Are you a 50-state “attack ’em where they live” strategist? Or should we carefully choose a few GOP strongholds while reserving money for close contests around the country?
Whatever your strategy, we need to pick up 15 seats. And we can’t afford to lose a single seat in 2006. ( POLL BELOW.)
“Liberal activists want Democrats to storm congressional races, even on GOP’s turf,” writes Ron Brownstein in today’s LAT (sub. free).
An array of liberal Internet activists is urging Democrats to vastly expand the 2006 congressional battlefield by recruiting and funding challengers in dozens of districts that have been virtually conceded to the GOP, like the one represented by Pitts.
Those calls are drawing new energy from Democrat Paul Hackett’s narrow defeat this month in a special election in an Ohio district where Republicans usually romp. Hackett’s showing “proved that you could build the party if you pay attention to every race,” said Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the popular liberal website the Daily Kos.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has responded to the pressure from liberal activists by saying he intends next year to fund Democratic challengers for 50 Republican-held seats, about double the number the campaign committee backed in 2004.
But the committee, and many leading Democratic strategists, say that funding a wider circle of challengers in heavily Republican areas would divert money better spent on districts more closely balanced between the parties.
More BELOW from Brownstein — including a quote from MyDD‘s Jerome Armstrong, and Mark Gersh, a strategist, calling us “crazy” (!) — and a clip from today’s WaPo piece on values versus issues:
Mark Gersh almost calls us crazy!
Mark Gersh, a longtime strategist for Democrats, said the liberal websites and blogs were right that the party needed to expand the battlefield for House seats.
“But to expand it into districts where [Democrats] have no chance of winning is absolutely crazy,” he said. … […]
In an article last week, Jerome Armstrong, co-founder of the popular liberal website MyDD.com, called on Democrats to run “Hackett-like operations” against every Republican House member.
But Gersh argued that it would be a mistake to build a strategy around the Ohio example, because special elections often produced surprising results that didn’t necessarily offer clues about the general election to follow.
But a WaPo story warns that Democrats face a tough fight because cultural values trump issues:
Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party’s failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections. …
The LAT story goes on:
Diverting money to long-shot contests is “what the Republicans would want to see,” Gersh said. “This kind of craziness would exactly play into Republican hands.”
Advocates of the expand-the-map strategy counter that writing off so many districts carries its own financial cost.
Walter Ludwig, a former aide in Howard Dean’s presidential campaign, has calculated that Democrats failed to mount serious challenges to about 120 House Republicans in each of the last three elections — and that those Republicans contributed $63 million to colleagues in closer races.
“The fact that we are basically giving up on a quarter of the House in every cycle is just appalling,” said Ludwig, who has formed a political action committee called Project 90 to support Democratic challenges in heavily Republican districts.
“Campaign Battlefield May Grow,” LAT, Aug. 10, 2005
If the Democratic Party competes in every race, nobody in the political consultant class get to play kingmaker. The consultants can’t have that.
The problem is, it is like a military attack. You always have to retain reserves to deal with surprises, both good and bad.
The Guys in the DCCC are concerned mostly that we are pushing them to commit all the resources on a broad attack and they will not have enough held back to support a surprisingly good show or deal with a nearly collapsing candidate. They have a point, and the history of the Democratic Party is that it is always so strapped for cash that they have had to be real careful.
In spite of the surprising money gathering power the blogosphere has indicated, no one knows what it will do reliably.
Experience makes people unwilling to change from what they have always had to do. Change is extremely risky. Which way do we go?
I want a viable candidate in every district. But someone better be handling the reserves, too. That’s going to be Dean, the DCCC and the Senators.
Rick, you make very wise observations.
Thing is, I think people will come through with the money if they’re jazzed that the DCCC is on the offensive everywhere … if people are pissed that too many Dem candidates are being ignored, they’ll hold back on contributions.
So, I think it’s a worthwhile gamble.
I think there are indications that you are correct. But one thing the Army taught me (among many) was that making decisions based on indication rather than solid Intelligence is an extremely high risk proposition. Success comes from manipulating things so that the risk is lowered and the certainties lean your way.
A lot of those indicators are connected to an increasing anti-Bush passion. The problem with that is that if passion were all we needed, then we would be talking about President Goldwater from 1964. Passion and involvement are only part of the equation. They feel like they are everything, but that is because the passion swamps out awareness of the structural underpinnings of victory.
I also have to say that a lot of the anti-consultant, anti-“inside the beltway Democrats” rhetoric I have seen appears to be a perfect example of what it means to go off half-cocked. I am not ready to throw in with a bunch of higly passionate throrughly pissed off inexperienced people who think they know why things went bad before and offer a set of simply answers.
That said, I also am pretty well convinced that the DCCC is quite ready to fight the last war – tentatively, not sure what they did wrong before – but is gunshy about making changes to take advantage of what might be going our way. I rather hope that Dean is coldly planning to do a 435 district campaign, but is not doing it in a passion-inspired impulsive manner. I don’t think the DCCC is as far along as Dean is, but that’s because they are insiders and Dean is new to Washington.
The key, as I have said before, is going to be nationalizing the election the way Newt Gingrich did in 1994. That will be something the Democrats have never succeeded at before, but if we don’t, Rove is right about the next two generations being controlled by conservative Republicans. That is my opinion as an outsider with no real experience in electoral politics personally.
My suspicion (not even based on decent indicators – maybe just my hope) is that Dean understands this and is developing the strategy for the election. If the DCCC hasn’t figured out that they are a minority party with seven lost elections behind them yet, they are likely to resist Dean. I hope they don’t do that. Seven failed elections with no change is a symptom of individual psychosis and groupthink. But if they get it right, they aren’t going ot telegraph their awareness to the Republicans, so we won’t know until after the November 2006 election.
I DON’T think there is any significant self-centerness based purely on fear of “Kingmakers” losing power. There haven’t been enough successful Kingmakers to make that a problem. Besides, that kind of ad hominem attack is counter productive. The people it might most properly be aimed at (If there are any such) are the least likely to to give it any credence.
I think the anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-war passion may well be a strong set of tools to be used to win the next elections. So will blogospher money- and consciousness-raising. But they will be a part of a coldly planned carefully implemented overall strategy. The blogosphere and the passion will not drive the strategy.
Looks like the Dems are getting the idea. Ruy Teixeira discusses The LA Times Article by Ron Brownstein Aug 10.
This really is moving in the right direction.
As recruiting is performed, the political conditions change, and money flows in, all of the current planning will probably be expanded. And this does not count the power of the blogosphere.
November 2006 is going to be a very interesting election.
I’ll set up a BoomanTribune account at the LAT. So far, I’ve got an e-mail address set up: boomantribune@yahoo.com
I’ll share the password with the social committee so they can help us get signed up at registration-restricted sites.
Paul Hackett’s narrow loss in a surefire GOP district has exposed the hollowness of the DLC’s claim that we have to be Repub lites in order to win. Hackett, who was openly anti Iraq War and openly anti Bush, was able to attract a large following.This is what the DLC wants us to give up. I think the time has come to challenge every cherished myth that the DLC keeps watering for our defeat in 2006 and 2008.
In addition, only by challenging everywhere can we really get our message out. If we constrict ourselves to the blue states, our message will be less and less meaningful.
Running a Dem in every district will help the Dems get their message out and could help our national candidates.
We actually did pretty well in local and state elections in 2004. We even picked up 1 seat in the House if you don’t count the losses stemming from the gerrymandering of Texas. So it is BS that the Democratic message doesn’t resonate. We just need more of it. And we need to get the local Democratic messages to tie into the national message, so local success rubs off on our Senatorial and Presidential candidates.
I suggest down thread that we tailor our message in each race to the district, tie them together with an overarching theme: GOP lies/hypocrisy, GOP corruption, the poor economy, GOP placing corporations above people, GOP curtailing of civil liberties, whatever.
Hackett was also pro-choice, in a district where the anti-woman forces have a very high profile.
Since the 4th choice in the poll is “Other Berry,” I think we should call the first three options the “Blueberry Strategy,” “Raspberry Strategy,” and “Strawberry Strategy,” respectively.
Blueberry ’cause we’re trying to paint everything blue; raspberry ’cause we’re razzing the Republicans, and strawberry ’cause that option depends on (straw) poll results.
I vote blueberry ’cause if you don’t run, you can’t win. Make them spend their money in every district, rather than concentrate their money in our selected few districts. I thought I saw somewhere that we were actually ahead in money for 2006. If we’re ahead in money, why not take the fight to them for a change?
Do you know Auto Phil? Auto Phil is a sonofabitch … he fills in what I’d last typed after the word Other … thinking. It must have been a pie poll ?! :):)
Actually, it may have been your “Favorite ice cream flavor” poll. (See, we read every word you grace us with!)
You poor thing…. well, it’s quite wonderful that people do read what I write. My family refuses to read a single word of my writing, dismissing it as irrelevant and completely unimportant… aside from my daughter, of course.
This is the key point, one that isn’t getting enough discussion, and clearly isn’t getting through to people like Gersh:
Democrats failed to mount serious challenges to about 120 House Republicans in each of the last three elections — and that those Republicans contributed $63 million to colleagues in closer races.
Even if candidates don’t have a serious chance of winning, forcing them to spend money to defend their seats is a very good thing — it takes money away from Republicans in more competitive districts. Also, it pins people like DeLay down in their own districts so they can’t campaign for others. This is incredibly important.
Plus, I’m sick of this strategic / swing state election B.S. We need to fight for every seat in every district — and give all of the candidates at least a little support. We need to do this as a matter of principle, and as a way of getting more people involved in the political process. The Dem leadership can’t complain about the Republican Congress when they’re conceeding seats by not mouting challenges.
No more giving up in election years!
This is so absolutely right-on that I wish I could have it tattooed on the foreheads of every Dem Party official.
Every long-shot race that becomes even marginally competitive requires the GOP to divert money from other places to counter the Dem challenge. It does not necessarily require the Dems to divert money from other places if those long-shot races are being funded by local money — grassroots activists who are willing to donate to take back their local House seat aren’t necessarily going to be giving any money to the national party anyway.
Political consultants, of course, can’t grasp this simple principle because they have a death-grip on the kind of top-down centralized politics they need to survive. Of course they think we’re crazy — if we build on the near-victory of Hackett, we won’t be spending so much money paying the consultants to lose races for us.
Why politics has to be so far divorced from reality, I don’t know. If a consultant I was patronizing kept taking the money without producing results, I’d shop around. In Washington, however, being a consistent failure just gets you more contracts.
I say screw ’em. We didn’t elect these bozos, so who are they to tell us shit? No, really — who do these jerks think they are? It’s their advice that has helped run the party onto the rocks and keep it there. So forget them. Go out, find out who your local Dem is, and if they’re not worse than the local Republican, cut them a check. It doesn’t have to be a big one — a thousand Dems writing $25 checks is just as good as one fat cat GOP donor writing a $25,000 check.
If I may paraphrase the president, let’s take the fight to the beneficiaries of terrorism.
I live in a resort town full of rich folks who dominate all the government around here. I am “represented” in Congress by Katherine Harris. She responds politely to my letters, and sometimes votes my way, but I would really prefer to have a chance to vote for another person to represent me. Isn’t that the right we all deserve? I will not support any political party that believes otherwise.
Those people are too mesmerized by the game and forgetting their real reason for being.
The key, I think, is going to be recruiting of candidates and money.
I think that the Iraq war, Plamegate and the corruption of Congress, Abramahov, and Ohio should provide real fodder for the values voters, while the Republican attack on Social Security is another of their vulnerabilities.
Together they shold make the Republicans more vulnerable nationwide than at anytime since 1994.
I think that the Democrats need to nationalize the 2006 election and place a credible candidate in every district so that we can take advantage of good fortune.
I’t write more, but Lon Burnham (Texas State Rep – Dem) just returned my call re: Cindy Sheehan and I need to run.
Being Quoted?
They’re the guys who are experts at keeping things just as they are.
That said, it does make sense to to focus more on the closer races. But we have to organize everywhere, or else we simply accept the state of politics in the US, rather than work to fundamentally change it.
There is academic support for the sorts of arguments that consultants make, but that’s only assuming that fundamental long-term change is not in the equation.
For instance, “Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections” which has this striking graphic:
From this, you can see how wierd our electorate has become–it’s the inverse of a bell-shaped curve. And you can see where Hackett was running, and how exceptional his race was. This is not to say that it can’t be replicated. But it is to say that what Hackett has revealed is a deep vulnerability in the landscape. It’s clearly not just about spending money. It’s about what Hackett was doing in his campaign.
And that’s the biggest problem with the consultant class. They don’t do that sort of stuff. They are trained to focus on that narrow niche right in the middle of the valley, and to ignore the high hills that loom on either side.
Also, I’d like to explain Gallops latest poll that has the only PRO-CHOICE candidate LEADING THE GOP RACE
They are lying… there is NO Conservative Revolution.
was that he ran against a deeply compromised Ohio Republican Party, and he called them out on it. He called the President a son-of-a-bitch and a chickenhawk, and he was rewarded for it.
I loved it when Reid called Bush a loser.
Named calling can be juvenile, but when the shoe fits, it’s called ‘telling truth to power’. And people respond to it.
Well, the notion that Bush is “honest” and “straightforward,” a man of “honor” and “integrity” is not the sort of thing that you can politely object to. Do that, and you invite an onslaught of vituperation. You’ve got to come out with guns a blazin’ or there’s just no point in getting up in the morning.
There’s enormous dissatisfaction out there, but it will never be channeled where it belongs without rhetoric that cuts through the malaise.
And that’s why they’re being quoted. The mainstream media has a vested interest in keeping things just as they are, because they’ve got a pretty sweet deal right now.
I could get as many responses to my non-rhetorical questions!
They tend to be harder to answer. 😉
I’m so tired of hearing about values trumping economic policies. Economic policies are a product of the party’s values. They can’t be separated out. The GOP talks a good game, but their policies reveal their real values. We need to be talking about how the GOP policies reveal their lies.
There are a slew of questions we should be aiming at the GOP that will reveal this to the American citizens. How do you claim to be the party of family values when you are screwing families with your program cuts and protecting corporate rights over people’s rights? How do you claim to be pro-life when you are giving economic windfalls to companies that pollute the air and water and banning stem cell research? How do you claim to be the party that supports the military when you are cutting veterans benefits? How do you claim to be the party of morals when you allow immoral corporate behavior like the raiding of pension funds and the use of sweatshop labor in the U.S. protectorate of Saipan? How do you claim to be the party of small government when you are running up record deficits? How do you claim to be pro-free market, when you let behemoth companies run rough-shod over competition and give handouts to the biggest companies in the country?
These are just a few examples of where economic policies reveal lies behind GOP values claims. There are tons more. And if we expand it beyond economics to social policies, then anyone who can still say the GOP has any values in common with middle America is a serious Kool-Aid addict.
Plus, each of these questions I raise can be tailored to the particular congressional district. In Texas, we can talk about the screwing of Native American tribes. In PA, OH and lots of other places, we can talk about policies encouraging outsourcing, like CAFTA.
Plus, the GOP corruption is SO rampant, we can make DeLay, Cunningham, Abramoff, Coingate, etc issues in every race. How is the GOP the party of values when they are so very very corrupt?
Nov. 2000 changed everything.
Attack in every district you possibly can. Attack in every local and state election you possibly can. Give nothing away.
Folks like Gersh are living in a pre-Nov. 2000 mindset. There is a new political reality and many of the tried and true democratic strategists are struggling with understanding the changing political landscape.
Yes, we need to marshall strong enough forces in key races. Yes, we need to be tactically savvy and analyze the numbers and really go after the elections we have the best chances in. But no, this does not mean we give away elections and no, it most certainly does not mean we don’t even bother in districts we are unlikely to win.
Fight everywhere.
Build the party and build momentum in every election, in every district, in every precinct, ward, and town.
Concede nothing.
For folks ike Gersh we should thank them politely for their services and their opinions… and then ignore them and go on about our business. It is much the same with the DLC and the consultant class in general. They are behind the times and must simply be bypassed. Let’s not waste time with them. They are smart folks, they’ll catch up eventually.
We are in a culture war with a radical fringe, allied with the forces of soulless greed, to renew and sustain a just United States.
To steal from Winston Churchill:
Make the bastards earn every election they take. If our old guard, our consultants, continue to try to sustain the current corrupt status quo, we must go around them, fighting them first in the primaries.
Fight for our values, fight for our future.
A fifty state, four-hundred-thirty-five district strategy makes sense if only because it will force the GOP to spend money in places it hadn’t intended. The more they are forced to diffuse their focus, the more likely it is they will make mistakes and end up looking like Jean Schmidt only writ large.
Sure, they have a lot of money. Let’s make sure that they’re forced to spend every dime, and then some.
We’ll simply spend smarter than they.
And that is what Democrats have proven time and time again that they are better at than Republicans.
Strictly talking money here – no other issue.
<rant>
What I don’t understand is the difficulty of coordinating the fundraising across organizational lines. “Nice” that DCCC has cash to spend, and they talk about funding candidates, but there is no strategic discussion taking place at the hub: the DNC.
DeaNC, DCCC, MoveOn, MovingIdeas (130 orgs), SwingState, and multiple blogs direct funding to candidates of their choice through overlapping databases, registries, and memberships.
Yet none of those orgs has seen the wisdom of coordinating that flow of cash through a single, bi-directional doorway: a portal. Ok, so you’re tired of reading this, but that doesn’t mean the idea is unsound nor impossible. Simple to construct:
But noooooooooo. Let’s just keep things the way they are, so I can continue to get a mountain of e-mail a month, asking for contributions from a wide variety of democratic sources. Averages one a day sometimes, more on “big issue” Fridays. What a waste of electrons.
Like I keep saying, it’s a cultural change: no more whales in bathtubs. The technology to implement is laughably simple, in large part because it’s already in place. The brahmins riding black limos have absolutely no clue what the next election cycle will look like. As most have noted here the depth of anger and desire for regime change runs long, deep, and continuous.
Slipstream the process. Leverage the assets. Common sense is a hard concept to grasp when the distance between your ears narrows to zero.
</rant>
The DNC needs to flatten that pyramid, part of which is making damn sure the party recognizes the need to coordinate across organizational lines – including the DCCC. Good, solid candidates are emerging all over the country. All the D.C.-folk have to do is provide the locals with the backup to make sure the races are fair. They’ll do the rest.
[Expletives deleted.]
when he said, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” Or maybe in this case, 15.
Okay, let’s say the Democrats narrow their focus on 15 or 20 Congressional districts, and puts all their resources into those. Suppose that the Democrats win 10 of those, but then lose 10 seats that they had already held (whether through brain-dead campaigning, sitting on the laurels, or voting machine skullduggery). The Dems will still be as screwed as they were before the election.
That’s why we need a two-pronged approach:
Now, some folks are going to be pissed off at me for #s 2 and 3, especially 3: “We need to unify the party!” Well, I don’t need to support politicians who say that they’re Democrats, but whose voting records say otherwise. Atkins is filing for bankruptcy because people are sick of eating fake food — a lot of us are sick of voting for fake Democrats.
‘Nuff said on that subject…
Make that a “three-pronged” approach…I was only going to go with two, then remembered having to get rid of the Democratic deadweights…
They can dish it out, and talk shit, but I’ve always noticed that those types can’t take it. Remember how they walked all over Daschell and Gephart, the appeasers. Then Harry Reid came in, was attacked, and then he ACTULLY STOOD UP FOR HIMSELF! THe Rethugs shut right the fuck up, and Reid has been able to fuck with them in ways no Democrat has in years. He has fared better in six months as minority leader than Daschell as majority leader. That’s what having balls is all about.
The thing we need is CLASS WAR. Why, because all the talking heads are always saying “Your not gonna play the class war card and loose again, are you?” They consistantly put into play race, God, gays, guns and values like it’s going out of style, but they won’t touch class war. Instead they sell it as a loosing hand and the Dems fall for it everytime.
They way they talk about it reminds me of how they would talk about Howard Dean. They all said we hope Howard wins because it makes our job easier. In fact anytime they pull that “Fine with us, it helps our cause.” thats when we should follow thier advice.
So definitly we need to run in every district. I don’t think they can take a thrashing, all we have to point out is how fucked up everything is right now. The Rethugs have been in controll of all three branches of the federal Govt. for over five years and they have fucked up everything. There isn’t anyone who wasn’t already a multimillionare who’s overall standard of living has not declined in this era.