Democrats worried about an expensive primary war for Dianne Feinstein's seat

[Shadows]

California Democratic stalwarts are growing increasingly worried about Kevin de León’s insurgent challenge of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. While de León is praised by allies and activists starved for a liberal firebrand, the Democrats are concerned about a nasty personal feud that exposes deepening rifts and saps resources from their efforts to win Senate and House races across the country. Several expressed that those fears would be further magnified if Tom Steyer, the liberal billionaire donor and environmental activist, enters the race. Not only would his candidacy set the stage for an expensive TV air war, but it could deprive the Democratic Party of tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions if Steyer determines he can’t be both a Senate candidate and his party’s leading donor.

Comments from Politician Consultants & Strategists  -

“Every diversion of even a penny away from that is a travesty,”
“So while they have every right to run, it’s quite a stretch for Democratic challengers to say that taking on a party stalwart like Sen. Feinstein – and likely having to run a nasty, negative campaign against her – will be ‘good for the party.’”

Rep. Ro Khanna, an early supporter of de León, bristled at the idea nobody should take on Feinstein as “the old way of thinking ... This is the 21st century and the era of party bosses is over,” he said. Khanna, D-Fremont, said he considered the pinnacle of Democratic voter engagement to be the presidential election more than eight years ago between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. “That competitive election led to the strongest the Democratic Party has ever been,” Khanna said. “The lesson we should have is when you have inspiring candidates run they bring in new people, they energize new supporters and they strengthen the party.”

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article179634421.html

[Shadows]

The Democrats’ Dianne Feinstein Problem

In 2006, anti-war progressive Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Lieberman promptly started a “Connecticut for Lieberman” party and ran as its nominee in the general election, creating a headache for Democrats: Should they support a colleague, or a challenger who best represents the political moment? Senators including Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer sided with Lieberman during the primary, then endorsed Lamont in the general election; others stuck with the third-party Lieberman throughout. After defeating Lamont by 114,000 votes and earning a post-election standing ovation from the Democratic caucus, Lieberman became a thorn in the side of liberals for the rest of his tenure. Ned Lamont, meet Kevin de León.

De León led the California Senate in a year when practically every political move in the deep-blue state was an act of resistance against Donald Trump. The legislature increased the gas tax to fund infrastructure improvements. They renewed the cap-and-trade system to fight climate change. They made California a sanctuary state, blocking state law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities on deportation. The Senate passed a single-payer health care bill, which the Assembly then shelved. De León isn’t exactly the Bernie Sanders of the West Coast. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016, and his candidacy may stem as much from being termed out of the legislature and not having another seat to fill than any burning desire to oust Feinstein. However, de León has a compelling personal story—the child of a low-income, single, immigrant mother, he’s a former student and labor organizer, and would be the state’s first Latino senator in history.

Feinstein’s political instincts were apparent when she loudly supported the death penalty at the 1990 state party convention, drawing a chorus of boos—which she subsequently used in campaign ads to prove her distance from the liberal base. Perhaps no Democrat in the past two decades has been as committed to expanding the national security state than Feinstein (again, like Lieberman). On domestic policy, she supported the Bush tax cuts, permanent normal trade relations with China, and the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall’s financial reforms. While strong on gun safety, women’s rights and the environment, Feinstein has openly courted the center and rejected the left since coming to Washington. Just this year, she told the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that Donald Trump could mature into a “good president.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/145327/democrats-dianne-feinstein-problem

[Shadows]

Then they shouldn’t waste a single penny on the race. We all know Feinstein is going to win another term and if not, we will still have a democrat seated from California. Use the funds for Arizona, Nevada, and competitive congressional races.

Pretty much this. Not quite as assured of a Feinstein victory, but a Republican won't take this seat. If it does turn out to be Feinstein vs De León, national organizations should waste their money on an assured Dem seat. If the goal is to beat Republicans, there's no sense in fooling around in a 100% assured Dem seat.

I really wish that Feinstein wasn't running. She's a fossil. No butts about it. Sure, she's still pretty coherent (compare to Cochran), but she's way out of synch with California. If she represented Missouri or some place like that, I'd back her 100%. But not in California. We can do better.

Hell, if Feinstein was running, I guarantee that De León wouldn't be the only major Dem officeholder to run, so there could still be the "issue" of two major Dems running in the general. Again, there's no sense in wasting money on that when a close seat like Arizona or Nevada could be targeted instead. Any big groups wasting money on a Feinstein vs De León race should be ashamed of themselves and aren't worth donating to. I can understand CA groups, but national groups should really stay out of it.

The people who will donate to De Leon will likely not donate to a Senate race in AZ or Nevada if you talk about small $ contributions or they will additionally donate if they feel strong enough about the race in AZ or NV. I am somewhat amused by the idea of a 0 Sum fundraising game in which you have a fixed pot of 100$ & you can chose to spend it here or there. The other part which I find baffling is this idea that spending massive money will automatically win you the race. I hoped after Moore beat Jones or after Trump won the GOP Primary or after Hillary spend 1.3 B, close to double that of Trump & still lost, that people would understand that -

1) Money is only 1 out of multiple factors & is not a guarantee for victory, 2) Democratic candidates in key races have more than enough money to compete.

A Senate race is for 6 years. The CA Senator will be till 2024, maybe with a Dem President in 2020. Do you really want Feinstein for another 7 years, till she is 91, when she is totally out of touch from her constituents? A CA Senator should be a leading ally of a Dem President in legislation, not be a Lieberman to an Obama.