'They don't get it.' Reps. Cleaver, Clay blame McCaskill loss on poor black outreach

[pstokely]

Source: Kansas City Star

Cleaver was the first African American to serve as Kansas City’s mayor. Clay, the son of a congressman, is a St. Louis Democrat first elected to Congress in 2000. Both tore into McCaskill’s campaign and party officials over what they saw as a failure to tap into the concerns of African American voters.

“Cleaver and I started out early on trying to convince Claire, trying to convince the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and the state party that they needed to do more than come in a week out and have chicken dinners for certain black officials,” Clay told McClatchy. “You need to build up some momentum.”

Clay said he and Cleaver offered to collaborate with McCaskill on a ground game strategy, but were rebuffed.

“To me, this was a winnable race. I’m truly sad that my friend Claire ran the campaign that she did that failed to produce any real enthusiasm or engagement with urban voters.”

Read more: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article221761390.html

[FreepFryer]

1. She should have asked Al Franken for advice.

Oh, wait...

[yardwork]

2. This is interesting and I believe it. Outreach to the whole electorate is essential.

The Democratic Party has a great message that will resonate with people if we communicate it to everybody.

[zentrum]

3. Democratic infrastructure

.....has been terribly neglected since at least 2000 as I understand it. Nice going Wasserman-Schultz!

Howard Dean warned us about this and wanted a 50 state strategy that the central leaders mostly ignored.

[calimary]

8. Howard Dean was right. He doesn't get nearly enough credit.

Or respect.

[zentrum]

9. Yup.

[ananda]

12. Agree.

I think Beto O'Rourke has shown us how to conduct
a great campaign!!!!

[LiberalFighter]

13. Wasserman-Schultz had little to do with it.

It was pointed out that the DSSC and state party didn't do their bit.

I wonder if it was the same reason that Donnelly didn't win in Indiana? Betcha they used the same type of campaign.

[zentrum]

26. But I think the

....Democratic National Committee devizes a lot of the Democratic strategy, and they also send money. Loss of Dem infrastrucrture has been a national problem. And she did really marginalize Dean.

She just kind of missed the big picture for some reason and the DNCC had/has a lot of power. So I think DNCC leadership would have made a big difference in all our local elections since 2008. And we'd have been more ready in 2016 and now. I don't think we'd have been as gob-smacked or be fighting for the first time for a fair count of the vote except for the blindness of the old DNCC.

I think the people we're putting in place now will make a big difference in all the states.

[LiberalFighter]

49. The DNC provides the tools.

When it comes to incumbents like McCaskill the Democratic Committee (Senate DSSC or House DCCC) along with the state party would provide more specialized tools or data. The campaigns are still responsible for running their own campaign which means hiring their staff and putting together their advertising. The candidate has to sign off or at the very least has veto power.

[moose65]

18. So true!

Since Dean left, the DNC has essentially given up on many states. That's how Trump was able to win West Virginia by 40 points. I'm not saying that we would have won W Va, but building the party infrastructure might have helped down-ballot, and maybe Trump would have won by 20 instead of 40. Democrats have to learn that this is a marathon, not a sprint, and build for the future. I'm sure that there are a lot of Dems in deep red states who feel abandoned, and feel as if their votes won't matter, so they don't vote.

[LiberalFighter]

50. State and local parties have responsibilities too.

State parties especially need to do their part. They can get it done better than the DNC could. If they don't have effective or even existent county parties then the job is harder. They are the ones that need to do the work. Training is not provided by the DNC. That is the job of the state and local parties. Motivation is not provided by the DNC. That is the job of the state and local parties.

[saidsimplesimon]

11. You nailed it. imo Thank you

[ChiTownDenny]

46. I continue to be amazed by

those who need "outreach". The alternative is Trump and the Republic party.

[Raven123]

4. Without knowing the population of rural vs urban Missouri, I can't tell who is correct.

[yardwork]

5. Here's a hint. St. Louis is in Missouri.

[Raven123]

6. Meaningless without numbers.

[SWBTATTReg]

7. One can look this up. I agree w/ the McCatskill comment in that I didn't really see an ...

prolonged outreach on her part to reach out to the city populations (STL, KCMO, perhaps Springfield MO).

Yeah, I know she was out all over the state, seems like too much in my opinion, relative to the number of voters she could have met w/ (e.g., you'll meet thousands more in concentrated areas like KCMO / STLMO vs. Columbia or Cape G. in a relatively few meetings vs. tons of meetings held in rural areas, like she had.)

Josh H had advantage of (1) young white male (2) repug (3) acted like a rural boy (far from truth) where Claire spent too much time in rural areas, relative to the votes she would have gathered if she had spent more time in the cities (she didn't, I don't even recall her coming to the south side of STLMO even once, when before, it was almost a given, in that I would almost always see the politicians at my coffee shop / my bar / walking down the sidewalk going from house to house 10 or more years ago and earlier). Some might argue against this, but for example, in just two neighborhoods I'm in/was in (and there are over 25+ neighborhoods in STLMO), there are 40,000 households, a major concentration of voters by far in just these two neighborhoods.

So yes, I am disappointed that Hawley won. A gold digger if you ever want to describe a guy, he's it. Claire shouldn't lost by as much as she did. Out of town w/ not just the black voters of the cities, but all of us. It hurt her.

[paleotn]

51. By far the two biggest cities in MO

St Louis and Kansas City. If politics there is like TN and NC you have to have huge urban / suburban turn out to offset rural and exburbs. If a Dem runs to the middle they lose state wide. Bredesan for instance. You have to turn out the base in huge numbers because you’re never ever going to reach even the part time Fox viewers in those states. You simply have to overwhelm them. Abrams and Beto did that and damn near pulled off two of biggest upsets in recent political history.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

31. Missouri, like a lot of states,

has profoundly different populations in different parts of the state. Several points:

St Louis is an eastern city, while Kansas City is a Midwestern city.
In between is fairly rural, with lots of conservative Christians.
Missouri was a slave state.
It's a state that has long underfunded its schools and infrastructure.

I used to live in Overland Park, KS, which is just across the state line from Kansas City, MO. In the winter you did not need any signs to tell you when you were crossing the state line because the roads would be well plowed in Kansas, poorly plowed if at all in Missouri. And at night time, depending on exactly where you were crossing, the road would go from well lit to poorly lit if at all.

[beachbum bob]

10. how much outrerach do minorities need when they see GOP and trump effects on their lives???

[workinclasszero]

14. No doubt Hawley, Trump and the GOP

will give dem voters in KC and St. Louis the back of their hand in the coming years but that doesn't mean you can safely ignore the largest block of democratic voters in the state either.

[beachbum bob]

15. Ignore is subjective, if people won't do or vote whats in their own best interest...what do they

expect will happen? Like all the stein voters who now complain about what trump and the GOP are doing to our country

[marylandblue]

28. What's the purpose of campaigning then?

Last edited Sat Nov 17, 2018, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Might as well just sit home and wait for the voters to come to you. Eff 'em if they don't already know how great you are.

[workinclasszero]

30. Right

Doesn't seem to work out very well.

Oh and this....

Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, Slams ‘Crazy Democrats’ on Fox News

Senator Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat facing one of the country’s toughest re-election races, raised eyebrows on Monday when she distanced herself from leading members of her own party, including two possible presidential hopefuls, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, in a Fox News interview about “crazy Democrats.”



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/politics/claire-mccaskill-crazy-democrats.html

[TexasBushwhacker]

38. Yeah, Claire lost me with that

I don't live in Missouri, but that comment would not have generated much enthusiasm from me to go vote. I would have voted for her because I'm a Democrat, but frankly, she can KISS MY CRAZY DEMOCRATIC ASS.

[brush]

33. Oh please. If there's no outreach voters think you don't care so they don't either...

and stay home.

It's called Politics 101.

[Henk_sg]

20. I'm not black

but I suspect that they wouldn't have needed a lot of outreach, slightly more than none would have probably gone a long way. Your response(s) do a great job of highlighting the problem. Many Democrats (2014 was a prime example) assume that people should just vote for them because... They don't seem to have come to grips with what the Republican party has known for a long long time and that is that people need a reason to vote for you. That's why they continually throw red meat to their followers. They stir up controversy, (The caravan is invading our country, Gays are ruining it, Libs are coming for your guns) and it works for them. Democrats on the other hand love to dismiss their base and ignore or even demean their concerns, like Obama complaining about the "Professional Left" just weeks before the 2014 elections. That didn't work out too well, but not to worry, folks in the Democratic establishment were very successful at blaming voters for not turning our rather than accepting responsibility for not giving them a reason to turn out. The fact that Republicans might be worse for your "own self interest" really doesn't matter when Democrats don't care about, or even dismiss, what you see as your own best interests. In fact is reinforces the notion that there is no difference between the parties. Thank God, some Democrats are waking up to this. Hopefully they gain some influence within the party.

[yardwork]

21. Well stated.

[beachbum bob]

23. I am not black either but I vote democratic for the obvious reasons they have no intentions to

dismantle government.

Not rocket science to figure out if I sit on my ass and not vote, more likely than not, some bad crap is going to come my way. Do i blame people for sitting on their asses? Damn right I do.

[BlueWI]

29. Venting and blaming doesn't help.

A good ground game is essential, especially when you're reaching out to under-served communities who have been disenfranchised by the political and economic systems, systematically and perinially. I don't know how much you're aware of racial inequities in KC and STL, but it's definitely a big factor in political participation.

It's also not rocket science that in a purple or red state, you better turn out your base if you want to win. Black voters are probably the most reliable Democratic bloc. It only makes sense to maximize outreach to this community and pay more than lip service to the opinions and policy preferences of this community as well.

If you really equate non-voting among disenfranchised populations with sitting on one's ass, I would recommend turning off your computer and talking to your neighbors who live in such communities. What are the practical, legal, and informational barriers to turnout in a particular state? It varies. In Wisconsin where I live, voter ID laws, restrictions on early voting, disenfranchisement due to felony conviction, and other factors affect black turnout. In 2018, we won the governor's race and the Senate race through better outreach efforts than in 2016.

We have all heard about the impediments in GA and FL too. What's happening in your state? We all need to get off our asses and break down these barriers before 2020, if we want to win pivotal races, rather than lose and feel entitled to judge others.

[brush]

35. If voters feel you don't care they don't either. Pols who do no outreach...

do so at their own peril. It's not rocket science. Reach out to the population centers.

She spent tons of time in the rural areas with few votes relative to urban areas.

Not smart. You have to motivate voters to want to get out and vote for you.

[Owl]

42. +1

[qwlauren35]

43. Like everyone else in America

they need encouragement to go to the polls.

What makes you think they are different?

Not everyone is self-motivated.

[LovingA2andMI]

47. Just because Drump...

Is a Racist does not mean that automatically means a vote for a Democratic Candidate - including Claire McCaskill. VOTES ARE EARNED, NOT GIVEN and what Representatives Clay and Clever mean in just, is that Senator McCaskill needed to EARN the votes of Missouri's African-American Community by robustly ASKING FOR IT.

Just like any other Ethnic Group would expect for any candidate running for elected office, to do.

[IronLionZion]

59. Voters like it when a candidate shows up and listens to them

especially when they have to deal with certain issues that others may not experience. Politicians need to earn their votes, not just tell them that the other side is bad.

[qazplm135]

16. She lost by a ton

I'm going to guess all the black outreach in the world wasn't going to make up that gap.

[moose65]

22. I don't know about that

She lost by roughly 150,000 votes, and the percentage was 51 - 45. That doesn't sound like an insurmountable lead that Hawley had. In the city of St. Louis, McCaskill got 96,000 votes this year. In 2012 she got 123,000 votes in St Louis. In St Louis County, she got 278,000 votes this year, but she got 336,000 votes in 2012. I know that 2012 was a Presidential year, but the potential was still there. She should have spent most of her time campaigning in the St Louis and Kansas City areas, instead of trying to convince those rural voters who supported Trump to vote for her. THAT is a losing strategy!

[qazplm135]

25. so you've added up the presidential year votes

which this election does not meet, ignore the fact that such turnout will add at least some to her opponents total, and you STILL cannot come up with 150K votes. You couldn't even come up with 100K votes.

So I say again, she was highly unlikely to come up with the numbers needed no matter what the outreach.

[moose65]

32. That was just in two counties off the top of my head

And I still found a potential 85,000 votes for McCaskill. Add to that the Kansas City numbers, plus if she had actually talked to Democrats and Independents more instead of chasing the mythical "moderate" Republican, she could have won. She got 300,000 fewer votes this year than she did in 2012. If she had gotten HALF of those back, she would have had a chance.

[qazplm135]

40. so now we've moved from Black outreach in the two major cities where they mostly live

to if she'd been more progressive...

[moose65]

44. I thought this was a discussion board

Am I not allowed to even mention other subjects? Geez. Being more progressive would have been reaching out to black voters AND other voters.

[qazplm135]

52. There was a point made

responding to that point by adding other points isn't responsive to that point.

If someone says, if she'd gone to ten more houses they would have done it, and I say no ten houses wouldn't have been enough, and you come along and say it would have if she'd gone to thirty more houses...

[moose65]

57. So sorry

Forgive me for having an idea and apparently pissing on your comment.

[qazplm135]

63. Yeah

That's a lame response.

[moose65]

67. Hmmm

I didn’t realize that you are the judge of lameness.

[Sherman A1]

69. Some folks here believe themselves to be

Arbiters of proper thought and that can only be in agreement with their opinion. Remember opinions are like a particular body part.....everyone has one.

Don’t take what is posted here too seriously.

[moose65]

70. I never do!

I can't quite grasp why some people get their knickers in a twist over a post!

[brush]

37. Are you forgeting that votes she would've gotten with better outreach...

would be votes the repug didn't get, thus narrowing the gap?

[qazplm135]

41. nope

I went with his IMO inaccurate assumption that she got every last vote in those two areas and her opponent stayed at midterm turnout levels.

Still not enough.

[moose65]

45. I didn't say she got EVERY vote in those areas

I just said that she had the potential for those votes, since she had gotten that many before. What is the problem with that?

[qazplm135]

53. and I said lets assume she gets every singe vote she got in the presidential election

still only two thirds of the way there and that's assuming no additional presidential year level turnout for her opponent.

[moose65]

60. Um, you never said that

Read this thread again. You didn’t say that. I added up her previous votes from TWO counties, not the entire state. If she had gotten the same number of votes that she got in 2012, she would have had 300,000 more votes.

[qazplm135]

64. Lmao

And the Republican would have gotten presidential turnout too...it's a ridiculous point.

[moose65]

66. I never said otherwise

Geez. What is your problem today?

[pstokely]

54. she also never said much about her positions on the ballot initiatives

Last edited Sat Nov 17, 2018, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

it overwhelmingly rejected right to work (or less) in August and approved medical MJ and minimum wage increases, but I didn't hear her talk much about those while she was talking about the caravan on Faux state news

[Cha]

68. Wow.. those aren't votes for gop issues.

[BannonsLiver]

71. I agree. Missouri's much redder than it was in 2006

The fact is there are more reliable white evangelical Christian voters than there are people open to voting for Dems, or enthusiastic Dem voters in Missouri and it continues to trend in that direction. It wouldn’t have mattered what she did, tbh.

[Roy Rolling]

17. Good Analysis

Point taken, except the "urban voter" language. Perhaps he was rebuffed because this good idea may have been among many other bad ideas.

Engaging African-American voters is vital for a Democratic candidate.

[UpInArms]

19. Claire is my senator

And I have seen her numerous times ...

She has attempted to straddle a lean right Democratic stance ...

What, imho, happened was that she was beaten by not being a strong Democrat against a hard right opponent

She couldn’t fire up a base by always leaning to the right ... sigh

[The Liberal Lion]

24. She lost because she said "I'm not one of those crazy democrats".

Although it cost us a seat, when she said that I believed she deserved to lose. We need people with a spine, not just asses in a seat. This is war. Better to have your enemy (pub) in plain view, then to have one posing as a friend with hidden intent.

[Scruffy1]

27. I agree.

We keep working and complaining about voter turnout, but you have to give voters a reason beyond being a Democrat. I think Beto finally woke up some people in the party. A lot of potentia voters believe it really makes no difference who gets voted in because they can't see any difference.

[moose65]

34. You got it!

I am so sick of the "consultants" who tell Dem candidates that they have to turn their backs on the Democratic Party in order to be elected in places like Missouri. The same thing happened to Kay Hagan in NC in 2014, who lost by about 40,000 votes after running from Obama and turning off a lot of Democratic voters. I will believe this for the rest of my days: Democrats need to concentrate on turning out our own voters and appealing to Independents, instead of trying to chase after Republicans. It doesn't matter how conservative a Democrat tries to be. The Republicans will portray ANY Democrat as a radical, Commie-sympathizing leftist, so we just need to forget about them and turn out our OWN voters! My favorite Alan Grayson quote: "You can't beat a Republican by trying to BE one!"

[jcgoldie]

36. McCaskill didn't lose because she didn't get enough black votes in St.Louis or KC...

Nor did she lose because she made some reference to "crazy democrats." Remember that when the chips were down she voted the right way on Kavanaugh unlike Manchin. She lost because every other county in the state is full of racists who doubled down on Trump's hate... the same way Donelly lost in Indiana and Bredesen in Tennessee.

[SunSeeker]

39. Yes, I had hope for Bredesen, but he lost by 11 points.

[hostalover]

48. Trump came to Missouri 4 times, making his rally in Cape Giradeau the last one before the election.

Hawley was on stage with him in Cape G, maybe others. Fortunately for me, anyway, I live in Jackson country (metropolitan KC) and our country went for Claire 60 something to 30 something. Same in St. Louis. Columbia (college town) went for Claire 49-47. Every other county, every single one of them!, went for trump. Very depressing. You're right about the overflow of racists, but I proudly drive around with all of my bumper stickers (proud liberal, I vote for Democrats, Hillary for pres, proud Democrat, love not hate) on display. So far no vandalism! Another thought--polls showed Claire and Hawley tied right up to the end. Don't know what happened there.

[pstokely]

55. but how often do you go outside the blue areas

nt

[hostalover]

58. Whenever I can, seriously!

[demgrrrll]

56. Jennifer Cohn thinks that there may have been problems with this election.

I thought it was odd that Hawley left his big rally. One of the major African American politicians in St Louis was angry about the crazy democrats schtick and told the press she was going to write in someone else's name. I think Claire tried to smooth it over. At the time I thought this isn't going to be enough, she needs to do more. I think they get caught up with their consultants and don't go with their guts.

[moose65]

61. I think you're right

Democratic consultants drive me batshit crazy. I don’t know why these politicians keep paying the same people that have been paid for 8 years while Democrats lost 1,000 state legislative seats. Something’s not working! Democrats seem to never learn that mid-term elections are all about the base. Whoever motivates their own voters best will usually win. This middle-of-the-Road, milquetoast method doesn’t motivate anyone. Voters love a politician who will take a stand and stick to their guns. The irony is that a Democrat who is a proud liberal and takes a stand will probably end up peeling off more Republican votes than a timid church mouse type of candidate.

[demgrrrll]

62. Right nt

[TexasBushwhacker]

65. Note Beto O'Rourke in Texas

Not only did over 3 MILLION more Texans vote than the 2014 midterms, but Ted Cruz got 400K votes LESS than Republican Governor Gregg Abbott. Those votes went to Beto and he is a card carrying liberal who's even brought up impeaching Trump. He campaigned in every single county in Texas.

[BannonsLiver]

72. Ah but you left out one key factor

Texas is trending blue and Missouri is trending hard red.

[TexasBushwhacker]

73. True. I wonder if they will stay as red in 2020

After the fallout of Trump's tariffs really kicks in.

[apnu]

74. This post.

The GOP has nothing to run on but racism and sexism and xenophobia. Its effective, but its the last tool in the box. If we can get past that, or get voters to recognize it, they will no longer have those tools and will fade in to the dust bin of history.