Blunt as always, Rocha announced this week, “I’m not running for DNC chairman because, after meeting with former chairmen (to discuss what the primary focus of the committee’s work). I have no interest in being a full-time fundraiser for the party. I’m still committed to fixing and rebuild our party, but I’ll do it without being the chai…
Blunt as always, Rocha announced this week, “I’m not running for DNC chairman because, after meeting with former chairmen (to discuss what the primary focus of the committee’s work). I have no interest in being a full-time fundraiser for the party. I’m still committed to fixing and rebuild our party, but I’ll do it without being the chairman.”
That was a pointed, and entirely appropriate observation regarding the DNC, which many critics have argued spends inordinate amounts of time chasing after big money and far too little time building a party that appeals to working-class voters.
True, and I don't agree with those who say that money raised in any way other than "pass the hat and put in $27" (or whatever small amount) is "dirty". So long as we have Citizens United and the unlikelihood of Congress passing any comprehensive reform, we have to play on the field that's been set and can't disarm.
But Rocha is right in that there's probably been too much emphasis on that. While it's not the job of the DNC to dictate policy or handpick candidates, it needs to do more than just send fundraising solicitations whose frequency and tone can sometimes end up doing more harm than good--note the frequent complaining on here and elsewhere about endless "we're DOOMED unless you send us $50!!" e-mails and texts (in fairness, not all of those are the DNC's doing.)
Some need to drink from the poisoned chalice until fundamental reform of campaign finance happens, if it ever does, is largely inarguable. It's not disqualifying to be rich, to self fund, or to accept large sums from rich donors. However, that doesn't mean no implications can be drawn from who funds candidates or what funds they solicit/accept.
Money is important, but there's also a question of where the diminishing returns are. Harris, Biden, and Clinton all either lost narrowly or won narrowly against an opponent they outspent ~3:1, even accounting for outside spending. Brown and Tester had giant gobs of money.
We absolutely, 100% need to be good at fundraising and it really matters. But there's room for fair critique that there is an outsized focus on fundraising and that there are scenarios where we maybe raise 10-20% less but do better overall because of smarter strategies and interacting with the party's base on a more meaningful level than as ATMs.
"interacting with the party's base on a more meaningful level than as ATMs." Treat me as a citizen and a party member and a fellow human, not as a mark to be conned out of money and into the voting booth.
Blunt as always, Rocha announced this week, “I’m not running for DNC chairman because, after meeting with former chairmen (to discuss what the primary focus of the committee’s work). I have no interest in being a full-time fundraiser for the party. I’m still committed to fixing and rebuild our party, but I’ll do it without being the chairman.”
That was a pointed, and entirely appropriate observation regarding the DNC, which many critics have argued spends inordinate amounts of time chasing after big money and far too little time building a party that appeals to working-class voters.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/chuck-rocha-dnc-chair/
At least he's staying active in the party. In addition to his organizational skills, he's saying stuff that needs to be heard.
In fairness we don't have billionaires at our disposal to spend 100s of millions so yes fundraising is important.
True, and I don't agree with those who say that money raised in any way other than "pass the hat and put in $27" (or whatever small amount) is "dirty". So long as we have Citizens United and the unlikelihood of Congress passing any comprehensive reform, we have to play on the field that's been set and can't disarm.
But Rocha is right in that there's probably been too much emphasis on that. While it's not the job of the DNC to dictate policy or handpick candidates, it needs to do more than just send fundraising solicitations whose frequency and tone can sometimes end up doing more harm than good--note the frequent complaining on here and elsewhere about endless "we're DOOMED unless you send us $50!!" e-mails and texts (in fairness, not all of those are the DNC's doing.)
Some need to drink from the poisoned chalice until fundamental reform of campaign finance happens, if it ever does, is largely inarguable. It's not disqualifying to be rich, to self fund, or to accept large sums from rich donors. However, that doesn't mean no implications can be drawn from who funds candidates or what funds they solicit/accept.
Money is important, but there's also a question of where the diminishing returns are. Harris, Biden, and Clinton all either lost narrowly or won narrowly against an opponent they outspent ~3:1, even accounting for outside spending. Brown and Tester had giant gobs of money.
We absolutely, 100% need to be good at fundraising and it really matters. But there's room for fair critique that there is an outsized focus on fundraising and that there are scenarios where we maybe raise 10-20% less but do better overall because of smarter strategies and interacting with the party's base on a more meaningful level than as ATMs.
"interacting with the party's base on a more meaningful level than as ATMs." Treat me as a citizen and a party member and a fellow human, not as a mark to be conned out of money and into the voting booth.
At least that's an admission that the DNC is not a dark cabal. Good for him to finally acknowledge that.
What color IS the cabal?
It would have to exist first. And this is no place for ontological debates over fictional entities.