DCCC moving senior staff to Orange County, CA

[Gass3268]

Democrats moving senior staffers to Orange County in an effort to flip Republican House seats

[Hindsight was 2020]

Makes sense just like Obama lead to rural areas purging dems, Trump could be leading to suburban areas purging reps

[Chief Justice Keef]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

[GlobeSoc]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

[BuckeyeNut]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

[Figueira]

This is probably a good idea because SoCal has a high concentration of swing districts per square mile, but I hope this isn't part of a general strategy of focusing on the suburbs at the expense of everyone else.

[KingSweden]

The Dems are sending DNC stiffs to work the cities, while the Sanders wing is being sent to rural areas and red states. Probably works out better that way...nobody in Nebraska or Kansas wants to be seen with  Pelosi or Schumer

If this is the actual approach I'm all for it. Considering this is the DCCC we're talking about I doubt this level of thinking is invoked

[Tartarus Sauce]

Makes sense, Donnie T. makes traditionally Republican House districts like the Orange County crew highly susceptible to being ousted by the tectonic shifts occurring in the broader political landscape. Granted, it's helped tremendously by decades long demographic shifts as well, but it wasn't just minorities that flipped Orange County in 2016, the White vote swung more Democratic as well.

[Chinggis]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

That's exactly what it is, and we all know it. They have more money to give you, and great parties, and way nicer houses than those racist hicks in Appalachia or those problematic steelworkers in Ohio. Goldman Sachs wears the mask of social justice in the Democratic Party.

[heatcharger]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

That's exactly what it is, and we all know it. They have more money to give you, and great parties, and way nicer houses than those racist hicks in Appalachia or those problematic steelworkers in Ohio. Goldman Sachs wears the mask of social justice in the Democratic Party.

Or, none of those seats in Appalachia or in the WCW Midwest are particularly competitive at all, while in suburban California, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Virginia there are vulnerable Republicans in Clinton districts who can be defeated.

Smart move.

[DrScholl]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

That's exactly what it is, and we all know it. They have more money to give you, and great parties, and way nicer houses than those racist hicks in Appalachia or those problematic steelworkers in Ohio. Goldman Sachs wears the mask of social justice in the Democratic Party.

You target the seats that are competitive. It's a waste of time to target seats that are never going to flip.

[Devout Centrist]

California is bursting with competitive seats, this is a solid decision.

[Chinggis]

Or, none of those seats in Appalachia or in the WCW Midwest are particularly competitive at all, while in suburban California, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Virginia there are vulnerable Republicans in Clinton districts who can be defeated.

Smart move.

You target the seats that are competitive. It's a waste of time to target seats that are never going to flip.

Tactically, it's a smart move. Strategically, it's a troubling sign to those of us who want a party of the left.

[DrScholl]

Or, none of those seats in Appalachia or in the WCW Midwest are particularly competitive at all, while in suburban California, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Virginia there are vulnerable Republicans in Clinton districts who can be defeated.

Smart move.

You target the seats that are competitive. It's a waste of time to target seats that are never going to flip.

Tactically, it's a smart move. Strategically, it's a troubling sign to those of us who want a party of the left.

Appalachia is hardly a left wing region, so to win there would require going to the right.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Or, none of those seats in Appalachia or in the WCW Midwest are particularly competitive at all, while in suburban California, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Virginia there are vulnerable Republicans in Clinton districts who can be defeated.

Smart move.

You target the seats that are competitive. It's a waste of time to target seats that are never going to flip.

Tactically, it's a smart move. Strategically, it's a troubling sign to those of us who want a party of the left.

Appalachia is hardly a left wing region, so to win there would require going to the right.

Seriously it's like some of these Bernie guys see Bernie have those town halls on MSNBC in WV getting cheers for single payer an think Appalachia, Kentucky, etc... are these socialists safe heavens that the "out of touch DNC establishments" just don't understand which is a horrible misreading of the ground situation

[rob in cal]

  California for the GOP might gradually be turning into what Scotland is for the Tories, a political death zone in terms of congressional/parliamentary seats.

[Mr. Morden]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

The question of what kind of party the Democratic Party should be is above the DCCC's pay grade.  That's decided by both individual candidates and the leadership in Congress, not the DCCC.  The DCCC just moves the resources to whichever seats they think are most likely to flip, regardless of what the demographics of those districts are.

[Ebsy]

3 or 4 of the seats in Southern California are serious low hanging fruit. It would be political malpractice to not attempt to knock off these incumbents, who are terribly out of step with their constituents.

[Virginiá]

What kind of districts the party wants to win isn't really up to them - at least not on a level like this. I'd like to think it is like turning a large cargo ship around. It takes many years - decades even, and the kind of presidents the party puts forth has a lot to do with shaping long-term prospects. If Democrats want to take back some WWC districts, find presidential candidates who have a strong appeal to them.

Also, it's worth noting that some studies (and I think the 2016 election as well) have shown that voters tend to adopt many positions of presidents they like, so for instance Democratic voters will adopt (or tolerate) positions their party's candidate takes up if they win the White House, or even in Bernie's case, if they just run and get enough attention.

[McGovernForPrez]

What kind of districts the party wants to win isn't really up to him - at least not on a level like this. I'd like to think it is like turning a large cargo ship around. It takes many years - decades even, and the kind of presidents the party puts forth has a lot to do with shaping long-term prospects. If Democrats want to take back some WWC districts, find presidential candidates who have a strong appeal to them.

Also, it's worth noting that some studies (and I think the 2016 election as well) have shown that voters tend to adopt many positions of presidents they like, so for instance Democratic voters will adopt (or tolerate) positions their party's candidate takes up if they win the White House.

Yeah it's interesting. Single-payer was hardly on the political radar until Bernie came out in support of it during the primaries.

[Chief Justice Keef]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

That's exactly what it is, and we all know it. They have more money to give you, and great parties, and way nicer houses than those racist hicks in Appalachia or those problematic steelworkers in Ohio. Goldman Sachs wears the mask of social justice in the Democratic Party.

Or, none of those seats in Appalachia or in the WCW Midwest are particularly competitive at all, while in suburban California, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Virginia there are vulnerable Republicans in Clinton districts who can be defeated.

Smart move.

Plenty of them are. There's plenty of districts in the Midwest and Appalachia that I could see flipping if Democrats put just as much attention as they do these suburban districts.

[Ebsy]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

That's exactly what it is, and we all know it. They have more money to give you, and great parties, and way nicer houses than those racist hicks in Appalachia or those problematic steelworkers in Ohio. Goldman Sachs wears the mask of social justice in the Democratic Party.

Or, none of those seats in Appalachia or in the WCW Midwest are particularly competitive at all, while in suburban California, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Virginia there are vulnerable Republicans in Clinton districts who can be defeated.

Smart move.

Plenty of them are. There's plenty of districts in the Midwest and Appalachia that I could see flipping if Democrats put just as much attention as they do these suburban districts.

Such as?

[heatcharger]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

That's exactly what it is, and we all know it. They have more money to give you, and great parties, and way nicer houses than those racist hicks in Appalachia or those problematic steelworkers in Ohio. Goldman Sachs wears the mask of social justice in the Democratic Party.

Or, none of those seats in Appalachia or in the WCW Midwest are particularly competitive at all, while in suburban California, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Virginia there are vulnerable Republicans in Clinton districts who can be defeated.

Smart move.

Plenty of them are. There's plenty of districts in the Midwest and Appalachia that I could see flipping if Democrats put just as much attention as they do these suburban districts.

Plenty of them? Find me 24 districts that Trump carried in the Midwest and Appalachia that are remotely competitive that could be flipped in 2018, then we'll talk.

[Figueira]

I can obviously understand why they'd go after these California districts (Hillary won them in 2016, more at-risk incumbents), but I hope this isn't Dem leadership trying to change their main base of support to upper-class moderates when a more populist party could flip more seats than the former strategy. Not only that but it's just bad politically, it means Dems might shift further to right.

That's exactly what it is, and we all know it. They have more money to give you, and great parties, and way nicer houses than those racist hicks in Appalachia or those problematic steelworkers in Ohio. Goldman Sachs wears the mask of social justice in the Democratic Party.

Or, none of those seats in Appalachia or in the WCW Midwest are particularly competitive at all, while in suburban California, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Virginia there are vulnerable Republicans in Clinton districts who can be defeated.

Smart move.

Plenty of them are. There's plenty of districts in the Midwest and Appalachia that I could see flipping if Democrats put just as much attention as they do these suburban districts.

Plenty of them? Find me 24 districts that Trump carried in the Midwest and Appalachia that are remotely competitive that could be flipped in 2018, then we'll talk.

Who said we had to choose one or the other? We have to target both suburban and rural districts.

[Virginiá]

Also worth noting is that by the beginning of 2018, a bunch of expanded voting services in California will finally be active. Automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration and pre-registration for 16 & 17 year olds. A dozen or so counties may also be setting up pilot programs for all-mail/Colorado-style voting, where the county has a number of "vote centers" where people can go to drop off ballots, vote in-person, register same day, etc, and everyone will get a ballot in the mail in case they want to mail it in. Orange County is part of this, though I think it's optional for right now, so it's not guaranteed they will do it.

Combined with increased interest from Democrats & work from activists, the bump in voter turnout from these new laws could have a decent effect in some of these districts based around Orange County. I wouldn't be surprised if California surges ahead of a bunch of states in terms of turnout.