The Myth of DCCC Neutrality

Sources tell Rochesterturning that the DCCC is going to remain neutral in the contest in the 29th. I don't agree. My take is that the DCCC is going to maintain the appearance of neutrality while putting in place measures that support Louise Slaughter's handpicked wealthy candidate, David Nachbar.

Earlier this year, Eric Massa began raising money with the claim that the DCCC will consider his race a "top tier" race if he raises $300,000 by the end of June. At the time, I thought that his claim was just part of the usual fundraising rhetoric and didn't give it much thought. In the light of Nachbar's candidacy, however, this claim appears more interesting, since Nachbar can become a "top tier" candidate by simply writing a check. Once Nachbar is "top tier", it will become easier for him to raise money, and harder for Massa.

Obviously, this is pure opinion and speculation, but it can easily be verified by anyone who keeps tabs on DCCC press releases and FEC quarterly reports.


Well, from what I read on the Daily Kos from Eric, it seemed as though he always had to make the $300,000 to get the support from the National Party.

If David Nachbar stays in the race and funds himself, the DCCC could use the money for other races. I, for one, am excited to see a race this time.

Instead of being upset, this could be a good thing in the race, since it will electrify Eric to show his strength in fundraising from the Netroots and we could show a real difference in a race.

I appreciate your look on the positive side, Mary.

I think Massa would have a hard time relying on just netroots funding, but if Nachbar stays in the race, we'll see how effective it is.

First off, let me say that I enjoy this blog and if I'm off by arguing, please forgive me and I mean nothing personal, but an old man has to get his kicks where he can. I honestly appreciate the forum. In reaction to this piece, i have to say that I find it very nieve to state that any candidate can fund themselves to victory. I have seen countless examples of the contrary and let's face it, this guy is going to have to show support from the people to have a prayer. I tell you upfront that i am not a fan of Massa. I think he is a fine human being and such, but he's a weak candidate. I don't honestly know if Nachbar is any better- but the unbridled attacks on the man that began upon his announcement by democrats who I would think would be more open-minded seem to me to be of an agenda that turns me right off and I don't think I'm alone on this. no candidate wins with just money and no candidate wins without it- the grassroots are the heart and soul and I just wish I could find something that is a little more open-minded. I'm also tired of this "hand-picked by Louise Slaughter" thing. It rings like a campaign strategy the same way the Republicans shouting "Pelosi" against their democratic opponents last cycle was so obviously a part of a larger scheme. Have you reached out to Nachbar? Have you asked him to share his views? Are you really for the betterment of this district or are you a mouthpiece for a particular candidate? I'm not making accusations, i'm really asking.

Nothing wrong with a good argument.

I'm not a mouthpiece for any candidate. I just don't see how Nachbar can win a primary, and if he wins the primary, how he can win the general. I set out the reasons in another post (Nachbar's Negatives), but the basics of my argument are this:

* Nachbar has enough money to launch a credible primary challenge out of his own pocket.

* Massa does not, and will have to devote a fair amount of his campaign warchest to a primary challenge, thus damaging him as a candidate for the general

* Nachbar will lose the primary because he just won't get the Southern Tier vote. I base this on following the 2006 election very closely. Massa is highly admired by a lot of Southern Tier dems not just as a candidate but also as a force for bringing some life back into the Democratic party in the South.

* None of my attacks on Nachbar's have been personal. I have pointed out that he's wealthy and comes from the most affluent town in the district. I'd say that's a minus for any candidate - not limited to Nachbar.

* You make the assertion that Massa is a "weak candidate". But the facts say otherwise. Massa came within 3% of Kuhl, whereas Barend in '04 came within 10% and there was a Conservative Party challenger in that race. Realistically, she was 15 points out. Massa raised twice what Barend raised, he was the only candidate in the entire country to out-raise his opponent, and he raised that total on individual and union donations. That's a heck of an accomplishment. You need to put down some reasons why you think he's a poor candidate, because it sure isn't obvious.

* It was clearly stated in the press in '06 that Nachbar was persuaded to float his name by Louise Slaughter. He was a registered Republican at the time. So the notion that Louise didn't have a hand in this beggars belief.

Why should a candidate being successful be a negative? It is my understanding, and i admit that my sources may be weaker than yours, that Nachbar was not a registered Republican. Where can one find proof on such a matter? I was told he was not registered one way or the other and when his opponent is Massa, a former Republican, can this even be an issue? I wait for the platform of Mr. Nachbar. I can not make a judgement at this point, which is my point. I've seen Massa and I voted for Massa, but I do find him to be a weak candidate. He is a good man, I'm sure of that- but he burns bridges quick and the people he cut off last time, won't be coming back around. My only hope is that in this primary democrats welcome a choice and don't serve a preconception. My hope is that you will reach out to Nachbar and give him the chance to state his case. As one of your readers, I trust you to commit yourself to this or state an agenda other than that which you currently claim.

Massa's a weak candidate because he "burns bridges quickly". Evidence?

The point on Nachbar being a registered Republican is not that there's anything wrong with that, but that it's still more evidence that Slaughter sought him out and that he wasn't prepared to run. I don't have an issue with party switching.

I'll give Nachbar any and all chances to stake his claim. But I remain skeptical, and have every right to be for the reasons stated in this and other posts. I have no agenda other than providing my honest take on the matter.

To address your other point: there's nothing wrong with being successful, but Nachbar made his money as a B&L hr exec while B&L offshored a large amount of its workforce. Also, his compensation is a legitimate issue in an era when management salaries are under heavier scrutiny.