House Democrats’ campaign arm now backing Dan Lipinski against liberal primary challenger

“Yes, they are now,” Lipinski said when asked if DCCC is providing him support and resources.

Weeks ago, DCCC came under fire from Blue Dogs and moderates in the Democratic caucus for leaving Lipinski in the wilderness. It’s one in a string of baffling decisions made by the DCCC as Democrats fight to flip the House, or at the very least put a dent in the sizable Republican majority.

The House campaign arm wouldn’t lend a hand to Lipinski when asked late last month, despite making promises they would, as first reported by Politico. The move looked odd, especially since the DCCC put a near identical conservative Democrat in New Jersey on their Red to Blue program, meaning the candidate will receive money, resources, and extra attention from the party apparatus.

The candidate, state Sen. Jeff Van Drew, voted against gay marriage, maintains a 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association, and co-sponsored a bill requiring parental notification for a minor to undergo an abortion. In January, Van Drew revoked his sponsorship of the bill.

Though there appears to have been little logic behind DCCC’s initial decision to not fully support Lipinski, it arguably couldn’t hurt them. The seat is solidly blue. In the case of Van Drew, the conservative Democrat fits the district, which has been held by Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo since 1995.

A DCCC aide said the committee is supportive of all incumbents and that they work with members who request help. Members can receive political support through the new Member Engagement Department, the aide added.

But the initial confusion surrounding Lipinski enraged the Blue Dogs. The apparent 180 by the DCCC to support Lipinski was news to Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., head of the Blue Dog PAC.

“There was a lot of talk about that but it had not come across,” Schrader said. “So I’m glad they got their act together.”

Schrader called DCCC’s unwillingness to get behind Lipinski “totally unacceptable.”

“If I was to read between the lines on this, what I’m worried about is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, that theoretically wants members to pay dues to help support their mission, is not listening to members, and matter of fact, likely to work against you,” Schrader said.

The difference between Lipinski and Van Drew, Schrader said, is the “pressure from outside groups.”

“The outside groups, and I get their reasons, NARAL, they’re playing heavily in Lipinski’s race. They’re not playing heavily in the Van Drew race,” said Schrader. “I think DCCC, rather than working for the members, looks like it’s working for these outside interest groups which is not a good place to be.”

Progressive groups Democracy for America and Justice Democrats have not endorsed anyone in the open New Jersey district — either not knowing Van Drew’s stance on the issues or hesitating to weigh in at the time. If progressives decide to jump in, Schrader said he isn’t confident DCCC will stay behind Van Drew.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who backed Lipinski’s challenger Marie Newman, didn’t know about Van Drew or his position on the issues. Informed that the district would be a gain for Democrats and apprised of Van Drew’s voting record, Schakowksy said “that’s a different matter” than Lipinski’s primary.

“That’s trying to flip a Republican seat where people have been accustomed to a Republican,” she said earlier this week. “As a party, if you look at our platform, we’re pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ, but that is not going to win necessarily in every district, and as long as you got someone who is going to be better than the Republican, then we should support the Democrat.”

Though progressives see Lipinski’s primary as a battle over the soul of the Democratic Party and how to best take back the House, Schakowsky, a member of DCCC leadership, disagreed.

It not an ideological purity test, she said, “this is about, in my case, a race in one district in one state where the current incumbent is not on the same page as the voters.”

Schakowsky told the Washington Examiner that “it is not the role of the DCCC” to back incumbents. “It’s not like a rejection,” she said.

“The DCCC does not involve itself in Democratic districts,” she added. “It is about electing more Democrats. It is not some sort of a litmus test, some sort national effort.”

Though the DCCC maintains that it always supports incumbents, Blue Dogs and Lipinski himself were under the impression that the relatively conservative Democrat, who voted against the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights, was being ostracized.

A recent survey of likely Democratic voters by Public Policy Polling put Lipinski in a dead heat with Newman. At the end of 2017, Lipinski had $1,648,912 cash-on-hand compared to Newman’s $236,612.

Pressed on whether the DCCC’s movements, including those in Illinois, could backfire, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the diversity in the caucus and among candidates is a “strength.”

“Welcome to the Democratic Party,” Pelosi quipped. “It is the most exhilarating thrill to be a leader in a party that has that kind of diversity of opinion.”

“It certainly can work to our advantage, so I don’t see it as an obstacle, no,” she added.

The internal squabble over Lipinski may not help the DCCC’s image nor build trust with its members, but probably won’t threaten Democrats’ chances of wining back the House. Those outside D.C. rarely pay attention to member disputes inside the chamber.

But in the case of the 7th Congressional District in Texas, there is likely a risk. Members questioned the logic behind DCCC’s decision to weigh in against liberal Laura Moser ahead of the primary. Moser faced off with six other Democrats in the March 6 primary and finished in second place, making it to the runoff. It’s the very outcome national Democrats wanted to avoid.

When the DCCC posted opposition research on Moser, just days before their Lipinski snub, they angered progressives, setting off another round of national stories pitting the establishment against the rising leftist wing of the party, often represented by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

And within days of the attack, which characterized Moser as a “Washington insider,” the Houston journalist raised more than $87,000.

“You got to be a lot more subtle than that, man,” Schrader said, calling the move “ham-handed” and a “thug type of approach to politics.”

It isn’t the only race in which the Democratic establishment attempted to tip the scales. In the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, party favorite Jay Hulings came in fourth, losing handily to outsider Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones. FEC reports show Hulings received roughly $64,000 total from a combination of establishment party PACs, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ Bold Pac, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s PAC, and the New Democrat Coalition PAC.

Such contributions aren’t new and are expected from sitting lawmakers. It was expected that DCCC would jump into primaries, taking an approach similar to establishment support of Hulings. The case with Moser, however, was different.

One Democratic strategist said there are enormous risks to the kind of tactics DCCC’s used in Texas.

“At end of the day the DCCC will be judged by what they did around the margins, district by district,” the strategist said. “Any place where they promote a certain candidate and they lose, they’ll be judged by that. Any place where they weighed in and it backfired, they’ll be judged by that.”

Taking away the favorable environment for Democrats, DCCC’s decisions on their face have inspired little confidence in members and Democratic operatives, who don’t see the campaign arm demonstrating an ability to make tough choices and put seats in play.

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., said DCCC’s actions are a risk in the Lipinski primary and Houston.

“I don’t think you ever want to weigh in against an incumbent,” he said.

Yarmuth talked to DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., about the committee’s strike against Moser.

“They angered a lot of really good DCCC donors,” Yarmuth said. “A couple in my district.”

Actions like that, Yarmuth added, could also jeopardize the environment and dampen the energy in a race. He questioned the motive DCCC provided for it’s attack, saying they were throwing “external factors” at Moser but not “weighing philosophy.”

“Do the voters really care about that?” Yarmuth said. “Now if she were to win, they can say this is a candidate whose party didn’t even want her.”