- 48.4%OH-01- 46.4%OH-07- 41.1%OH-12- 47.1%OH-14- 44.6%PA-01- 48.7%PA-06PA-07PA-10- 48.6%PA-16- 47.2%SC-01TX-02- 45.4%TX-06- 45.4%TX-07TX-21- 47.5%TX-22- 46.4%TX-23- 48.7%TX-31- 47.6%TX-32UT-04VA-02VA-05- 46.7%VA-07VA-10WA-03- 47.4%WA-05- 44.2%WA-08WI-01- 42.3%WI-06- 44.5%WV-03- 43.6%
Let me offer half a dozen districts they refused to include on the Red to Blue list-- 6 progressives, of course: CA-01, CA-50, IA-04, NY-02, PA-11 and the aforementioned TX-10. None of these candidates won, at least in part because of DCCC hostility. They were all in tougher districts than the average DCCC-backed candidate-- and this was how they did in their races:
• Audrey Denney- 43.8% (R+11)• Ammar Campa-Najjar- 45.7% (R+11)• J.D. Scholten- 47.0% (R+11)• Liuba Grechen Shirley- 46.7% (R+3)• Jess King- 41.4% (R+14)• Mike Siegel- 46.9% (R+9)
So compare the outcomes of the seats that were lost but with DCCC backing and the seats that were lost without DCCC backing. Not much difference, right? In fact Scholten, for example, had a higher score than almost all of the DCCC candidates-- he beat 33 of them. We'll never know if he got some of the support they did if he would have won or not. We just know that he came closer than 33 DCCC-backed candidates. Too bad they hate progressives so much and usually only feel comfortable adding New Dems and Blue Dogs to Red to Blue. And too bad anyone pays any attention to them. Democrats won around 35 or so House races. Without the DCCC in existence-- at least in its current form and current leadership-- they probably would have won a dozen more.
