New Dems And Blue Dogs WHINING It Costs Them More To Run For Congress Than It Costs Real Democrats [View all]

[Segami]

Writing for Stars and Stripes and the Washington Post Sunday, Anne Kim, an operative for Wall Street's deceptively named Progressive Policy Institute (a pro-corporate/anti-worker New Dem outfit that was founded by the DLC to promote neoliberal ideas like NAFTA and the TPP), decries how much more it costs reactionary Democrats-- New Dems and Blue Dogs-- to run for election than it costs real Democrats. It costs the Democrats who support the Republican/Wall Street agenda double what it costs actual Democrats to run for office. Kim's research finds that the fake Dems "spent roughly twice as much as their liberal counterparts to win or defend their seats." That trend is getting more pronounced and she pointed out that for every dollar that the average Progressive Caucus member directly spent to defend his or her seat in 2014, the average right-wing Democrat spent $1.93. By comparison, right-wing Democrats shelled out $1.54 for every campaign dollar spent by liberals by 2012 and $1.65 in 2010.

"...Being a moderate costs far more than being extreme. And the increasing expense means most moderates can’t compete.

Consider the case of Democratic members of the House, where long-standing, self-defined coalitions — New Democrats and Blue Dogs on the one hand and the Progressive Caucus on the other — separate moderates and liberals with reasonable clarity. (Members must apply to join, attend regular meetings and remain in good standing.) In the past three election cycles, self-described moderate lawmakers spent roughly twice as much as their liberal counterparts to win or defend their seats...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-hard-to-be-a-moderate-politician-its-also-more-expensive/2015/05/28/86bab940-04d9-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html

She doesn't get into it, but these figures include the way Wall Street-backed conservaDems gigantically outspend progressives in primaries, often with the help of the Democratic Beltway Establishment which has now entirely abandoned its pretense of being neutral in primaries. Let's look at a few of the most recent examples from the last cycle. Here are 4 notable races that pitted New Dem types who back cutting Social Security benefits against progressives who favor expanding Social Security. In each case, the corporate-backed right-winger seriously outspent the progressive:

• CA-17- Ro Khanna- $4,427,701, Mike Honda- $3,447,979

• CA-31- Pete Aguilar- $2,246,265, Eloise Reyes- $1,029,617

• IL-13- Ann Callis- $1,936,927, George Gollin- $522,126

• VA-08- Don Beyer- $2,688,020, Patrick Hope- $307,599

The New Dem analysis for why they have to spend more than real Democrats never touches on the fact that the New Dems' conservative policy agenda turns off Democratic primary voters. Instead they claim that "moderate districts are by definition competitive... In 2014, outside groups spent an average of $2.2 million per race in New Democrat and Blue Dog districts, compared with an average of $299,339 in Progressive Caucus districts. All told, outside groups spent $121 million on moderate districts, vs. $20.4 million in liberal ones." [Keep in mind that New Dems and Blue Dogs and their propagandists like Kim, always refer to them as "moderate" rather than as the conservatives that they are.] In January, after Long Island Blue Dog and DCCC chair Steve Israel led the House Democrats to a second consecutive electoral donnybrook, he gave Politico an interview indicating he has every intention of following the same catastrophic strategy that tanked the Democrats in 2010, 2012 and 2014 (the Israel years). Several members of Congress have told me that Israel's pointless, policy-free messaging doesn't appeal to real voters and that that's why so many Democrats just don't bother voting. Israel recruits Republican-lite candidates (in some cases, actual Republicans) and then fills the airwaves with ineffective, garbage messaging and still expects to win. He doesn't win; he loses... and loses and loses. And yet, Pelosi left him in charge-- albeit with another title-- of the DCCC again, where he is already talking about how the Democrats won't win back the House in 2016. He's right. The Democrats will never win back the House as long as Steve Israel is running the show, or even partially running the show.

House Democrats will hammer home the message of “middle-class economics” in hopes of reviving their fortunes in 2016.

After three months of griping that their party’s midterm-election message was too complex and often too diluted, lawmakers who gathered here for a three-day Democratic retreat hope they have found the formula for reversing the losses they took in November.

We’re “absolutely unified on three essential messages going forward: It’s middle class, middle class, middle class,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who had just surveyed 90 Democratic members about what they want to see in 2016. “Everybody agreed that it has to be about the middle.”

Israel, the new chairman of the House Democrats’ messaging arm, said another problem in 2014 was that news on Ebola, Ukraine and Islamic militants knocked domestic concerns from voters’ minds.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/democrats-unified-economic-message-114723.html

And the DCCC continues spending virtually all its resources trying to reelect and elect Blue Dogs and New Dems who vote with the GOP and have no connection to the Democratic values-driven grassroots. If you contribute to the DCCC, that's the toilet your money gets flushed down. Instead, consider contributing directly to progressive candidates.



http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com