The DSCC Needs a New Strategy

State Sen. Jeff Jackson (D-NC)

The Democrats taking the Senate a few weeks ago was, let's be real here, a surprise.  The Democrats were expected to take the Senate in 2020, but they weren't expected to do so through Georgia, and certainly not through both Georgia seats.  Most assumed that the easiest path for the Democrats was through Colorado & Arizona (which they were successful in winning), and through Maine & North Carolina (which they both lost).  The Democrats also had myriad contenders making huge piles of money in Kansas, Montana, South Carolina, Alaska, Kentucky, & Iowa that ultimately went nowhere-only Iowa of those states was remotely close (and it wasn't all that close).

As we head into 2022, like it always does Senate recruitment will be the focus of the first six months of the cycle.  Already, State Sen. Jeff Jackson in North Carolina has proclaimed his intention to run, and a Lt. Gov. John Fetterman has formed an exploratory committee; both raised hundreds of thousands of dollars within days of announcing their runs.  This is huge, and both men are in arguably the best two chances the Democrats have of picking up a seat in 2022.  I've talked about this before, but the Democrats cannot afford to let 2022 get away from them in the same way they let President Obama's midterms become huge losses.  2022 features two states that President Biden won (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin), two states he barely lost (Florida, North Carolina), and four incumbent Democratic senators in marginal states (Nevada, New Hampshire, Georgia, Arizona).  While the open seat in Ohio is also worth considering (that at least has the potential to be a "Georgia 2021" under the right guise), these are probably the 8-9 seats that will makeup the fight for the majority in 2022 (barring a surprise opening or retirement), and just one net loss would give up the Senate for the Democrats.  More critically, with a difficult map in 2024 for the Senate Democrats, any net gains they can make this cycle will provide insurance against probable losses three years from now when blue incumbents in Ohio, West Virginia, & Montana next face voters.

But one of the crucial components in their race is going to be a conversation about the DSCC, which is the Senate campaign fundraising arm (who just picked their new Chairman, Sen. Gary Peters).  Of the four major congressional campaign committees, the DSCC is the only one that still wades into competitive, open primaries.  While the DCCC has gotten in, they've shown (with races like Eastman/Ashford in 2018) that they don't have the sway that they once did to manage a primary (and largely they stay out of the races all-together), and the Republicans' success rate is even worse.  But the DSCC regularly endorses, and generally is successful in getting their endorsements through.  In the past decade, only one Democrat (James Mackler in Tennessee in 2020) that has been endorsed by the DSCC has lost their primary, an unbeatable winning streak.  In 2022, with limited resources, historic trends against them (the party in the White House rarely picks up Senate seats), and only a few races that they have to compete in (so even one bad candidate would be a catastrophe), it would make sense for the DSCC to get involved in the five Senate seats that currently look competitive (and don't feature an incumbent).

But I want to ask the question if this is the right decision, because the DSCC's track record in 2020 was downright lousy.  I personally think it was just bad leadership from Chuck Schumer & the DNC that caused them to overplay their hands in South Carolina, Kansas, Alaska, & Kentucky...we were never going to win those seats in a presidential year, and it was a waste of money to try.  But Maine & North Carolina were different-they were races that clearly were winnable given Biden's statewide numbers.  And in both cases, the DSCC overreached-they picked good-on-paper, bad-in-practice candidates.

House Speaker Sara Gideon (D-ME)

It's easy to see this in hindsight, but Sara Gideon was not the best person to try to beat Susan Collins.  Collins' brand of milquetoast moderation has been popular for decades in Maine-the biggest, and most important argument against her was going to be personal.  It was going to be someone who could run lock-step with the Democrats and inspire a passion to beat a long-popular incumbent.  That wasn't Sara Gideon, whose principle appeal seemed to be her ability to raise money & put on a reputable demeanor.  She never, though, was able to try and make the race about Collins herself betraying her state, but instead on linking Collins to Trump & hoping that the Biden voters would make the connection.

That's a midterm strategy-it's not a strategy that works in a presidential race, and certainly not for a Democrat (a party that is more likely to split its ticket).  In a midterm you have no choice but to vote out the president's party, even if you like the incumbents (this is how people like Lincoln Chafee and Kay Hagan lost their Senate seats).  But in a presidential race, you can actually vote out the president-Gideon never made a compelling argument to get rid of Collins, or connect her properly to Mitch McConnell.  Some other factors helped (Collins getting to vote against Amy Coney Barrett, in particular), but the DSCC getting into the race stopped a serious contender from showing that Gideon was kind of an "empty suit" politician who was never going to inspire the masses, and that hurts against a long-time incumbent who the public has historically liked.

North Carolina, though, was worse.  Here, the incumbent was not popular-Thom Tillis has never been well-liked, and doesn't have the personal brand that Collins does.  The DSCC getting into this race didn't stop the primary (State Sen. Erica Smith ran against Cal Cunningham), but it kept serious contenders out of the race, specifically State Sen. Jeff Jackson.  Jackson, in fact, was talked out of running by Chuck Schumer when he said he didn't want to focus his whole campaign around "raising funds."  Cunningham's biggest liability came at the end of the race when his extramarital affair became public.  Voters in the state who were going to buy into Cunningham's brand of bland moderation (because they wanted Tillis out) now had a "lesser of two evils" contest, and the 2-3 points that Cunningham had been outrunning Biden by suddenly turned into smoke.  It's entirely probable that in a competitive primary, Cunningham's relationship would've come out, taking him out of the race.  And it's even likelier that Jackson (handsome, young, and in an idyllic marriage) would've been able to get the funds he needed from the massive small dollar-cash wave that happened in the wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing, but without the baggage of an affair.  It's really easy, in fact, to see a scenario where Jackson was able to hold pretty much all Biden voters (and pickup some anti-Tillis ones) and get this seat in a split-decision top-of-ticket moment...it was basically the path Cunningham was on before the affair broke.  Senate terms are long-Democrats won't be able to correct their Cunningham mistake for another six years, and so the DSCC's decision hurt not just our path to the majority in 2020, but also in 2022 & 2024.

You can argue that the DSCC has gotten us seats that might not have otherwise shown up in the past decade (Maggie Hassan comes most quickly to mind, Heidi Heitkamp in 2012 being another), but while the DSCC's track record in primaries is exemplary, its general election has a lot of red flags.  Fetterman & Jackson might be good candidates, and they might well win the Democrats Senate seats next year.  But I think the time has come for the DSCC to hang back more than they have in past years, and allow competitive primaries to play out (only getting involved if a truly toxic option threatens to derail us in a competitive race).  Because as Gideon & Cunningham proved last year, the DSCC getting involved may well have cost the Democrats the majority they expected...even if they eventually found a majority in the unexpected.