Emanuel's Gambit: Tough Love for House Dems

by Kagro X

Today's edition of The Hill notes the launch of a new DCCC strategy: Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is trimming the Campaign Committee's "frontline" list -- the roster of the most endangered Democratic incumbents, to whom safer incumbents are expected to funnel excess campaign cash.

It's an idea well worth trying, but... Oh! The irony!

The frontline rolls are being purged, down to nine (at the moment, and subject to change) from 19 during the last cycle. Basically, Emanuel has redefined what it means to be "vulnerable":

The pared-down list also reflects the Democrats’ confidence that several of their members who had been considered vulnerable are in fact safely ensconced in their districts, even if some of them have failed to throttle past the 55 percent ceiling. In previous cycles, the 55 percent high-water mark almost always guaranteed that an incumbent House Democrat would receive a crush of contributions from the chamber’s safer members.

A senior Democratic aide said, “There’s a recognition that sometimes 55 percent is safe. That’s all they’re ever going to get, but they’re not going to drop below.”

A reality-based targeting program for the reality-based party. An auspicious start. But where's the irony?

Emanuel’s higher vulnerability standards also indicate that the DCCC, under his direction, will implement a more calibrated strategy toward channeling member-to-member donations and will not ask lawmakers to part with campaign cash simply to pad skittish incumbents’ margins of victory.

[...]

Emanuel’s new formula places a greater emphasis on the generic Democratic percentage, instead of the incumbent’s numbers, and therefore punishes lawmakers who underperform in their districts.

“The idea is you don’t reward members for running bad campaigns. You look at how members are doing compared to other Democrats,” said another senior Democratic aide with direct knowledge of Emanuel’s thinking.

That's right. Conservative free market theory has found a home in Democratic campaign strategy. And it's alright by me. Sure, the irony of it -- if that's what it is -- is a little discomfiting. But I've never been terribly afraid of a little laissez faire here and there. Maybe it's time that Democratic incumbents who've relied on the DCCC "safety net" got pushed out of the nest. Maybe it's time these Democrats got a taste of what "Welfare-to-Work" is all about.

Still more ironic, given the free market wondrousness of it all, is the way this strategy may be playing out for the particular incumbents rumored to be staying on the list. While it apparently isn't finalized, and the DCCC isn't saying yet exactly who's in and who's out, The Hill's sources say Reps. Melissa Bean (IL), Leonard Boswell (IA), Chet Edwards (TX), Stephanie Herseth (SD), Brian Higgins (NY), Jim Matheson (UT), Charlie Melancon (LA), Dennis Moore (KS) and John Salazar (CO) are included.

In other words, a sample heavily-weighted with some of our most conservative House Democrats. Can anyone say, "personal responsibility?"

But I kid our good friends from marginal districts. I kid, because I love.

Still, it won't pass without notice that according to the very interesting ranking system developed by the good people at Progressive Punch, the above named members are ranked # 171, 184, 180, 175, 102, 192, 185, 166, and 132 (out of 202 Democrats plus Bernie Sanders) in terms of their progressive positions.

Meanwhile, those rumored to be pared from the list are: Reps. Tim Bishop (74), Lincoln Davis (191), Tim Holden (190), Darleen Hooley (139), Paul Kanjorski (152), Rick Larsen (138), Mike Michaud (116), and Earl Pomeroy (167).

Still in contention for inclusion on the list are #s 193 and 185: Reps. Jim Marshall and John Barrow of Georgia, who may be redistricted by next time around.

What might we make of the fact that the DCCC's ATM cranks out so much cash for our Caucus's most conservative Members? Well, of course, it stands to reason: they're conservative precisely because they're constantly walking a tightrope. But will that fly in the new age of the 'netroots?

Widespread 'net support for #175, Stephanie Herseth, says it just might, though it's also likely to cause some furrowed brows. Still, the 'netroots are growing up even as they're growing, and I think the reality-based DCCC may dovetail nicely with the reality-based 'netroots, as well.

If not, there's always this: Progressive Punch also gives us a "progressive score" for each Member, expressed as a percentage. The average percentage among Members remaining on the DCCC's endangered species list: 79.04 -- not bad, all things considered.

Among those cut: 73.81.

Damned statistics.

Comments

[emptypockets]

how do member-to-member contributions work? are there campaign contribution limits as there would be for an ordinary citizen donating to a campaign?

i'm sure it's common practice, but a little strange that a donation one makes to, say, Ted Kennedy would end up in the coffers of, say, Ben Nelson. (sorry for using senators, my unprompted recall of reps' names is still weak.)

[vachon]

My guess is this is another nudge in the process of shaking off bad campaign managers and their polling/media entourages on the local level. Throwing money at bad performances goes both ways.

[Kagro X]

Member-to-Member (they love to Capitalize things in the Capitol) contributions work like any other contribution, subject to the same restrictions. Members with PACs can give up to the $5K limit.

It is common practice, and money does often change hands. Money from Member PACs is the stuff with which races for leadership races are made. Give out enough money to enough Members, and they owe you when a new rung on the ladder opens up.