TX-07: Texas runoff a pivotal moment for national Democrats

[RandySF]

HOUSTON — Houston Democratic players are now calling what was once the wildest Democratic primary in the state a word not spoken often in Texas politics: boring.

But even as local political junkies are tiring of the national drama surrounding the 7th Congressional District's Democratic primary in west Houston featuring attorney Lizzie Pannill Fletcher and activist Laura Moser, what happens here Tuesday night will have outsized implications for national Democrats' optimism and tactics in their bid to take control of the U.S. House in the fall.

It all started when the House Democratic campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, took the unusual step of dumping a tranche of opposition research on Moser, a member of their own party. The objective was to knock her out of the seven-way primary to challenge U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, because national operatives believed Moser is too liberal for the district and has some liabilities that could take the seat out of contention in the fall.

The race was instantly nationalized, and locally, it was the talk of the town......

All surface signs indicate that Fletcher has the inside track on winning the nomination on Tuesday.



https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/18/texas-runoff-between-laura-moser-and-lizzie-fletcher-pivotal-moment-de/

[vi5]

1. The DCCC needs to go away until the general election....

...if their goal truly is to get Democrats elected then they should just stay the fuck out of it until the Democratic voters decide who they feel is best equipped to represent them and their interests.

Otherwise their efforts seem like a "Stay out of it voters, we know what's best" approach which is in nobody's best interest.

Maybe I'm wrong but has the DCCC ever supported the more liberal candidate in any primary race? Or do they strictly focus on making sure only "centrist" or neoliberal candidates get the nominations? I'm happy to see any evidence to the contrary.

[RandySF]

2. Moser needs to stop funneling campaign contributions into her husband's consulting firm

[grantcart]

3. Moser who left Texas years ago said that she would rather

Have her teeth pulled out without anesthesia than return to live in Texas.

Why would you assume that "the most liberal" candidate is the best candidate?

Moser has no chance in the General aftetbher disparaging remarks about her home state came out

[Jake Stern]

4. Why don't you put out the WHOLE quote

In which she specifically refers to the city of Paris, Texas. A city that is hundreds of miles NORTH of the district she's running in. She was not talking about the whole state.

I expect Republicans to chop up statements to make someone look bad but not a Dem.

[grantcart]

5. Because when the Republicans run the ad that is what they are going to say

She didn't live in either the district or anywhere else in Texas but London or New York.

You made the point by stating you knew that the Republicans would bury her with her own statement but are willing to risk losing a seat.

Voters don't like candidates who return to places where they haven't lived in a long time and never worked and only return to advance their own political career.

After she loses in the primary do you really think she is going to stay in Texas?

[RandySF]

7. Still tacky

[grantcart]

9. Because, obviously it is irrelevant for three reasons

1) In context talking about the city of Paris it is still an incredibly stupid thing to say. Do you really think that people in that area aren't going to make an association? Don't you think that the people in her area know people in that area?

2) It reminds people that she not only didn't live in Texas but lived in London and New York and its the kind of condescending idiocy that everyone hates when someone from their area leaves and then makes rude and condescending remarks about them. It reminds people that she didn't like living in Texas and the ONLY reason that she returned was to advance her personal career for a job that would again take her out of Texas. She isn't running for a job where she would live in Texas.

3) The obvious, painfully obvious point is that you are absolutely correct. The Republicans are going to frame it in the worst possible way. When we have multiple good candidates why would we choose the one that says really terrible things.

I understand her sentiment. I grew up in a backward arch conservative area and as soon as I was out of graduate school I went as far away as I could (well Nepal would have been a little bit farther). I came back and I gave public addresses in the area. At no time even in confidence with friends did I ever say anything that is as insensitive, condescending or out of touch as what she did. She was proud of it and the fact that it wasn't the exact district she was running in doesn't exonerate it.

The proof that she had no interest in THIS congressional district will become clear enough because after she is defeated in the primary (hopefully) or in the General she isn't going to stay around and build this District up she is going back to New York, London or Washington DC (and I don't really blame her for wanting to live there, its exactly what I did with my life). The only reason that she went back to Texas is to promote her personal career with a job outside of Texas and the people have an instinct for it and the fact that you are not pissing directly on them but people on the other side of the state doesn't mitigate how stupid a statement it was.

[vi5]

8. The most liberal is not necessarily the best.....

2 separate things:

1) I trust the Democratic voters in that state to select their candidates, free of interference beyond each campaigns individual organizations/ads/money/etc.

Separate thought:

2) Has the DCCC ever backed a more liberal candidate over a moderate? There are situations where the liberal candidate could and would be the best option, but it seems like every time I hear the DCCC sticking their noses in a primary it's to insure that a moderate, centrist, third way type wins. That's why I asked the question. I'd be happy to have someone prove me wrong. And if that's the case then that's fine but then they shouldn't claim that their goal as an organization is to get Democrats elected. They should categorize themselves as a DLC type organization which is devoted to moving the party to the center (more accurately to the right since everything about the party at this point should be considered centrist).

Yes, in some cases the more conservative candidate is the one who has the best chance and I trust Democratic voters in those individual states and districts to know enough to decide that. If the DCCC doesn't feel that way then they should go on record as saying so.

For years we're told that primaries are fair game to run in and then once that's the case then we have to support the Democratic candidate. I'm all for that and I agree. But the recent (past couple of years) uptick in people on here and within the party acting as though that only applies when a conservative centrist or conservative candidate gets the nomination but if there's even a slight chance of a progressive or liberal getting the nom then it seems like people's tunes change.

[grantcart]

10. Your entire framing is completely dishonest for two reasons

1) 99% of the time the DCCC doesn't get involved

2) When they get involved its not about ideology but about electibility

They basically are only going to get involved in a situation where they see that a candidate could lose or diminish our chances of taking a seat.

In California they are promoting 2 Democrats in CA 39 and CA 49 who have the best chance of winning the jungle primary and pressuring the others to quit.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-house-races-top-two-gop-attacks-20180511-story.html

You have framed the issue with Moser is not her ideology but her electibility. She doesn't have any recent ties to the district. She is a carpetbagger and this will be easily proved. Beyond that she has said really stupid things about living in Texas and the fact that it is a hundred miles away doesn't change the fact that it is the kind of stupid thing that is going to antagonize the electorate.

This will be proven by two events;

1) She is not going to win the Democratic Primary. If she was a great candidate then she would be able to overcome her past statements and win. I am betting that isn't going to happen

2) Within minutes of losing she is going to pack her bags and leave. She is not committed to this district

You know who she is committed to? Herself. She used her campaign funds to pay her family, in this case her husband $ 50.000.

Does this sound like an intelligent thing for a politician to do?

I come from Spokane and for years this very conservative area re-elected Tom Foley. One of the reasons that they did was because when he married the Chief of Staff of another Congressional District she came and worked for him.

She worked for free. Tom Foley was not a rich man, may have been the poorest man in Congress but he and his wife gave up $ 100k a year because it didn't pass the smell test. His wife was considered one of the top Executives in Congress. Tom Foley never discussed this arrangement but you know who did the very Republican Spokesman Review who continued to endorse him because he was honest, hard working and didn't say stupid things about Spokane although I am sure he would have liked to.

Moser is a deeply flawed candidate who has said and done stupid things and if she wins the primary it will cost us a seat. Her family will have made at least $ 50,000 from the campaign though. This payment of campaign funds to family members is frequently done by Republicans, rarely by Democrats but everyone that does it should be booted regardless of how qualified the spouse is.

[vi5]

11. "She is not going to win the Democratic primary"

If that is true then good. It sounds like you trust the voters to be smart enough and informed enough know what's best for their district/state/etc. Then we are in agreement. It doesn't sound like the DCCC does though.

I actually did not make a statement either way on Moser or whether she is the best candidate or not. I don't live in TX so I'm not informed enough on the situation to make a statement on her specifically or which candidates she is better than. But it sounds like according to you she is deeply flawed and voters know this and will vote accordingly. Sounds good to me.

I stand by my statement that the DCCC should stay out of it until the primary is decided. If the primary system in a state is flawed and Democratic voters agree then they should focus on changing that so that the situation is fairer and more accurate for Democratic voters and a more appropriate representation of Democratic voters in that area.

But their money and their resources and their efforts should be focused on and used to get the Democratic candidates who win according to that state's rules elected, not questioning the judgment of voters in that area.

I stand by my question though: Has their been a situation where a liberal candidate was more likely to win the GE and they backed that candidate over a more conservative challenger? Almost every single instance I've seen of them getting involved in a primary has seen them backing the more conservative candidate and carried with it a tone of "We know better than the Democratic primary voters." If it's not about ideology then there must be an example of this within that 1% of the time they do get involved.

[grantcart]

12. Completely misleading characterization of the DCCC actions

Again you are completely mischaracterizing DCCC action

You continue to portray DCCC acting in 3 primaries to have worked against the most liberal.

That is NOT what happened. Anyone who is reading your interpretation of the events would assume that there were 3 primaries and with 2 candidates.


The CA 39th had 10 announced candidates and the DCCC got 4 of them including some with very strong backgrounds to drop out and there are now 6. If the Republicans can solidify support for their top 2 (unlikely but possible) then the top two Republicans will be on the ballot and we will lose a pick up.

The CA 49th has 6 Candidates announced and the DCCC got one candidate to drop out. One of the candidates only lost by 2,000 votes. Again if the Republicans got well organized they could get the top 2 candidates and no Democrat would be on the ticket and we would lose another seat to the Republicans

In the TX 7 district there were 7 candidates in the initial primary. The DCCC concern, like the two districts above was that with a very large number of people running it was possible that the runoff would have 2 weak candidates.


If the DCCC were trying to tip primaries then you would see dozens and dozens of districts where there are 2 candidates and the DCCC is trying to tip the scales for one of them.

That is not what is happening. There are some districts where an over abundance of enthusiasm could work against us.

There are people outside the party who want to steer the Democratic Party in their direction. So whenever they can cook up an anti Party (in this case DCCC) bias they will cook the facts. This is a surrogate battle for those people, the facts don't support the charge that the DCCC is actively involved in steering primaries on the basis of ideology, they are trying to steer races where spectacularly unqualified or inept candidates could cost us a district.

Beyond the facts that a) the DCCC only got involved in a few districts where very large numbers of candidates could muddy the water and b) that Moser is a spectacularly bad candidate there is another reason that the DCCC doesn't give a damn about the ideology of any of these races:

Each member of Congress has one very important vote each session, either a) Speaker of the house b) Majority leader of the Senate

Most years for most Congress people and Senators this will be the only critical vote. Individual positions rarely count because it is a team sport. Having control of the institution is the whole ball game. The speaker decides who is on what committee and what bills are going to be voted on.

If we elect 20 more very liberal congress people it will make no difference than 20 moderate congress people because even if by some miracle we get control of the Senate by one we will not have enough votes to overcome a filibuster or a veto from the President. The President of the US for the next 3 years is going to be a Republican.

You wanted to find something that proves the DCCC is bad because this is a surrogate attack by people outside the party who aren't happy about the way that their attempted takeover of the party went so they are going to continually press the case that treatments of liberals is unfair.

Summarize
1) The DCCC got involved in a few cases where high numbers of candidates could have sabotaged a GE race
2) Moser is a terrible candidate who is a carpet bagger and is funnelling campaign money back into her pocket
3) The liberal/moderate/conservative bent of 30 40 or 50 candidates that are running is irrelevant to the actual power calculus of getting legislation passed. The only thing that really matters now is getting a majority in the House and the Senate. We won't be able to reverse the terrible actions of the President but we can stop him from passing the legislation he wants.

[vi5]

16. Again, in each of my posts....

..I asked this as a question. I admitted in every post that other than the few instances I have seen I don't have all of the information, so while it may have come across as being snarky, it really was not intended that way..

Whether they actually are liberal or conservative I still think that any neutral arm of the party be they the DNC or DCC or DLC (when they were still a thing) should stay out of primaries. I even don't have any issues with groups like that endorsing a Democrat over an independent if there is an open primary that allows non-Democrats to run. But in a race with multiple democrats I think those groups should still stay out of it and not feel the need to dictate whether or not voters are allowed to have an over abundance of enthusiasm and who they are allowed to have that enthusiasm for. And again if they don't like the rules of the state's primary system than they should definitely work to change that so that it is more fair.

And admittedly you'll have to forgive my own personal bias and cynicism on the subject.

I'm from the New York area. I'm not sure if you know what happened in NY state. A blue state where there is a Democratic governor, and party got a majority of seats elected to Democratic state reps and Senators. Because as you said, that's what we need to determine what comes up for a vote, who is in charge, etc. However, a group of juuuuuust enough of those Dems decided "Hey we are the Independent Democratic Caucus" and threw their votes to give Republicans control of the state and control of what comes up for a vote and other fun stuff like that.

And there have been similar shenanigans in my own state of NJ (also very blue), with Democrats throwing their support behind Republicans, campaigning for Chris Christie and other such similar BS.

So you have to understand from my vantage point I don't see it as so simple as "Doesn't matter the ideology, if they are Dems they will vote for Democrats to be in charge" because yes even though it's on the state level I'm seeing it doesn't always work out that way. I'm not saying that's always going to be the case, but it's an egregious enough example in 2 big and important enough blue states that I no longer have the belief that just because someone runs as a Dem and is elected as a Dem.

As we've seen, a lot of damage can be done at the state level and also a lot of successes and rights that are at risk depend on the state level.

[Blue_true]

13. You just keep ignoring a key point that was made several times.

Rarely have I seen the DCCC or it's Senate counterpart intervene in a primary unless that was a compelling reason outside of political ideology. You keep putting up a straw man argument that is false on it's face. The DCCC is not trying to tip the balance against liberal candidates, it is trying to get a democrat elected in November, if the most liberal candidate looked to be the best choice by far and a more moderate or conservative candidate was putting gaining the seat in jeopardy, you better believe that the DCCC would help the liberal - as a matter of fact, it happens ALL the time in bright blue districts because often the primary challenger is a more rightist candidate who is wrong for the district.

[MineralMan]

6. Actually, no. It will, instead, give us a look at what Democrats in that district

think, and who they want as their candidate. So it is every district.

We will see what happens.

It's not going to be a pivotal moment for national Democrats at all. It's just another local primary election.

[Blue_true]

14. I agree with your sentiment.

Like Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local. Seems some people forget that wise observation.

[Bucky]

15. Winning the 7th is the longest of long shots. That's red country

The last thing we need is a boring candidate. We need a barn burning, pulpit thumping, fire breathing liberal to stir up as many votes as possible out there west of Houston. We will probably lose that district anyway, but we could use the turbo charge to the state-wide ballots