I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
Rahm Emanuel may've been an awful, third-way corporatist with no understanding of why a 50 state strategy is so vital, but the man was also a pretty dam* competent DCCC chair (much as I hate to admit it) who understood that data metrics weren't the only factor that should be considered when deciding where to compete. I'd have preferred to see Lujan replaced with someone who excelled in the two areas where Emanuel made his greatest contribution to Democratic efforts to take back the House in 2006: candidate recruitment and being ruthlessly aggressive about seizing every opportunity to expand the playing field. Overall, House Democrats have had absolutely awful candidate recruitment. It is embarrassing that Jay Sidie (KS-3), LuAnn Bennett (VA-10 where a strong candidate clearly would've won in 2016), Mike Parrish (PA-6), Shaun Brown (VA-2), Michael Wager (OH-14), Michael Eggman (CA-10 where once again, a solid recruit clearly would've won in 2016), Emilio Huerta (CA-21), Scott Fuhrman (FL-27), Joe Garcia (FL-26 although Annette Taddeo wasn't a strong candidate either), etc, etc, etc were the folks we ended up nominating in their respective districts.
And then you have folks who were either obviously a terrible fit for their districts (ex: Emily Cain) or blew winnable races by running horrible campaigns (ex: Monica Vernon). The DCCC has also constantly knee-capped their efforts to retake the house by ignoring opportunities to compete in Republican leaning districts and even moderate/Democratic-leaning seats with popular/entrenched incumbents. Democrats won't win back the House unless they can put a massive number of seats on the board. Recruiting top-tier candidates such a small number of districts that the Democrats need to essentially run the board to have a shot at a narrow majority is a surefire way to keep the House in Republican hands.
I agree completely. Plus, running retreads doesn't often work; Doug Owens in UT-04 can tell you that.
