TX-10: Jack McDonald Decides Not to Run for Congress Against Michael McCaul

2002(?) all over again? (0.00 / 0)

Any other candidates in the wings?    Is it time to revive the 10for10 candidate effort?

---

by: mikeconwell @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 19:48:59 PM UTC

So, who's running instead? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: dickinabox @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 20:03:03 PM UTC

Blessing in Disguise (0.00 / 0)

At the end of the day, no matter how much money McDonald raised, no matter how many people gave time to volunteer, not matter how much better McDonald is than McCaul, he wasn't going to win.

TX-10 is too Republican (PVI +10) to switch in a state like Texas right now. Austinites should focus on the statewides and try to pump up margins in Travis as much as they can. Travis already have a complete Democratic sweep in the state house and thus it is far ahead of Dallas, Harris, and Bexar.

---

by: DallasDavid @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 20:10:25 PM UTC

most competitive seat held by GOP (3.00 / 2)

Seemed like a pretty good candidate and heard he had a top notch manager on board. I hope he'll run for something in the future. After TX-10, the 32nd would be the next somewhat competitive seat. Dallas will never be all Democratic.  The GOP will always hold 115, and can easily win 108, 112, 113, and 114 as long as the incumbents are in office. But we should win 105 and hold 101, 102, and Vaught should be fine in 107.

---

by: philtx @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 20:32:49 PM UTC

This is a big problem (0.00 / 0)

Jack McDonald appeared to be a strong candidate.  Why did he abandon his campaign?  Is the health care fiasco killing our vote in marginal districts?  Is the national money not there for Democrats in Texas?  What happened?

---

by: david siegel @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 21:38:51 PM UTC

Emphasis on "abandon" (2.33 / 3)

I also spent some time talking with McDonald, Phillip, and never wrote any negative things about him out of respect for his campaign.  I also never supported him.

I can't say I'm shocked to see this coming from a man who gave money to George W. Bush's Presidential campaigns.  Both campaigns.

What has changed since McDonald first looked at the district?  It was questionable back then and it's still questionable now.  

Was he hoping it would get easier?  McCaul would get poorer?  Republicans would get stupider?  Houston would get Austin-ier?

The only thing I see that's changed are his promises. He's a fairweather Democrat on his best day, and a Farouk Shami on his worst.

He's now left CD10 up Clear Channel creek without a paddle less than two weeks before the filing deadline.  As a constituent of the district, that disappoints me.  As an observer of McDonald, that tells me all I need to know about where his priorities are.  

It's nice to know that he's had plenty of time to weigh his decision and to justify dropping out this late in the game as a smart business decision.  Unfortunately, that doesn't help anyone who was hoping to have a viable candidate against McCaul this time around.

Anyway, I disagree with you on this one Phillip.  I sincerely hope he never takes another look at running for office.

---

by: MeanRachel @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 22:12:45 PM UTC

What a contradictory message (0.00 / 0)

If you did not support him and considered his run questionable, why are you be angry with him for pulling out?  

---

by: Dale Napier @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 19:19:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Timing (0.00 / 0)

I'm angry with the timing.  He locked down the opposition and paraded around like he was in it to win it.  Hell, even the DCCC supported him.  Now he suddenly is out? Just before the filing deadline?  Come on.  

---

by: MeanRachel @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 01:03:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Things to do in the next 13 days (3.00 / 1)

The chances of winning CD10 just went from slim to essentially none, but those of us who live in the district still need a candidate to support. Preferably somebody who will run hard, but even a passive name to vote for is better than an uncontested race. That means:

1) Talking with Jack McDonald. If you're reading this, Jack, give me a call! (I'm in the phone book)

2) Talking with former candidates Ankrum, Grant and Doherty, both to gauge their interest and to get their advice.

3) Talking with the TDP and TCDP.

4) Beating the bushes to find a good candidate, and keeping in touch with each other during that effort. Both BOR and the TrueBlue10 list are valuable resources.

5) Gathering up the $3000 needed for somebody to file. I'll start by pledging $100 to a credible person who is up for the run.

Finally, I'm incredibly disappointed by Jack's decision, but have a little respect for what the man is going through! Working your tail off for a cause for a year and then having to give up is hard enough without folks writing things like "He's a fairweather Democrat on his best day, and a Farouk Shami on his worst." Candidates are people, too, not just punching bags.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 22:35:54 PM UTC

Who said he had to do anything? (2.00 / 2)

He didn't have to give up.  He chose to. Just like he chose to consider running.  I'm entirely fine with the fact that he left the race -- as I said, I wasn't a fan.  What I'm not okay with is the timing of it.  He snuffed out any sort of primary competition by tying up fundraising for the last year and becoming the anointed candidate early on.  Exactly a week ago he popped into the TCDP holiday party and announced that he'd raised over $1M and declared his commitment to winning.  Why the change?

Unless he has a better answer he's willing to share with us (Hello!  Remember us?  The people?), it remains a selfish move and it remains worthy of the ridicule that Democrats have such a hard time swallowing when it's aimed toward their own party's candidates.

If he's looking for a pat on the back and a lollipop for all the hard work you mention that he put in over the last year, he's not going to find it from this Democrat.

---

by: MeanRachel @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 23:01:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know his reasons, and neither do you (2.50 / 2)

Maybe you're right, and he could easily have committed another year of his life to the run, and maybe the facts haven't changed and he could just as easily have quit earlier. Or maybe he was running as hard as he could until the changing facts of the race (like polling, organization and national trends) caught up with him, and that he dropped out now, rather than later, just in time to let the party find a replacement. I don't know, and outside of his immediate circle, neither does anybody else.

What I do know is both how hard it is to be a candidate, and how hard it is to pull the plug on a campaign that's not going the way you had figured. As long as you're thinking of staying in, you have to put a 100% effort into running, and then when you decide to stop, it feels like you're betraying all of your supporters with your "sudden" decision.  

When all the facts come out, maybe I'll join you in blasting Jack McDonald. But until then, this Democrat is going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 23:30:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough. (0.00 / 0)

For what it's worth Lorenzo, I never saw and do not see your decision to leave the SBOE race similar or equivalent to McDonald's decision at all.  And I certainly didn't feel as though you were betraying anyone with your choice.  I guess that is the difference between you and McDonald:  the fact that you have a long storied history in local politics, you've never given money to George W. Bush, and I saw you around political events and rallies before you started running for office.  In other words, I trust you.  I also know that at the end of the day, win or lose, running or not running, agreeing with me or not agreeing, you are working in the best interest of Democrats.

As for McDonald, his sudden appearance on the scene -- and what I imagine will be a sudden disappearance -- never bode well for him in my book.  We'll have to agree to disagree on the betrayal issue in this case, for as a constituent of the district, I certainly feel betrayed and -- unless he left the race for some serious personal reasons -- I hope he knows it and feels it.  

I agree with you that we need to find a recruit.  

---

by: MeanRachel @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 01:02:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Rachel n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 07:58:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What about the $805k McDonald has on hand? (5.00 / 1)

Has McDonald announced he will reimburse his donors? Its a shame we have lost a candidate who would have been considered a challenger by national entities.  Sessions is going to do everything in his ability to protect races in his home state.  The DCCC has to be upset losing this one. There has to be more to the story...  

---

by: TXJRS @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 00:52:58 AM UTC

there always is (0.00 / 0)

more to the story. but something serious either personally or professionally must have caused this to come to pass.  it could be something as serious as (God forbid) a serious illness in an immediate family member that he doesn't want to disclose, and shouldn't be expected to.  or it could just be that he got his latest poll back (it is that time of year) and decided there was no way to move forward.

if it is something polling-wise or logistical, he does owe an explanation so that Dems can try and fix it and move towards November.  We've got to keep the heat on mccaul in anticipation of redistricting.

and let us keep in mind that most rich folk ain't as rich as they have been...especially if they rely on terrestrial radio. bleeding every million we can out of mccaul will only help in future campaigns.

AND, perhaps most importantly, applying steady pressure in every competitive county in the state will help our down ballot campaigns.

the timing stinks to high heaven.

he's got to give back the money...FEC won't let you keep it.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 15:05:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FEC will let you keep the funds... (0.00 / 0)

McDonald formed an exploratory committee instead of an actual campaign.  He could easily hold the funds and apply to another run, say in 2012. His letter clearly shows his intent to stay active.

McDonald can start to heal wounds if he pledges to donate the $3,000 filing fee or a candidate who has to come forward immediately.

Dems in his district should hold him to this.  

---

by: TXJRS @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 18:59:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not exactly (0.00 / 0)

he couldn't donate $3,000 because it would exceed the cap.

furthermore, he can't just "keep" the money.  all FEC-regulated contributions must be designated.  in order to redesignate a contribution, a "best effort" must be made to obtain the contributor's permission to redesignate in writing.

and i'm pretty sure the collection of folks who gave him $1.2m to run weren't trying to fund an exploratory committee or allow him to "stay active".

he should return all the money, and fast.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 22:00:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Limits (0.00 / 0)

I think that campaign funds are treated like PACs, and that McDonald could give a limited amount ($5K?) to another federal candidate. Other than that, he can only spend it on another run for himself, or return the money. Or possibly give it to charity -- I'm not sure about that one. In any case, returning the money is the most straightforward and honest thing to do.

But he certainly can, and should, be asked to contribute some of his own money to whoever steps up to run, up to the federal maximum of $4600 (half for the primary and half for the general).

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 23:52:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Still wrong (0.00 / 0)

LSadun correctly pointed how McDonald can give the 3k filing fee to a new candidate. The committee is still a "committee" and has the ability to donate up to 5k to other candidates or committees.

As far as having to "re designate" this would not fall under that premise. Donors were contributing to the exploratory committee not the campaign committee.  If McDonald wanted to say run for the seat in 2020 he could hold these funds until that time. If his desire is to disperse the funds around the county 5k at a time in an effort to build a national fundraising base to support a run in 2012,he can do it. This is pure speculation on my behalf and has no factual basis. McDonald has shown an honest intent to run for the seat.  He is protected as to what he does now with the funds.  He can not use it as personal gain, but he can use the funds as political capitol to support a future run for office.

We are in agreement that he should return the funds, and quickly.  He should make an announcement about how he plans to do so.  His contributors deserve that.  

---

by: TXJRS @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 00:25:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

no no (0.00 / 0)

a committee is not a pac.

if you have sections of the code that refute the redesignation argument, i'd love to see it (as would some clients).

if it IS an exploratory committee and NOT a campaign committee, you are doubly wrong on the $3k.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 00:55:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

forgot to mention (0.00 / 0)

a "political committee" can give $5k...but it isn't apparent by my cursory research if it operates just like a PAC. individual contributions to political committees and pacs are treated differently.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 01:09:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

FEC Allows for.... (0.00 / 0)

FEC Allows for a candidate to convert a principal campaign committee to a non-connected committee or multiple candidate committee. This is commonly defined as a "Leadership PAC", but is not a PAC or SSF in the general sense of the term. Candidates are allowed to this as an alternative to committee termination.  This is outlined in multiple advisory opinions.  The candidate can do so without the re designation of funds as long as the candidate meets the requirements of a multiple candidate committee.

The down side to doing this will be the candidate will have difficulties returning the funds to the principal committee if desired. If the desire is to use the funds for a future campaign the candidate is allowed to keep the funds in the account principal committee.

We are in deep water.  I am not an attorney, but this is what I know about the issue at hand.  This is why compliance consultants are paid well.

---

by: TXJRS @ Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 18:17:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's run Dan Grant! (0.00 / 0)

Ok, I was not at all impressed with McDonald. He's dodging of Gardner Selby's question on health care reform was BAD. How could he not be for that? I think McCaul's ads (seen on this site even!) helped push him out of the race. We perhaps dodged a bullet. Now its time for Dan Grant to run again. Last time he ran the race out of his parent's home in the Allendale neighborhood, but perhaps this time he could raise more money and put up a good fight. He'll be better than McDonald and probably even better than LJD.

---

by: TexianPolitico @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 01:42:54 AM UTC

I don't mean to disrespect you (0.00 / 0)

but something about your comments on this site makes you seem like a McCaul staffer that is (rather poorly) pretending to be a progressive Democrat while jabbing other Democrats and defending Republicans.

I may be completely wrong, and if I am I apologize, but I'm normally a pretty good judge of character.  

---

by: Joe @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 06:19:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

right on, joe!! (0.00 / 0)

that is most definitely the case. all of his comments are obstructionist at best and purely apologist at worst.

i'm wondering if glazer gave him the ID of "6666" for a reason?

do i see another BOR expose in the near future?

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 14:58:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

I don't work for McCaul and don't live in his district either.  

---

by: TexianPolitico @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 21:58:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well then (0.00 / 0)

who are you and why are you making so many comments that are negative towards Dems and in defense of repubs?

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 22:02:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

McCallum (0.00 / 0)

Sorry. Just calling it like I see it.

I went to the same high school, McCallum, as Dan and I'd like to see him run again. He ran a good race last time with limited resources and with more money and seasoning he could win. What do you have against him? He's a better Democrat than Kinky, right?

---

by: TexianPolitico @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 22:13:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was a sound business decision . . . (1.00 / 1)

running for Congress on the ticket of the party that is trying to pass a bill that a majority of Americans and even more Texans don't want would be wasted time and money.  Couple that with the fact that its possible he disagrees with the direction of the party as it becomes more and more anti-business, it was probably an easy decision.

---

by: sdhook @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 14:57:49 PM UTC

If You Haven't Done It, You'll Have a Hard Time Relating (5.00 / 6)

I met with Jack last Summer to offer my experience and advice as the TX 10 Candidate in 2006, another off-year.  The first thing he asked me was "Did I think he could win."  I replied that he would have to do all the things I did as a candidate with no money, plus all the things he could do with money.  I told him about my first meeting with Mark Strama when I was exploring the idea of running.  Mark told me that only someone who has done it will ever understand what a candidate goes through.  It was my life for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week for a year and a half.  My wife said she had run the numbers and knew that I could not win, but she held her advice because she knew that no one could get up every day and do what has to be done unless they thought they had a chance.  I don't know if Jack could have won, but I did think that he had a better chance than any other candidate I'd seen.  The only way to win in TX 10 is to get at least 40% of the Harris County end and the key to that is turnout of the new, mostly South Asian, voters.  Jack had a chance at that because those voters place economic development at the top of their concerns.  Jack has a "story" to tell about that, where McCaul has never been anything other than a Government employee.

The last six months have done nothing to help any Dems chances in TX 10.  The Tea Party is alive and well in Harris.  All the reliable voters in TX 10 Harris will vote a straight Repub ticket.  There is no Dem Party infrastructure in TX 10 Harris for get out the vote.  A Dem candidate will have to build it from scratch and with paid help, because there are very few Dem activists.  It would take a mass movement of Travis activists to Harris for volunteer help to work.  A candidate with money to pay for buses and organizers is the minimum needed, as is a candidate that can motivate those volunteers to spend days in Harris.

Regarding Jack's silence on the Health Care issue.  I told him that he had to balance what Dems in Austin wanted to hear against what would come back to bite him in a general election campaign in all the rest of the District.  I recounted my problem in the '06 Primary where I knew I couldn't say I would vote to impeach George Bush, no matter how much I would wish to do so, because it would be a sure loser in the General campaign.  I ran and strongly believed in Medicare for all, but health care was not the issue it is with the ultra conservative voters in Harris, today; and that would be another sure loser if things remain as they are. In some cases, silence is golden if one is to have any chance at winning in a "mixed" district like TX 10.  Not only is it a barbell in Physical shape, it's an ideological barbell also with Progressive Travis and Ultra-Conservative Harris.  Unfortunately, the Harris end has been outgrowing the Travis end.  

---

by: Ted Ankrum @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 16:43:46 PM UTC

2010 Redistricting will affect a lot of decisions to run (0.00 / 0)

The conventional wisdom is that Texas will gain 3 seats in the new Census redistricting. Depending on who controls this process, it is more likely to produce either 2 new Dem seats or 2 new Repub seats.  Clever Dem redistricting could add one of those seats in the Dem areas of Houston and the other in Dallas.  The new Repub seat could also be in the North and West TX-10 area of Houston, concentrating the ultra-conservatives in something that looks like SD 7.  This would result in TX 10 being compressed toward Travis and tilting it Dem for a net gain of 3 Dem seats.  In this case, there could be a LOT of interest among strong Dems in Travis to run for TX 10.  If Repubs control the redistricting process, I'm not going to speculate; except to venture the opinion that McCaul will be protected--probably by minimizing his exposure to Austin voters.  This could also result in a better opportunity for a strong Dem candidate from Travis.  In the most likely situation of a Federal Judge doing the redistricting in Texas, who knows.

My observation is that any strong Dem candidate from Travis might consider it a wiser choice to sit out 2010 and wait for 2012--particularly if they were calculating their own best interests.  I do know that, as a first time candidate, I learned a lot--which is why a successful candidate tends to build up to higher and higher office.  When I was considering a repeat run in 2008, the DCCC pointed out that losing candidates making a second run generally do worse the second time around.  I don't think that Jack should worry too much about this as it will be an entirely new District in 2012.  I think he should stay in it in 2010 and if he loses, he'll be a better candidate in 2012 and probably will have a different opponent than McCaul.  Jack is old enough to have a record of success at substantial things, yet young enough to build up the seniority that makes an effective Member.  I sincerely hope he reconsiders and stays in the race.  

---

by: Ted Ankrum @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 17:22:44 PM UTC

Changing demographics (0.00 / 0)

The biggest fact overshadowing redistricting for CD10 is that the extremely conservative Harris County part of the district is growing rapidly. It used to be a lot smaller than the Travis County part of the district, but now it's substantially larger. Because of that, CD10 has far more people than a congressional district should, and will have to be trimmed down.

If the Republicans are in charge, they'll probably remove much of Travis County from the district (while keeping McCaul's house in it) and give those Democratic voters to Lloyd Doggett, who doesn't need them. That would make most Travis County Democrats happy, as we'd have a congressman we like, but would make CD10 an even more Republican district. A Democratic plan would trim off a lot of the Harris County end of the district and would compensate by adding the Austin part of CD21 (Lamar Smith) to CD10, at which point all of the big Austin-area Democratic names would want to run for the seat.

If the redistricting plan is a compromise, Lord only knows what will happen.  

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 19:30:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You reinforce my point, Lorenzo (0.00 / 0)

I think Jack is a great candidate, but if he sits out 2010 he'll get lost in the noise in 2012 if TX 10 is more Democratic and the big names come out.  By running in 2010 and doing well in Travis, he becomes the front runner in 2012 and the "big names" become opportunists.

For other readers who do not know, Lorenzo was the Dem write-in Candidate for TX 10 in 2004.  You have two people blogging on this subject who have very direct and relevant experience and who know the Travis and Harris ends of TX 10 as well as anyone.

---

by: Ted Ankrum @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 20:47:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]