US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1235

House Democrats' campaign arm on Friday took an official step to protect sitting lawmakers, warning would-be campaign vendors that the party won't award contracts to political firms working for primary challengers.

With its new policy, posted Friday morning, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) said its "core mission" is to keep and grow the party's newly won House majority, "which includes supporting and protecting incumbents."

"To that end, the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus," the policy reads.

The effort is an attempt to pre-empt a short but growing list of potential primary hopefuls, as well as the groups supporting them, from retaining the help of top-tier polling and consulting firms in bids to oust sitting lawmakers.

The issue has gained new scrutiny following last year's midterm elections, when the powerful chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), lost his primary to a little-known challenger, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who rode a bare-bones campaign to a stunning victory. In another upset, Ayanna Pressley ousted Rep. Michael Capuano — who, like Crowley, was a 20-year veteran of Capitol Hill — in a Massachusetts primary.

The liberal groups that supported Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley, and are now eyeing challenges to centrist incumbents this cycle, were quick to blast the DCCC's new policy on Friday, accusing the Democrats of using their financial muscle to stifle the energy of the surging liberal base.

"The DCCC is using financial leverage to try and stop leaders like Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rising in the party through primary challenges," Alexandra Rojas, executive director of the Justice Democrats, a liberal advocacy group, said in a statement.

María Urbina, national political director of Indivisible, another liberal group, went a step further, saying the new hiring standards will discourage the political participation of minorities.

"This is another example of the DCCC looking to maintain the status quo and hoard power," Urbina said Friday. "This historic class of women, especially women of color, wouldn't have been ushered in if they'd waited their turn.

"This works to incentivize Congress staying white and male."

With an eye at avoiding that issue, the DCCC is also adopting new diversity standards for its vendors, which must demonstrate a commitment to empowering minorities to win a contract. Toward that end, vendors must meet one of five reported criteria, including having women, veterans or minorities in ownership roles or constituting a significant portion of the firm's staff. The aim is both to empower minorities in a field long dominated by white men and to ensure the vendors reflect the voters and candidates in the districts they're working to win.

Justice Democrats are already seeking a primary challenger to take on Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Blue Dog Texas Democrat, and they're eyeing races against other centrists around the country.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), another Blue Dog leader who has long angered liberal activists for his staunch opposition to abortion, is also on the radar of the activist groups hoping to bring more progressive voices to Capitol Hill. Lipinski survived a tough primary challenge last year from Marie Newman, who had the support of women's reproductive health groups like NARAL, as well as the endorsement of several liberal lawmakers, including Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), then-Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Newman told supporters this month that she's exploring another run in 2020.

Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), who leads the DCCC, forecast the party's new policy earlier in the month, characterizing the DCCC as "an incumbent-friendly organization" that will fight to protect its own.

"I would prefer that, as far as Democrats go, that we just work together, and we make sure that our colleagues can come back, and that we do what we can to pick up additional seats," she said in an interview from the party's campaign headquarters just off of Capitol Hill.

"Dan Lipinski is pro-life, but he's also a longtime member of the House of Representatives, and he's been a reliable vote on the vast majority of our issues," she added.

The activist groups are rejecting that argument, saying it's more important to bring to Washington the kinds of lawmakers who will fight to realize the progressives' ambitious policy agenda, including a Medicare for All health care system, a Green New Deal to tackle climate change and a scaling back of the tax cuts enacted by President Trump and Republicans in late 2017.

The DCCC's move to blacklist firms that serve primary challengers, they maintain, will only help Republicans.

"The Democratic Party establishment is sending a signal that they are more afraid of Ayanna Pressley and Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez winning primary challenges than Dan Lipinski or Henry Cuellar who votes with Trump nearly 70% of the time," said Rojas.

On March 23 2019 06:39 On_Slaught wrote:
I mean, there is probably enough on the public record alone that you could charge Trump with obstruction, let alone whatever else Mueller has access to.

I have no idea what to expect with collusion, but I'd be pretty shocked if there wasnt strong language about his obstruction and maybe even a statement that they would have indicted but for the fact he is the President.

Edit: also lol @ xDaunt. Didnt you ever learn not to count your chickens before they hatch? We have no idea what the report says.

On March 23 2019 06:34 Doodsmack wrote:
My bet is that the conclusion will be no obstruction, no collusion, but with a couple investigations ongoing in SDNY and wherever else.

On March 23 2019 06:48 xDaunt wrote:

That’s fine. You can wait for the release of details from the report if you really want. I can wait for your mea culpa (and those of many other posters) a little longer. The report isn’t going to help you, though. Charging Jr. for illicit collusion related to the tower meeting falls under Mueller’s jurisdiction. If Mueller doesn’t do it, no one will.

On March 23 2019 06:36 xDaunt wrote:

Don’t worry. We are going to get a shitshow. Given the lack of further indictments against Trump’s team, expect the DOJ to start going after the dirty FBI/DOJ officials (and possibly others) who got us into this mess now that Mueller is done.

Also, and as a relevant aside, looks like my predictions about Trump, Jr. and the tower meeting are going to age quite well. Imagine that. There is going to be a lot off egg to wipe off of people’s faces.

On March 23 2019 06:48 xDaunt wrote:

That’s fine. You can wait for the release of details from the report if you really want. I can wait for your mea culpa (and those of many other posters) a little longer. The report isn’t going to help you, though. Charging Jr. for illicit collusion related to the tower meeting falls under Mueller’s jurisdiction. If Mueller doesn’t do it, no one will.

On March 23 2019 06:48 xDaunt wrote:

That’s fine. You can wait for the release of details from the report if you really want. I can wait for your mea culpa (and those of many other posters) a little longer. The report isn’t going to help you, though. Charging Jr. for illicit collusion related to the tower meeting falls under Mueller’s jurisdiction. If Mueller doesn’t do it, no one will.

On March 23 2019 06:56 Plansix wrote:
The DCCC continues to act like the DCCC and the RNC when it comes to primary challenges. Incumbents have a huge advantage in an election, so they are focusing on not making it easy for the Republicans to take back the House. But importantly, they are not changing any rules. They are just saying they will be focusing on supporting incumbants in primary challenges. If the challenger beats the incumbent, the DCCC will still support that challenger in the general election.

Any progressives trying to gain seats in the House or Senate through challenging democratic incumbents were going to face this fight now matter what. And if they became the majority of the Democratic party, they would try to keep that majority within the party.

On March 23 2019 06:53 Excludos wrote:


I love how certain you are before you have seen anything resembling contents of the report. This is pretty telling to how you treat every subject here: You've already made up your mind on what the truth is, despite no evidence to suggest that your view is correct. The rest of us sit here cautiously optimistic, while you sit there already planning your victory party. Do you not see how this is a very bad way to tackle problems in your life? What else can you not imagine the possibility of being wrong on that people around you might both disagree and know more about?

On March 23 2019 06:59 Danglars wrote:

Substantially wrong. They never refused to do business with companies that worked with primary challengers before. This is a sizable stifling of primary challengers, who now will have trouble recruiting top companies to help their campaigns.

(The comparable organization is the NRCC, not the RNC, and they do not now and have never had a comparable rule)

On March 23 2019 07:00 Plansix wrote:
Special reminder: Collusion isn't a criminal act that anyone will be charged with. It will be conspiracy to receive material aid from a foreign goverment to influence the outcome of an election. Or something else along those lines. Collusion only continues to be in teh discussion because Trump keeps saying "No collusion".

On March 23 2019 07:02 xDaunt wrote:

Oh please. You and many others have been wildly proclaiming that Trump, his family, and his team were all going to be prosecuted for colluding with Russians for two years.

On March 23 2019 07:02 xDaunt wrote:

Oh please. You and many others have been wildly proclaiming that Trump, his family, and his team were all going to be prosecuted for colluding with Russians for two years. And you did so in the face of huge red flags concerning the investigation. The only mitigating factor in your conduct is that you can fairly claim that you were misled by a deceitful and complicit media. We have finally hit the end of the line on this whole charade, so it is time to face the music. On that point, there is nothing unduly speculative about my post about Jr. not being charged. It is a simple logical deduction based upon an understanding of the special counsel’s jurisdiction and the fact that he ended his investigation today. This is no more complicated than 2+2=4.

On March 23 2019 06:52 Danglars wrote:

You think Barr & Team are going to do a good job on FISA abuse, unmasking, classified leaks? He interviewed well, but this is still the DOJ investigating the DOJ. Sessions' tenure only involved one major OIG investigation (as well as the firings/resignations of Comey, McCabe, Strzok, etc). I'm a little pessimistic on the overall functioning of the bureaucratic state to protect itself against internal investigations and major changes in the hierarchy.

On March 23 2019 07:07 KwarK wrote:

This.

The facts of Trump Jr taking a meeting to specifically accept hacked email info as part of accepting Russian state aid remain unchanged. As does Trump Sr’s tweet about those emails in the hour after the meeting was concluded. The best case scenario for Trump supporters here is a legal technicality, they already confessed to the deed.

On March 23 2019 07:08 Plansix wrote:

Did he? Did he really? What about the others? Did they do that too? Or is this another case of you making broad, sweeping statements in an effort to paint people into a corner in an argument?