something that had been an unwritten rule in the past. Not using firms that work for candidates who are primarying incumbents is not a new thing. It is sort of comparable to not endorsing before the primary. That is not a written rule either.

You claim to be in the know about a lot of political individuals. Surely you are aware of this.

And there is no civil war!

the DCCC (and DNC) shot themselves in the foot. Probably they lost many political contributions and historic or otherwise supporters of the Democratic party.

It is formalizing something that has been common in the past.

where people say quiet things loud. It is a positive development imo.

the Democratic party. By this, both entities foster within party divisiveness and then scapegoat those that have been excluded. The DCCC and DNC then lose a portion of their own core support. Rather than being the adults in the room and inclusive, they weaken the party to retain control.

Probably I should not have brought the DNC into the conversation. Many good folks do not support the national party apparatus because the party apparatus works against them so they are better off providing financial support to individual politicians.

You get folks like me who have spent a life as a registered and Democrat and have never voted anything but Democrat (and do not intend to change) that are less than enthused with party leadership.

The blackball is wrong thinking and, even if the blackball is a operational fact, to announce the blackball is stupid for the DCCC's own ends. What Katz says is true, like it or not. But the act of the DCCC weakens the Democratic party as does labeling some members of the party as insurgents because they want change. It would be one thing if the Democratic party was strong but the party has worked itself into a difficult corner.