Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats had a really good night on Tuesday, easily claiming the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, flipping control of the Washington state Senate and possibly also the Virginia House of Delegates, passing a ballot measure in Maine that will expand Medicaid in the state, winning a variety of mayoral elections around the country, and gaining control of key county executive seats in suburban New York.

They also got pretty much exactly the results youd expect when opposing a Republican president with a 38 percent approval rating.

Thats not to downplay Democrats accomplishments. Democrats results were consistent enough, and their margins were large enough, that Tuesdays elections had a wave-like feel. That includes how they performed in Virginia, where Ralph Northam won by considerably more than polls projected. When almost all the toss-up races go a certain way, and when the party winning those toss-up races also accomplishes certain things that were thought to be extreme long shots (such as possibly winning the Virginia House of Delegates), its almost certainly a reflection of the national environment.

But we didnt need Tuesday night to prove that the national environment was good for Democrats; there was plenty of evidence for it already. In no particular order of importance:

So while Northams 9-point margin of victory was a surprise based on the polls, which had projected him to win by roughly 3 points instead, it was right in line with what you might expect based on these fundamental factors. For instance, a simple model we developed based on the generic ballot and state partisanship forecasted a 9-point win for Democrats in Virginia and a 13-point win in New Jersey, pretty much matching their actual results in each state.

To put it another way, Tuesdays results shouldnt have exceeded your expectations for Democrats by all that much because you should have had high expectations already. Midterm elections and usually also off-year and special elections almost always go well for the opposition party, and theyre going to go especially well when the president has a sub-40 approval rating.

So, does that mean that Democrats are clear favorites to pick up the House next year? No, not necessarily. Id say theyre favorites, but not particularly heavy ones. Democrats face one major disadvantage, and they have one major source of uncertainty.

The uncertainty is time: Theres still a year to go until the midterms. This could cut either way, of course. The political environment often deteriorates for the presidents party during his second year in office, and one can imagine a variety of factors (from attempting to pass an unpopular tax plan to ongoing bombshells in the Russia investigation) that could further worsen conditions for Republicans. One can also imagine a variety of factors that would help the GOP: Democrats overplaying their hand on impeachment; a rally-around-the-flag effect after a war or terror attack; Trump quitting Twitter. (OK, probably not that last one.) That Trump is so unpopular so soon in his term makes all of this harder to predict because there arent any good precedents for a president with such a poor approval rating so early on.

Democrats also face a big disadvantage in the way their voters are distributed across congressional districts, as a result of both gerrymandering and geographic self-sorting. Although these calculations can vary based on the incumbency advantage and other factors, my back-of-the-envelope math suggests that Democrats would only be about even-money to claim the House even if they won the popular vote for the House by 7 percentage points next year. The Republican ship is built to take on a lot of water, although it would almost certainly capsize if the Democratic advantage in the House popular vote stretched into the double digits, as it stands now in some congressional preference polls.

Nonetheless, my sense is that the conventional wisdom has, to this point, somewhat underrated the Democrats chances of having a wave election next year. And its for some fairly stupid (although understandable) reasons.

One is in the tendency to fight the last war. Journalists and pundits are always chastened by the lessons of the most recent election, especially if the outcome was surprising to them. And they usually like to argue that the results represented a realignment or a paradigm shift, rather than as is more often the case a fluctuation that came about from a combination of cyclical and circumstantial factors that may not replicate themselves. So theyre often slow to recognize signs that the political climate is shifting in the opposite direction from the supposed realignment, even when theyre really obvious. (Like, say, a Republican winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts only a year after the Democratic president took office.)

Second, the pundit class has a poor understanding of polling, and how it performed in 2016 and its making 2018 punditry worse. As I wrote in our live blog on Tuesday night:

[Its] been interesting to see how television pundits adapt to the post-2016 environment. Pretty much everyone on Monday mornings Morning Joe panel predicted that Gillespie would win in Virginia despite Northams modest lead in the polls, for instance

[The] segment was a bit worrisome in that it suggests that political pundits and reporters learned the wrong lessons from 2016. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the polls werent that far off last year they were about as accurate as theyd been in past elections. But they were filtered thru a lens of groupthink that was convinced Trump couldnt possibly win and so pundits routinely misinterpreted polls and ignored data showing a competitive race.

Its healthy to take away the lesson from 2016 that polls are not always right But that polls arent always right doesnt mean that ones gut instinct is a better way to forecast elections. On the contrary, the conventional wisdom has usually been much wronger than the polls, so much so that its given rise to what Ive called the First Rule of Polling Errors, which is that polls almost always miss in the opposite direction of what pundits expect. That the Morning Joe panel thinks Gillespie will win might be a bullish indicator for Northam, in other words.

If you think numbers like Trumps 37.6 percent approval rating are fake news because polls perpetually underrated Trump before, then the political climate doesnt look quite as scary for the GOP. However, one needs to be careful about assuming the polling error always runs in the same direction; historically, its been just as likely to reverse itself from one election to the next. (For instance, polls lowballed Democrats in 2012 but then did the same to Republicans in 2014.)

Finally, theres perhaps an unhealthy obsession with the white working-class vote, and its potential to sway the 2018 midterms in favor of Republicans. This could be more of a concern for Democrats in 2020. But the midterm electorate is typically more educated and better off financially than the presidential-year one. Also, most of the pickup opportunities that analysts envision for Democrats are in wealthy or at least middle-class areas. On average, the 61 Republican-held Congressional districts that the Cook Political Report rates as competitive rank in the 65th percentile in educational attainment (as measured by the share of adults with at least a bachelors degree) and also the 65th percentile in median household income. Some of them are fairly white, and some arent but almost none are both white and working-class.

Demographic ranking for the 61 Republican-held Congressional districts that the Cook Political Report rates as competitive

Sources: COOK POLITICAL REPORT, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

Of course, this logic is somewhat circular: if Democrats arent trying to compete for the white working-class vote, outlets like Cook wont list white working-class districts as being competitive. Its possible there are some overlooked opportunities, such as in South Carolinas 5th Congressional District, which Democrats came surprisingly close to winning in a special election earlier this year.

Nonetheless, Democrats have quite a few pathways toward winning the House that rely primarily on middle-class and upper-middle-class suburban districts, plus a few districts with growing nonwhite populations. Many of these are in coastal states or in blue states, including four of them in Virginia, four in New Jersey, four in Illinois, five in New York and eight in California, according to Cooks list. It might not be advisable for Democrats to only target these sorts of districts; history suggests that parties usually benefit from competing ambitiously in all sorts of districts and seeing where the chips fall. But its plausible for them to do so and reclaim the House. Come 2020, though, it will be harder for Democrats to win back the Electoral College without rebounding among the white working class.

Last thing: while Tuesdays results may not change the reality of the 2018 outlook all that much, it could change perceptions about it, and that could have some knock-on effects. (Politicians are often like Morning Joe panelists in how they think about elections.) Republicans retirement issues may get even worse; Democrats recruiting may get even better. Republicans might think twice about how theyre proceeding on tax reform especially given that their current plans could have negative effects on just the sorts of wealthy coastal suburbs where Republicans performed poorly on Tuesday.

And there will be lots of recriminations about the race that Ed Gillespie ran in Virginia, which could change Republicans thinking on how they should relate to Trump. Some of this is going to be silly: Gillespie did no worse (and no better) than youd expect given Trumps approval rating and Virginias blue lean. But if those politicians think Tuesday was a huge game-changing deal, they may begin to act like it and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Read more:
The Fundamentals Favor Democrats In 2018 | FiveThirtyEight

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio speaks during his election night victory gathering on Tuesday. Julie Jacobson/AP hide caption

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio speaks during his election night victory gathering on Tuesday.

Updated at 6:50 a.m. ET

It was a good night for Democrats in some of the nation's largest cities.

New York's Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio, a forceful critic of President Trump, easily won a second term. And Democrats also won several major cities and closely watched races, including those in Boston, Charlotte, N.C., and Seattle.

With all of the precincts counted, de Blasio had 66 percent of the vote to 28 percent for his main rival, Republican Nicole Malliotakis.

"It's a good night for progressives," de Blasio said at a victory party, according to The New York Times. "For the first time in 32 years, a Democratic mayor was re-elected in New York City. But let's promise each other: This is the beginning of a new era of progressive Democratic leadership in New York City for years and years to come."

Member station WNYC in New York reports: "Republican Staten Island Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis was [de Blasio's] top challenger, but failed to get widespread recognition and support. Meanwhile de Blasio campaigned on record lows on crime, expanding free pre-K and increasing the number of affordable housing units across the city."

Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan addresses a ceremony honoring 15 Detroit entrepreneurs in Detroit in January. Carlos Osorio/AP hide caption

Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan addresses a ceremony honoring 15 Detroit entrepreneurs in Detroit in January.

"He accused Duggan of being corrupt, favoring downtown business interests over neighborhood concerns, and effectively creating 'two Detroits:' one for prosperous newcomers, and another for mostly poor, longtime city residents.

"Duggan alluded to those 'us versus them attacks' in his victory speech without ever mentioning Young's name, saying he deliberately chose to take the high road in his campaign."

Charlotte Mayor Pro Tem Vi Lyles answers a question during a mayoral debate. Skip Foreman/AP hide caption

Charlotte Mayor Pro Tem Vi Lyles answers a question during a mayoral debate.

See the original post here:
Democrats Sweep Mayoral Elections In New York, Other Major ...

The Democratic wave in Virginia on Tuesday wiped out the Republican majority in the state House of Delegates, throwing control of the chamber in play for the first time since 2000 and putting Republicans in blue-tinged districts across the country on alert for next years elections.

Democrats snared at least 15 seats in an upset that stunned members of both parties and arrived with national implications.

Unofficial returns showed Democrats unseating at least a dozen Republicans and flipping three seats that had been occupied by GOP incumbents who did not seek reelection. Four other races were so close that they qualify for a recount, and the outcome will determine control of the chamber. The results marked the most sweeping shift in control of the legislature since Reconstruction.

Republicans, who have controlled the chamber since 2000, went into Tuesday holding 66 of 100 seats. Democrats fielded the most candidates in recent memory, including a record number of women.

Control of the chamber may not be determined for days as provisional ballots are counted in narrow races.

Democrats need to hold one seat where they are narrowly leading to ensure a 50-50 split where power sharing would be necessary, and to pick up an additional seat in a race eligible for a recount to take full control of the chamber.

Democrat Ralph Northam won the Virginia governors race over Republican Ed Gillespie on Nov. 7. Here are some other takeaways from the states election. (Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)

The election signaled a major shift in the gender of a body long dominated by men: Of the 15 seats Democrats flipped, all were held by men and 11 were won by women. Several of those women made history.

One became Virginias first openly transgender person to win elective office, unseating an opponent of LGBT rights. Another became the first open lesbian elected to the House of Delegates, another the first Asian American woman and two, both from diverse Prince William County, are set to be the first Latinas elected to the General Assembly.

This is an unbelievable night, said House Minority Leader David J. Toscano (D-Charlottesville) in an interview an hour after polls closed. There were districts we didnt think we had much of a shot in.

[Why Democrats care about Virginias normally sleepy House of Delegate races]

Democrats benefited from gubernatorial contender Ralph Northams coattails: He won by nine percentage points.

Obviously, tonight was a difficult night, and the outcome is not what anyone expected, said Matt Moran, spokesman for the House Republican Caucus. We also want to thank our colleagues and fellow Republican candidates who ran principled campaigns based on positive ideas in a difficult political environment. Our team is closely monitoring the canvasses that will take place tomorrow as we await the official results.

Although House races are normally seen as the sleepy backwater to the gubernatorial contest, they generated a surge of interest this year from activists energized by President Trumps election and new groups that see the legislative contests as an opportunity to test strategies and technologies ahead of next years elections.

Strategists said the results suggest trouble for Republicans.

This is a tidal wave, said David Wasserman, an analyst who tracks U.S. House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Its hard to look at tonights results and to conclude anything other than that Democrats are the current favorite for control of the House in 2018.

The highest-spending House of Delegates race was in southwest Virginia, where former television news anchor Chris Hurst, whose girlfriend was fatally shot during a live broadcast in 2015, challenged Republican incumbent Joseph Yost.

Both raised more than $1 million for their bids, and Hurst won.

[In southwest Virginia, a hotly contested race free of hyperpartisan toxicity]

A pair of Democratic incumbents easily fended off well-financed challenges by Republicans. Subba Kolla, who would have been the bodys first Indian American lawmaker, lost to Del. John J. Bell in Loudoun County, and Heather Cordasco fell to Del. Michael P. Mullin in Hampton Roads.

Democrats flipped the most seats in Northern Virginia as Northam posted a strong showing in the populous region. If results hold, Democrats will hold every delegate seat in Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax and Prince William counties and all but one in Loudoun County.

The biggest battleground for the House was Prince William, a Washington exurb where people of color constitute a majority of the population. A diverse group of five Democratic challengers hoped to channel demographic changes and Democratic energy to take seats held by white men and all won.

[In diverse Virginia suburb, Democrats hope to chart path back to power]

Danica Roem, who will be Virginias first openly transgender elected official, defeated Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), a culture warrior who opposes LGBT rights. Elizabeth Guzman, who raised more money than any Democratic candidate except for Hurst, unseated Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge).

Republican Dels. Richard L. Anderson (Prince William) and Jackson H. Miller (Manassas) lost to their Democratic challengers, Hala Ayala and Lee Carter. Ayala and Guzman are Latina, and Carter is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

In an open seat vacated by a retiring Republican, Democrat Jennifer Carroll Foy easily defeated Republican Michael Makee.

In Fairfax County, Democrat Kathy Tran, the daughter of Vietnamese refugees, beat Republican Lolita Mancheno-Smoak for an open seat vacated by retiring Del. David B. Albo (R), while Democrat Karrie Delaney handily defeated Del. James M. LeMunyon (R). Del. Timothy D. Hugo, the Republican caucus chairman, was narrowly trailing Democratic challenger Donte Tanner, and the results were within the margin for a state-funded recount. Hugo picked up 100 votes during a Fairfax County canvass on Wednesday morning.

[More mothers of young children running for office in Virginia]

With nearly all precincts reporting in Loudoun County, Del. Thomas A. Tag Greason (R) was set to lose to Democratic challenger David Reid in that countys most competitive race in a district that Hillary Clinton carried by 19 points a year ago.

Greasons fellow Loudoun County lawmaker, Del. J. Randall Minchew, lost his seat to Democratic challenger Wendy Gooditis. Another Loudoun County Republican lawmaker, David A. LaRock, defeated his Democratic challenger, Tia Walbridge and may be the lone Republican left representing Northern Virginia in the House.

In the Richmond suburbs, Dels. John M. OBannon III and G. Manoli Loupassi lost their seats to Debra Rodman and Dawn Adams, who is openly lesbian. Democrat Schuyler T. VanValkenburg won an open seat vacated by Republican Jimmie Massie III.

In the Virginia Beach area, Del. Ronald A. Villanueva lost to Democrat Kelly Fowler, while N.D. Rocky Holcomb III lost to Cheryl Turpin in a squeaker. Del. Glenn R. Davis Jr. narrowly pulled out a win for reelection.

Republicans were barely leading in three contests that were in the margin for a recount, including in the race to succeed retiring Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford). Del. David Yancey (R-Newport News) led Shelly Simonds by only 12 votes.

Even if Democrats fall short of taking control of the chamber this year, they see a potential for additional pickups next year, if a court challenge of legislative district maps forces special elections, and in 2019 when all 100 seats are on the ballot again.

Republicans have a narrow 21-to-19 majority in the state Senate, where all seats are up in 2019.

Control of the governors mansion and legislature in Virginia has national implications. The General Assembly will draw congressional and state legislative district maps after the 2020 Census, and the governor has the power to veto those maps.

Maria Sacchetti and Jenna Portnoy contributed to this report.

See the article here:
Democrats make significant gains in Virginia legislature ...

Virginia has told us to end the divisiveness, that we will not condone hatred and bigotry and to end the politics that have torn this country apart, he said, adding that in this state, Its going to take a doctor to heal our differences.

The Democrats electoral validation, though, took place well beyond the Virginia governors race: They wrested the governorship of New Jersey away from Republicans, swept two other statewide offices in Virginia, made gains in the Virginia State Legislature, and won a contested mayoral race in New Hampshire.

In New Jersey, Philip D. Murphy, a former Goldman Sachs executive, won the governorship by a vast margin that brought an unceremonious end to Gov. Chris Christies tumultuous tenure.

In both Virginia and New Jersey, voters rebuffed a wave of provocative ads linking immigration and crime, hinting at the limitations of hard-edge tactics in the sort of affluent and heavily suburban states that are pivotal in next years midterm elections.

Even though Republicans in the two states mirrored Mr. Trumps grievance-oriented politics, they kept him at arms length: He became the first president not to appear on behalf of candidates for governor in either state since 2001, when George W. Bush shunned the trail after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Since then, four of the five governors Virginia has elected have been Democrats. The party was also in contention late Tuesday to seize control of the state House of Delegates, an unexpected show of strength that, along with Mr. Northams victory, offered Democrats a stronger hand to block any Republican attempts at gerrymandering after the next census.

Representative Scott Taylor, a Republican from Virginia Beach, said he considered the Democratic sweep in Virginia a repudiation of the White House. He faulted Mr. Trumps divisive rhetoric for propelling the party to defeat, and said he believed traditionally Republican-leaning voters contributed to Mr. Northams margin of victory.

I do believe that this is a referendum on this administration, Mr. Taylor said of the elections. Democrats turned out tonight, but Im pretty sure there were some Republicans who spoke loudly and clearly tonight as well.

Channeling the shock of Republicans across the state, Mr. Taylor voiced disbelief at the partys rout down ballot. I know folks that lost tonight who were going against candidates Id never even heard of, he said.

Mr. Trump was quick to fault Mr. Gillespie for keeping his distance, writing on Twitter while traveling in South Korea that the Republican candidate did not embrace me or what I stand for.

Mr. Gillespie made no mention of Mr. Trump in his concession speech, and alluded only in passing to the explosive themes he wielded as a candidate. Ticking off issues he campaigned on, Mr. Gillespie noted his supporters were worried about safety for themselves and their families and their businesses.

Addressing supporters in a hotel ballroom, Mr. Gillespie tried to tack a courteous finale on to a rough-and-tumble race, offering his assistance to Mr. Northam going forward. I wish him nothing but the best success, Mr. Gillespie said.

Mr. Northams victory was a tonic to an anxious national party that has been reeling since Mr. Trumps win last year and was demoralized by losses in special House elections in Montana and Georgia.

A native of Virginias rural Eastern Shore, Mr. Northam, 58, was perhaps an unlikely vessel for the resistance-era Democratic Party. But the left overlooked the two votes he cast for George W. Bush before he entered politics, and his rsum he is a pediatric neurologist and Gulf War veteran proved far more appealing to the states broad middle than Mr. Gillespies background as a corporate lobbyist.

The Democrats success here came as Mr. Gillespie, trailing in the polls, turned to a scorched-earth campaign against Mr. Northam in the races final weeks. Mr. Gillespie, a fixture of his partys establishment who had once warned against the siren song of anti-immigrant politics, unleashed a multimillion-dollar onslaught linking his rival to a gang with Central American ties and a convicted pedophile who had his rights restored, while also assailing Mr. Northam for wanting to remove Virginias Confederate statues.

The strategy appeared to help Mr. Gillespie narrow the gap in the wake of the Charlottesville protests this summer, but it was not enough to overcome the anti-Trump energy in an increasingly diverse state that has not elected a Republican to statewide office since 2009.

Mr. Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman, found it difficult to balance appeals to the presidents unflagging supporters in rural Virginia while simultaneously attempting to win over Mr. Trumps skeptics in the states population centers. He often would not say the presidents name, referring instead to the administration or last years Republican ticket.

In his concession speech, Mr. Gillespie made no mention of Mr. Trump, and declined to answer questions about the presidents criticism on Tuesday night.

Mr. Northam did not have to concern himself with any such political contortions running in a state that has backed the Democratic nominee for president in the last three elections, a striking reversal from an earlier day here when Virginia Democrats had to distinguish themselves from their more liberal national party.

Indeed, support for Mr. Northam represented a vote for continuity. Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat barred by state law from seeking re-election, is broadly popular, as are the states two Democratic senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. Mr. McAuliffe, who was elected in 2013 during President Barack Obamas second term, was the first person in 40 years to win a Virginia governors race who was in the same party as the presidents.

In New Jersey, the Democratic ticket established a decisive advantage early in the campaign season, and that lead never flagged. Mr. Murphy, a wealthy Democratic donor who served as ambassador to Germany under Mr. Obama, ran on a message of rejecting both Mr. Trump and Mr. Christie, who is a politically toxic figure in the state.

National Republicans virtually ignored the race, viewing their nominee, Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, as doomed by a deeply hostile political environment and her association with Mr. Christie. In Utahs Third Congressional District, John Curtis, the Republican nominee, emerged as the winner Tuesday night.

After blanketing Virginias airwaves before the primary with an ad in which he savaged the president as a narcissistic maniac, Mr. Northam struck a more sober-minded tone during the general election with another widely aired commercial in which he vowed to work with Mr. Trump when it is in the states interest.

But Virginia Democrats were in little mood to offer any olive branches to Mr. Trump on Tuesday.

Mr. Kaine, who a year ago was left achingly short of becoming vice president, was especially triumphant in speaking to supporters.

Trump-style division, pitting people against people, it is not the Virginia Way and it is not the American Way, he said.

Read more here:
With Virginia, Voters Give Democrats First Big Wins of the ...

Many Democrats expressed outrage Thursday at allegations from a former party chairwoman that an agreement with the Democratic National Committee gave the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton some day-to-day control over the party early in the 2016 campaign.

Donna Brazile, a former interim chairwoman of the party, says in a forthcoming book that an August 2015 agreement gave the Clinton campaign a measure of direct influence over the partys finances and strategy, along with a say over staff decisions and consultation rights over issues like mailings, budgets and analytics.

The control was given in exchange for a joint fundraising pledge by the Clinton campaign that helped fund the DNC through the election year, Brazile says.

This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the partys integrity, she wrote in a book scheduled for publication next week, a portion of which was excerpted Thursday in Politico.

Throughout the campaign, the DNC and its then-chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, fiercely denied any suggestion that the party was helping Clinton over other candidates. The presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had criticized Wasserman Schultz for limiting the early primary debate schedule, allowing party money to be used for Clinton fundraising, and briefly cutting off Sanderss access to the party voter file shortly before the New Hampshire primary after a Sanders staffer inappropriately accessed information.

Some Democrats now say the arrangement is evidence that the concerns were valid. Ray Buckley, the chairman of New Hampshires Democratic Party, said that he first learned of the agreement while serving as DNC vice chair in 2016. The day that Donna discovered this, she called me and I almost passed out, Buckley said. We were blatantly misled.

In response to the report Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a CNN interview that she believed the primary contest between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders had been rigged. This is a real problem, she said. We have to hold this party accountable.

President Trump also jumped on the controversy with a tweet on Thursday night that suggested the Justice Department should investigate the real collusion and dishonesty, even though Brazile and the Sanders campaign have not alleged criminal activity.

Donna Brazile just stated the DNC RIGGED the system to illegally steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders, he wrote.

Trump said in an interview with Fox News Channel broadcast Thursday night that the Brazile allegations are a major story.

Its illegal, number one, and its really very unfair to Bernie Sanders, Trump told Fox host Laura Ingraham. I thought that was terrible.

The current leadership of the party said it would address the problem.

One of my goals here, as DNC chair, is to make sure that the nominating process for 2020 is a process thats fair and transparent for everybody, DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in an interview with CNBC. Were going to set the primary debate schedule well in advance of when we know which candidates will be there.

Charlie Baker, the chief operating officer of the Clinton campaign, said that in 2015 the campaign agreed to raise money for the parts of the DNC that were going to be most crucial to the general election, including data, research, communications and the like. The agreement also gave the Clinton campaign some say over personnel. If there was a vacancy for a position in one of these departments, the DNC had to consult the campaign on the three finalists but could make the final decision itself.

We never tried to be presumptuous, Baker said. We were literally trying to make sure the DNC had the resources it needed, whoever was the nominee.

The joint fundraising agreement allowed Clinton to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from individual donors money that was spread across state parties under federal campaign guidelines. Sanders had a different fundraising model, relying more on small-dollar donations directly to his campaign, and he told the DNC that his campaign was not interested in following the same program.

The idea that the DNC was willing to take a position that helped a candidate in the midst of a primary is outrageous, and there is no justification for it, said Mark Longabaugh, a senior adviser to the Sanders campaign.It gets back to the fundamental way that Bernie Sanders was running his campaign, which was to break the stranglehold of big money on politics.

Jeff Weaver, Sanderss campaign manager, said in an interview that their campaign was led to believe it had the same joint fundraising agreement as Clinton.

We were not offered veto power on staff at the DNC, I can tell you that, said Weaver. This was a laundering operation. Theyd go to fundraisers, theyd get a $350,000 check from donors which was supposed to be divvied up. Instead of disbursing that money, theyd turn around and run a small-dollar fundraising to generate small contributions that went to the Clinton campaign.

In a September 2015 email obtained by The Washington Post, a lawyer from Perkins Coie, a law firm representing both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, wrote the Sanders campaign with a copy of what was presented as a standard joint fundraising agreement.

This is the same one we have used with other campaigns, wrote attorney Graham Wilson.

At the end of the same email, Wilson suggested that should the Sanders campaign raise significantly more money than was required to pay for the party voter file, then Sanders could have a say in how those funds would be used to prepare for the general election.

The DNC has had discussions like this with the Clinton campaign and is of course willing to do so with all committees raising funds for the Committee, Wilson wrote.

Weaver said the Sanders campaign decided early on to ignore the joint fundraising program and raise small dollars on its own to pay for access to the voter file. Who are the wealthy people Bernie was going to bring to a fundraiser? Weaver asked. We had to buy the voter file right before the primaries.

After the election, the effects of the Clinton fundraising effort hit some state parties hard. Jane Kleeb, who took over Nebraskas Democratic Party in late 2016, discovered that the party had accrued $35,000 in debt for the Clinton campaign.

Nebraska never even signed the JFA because we ... didnt want to be a funnel for, essentially, money-laundering, Kleeb said. And now we learn that a small group of establishment Democrats got to determine who our nominee was. That goes against everything that Democratic values are built on.

Kleeb, who along with Weaver is a member of the Democrats post-primary unity commission, said the party had made some amends under Perezs leadership. In his campaign to run the DNC and since, Perez has chastised Wasserman Schultz for turning the party into a vehicle for the presidential campaign.

After Braziles book excerpt surfaced, state chairs began calling and emailing each other about a change to the DNCs rules and bylaws that would forbid any arrangement like the one Clinton got. Buckley and other DNC members suggested that the party should also give DNC members access to its budget, which would have made it clear much earlier how the joint fundraising agreement was affecting the flow of money.

I will co-sponsor that amendment and vote for it, Buckley said. Theres so much reform that has to happen.

The 2015 agreement was struck at a time when the partys finances were in a dire situation. Two sources said that it was in danger of not meeting its payroll.

The Clinton campaign had effectively taken control of the Democratic National Committee in the year before the nominating process began, said Tad Devine, the top strategist for the Sanders campaign. They exercised their control through the use of the joint fundraising agreement.

Read more at PowerPost

Excerpt from:
Democrats express outrage over allegations of early party ...