"It's not often that I find myself taking the moderate position," says Joshua Grossman, SF Bay Area-based political demographer and founder of the congressional vote tracking website ProgressivePunch.org..."but when it comes to House targeting , you can call me a raging moderate."
Grossman, a committed and pragmatic progressive, says this with a twinkle in his eye...and then launches into the heart of his analysis. "The DCCC has traditionally done targeting in such a narrowly focused manner, targeting and fully funding so few races, that the Democrats would have to draw an inside straight to take back the House...pretty much taking every seat they contest. On the other hand, and in part in response to this narrow point of view, the netroots has tended to choose races as if resources and political capital were in endless supply. Too often, there's been heartbreak at the end of the rainbow for the netroots...dollars, sweat and tears have run up against races where, truth be told, we didn't really have a chance. There's a middle path."
Joshua's middle path comes out of his background as a political demographer and consultant. His website, Progressive Punch.org is a well-known online resource for evaluating congressional voting records using a progressive yardstick. At the core of Joshua's analysis is this precept: the first factor to look at when we consider the pool of races to consider for targeting is the districts themselves...
......
The Task at Hand
Taking back Congress is the single most significant political task at hand. Nothing impacts our everyday reality like the GOP having majority control of the US Congress: witness the state of our political lives since 1994. On a bedrock level, then, `job one' in 2006 is to develop a strategy to take back the House. We can all agree that we do that by running credible candidates with strong grass roots campaigns effectively supported by national dollars, brainpower and powerful themes. We also do that by being pragmatic and smart. That means running credible candidates with strong grassroots support in the districts where we have the best chance at victory, where the voters most lean our way. Joshua's district-based analysis offers us a start point for that discussion.
Too often, we in the netroots have been like the figure in the famous analogy, looking for our keys under the streetlight "because it's brighter there." We focus on races because we loathe the incumbent (Musgrave, DeLay, Blunt), because we love the challenger (Barend, Hackett, Young) , or even because the race is located near where we live, or has come to our attention through blogs we read or being in the news. Those are natural start points, but they can be self-defeating ones as well. Joshua's analysis asks a simple question. What would happen if we started with a dispassionate look at the districts minus all those other factors? What would happen if we started by looking at an analysis of the underlying voting patterns of the districts themselves?
There was a moment in one of my discussions with Joshua where the value of this start point became crystal clear. We were talking about one of the districts he proposes examining for targeting, VA11, currently held by the very popular Representative Tom Davis (R.). Joshua admitted that this race would be one of the more difficult on his list to win. Tom Davis is "one beloved Virginian"; in fact, Davis is rumored to be eyeing Sen. John Warner's Senate seat if it opens up. "But," Joshua added, "if Tom Davis leaves his seat in VA-11, there is an excellent chance that it will go to a Democrat. Tim Kaine won that district. VA-11, the district held by Tom Davis, is a purple district that happens to have a Republican representative." Let's take a look at how Joshua draws that conclusion, and what he does with it.
...........
The Method: Start with the Districts
Joshua's analysis begins at a familiar starting point. Joshua crunched the Bush/Kerry `04 numbers as part of an analysis of all 435 congressional districts. In doing this analysis he noticed something that cut across all of the geographic regions in the country and affects every congressional district. When the percentages for Kerry or Bush in any given congressional district reach a certain percentage range specific to the district's region, that district will generally no longer elect congressional candidates from the other party.
In fact, the percentage range for Bush or Kerry in a given district consistently predicts within each geographic region whether a district is "Safe" "Lean" or "Toss Up." Only 7 of the 308 of the "Safe Dem" or "Safe GOP" districts in Joshua's analysis are represented by a representative of the opposite party; that's an extraordinarily low figure. In a nutshell, the 2004 election, when looked at with this regional "twist," was an excellent indicator of the underlying political demographics of the US.
(If you are interested in the raw Excel spread sheet of this analysis, you can find it here courtesy of Joshua's 527, Progressive Kick. I've written the essay, however, so that you can skip that step if you'd like. If you do click through and choose to download the file you'll need the Excel program on your computer. Each tab at the bottom of the spreadsheet represents a region, and within regions: Green = Safe Dem, Blue = Lean Dem, Orange = Toss Up, Purple = Lean GOP and Red = Safe GOP.)
Now, using the Bush/Kerry returns to judge districts may seem to be simple common sense. It is. But there's a twist. The percentage ranges that define "Safe", "Lean" and "Toss Up" are different in different regions:
In each of the ten regions Joshua identifies, there's a point where people just stop electing Democrats or Republicans. Take the Great Lake Region: comprised of MN, WI, IA, IL, OH, MI and MO. In Joshua's "lean GOP" range, where Bush got 53%-56% of the vote, there are three Democrats and sixteen Republicans. In the final data point of that "lean GOP" range a lone Democrat, Melissa Bean in IL-08, won election in a district where Bush received 56% of the vote. In districts where Bush won over 56% of the vote there was but one Democrat elected in the entire Great Lakes region. Now, this pattern holds with differing "breaking points" for every region in the country. In region after region, Joshua's method is a very effective means of defining "Safe GOP" districts. It's an equally effective means of identifying potential targets for Democratic pick-ups.
In every region of this country there are districts where John Kerry did relatively well for the region but the district itself is represented by a Republican. Joshua's analysis highlights those Republican-held districts by comparing their data with other districts in or near "the same range" in that region. So, in looking at districts where Kerry did well in the context of his overall performance within a given region, Joshua finds Republican incumbents in districts that are, in theory, winnable by a Democrat. It is the combination of Kerry's relative strength in a district when compared to all the other districts in the surrounding region that tells us the districts we should examine for targeting. The GOP vulnerabilities that this regional comparison highlights are the core of Joshua's analysis.
What that means in pragmatic terms is that any Republican who holds a seat in a Safe Dem, Lean Dem, Toss Up or Lean GOP district should be in our crosshairs. Conversely, districts which Joshua classifies as "Safe GOP" should NOT be included in the pool for targeting because...as shown above...Democratic candidates, by and large, simply can't win in those districts.
Using regional demographics and election return analysis Joshua's model defeats the "streetlight effect" and yields a neutral start point that looks at voters in all 435 districts in a regional context. This analysis builds a pool for strategic targeting by looking at those races squarely in the demographic middle, where Democrats can win, without reference to incumbents, or ideological or strategic preference. In my view, this analysis has strong appeal whether one takes a DCCC conservative approach or that of a no-holds-barred "contest every district" net roots warrior.
Let's take a look at Joshua's list so that we can understand what all this means when the rubber hits the road.
.........
The List:
What you're about to read is a list of vulnerable GOP districts that follow a breakdown of the country into ten demographic regions. Each of these regions reflects common voting patterns and characteristics. Under each of these regions I am going to list the districts currently held by a Republican that Joshua advocates including in the pool for targeting, followed by the name of the incumbent (or "Open Seat" if the seat is open) and whether that district is classified as "Safe Dem", "Lean Dem", "Toss Up" or "Lean GOP". Note: This is not a "handicapping" list, nor is it an evaluation of the candidates or of the "state of the race" ie. what our chances are in a given district. This list defines the pool of potentially vulnerable Republican districts. It is a start point.
These are the 88 districts:
The Western US
MT At Large, Dennis Rehberg, district = Toss Up
Nebraska and Kansas
KS-02, Jim Ryun, district = Lean GOP
Texas
TX-32, Pete Sessions, district = Lean GOP
The Southern United States
Now, some of these 88 districts are so obvious that those who follow House races (among them superribbie, Nathaniel Ament Stone, Jonathan Singer and RBH...hat tip to all...) have already labeled them "no-brainers" for targeting...consensus races all of us are looking at. Other districts are counterintuitive, and, some may say, seemingly impossible long shots given the popularity of the incumbent and the 2004 vote totals. What Johsua's model does, however, is highlight the pool of most vulnerable districts for us to consider mounting a coordinated, well-funded grassroots campaign around a credible candidate with strong local appeal. (Many of these districts haven't had a credible, well-funded Democratic opponent in recent memory.) If this analysis says nothing else, one would be hard put to explain the state of the Democratic party more succinctly than to point to the DCCC's lack of a strategic commitment in so many of these 88 districts.
At the end of the day, however, as it is for any `reality-based' approach, the proof is in the pudding; so, let's take a closer look.
The rest of this essay will examine: New York State, Overlooked and Under-emphasized Districts, and Opposition Blogs.
..........
Take NY
New York is an excellent test case for this analysis. At great deal of netroots focus has been put on:
In New York, Joshua's analysis instead points up:
In sum, Joshua's analysis offers an alternate start point for looking at New York. Because it is based on voting patterns, the analysis itself doesn't have an ideological axe to grind in picking districts. In fact, because of his start points, Joshua encourages us to look at districts that are trending in our direction...and encourages casting a cold eye on districts that aren't. If you ask Joshua...and, believe you me, I have... he will tell you that barring a major scandal affecting the incumbents, NY-13, NY-26 and NY-29 should NOT be included in the pool for targeting. That's something to think about. In fact, I'm writing this piece...knowing that some will strongly disagree...in part so that we might have that discussion about New York and elsewhere.
.............
Overlooked and Under-emphasized Districts: the DCCC
One of the things that this analysis is very effective at is pointing up vulnerable Republican incumbents we might have either overlooked entirely, or neglected through a lack of emphasis (under-emphasis being one of the basic modes of the DCCC.)
In California there are two districts on everyone's list. Richard Pombo, in CA-11, has attracted strong opposition in the Bay Area due, in part, to his atrocious environmental record...and the CA-50 district formerly represented by Duke Cunningham has been greatly in the news...scandal , of course, does that. Joshua's model includes both of these districts. Less in the news, and yet also in Joshua's pool of districts for evaluation are two California Republicans whose districts are also vulnerable. David Dreier in CA-26 and Elton Gallegly in CA-24 are both in districts crying out for a coordinated Democratic challenge. (Currently Russ Warner in CA-26, and Mary Pallant and Brett Wagner in CA-24, are set to enter the fray but with much less attention than those races might deserve. )
Even a cursory glance shows other districts that fit this bill. In Florida, Ric Keller in FL-08, a district centered in the Orlando corridor that forms the fulcrum of Florida politics...is richly deserving a well-funded battle. Frank LoBiondo, representing NJ-02, currently has no opponent listed with the DCCC, even though his district is ripe for a concerted Democratic effort. John Kline in MN-02 and Jerry Weller in IL-11 also pop off the list as representing districts that are vulnerable yet little emphasized. Finally, Deborah Pryce representing OH-15 voted with Tom DeLay a whopping 94% of the time though her district encompasses some hard core Democratic precincts in Columbus Ohio. Despite this, her 2004 opponent, Mark Losey struggled with money issues...that's not something we should let happen again. Implicit in Joshua's analysis is a question for the DCCC, "Why not take these races seriously this time?"
Now, for many, these names will not be new. I am not suggesting...nor is Joshua...that his model represents something unorthodox, or that these races should sound "fresh." Just the opposite. What's important here is that the focus is on avoiding spending money and energy on races we simply won't win when there are very similar and perhaps under-emphasized races where we can. Deborah Pryce, for example, is in many ways, a figure as easy to get riled up about as current House Whip Roy Blunt. (Blunt, of course, is someone we here in the netroots worked mighty hard against in 2004...and represents the very "Safe GOP" MO-07). The point is, however, that Deborah Pryce represents a district where we've got a shot at winning and Roy Blunt doesn't. Joshua's analysis points this out. In point of fact, we in the netroots find maximum leverage in exactly this kind of "neglected" race...a concerted early netroots effort against Pryce might bring a strong Democratic candidate out of the woodwork, draw mainstream Dems and DCCC funding into the battle, and, critically, afford the possiblity of delivering, as a return on our hard work and dollars, a victory in November '06.
...................
Opposition Blogs and expanding the Playing Field
If we do nothing else in the netroots, we should make 2006 the year of the local opposition blog. (Link to an widely influential article at Swing State Project by DavidNYC.) Nascent efforts like leftyblogs, Districtblogs and the Soapblox family of regional blogs, like Calitics, are showing that local blogging is an incredibly powerful tool for information sharing and opposition research where it counts...in the districts themselves.
Even more powerful, however, is the opposition blog that focuses on one of these 88 districts. Take the situation in New Jersey's 7th congressional district where there are two opposition blogs: Nathan Rudy's Blue 7thand its sibling blog, Dump Mike. Anyone who's followed politics realizes even with a quick look at these blogs that this is something new and powerful. One dirty little secret of Senators and Representatives is that they control the news we read about them. In general, we hear about our legislators only when they choose to do a press release or "make news." No newspaper actually effectively covers votes. Given that, you can be quite sure that Mike Ferguson is an avid reader of these two blogs...blogs entirely devoted to reporting the truth about him and his voting record.
Now, you might ask what this has to do with the 88. It has everything to do with the 88.
Republicans in districts that have "Democratic tendencies" are under a hell of lot of pressure right now...and that is no coincidence. Tom DeLay's unified Congress came with a price: these 82 representatives (minus the 6 open seats) are paying that price right now in the form of political heat. Here's some examples:
I've seen first hand how a local blog...even one done on the free blogspot template...can grow to have immediate impact. A couple months ago blogger Matt Lockshin and I were discussing Chris Bowers very influential post about blogging: I'm Not Going to Blogroll You mixed with some of the ideas expressed in Joshua's analysis. I could see the gears spinning for Matt. Within a matter of days, he and a team of netroots activists had launched SayNotoPombo in opposition to CA-11's Richard Pombo...and within weeks of that launch they had impacted the race, drawing the attention of a campaign manager to the district and winning daily hits from Congressional offices in D.C. Reading Matt's archives and seeing how he grew the site from small blogger to becoming a source of breaking news about the race is a case study in the power of the local opposition blog. SayNotoPombo has raised over $2000 in opposition to Richard Pombo in two months. Not bad for a weblog with 0.02% of the traffic of dKos. (For those interested in the race, there's also Pombowatch and VotePomboOUT, both worthy of attention.)
At the start of this election cycle, conventional analysis would not have predicted that Mike Ferguson or Richard Pombo would be having to slog through this kind of opposition in late 2005. They are. Not just that, but you can bet that the GOP is going to spend some money defending these "lean GOP" districts where in past years these two candidates would have coasted through. These two efforts are already helping spread the playing field for 2006.
That's not just an example of the power of the netroots. It's also points up that these candidates really are vulnerable. I can't think of a more powerful and "ready-to-boom" prospect than the combination of these 88 vulnerable districts and the potential of local opposition blogs.
.........
Conclusion
Power is about leverage. It's about fulcrum points. I think of Joshua's analysis that way. Joshua is saying here's where the GOP is weakest, even when the veneer of an incumbent's popularity hides the fault line...like in Tom Davis's VA-11...that fault line is still there... still vulnerable...just waiting for the Democrats to seize the advantage.
Joshua Grossman has advanced an argument that is worth examining on the merits. It's not an end point. It's a start point. Its strength is its common sense moderation. If we had all the resources in the world and strong Democratic machines in every state we'd run hard in every single district. We don't. In that context we need a rubric that lets us focus on the weak points in the GOP armor wherever we find them. Joshua Grossman makes a strong case that's worthy of debate and further analysis. One need not agree with every example of his model to give credit to Joshua's basic point.
These 88 districts represent something at the core of what we've been saying all along. It really is about fighting in every region and every state; this really is a national struggle for the nation's soul. It's also, as Joshua points out, about finding GOP weak points and...as fighting Dems...going for the jugular in 2006.
..........
{Joshua Grossman can be reached at Joshua@ProgressiveKick.org. If you have inquiries or would like to contribute to his organization, which will be active in the 2006 elections, contact him there.}
|
|
|
Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
