Can A DCCC Ever Heal Itself If It Remains In Critical Denial?

Lambert: By Betteridge’s Law, no. Readers who came in late may not appreciate the depths of the internal dysfunction in the Democrat Party. This post on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is a useful corrective.

Originally published at Down with Tyranny.

I never met middle of the road New Mexico congressman and DCCC chairman Ben Ray Luján and, although we’ve been making a commotion here about Pelosi firing him, I bear him no personal animus. What I don’t like is that the Democrats had a reasonable chance to take back a lot of seats in the House, which is Luján’s job. He failed– pretty miserably— so Pelosi should have found someone better to do it in 2018. But that isn’t how she does things. I’ve spoken to nearly a dozen members of Congress who have told me, more or less, that Luján shouldn’t be blamed for screwing up because it was really Steve Israel’s fault since he was in charge of giving Luján on-the-job training and he was pulling the strings. That was also Pelosi’s fault– keeping that hopeless loser around after he had already proven himself unqualified to have anything to do with the effort of winning seats (for Democrats).

At two times I was president of two different record companies. The first was my own, 415 Records, a small independent outfit in San Francisco, and one major label under the Time-Warner corporate umbrella, Reprise Records. Both companies did well… but that doesn’t mean there weren’t problems. There always were– as there are in all businesses. And if things didn’t go well– you know the phrase, “the buck stops here?” That doesn’t mean the buck stopped at the desk of my head of marketing or head of promotion or at the business affairs office or publicity office or international office… or any other office other than the president’s office.

But that, apparently isn’t how they look at this inside the Beltway. So Luján’s back at the helm. But it’s not all as horrible at it usually is. At least Luján is trying to slay the Nemean Lion, slay the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra, capture the Ceryneian Hind, capture the Erymanthian Boar, clean the Augean stables in a single day, slay the Stymphalian Birds, capture the Cretan Bull and, last but not least, steal the Mares of Diomedes. Personnel was a problem– a big one– but the underlying Rahm Emanuel ideology and operating procedures held over by Chris Van Hollen, Steve Israel and, most recently, Luján will prevent the Democrats from ever winning back the House so long as they’re in place. Democratic voters don’t want recycled Republicans, NRA shills, Republican-lite fake Dems, and more crap from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party which is, basically, the only kind of candidates the DCCC believes in.

Luján finally dumped incompetent and much-failed Steve Israel operative Kelly Ward, the executive director. Good first step! Last week Simone Pathé reported for Roll Call that Democratic incumbents have been complaining about DCCC staffers.

Whether or not disgruntled members’ grievances about the DCCC are legitimate, their complaints are indicative of a disconnect between parts of the caucus and the committee.

The griping isn’t directed at New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Luján, whom the caucus elected to a second term as committee chairman Monday night.

“We truly believe he never really headed the DCCC,” Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego said last week. The perception is that Pelosi ran the show, beginning with her appointment of the chairman.

Members generally like Luján and believe that making his slot an elected position is a step toward bringing transparency to a committee that they think needs more of it– even if they’re not quite sure what it is they’re looking for behind the curtain.

Whatever it is, they believe it begins with wresting perceived power away from staff. “Our mission,” Gallego said, is “this is going to be a membership-driven DCCC instead of staff- and consultant-driven.”

…[T]he DCCC fell below expectations publicly set by leadership and came nowhere close to winning the 30 seats needed to take the majority during a presidential year when Democrats should have had the advantage based on turnout.

Midwestern Democrats have blamed the DCCC for abandoning its working-class base. Traditionally, though, crafting a national economic message is the job of Congress or the White House.

Pelosi put Steve Israel in charge of that and he failed dismally, as he failed at everything he’s tried to do in terms of House leadership. Israel’s horribly failed messaging offers nothing for anyone to vote for and that’s why the Democrats failed to gain even close to as many seats they should have. Unfortunately, Luján and Pelosi insist everything and everyone is to blame for the serial failures (except themselves).

In its first post-election discussion with members last month, Luján said that many of their recruits were on a upward trajectory– with Virginia’s LuAnn Bennett tied with Rep. Barbara Comstock, for example– until the release of the letter from FBI Director James B. Comey about potentially reopening an investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails.

But some Democrats say they’ve heard similar excuses after disappointing election results in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

“As long as the storyline is, ‘Our polling was great! Our strategy was perfect. James Comey screwed us,’ then it’s a sign there’s no drive for accountability,” one Democratic consultant said. “Somehow, every cycle when the DCCC falls short, someone else is to blame,” he said.

That perception of failure exists among some members who are taking aim at a campaign committee that they don’t think has been working for them. A member’s opinion and understanding of the DCCC may be influenced by their reliance on the committee to get elected and re-elected.

…“I sat in all the recruitment meetings that were run by Cheri Bustos and Denny Heck, and I thought they did a great job,” said New York Rep. Kathleen Rice, elected in 2014 from a district Obama twice carried by double digits. “But I didn’t know anything about the staffers that were there. Was everything being carried out? We just don’t know.”

Three useless New Dems scratching each other’s backs– Kathleen Rice is a mess and Bustos and Heck are, if anything, even worse. These 3 are the very epitome of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Like Luján, all three of them have F scores from ProgressivePunch. Their lifetime crucial vote ratings:

Denny Heck (WA)- 74.54
Kathleen Rice (NY)- 61.84
Cheri Bustos (IL)- 48.56

No one wants to openly talk about the self-enriching revolving door policy the Democrats tolerate or encourage between consultants and DCCC staffers. But it’s certainly been a major factor in the performance of the DCCC since Rahm started running– and ruining– the committee in 2005.

As eager as they are to give Luján another chance, members are taking their frustrations out on the committee staff– much more so than in cycles past.

“We realize that it’s also unfair to blame him for the direction of the DCCC when systematically that staff of the DCCC, starting from the top, and almost all the way through middle-management, has been nothing but bureaucratic and ineffective for many, many years,” Gallego said last week when answering a question about why he wanted to keep Luján on as DCCC chairman.

“He wasn’t given the time or the power to get rid of them,” the freshman Democrat added.

While Gallego and others suggested the staff was handpicked by Pelosi, that’s hardly the vast majority of bodies sitting in the DCCC’s South Capitol Street office.

“It’s far easier to blame a nameless, faceless, nebulous staff than it is to confront reality,” said a senior Democratic strategist not working with the committee this cycle.

Ryan, who’s had limited interaction with the committee, pointed his finger at the greater web of political consultants who do business for the DCCC and their recruits. “They need to go on a consultant detox,” he said.

“There’s a closed shop,” a Democratic consultant added. “That would be OK if there were a record of success,” he said, but “we’re not winning the close races.”

…The perception remains that a limited class of consultants contributes to a group-think culture, but the committee’s independent expenditure arm did add at least five new consulting firms this year, including Latino and women-led shops.

“There are favorites that get played and that tends to be with the larger firms, or the people staff think they can get a job from,” another Democratic consultant said.

Any consultant who feels he or she isn’t getting enough business could have an incentive to complain. But “the closed shop” concern is bigger than one consultant or even one party.

“It is something we faced,” Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said outside the speaker’s lobby Monday night.

After losing 30 seats in 2006, Cole said the NRCC opened up.

“You put staff in and tell them, ‘I don’t want a select group of people here. We want to throw this open, we want everybody who’s a reasonable consultant to have a legitimate opportunity to compete,’” he said.

Friday, Luján fired more DCCC incompetents– though he didn’t even consider getting some of the garbage members like Bustos and Heck out of the works, even though it was they, not the staffers, who set the policy. He hired Dan Sena, a Ward deputy?, to take her place, and made Aaron Trujillo chief of staff and Meredith Kelly communications director. “More of the same,” is what one congresswoman told me in disgust after the announcement. Ughhh.

Thomas Mills started the respected blog, PoliticsNC and this year he ran for the NC-08 seat held by Richard Hudson. He spent $380,866 to Hudson’s $2,431,160 and received 131,428 votes (41.2%) to Hudson’s 187,909 (58.8%). The DCCC didn’t recognize his race in any way whatsoever. Yesterday he wrote a post for Politico, How The Democratic Party Lost Its Way, which has been called to my attention by nearly a dozen former congressional candidates who have an equally dim view of the DCCC in the Pelosi era. Mills, though, started with a good DCCC experience– in 1998 as the campaign manager for Mike Taylor. By 2016, though, with his own campaign, the DCCC experience was pretty awful, something dozens of Democratic candidates all over the country will tell you. “After the primaries,” he wrote, “I reached out to them. But despite leaving numerous messages on both email and answering machines, I never got any response. When I eventually used my Congressional connections to get an audience, I took my pollster and media consultant to a meeting that lasted all of 15 minutes. We left with little more than a list of reasons why the DCCC wouldn’t be helping our campaign.”

Back in the ’90s when I started out, the DCCC was tasked with contesting as many races as possible and providing staff, training and direction to the campaigns in the field. Today, they’re narrowly focused on a small number of highly targeted races. Other campaigns get little attention or support.

Democrats need to be sharper going into the next election cycle. With a 50-plus seat deficit in the House, the party will have to win more than just the most competitive seats. They’ll probably need a wave in which they figure out how to win some longshot races. That won’t happen unless the party actively recruits good candidates around the country and treats them with respect and encouragement. And it also won’t happen unless the party provides campaigns– especially in the toughest districts– with the training, support and infrastructure to create or take advantage of opportunities.

…Democrats should be thinking broadly instead of narrowly. Successful political organizations are entrepreneurial and opportunistic, especially when they are 60 seats in the minority. But despite the dismal record it’s racked up in recent years, the DCCC has become insular and myopic. Candidates and consultants can’t reach high-ranking staffers. Reaching ranking members is unthinkable. The circle of people influencing the political strategists rarely reaches outside of the beltway, which means the strategists– like so much of Washington– have lost touch with the people whose votes they need to attract. They rely on polling and focus groups to give them an understanding of the challenges facing families today. Those tools would be greatly enhanced if the people using them had regular contact with the people they are trying to reach.

Much of the insularity seems to be rooted in a lack of accountability. For staff, there’s little penalty for failure. They often either get rehired or go to work for consulting firms that have contracts with the DCCC. And the Democratic Congressional leadership comes predominantly from safe districts. Most ranking members haven’t run competitive races in many years, if they’ve run them at all. They don’t understand the skills and experience they need in a caucus staff since they don’t really know what a professional campaign organization looks like and they don’t understand what candidates in competitive districts need to succeed.

The DNC stopped providing its training academy in the late 1990s. Since then, training been contracted out to organizations like Wellstone Action, which has a heavy field emphasis or EMILY’s List, with a fundraising emphasis. We’ve lost the intensive trainings that focused on basic management and strategic skills.

It’s not only the training that’s taken a hit. Despite their 60-seat deficit heading into 2016, the Democrats didn’t appear to do much candidate recruiting except in the most competitive districts. In Texas, Hillary Clinton won in a congressional district where Democrats didn’t even field a challenger. Numbers, not potential, guided the DCCC efforts. Instead of looking for possibilities, or trying to create them, the committee only paid attention to the districts that looked viable on spreadsheets.

The DCCC and other campaign committees ought to retool their campaign operations looking back to the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, they introduced research and polling to campaigns. Now, they should be teaching campaigns how to use social media and online operations to reach voters early and build low-dollar fundraising operations.

Today, Democrats are so far in the hole that they could use the opportunity to try new tactics and strategies to see if they can win in some unlikely places. Longshot and marginal races are not won in the final two months of a campaign. They’re won because candidates put together campaigns that prepare them to take advantage of opportunities throughout the cycle. Social media and online fundraising give candidates the platforms to build profiles and low-dollar fundraising operations, as well as create excitement among their base before the paid media and field campaigns begin.

For Democrats to be successful, they need leaders, both campaign professionals and elected officials, who understand how modern communications and campaigns have changed. They would be wise to reach out to operatives and consultants who live outside the Washington, D.C., bubble to better understand voters. They should get back to their roots: recruit candidates to compete in as many races as possible; create an army of professional operatives across the country to run campaigns cycle after cycle; provide a base level of support for every candidate who files; introduce innovative strategies and tactics and teach campaigns how to use them. They’ll need the leadership to take them there.

And, alas, that’s never going to happen while Nancy Pelosi is the House Democratic Leader. She should give it up and let the party she loves, and has served for so many years, get a new lease on life. This morning I was speaking with a recent candidate who told me he thinks he’s better off with the DCCC not getting involved in his race in any way. “All they can do,” she told me, “is diminish my chances of winning. They don’t seem able to bring anything worthwhile to the table… They’re from a bygone era. It’s pretty sad… As you pointed out in your blog, the best people who won this year, like Pramila and Nanette Barragan, Carol up in New Hampshire, Jamie Raskin all won without any involvement with the DCCC.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Politics on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


  1. allan

    The DCCC: No worse friend, no better enemy.

    The DCCC and DSCC play to listbuild and fundraise; their GOP counterparts play to win. After this disastrous election, only the latest of a string, the only hope for the party and its various organs was a complete turnover in the leadership and the banning of various consulting firms that have proven themselves to be incompetent hacks. The failure to do this (IBGYBG comes to politics) means that we will be a one-party country for the foreseeable future. And that can’t be blamed on Putin.

  2. oho

    The DCCC/DNC are all run like an urban political machine—-straight out of Tammany Hall or the Daley family or the Sopranos.

    ‘“we’re not winning the close races.”’ Democratic neopotism/favoritism towards its campaign managers/service providers at its finest. (by sheer dumb luck, Democrats ought to be winning some of the time.)

    Change ain’t happening until the hoi-polloi grab their pitchforks.

  3. Eureka Springs

    I would feel better about myself if I were vegan working in a meat processing plant than if I were an American citizen working within or even just pretending this ‘party’ could or would ever represent, you know, constituents.

    From the very first day of the last time they had a chance to prove themselves capable of any decency (’06) as a top-down exclusionary anti-democratic organization… Pelosi took the Speakership, Waxman went after baseball rather than a myriad of criminal investigations / charges / convictions the Bush Co’s and many supprting Blue Dogs enabled while Progs did nothing at best. They aren’t THAT clueless, they are working for anyone but the 90 percent of us or the constitution they swore to defend. That’s it and it won’t change for it’s the way the party has always worked and was designed to work. I’ve been reading these post mortems from DWT for over a decade now… all this knowledge and yet abject failure at learning the most basic obvious lessons from it.

    How many cycles will people have to watch Dems play top-down musical chairs for the next 3.8 years with a two week period of authoritarian platform fixing (you know, an issue!) before being told you better vote for anyone but a republican again.

    If any small child told another child this were the kind of game / rules about to be played… the other children would simply kick the board, stomp out or drift away, rightfully so.

    1. dk

      It strikes me that it is for these reasons even more important to become involved with such institutions, to neutralize, co-opt, sabotage, or otherwise alter them from within.

      This is not a children’s game that can be escaped by walking away. Many are trapped, in poverty or otherwise disempowered or coerced. Many are not fully cognizant of their dire circumstance, or the nature of their compromise.

      The globe is full; there is not more frontier where the persecuted and disaffected can escape to unclaimed lands and forge their own destinies. Where will you go to escape the oligarchs destroying our planet?

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        You have to be careful because seemingly good local Democrats are mindless tribals who will make great noises when out of power but will defend the most reich wing Democrat from any criticism. The tribe cannot fail but only be failed. The Democratic Party is just as full of these types as the GOP.

        1. dk

          Yep, “mindless tribals” indeed. And don’t leave out the Greens.

          That’s why grassroots/ground level organization around issues is valuable even beyond the immediate goal(s). Coalitions with concrete goals that benefit all in the community can bring together otherwise disparate groups, like Reps and Dems, cons and libs, straights and gays, men and women, cats and dogs, etc. The tribals refuse to participate when the other tribe is involved in any way, lest their nominal enemy benefit.

          Tribalist Dems in particular hate this kind of local organization, they want to legislate/administer everything top-down from central authority; effective fascism, benevolent or otherwise. I’ve noticed that Marxists don’t like it much either. Not to say that more conservative types are necessarily better; they are more amenable to working with others, but some also attempt to proselytize their ideologies within the group.

          Hazards are everywhere. One learns by trying and failing, and improving subsequent attempts.

          Oh yeah one more thing: local/focussed organization can be a lot cheaper than larger/broader efforts. So one has a better shot at avoiding money that has unnecessary strings attached.

  4. Paul Art

    For those who wonder who ‘New Dems’ are, let us recall their genealogy. In the 1970s a group of Democrats got tired of working for the blue collar working class and unions. They were also tired of being ‘middle class’ and envious of the wealth of their GOP colleagues across the aisle who always rode the most expensive cars, lived in the most expensive enclaves and ate at the most exclusive restaurants in DC. They complained thus: ‘we all come from the same elite Ivy league schools, we are all Lawyers, how come we are poor and they are rich?’ So they hatched a plan to cross the aisle while still riding the Donkey. They camouflaged the Donkey as a wooden horse called ‘New Democrat’, stuck every bumper sticker they could find on gay rights, abortion rights and womens rights on the outside. Inside they built secret chambers and entry and exit ways for Bankers from Wall Street and CEOs. Some people will recall the very special door and elevator marked ‘Robert Rubin’. The New Democrats then rode this horse to marginal victories as many times as they could stealing moderate GOPer votes in Red States. They only wrote legislation coming from the Bankers and CEOs inside the belly of that horse. In every election the horse kept slowing down. Its margin of victory kept reducing causing a hemorrhaging of losers via its rear. The best minds in DC are still diagnosing the trouble with this ‘thoroughbred’. Asked about it’s performance, a Trump voter remarked, ‘If it had run any more slowly in this election, it would have gotten mixed up in the next race!’

    1. RUKidding

      Yes, something like that. Bought into Gordon Gecko’s Greed is good meme in the 1980s, and the rest is history. But don’t forget to combine it with: where else are you lousy rotten disgusting loathsome proles gonna go? Vote for us; we’re the lesser of two evils. We’re all ya got, suckahs!

      Finally in 2016, enough D voters got sick of it and either: a) didn’t bother to vote (why bother? really. why?), b) voted for Trump, or c) voted third party.

      I guess the D Party elites still don’t care bc they’re certainly not making any changes. Guess their benefactors pay them enough, so why bother to even make a pretense of caring about the worthless eaters out there?

  5. NotTimothyGeithner

    Howie Klein doesn’t bring this up for an every day blog post, but if this was a hypothetical book, I imagine he would note the DCCC and DSCC were disasters during the hey day of the Democrats in the last generation.* Didn’t he push for giving directly to candidates for this reason?

    *A country that legalized gay marriage has a nominal center left party that enjoyed legislative power for four of the last 21 years.

  6. flora

    Great post. The DLC neolib leadership is working to prevent change (to its leadership). Aesop said something about ‘dogs in a manger’…

  7. der

    A leopard can’t change its spots. Pelosi in 2007: The antiwar protesters are not only unwelcome because they expose her hypocritical pretense to opposing the Iraq bloodbath—they are dirty, ragged and disreputable, and irritate the neighbors.

    Pelosi’s remark—imagine that riffraff “sleeping on my sidewalk”—(is) reveals the enormous social distance between the masses of working people, housewives, students who oppose the war, and the privileged ruling elite. And her disparaging reference to the First Amendment demonstrates the hostility of a big business politician towards the democratic rights of the working class.

    In elaborating on this comment, Pelosi tried to backtrack from her spontaneous display of her real attitude towards antiwar activists. “They are advocates,” she said. “We are leaders.”

    And “leaders,” of course, have to be practical. “We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow,” Pelosi continued.

    …“I think it is a waste of time for them to go after Democratic members,” Pelosi argued.

    “Change We Can Believe In” published in 2008: The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is a defining moment in American history. After years of failed policies and failed politics from Washington, this is our chance to reclaim the American dream. Barack Obama has proven to be a new kind of leader–one who can bring people together, be honest about the challenges we face, and move this nation forward. Change We Can Believe In outlines his vision for America.

    Leaders not advocates.

  8. TarheelDem

    No. The donkey is dead. Steny Hoyer is celebrating his freedom to get lobbyist cash.

    There is celebration, not grief. No denial at all. Backslapping congratulations on a win.

    Get ready for the next Rinse, Recycle, Repeat fundraising appeal.

    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      Carter started this. He betrayed unions by ignoring his promise to push for a repeal of Taft-Hartley and destroyed the truckers unions.

    2. dk

      The Clintons also changed/broadened the fundraising model to channel more national money into smaller races. Essentially copying the Rep model already in place at the time. Things can deteriorate abruptly when a local representative feels they owe some “minor” concessions to outside interests. The Pavlovian model of politics, if you will.

      Then change the focus from issues to identities, to arrive at the present day scenario.

  9. Pavel

    I just listened to a podcast with Politico’s Glenn Thrush interviewing David Brock re the Clinton fiasco. I must say, despite it apparently being TEETWAWKI according to the Dems, they were certainly having a jolly time in the interview.

    Anyway, and perhaps astoundingly:

    * Brock says the main reason for HRC’s loss is the “media coverage” — nothing to do with the candidate!
    * Brock says HRC’s main problem with the email scandal is “she listened to her advisors”
    * Brock claims he spoke with WJC but never thought to bring up the “Foundation issue”

    With advisors like these, who coulda thunk Hillary would lose?

    The podcast can be downloaded here:

    Separately, Brock stated that he had a for-profit political lobbying group as well as a non-profit one working for the Democrats. Who could have imagined that!

  10. edward

    The DEMS have gone all in with the illegals and the welfare state, they have no longer any interest in the shrinking white middle class…it is a great strategy, except Trump has gotten in the way.

    1. cnchal

      From yesterday’s post by Bill Black about the NYT article, an excerpt from that article.

      Many Democrats, especially those from the party’s more liberal wing, see significant reasons for optimism about their political prospects in the medium and long terms. Though Mr. Trump prevailed in the Electoral College, he did so thanks to the slimmest of margins in three states — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and he lost the popular vote nationally by nearly three million votes.

      With the country growing more urban and racially diverse, Democrats like their chances in the 2020 presidential race, when nonwhite voters are likely to make up more than 30 percent of the electorate for the first time in history. Even in Mrs. Clinton’s defeat, the country’s changing hue helped her come closer than any Democrat in decades to flipping Arizona and Georgia, two traditional Republican bastions.

      It seems the Democrats are the victims of terrible timing. If only the avalanche of disasters befalling the rust belt whites had been greater and earlier, there would have been fewer white voters to mess up Hillary’s odds of winning.

      These two paragraphs bring into sharp focus the use of racism as a “tool” to win power. Notice how Democrats assume that all non white voters would automatically fall in line and vote for them, although there is no logical reason for it.

      The contempt for the peasants in it’s glory, no matter what color you are.

Comments are closed.