The RNC quickly published a report. What's the DNC's excuse?
Another special election has come and we are left with another “close but no cigar”. And not just in GA-06, but in nearby SC-05 which was actually narrower. It may have been better for Democrats to have lost these elections, and other recent ones in Montana and Kansas, by a wider margin. At least then, it may have finally prompted the DNC to figure out what the hell went wrong.
After the Republicans lost big in the 2012 elections, they immediately produced a "post-mortem" or "autopsy" report afterwards, in an attempt to identify what Republicans were doing wrong. Now, it must be admitted that (1) no Republicans actually took any of the advice in the autopsy, but also (2) it didn't really matter, because they continued to win anyway. Even so, the Democrats have not had a similar self-examination after the 2016 disaster. First the party had to choose a new leader, but it's been months since Tom Perez got elected chair of the Democratic National Committee, and still we have had no real attempt to bridge the differences which still fester in the party between the supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. If there is no attempt even made to reunify the party behind an agenda that appeals to both sides of this schism, then Democrats may enter the 2018 cycle in a pretty disorganized fashion -- which could hurt their chances. So if an Ossoff loss prompts a rededication to strong party principles, it could eventually wind up doing some good for the party overall.
In a perverse way, Trump followed the advice of what not to do from the RNC report. The report advised candidates to reach out to minorities and tamp down the culture wars. Many articles since the election write how he won by ramping up disaffected whites and claiming he can restore their values. The DNC has done autopsy reports. After 2014 midterm loss, the DNC publically made available such a report. A DNC 2016 autopsy could show if Democrats followed their own (2014) advice, how well it did(n’t) work, and another angle on how Trump won.
Yes, Democrats were able to move the needle quite a bit in many of the recent special elections. But a loss is still a loss, and it may just reinforce us to stay the course.
If the loss is maddeningly close, it will likely not prompt any grand overall self-examination by the Democratic Party, though. A few percentage points can be explained away by any number of reasons (valid or not), which won't spur much in the way of critical analysis of the party's platform or the candidate selection process.
Least Rep. Moulton (MA-06) is questioning the current path.
What is that path? I don’t know. There’s rumors of an autopsy done by the DCCC, but the contents are being kept private.
[M]embers were not allowed to have copies of the report and may view it only under the watchful eyes of DCCC staff.
The presentation didn't focus on Democratic messaging and instead was heavily skewed towards money -- how much the DCCC brings in, from where and how those funds are spent.
Some Democratic lawmakers and staffers complained that the cloak-and-dagger secrecy was overblown and actually makes the findings look worse than they are. But the DCCC is sticking by its strategy.
Though a DCCC spokeswoman said the contents of the report were ”for internal purposes, not public consumption”, parts that came out had helpful bits such as: how to modernize its data collection, overhaul its media operation, and it criticized the organization for the lack of diversity in consultants whom the DCCC employs. Oh, and that some fundraisers think our “rhetoric is problematic” and that they “don’t like Warren’s messaging.”
The party held meetings with donors such as Goldman Sachs and General Electric and carefully compiled their concerns, even when they whined about core progressive goals. It’s an awesome example of how money greases the wheels of Washington, D.C.
...
SIFMA was not quite yet ready to give money to the DCCC “in large part due to messaging,” but offered to do “literacy events” with House Democrats. Indeed, campaign disclosures show that SIFMA’s political action committee donated to the committee supporting House Republicans this year, but not the DCCC. In the 2014 election cycle, they gave $30,000 to the DCCC.
General Electric was far more supportive than the banks, offering tips on tactics, campaign technology, and strategy around electing more Southern and pro-business Democrats. But the notes make clear that GE’s donations to the party would be influenced by lawmakers’ votes.
Is the answer becoming more receptive to corporate needs? What if we had Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, or Mark Cuban as the party’s nominee? Maybe there is success in following the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn. Maybe a party stalwart like Biden could work, or in the new promising face of Sen. Harris is the ticket.
I don’t know. I don’ t know if more outreach to the “blue fire-wall” would have shored it up. I don’t know how many Bernie supporters lost interest after the primary. I don’t know which ads worked, or what medium was more effective to influence a voter.
Instead of being guided by my best guess, others here, pundits on any show, assumptions of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or DNC Chair Tom Perez, the Party should harness some of the scientific and technological expertise available to it to figure out why so many "close, but no cigar" losses.
