Since then, someone at the DCCC apparently had a stern talking to.
On Thursday, The Atlantic quoted DCCC spokeswoman Meredith Kelly declaring that, “The DCCC has no interest in working with Democrats for Life of America.”
The group Kelly dismissed is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that helps elect pro-life Democrats. Isn't electing Democrats something you think the DCCC would be interested in?
I guess the Dems are still utterly terrified at the prospects of Republicans voting to de-fund Planned Parenthood. So if they were to become the majority party in the House on the strength of a good number of pro lifers in their party, the prospects of halting taxpayer funding of PP is still a possibility in their eyes. Hence the litmus test. So I guess Dems are going to have to make a choice: Be open to pro-life candidates in moderately Republican districts or face an uphill battle in taking over the U.S. House.
Yes, I'm aware that President Trump's approval ratings are in the mid to high 30s, which is lower than what President Obama polled halfway through his first term. So if you're tempted to say that Dems can just ride the wave of an unpopular GOP incumbent President, I point you to a June tweet posted by Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics.
Any reasonable comparison of 2018 to 2010 has to account for the fact that Ds had 40+ seats that leaned R by 3 or more points; Rs have ~5.
Any reasonable comparison of 2018 to 2010 has to account for the fact that Ds had 40+ seats that leaned R by 3 or more points; Rs have ~5. https://t.co/zZCgquw9uJ— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) June 5, 2017
Dismissing the pro-life stance of approximately 1/4th of Democrat voters has made the challenge of flipping 24 House seats that much more difficult. Not that I'm complaining about it.