Matt, you're seriously arguing that Bilbray ran as a progressive and that Busby lost b/c she was too conservative?  Bilbray's #1 issue was to push for a hard right, bigoted immigration plan - and it worked (as it probably will for a lot of republicans this year, in the short term.  Long term that's a losing position).  One line taken off of his web site - which is vague and is primarily focused on environmental issues - doesn't change the focus of his campaign, which was to turn out the sizeable conservative base in the district.  

Remember, this is a District where 44% of registered voters are Republicans.  How exactly, in such a District, was Busby supposed to win by turning out progressives at the expense of losing moderate republicans?  I honestly just don't understand your argument here - as applied to Cal. 50 - at all.  

Yeah, this is some of your worst stuff here Matt.

Bilbray as a progressive? Come on.

Busby did run a DC Insider campaign. This is true.

But for months you have been pushing Francie Busby like no other. And now, just because she lost, you turn around and blame in on the DC establishment and her just running on "issues." This sounds a helluva lot like Arm-chair politicking to me. A helluva lot like Monday (Wednesday morning) quarterbacking.

I have a world of respect for you Matt, but come on.

I supported Busby with contributions via Emily's List, and I (card-carrying optimist that I am) fully expected her to win.  But my fear was that if she got elected this time, she wouldn't be able to hold on to her seat in November, in this overwhelmingly Republican district.  So while I'm disappointed, I must say I'm kind of relieved - in the fall, my contributions will go elsewhere, to progressive candidates with a real chance of winning and achieving change.

Busby definitely reached out to bloggers.  She was on numerous conference calls, her staff returned phone calls and emails immediately, etc.  Her campaign engaged in much of the kind of blog outreach that is actually fruitful, even if they didn't fly in people to drink beer and "live blog" on election night.

C'mon, folks, get some perspective.  This is one of the most Republican districts in the State of California & the nation.  So Republican, in fact, that the Democrats had to settle for a nominee who is a school board member for a very, very small school district.  Not a single mayor in this district is a Democrat.  Despite all of this Francine Busby had the momentum until her stupid "you don't need papers" statement.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Anyone with an ounce of political savvy knew that was a message killer for Busby in this conservative Republican district, and probably a lethal self inflicted blow.  I'm a progressive myself, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking Bilbray outflanked Busby to the left; instead, Busby lost because of her own rhetorical inexperience.

Knowing nothing worth knowing about the CA-50 fight, I've stayed out (except for this heads-up on what seemed to me an odd Post piece).

But the impression I'd got from the lefty sphere generally, and from FP-ers here, was that she was fighting the good fight, keeping it close, on the right track - all that jazz.

She was, in short, a candidate that the lefty sphere liked.

Now, I 'find' she was a DC clone who

hid from progressives and liberals explicitly, running on a technocratic vision of minor benefits for the electorate.

I'm just noting it for future reference.

"Running on bullet points is wrong.  Running on character is right."

Good post, Matt. I concur that 2006 is primarily a turn out the base aggressively year. Its less about the laundry list of policy and more about character and principle. When a candidate stands up for progressive principles and comes across as authentic the base gets energized and the Indys come too.

Tester demonstrated this in spades. He was unafraid to stand up for his progressive values from the Iraq war to trade. He refused to kowtow to the DC Dem establishment and built a genuine grassroots prairie fire with support from all the big blogs. He showed what firing up your base can achieve.

The real surprise was Marcy Winograd. She had no money, none of the major blogs got behind her campaign, she got into the race late and her campaign was amateurish. Yet she stood strong for progressive values and was able to get the grassroots - the core progressive base in her district fired up and turn up to the tune of 37% of the vote in a race where Harman had the name id and the big money to blanket the airwaves for weeks. The lesson from this performance is that progressive candidates that stand strongly for principle, who get into races early and energize the local base have a great opportunity. What can tip these candidates over is strong national netroots financial and buzz support.

The tea leaves from yesterday are that candidates that have courage of conviction and unafraid to stand up for progressive values can fire up the base and win Indys too and despite the money disadvantage can win. For the general in Nov, the Dems opportunity to really gain a majority is closing down fast. The progressive base will not turnout unless they are inspired. When the base is energized by strong candidates unfraid to run on progressive values and character and the netroots are coordinated and orchestrated the Dems will be unstoppable. They then have the opportunity to win both the Senate and House. The Emmanuel/Schumer DC Dem establishment strategy of being invisible and triangulating to victory will only lead to results of the past several elections - another lost opportunity.

I hope progressives learn and start preparing now for the 2008 primaries. The netroots can lead the way in preparing now a framework for a 50 state, every congressional district stand up progressive challenge in the 2008 Dem primaries.

It depends on how you define "progressive".  Read my diary about the CA gov race.  Angelides is a pretty traditional Democrat, supported by the unions, who is not afraid to talk about the need for taxes.  This election was a triumph of traditional organization over "cybercampaigning" by a multi-millionaire.  Westly tried to position himself as a "new Democrat" but he conducted a traditional negative Garry South campaign.  He never really decided who he was, and he came of as Mr Insincere.  I don't think the netroots were a factor at all, what with Kos' "plague on both of your houses."

What I think you are trying to say is that having definite positions on issues, even if they are not necessarily "popular" wins over blandness and negativity.  What I draw from the CA Gov race and Tester is that people want to be inspired, they want to see a positive message, they don't just want negative dreck.  This isn't necessarily a matter of "progressive" so much as being willing to stand for something.  

Bilbray isn't progressive, but he is a moderate Republican.  He did have an environmental record.  But he has more of the libertarian about him, more of the SD high-tech world, and in this sense he is more like Westly, who ran away from the unions.  

I'd say the message of the CA Gov and Tester races is that quirky sells this year, especially if coupled to some strong positions.

The CA-50 race is a tough one for Dems to win.  Maybe a different candidate could have won it--a "fighting Dem", maybe, or a Lamont-type progressive entrepreneur.  But as I said in my diary, the latter kind of candidacy can't be run by a consultant who specializes in negative campaigning.  That is the real message--people want inspiration and they want to know where the candidate stands.  That is not necessarily "progressive".  It is just being willing to take risks and capitalize on who you are, not run from it.

Matt-

This has got to be one of the most bizarre analyses of an election I've ever read.  The district had 155,000 registered GOP voters 105,000 registered Dems.  Busby is an uncharismatic, error prone candidate who ran as a soccer mom and really couldn't distinguish herself in any way other than as a generic Democrat.

So because Duke Cunningham won this district for years with 65%+ of the vote, I guess he ran as an unabahsed progressive too.  Hell, he voted for increased fuel efficiency standards and for the Clean Water Act too.  

San Diegans will always vote for clean water and clean air, they live in an area where those issues cut across party lines just as they do in New York and Washington state.  

I agree, Busby ran a "safe" campaign based on the assumption that CA-50 voters would react against any Republican to punish Cunningham.  It might have worked against any of the other Republican candidates, but Bilbray was able to hold the center and not lose the right.  

What strikes me is the level to which voters simple rejected both candidates.  In 2004, Busby lost to Cunningham and yet managed to convince over 100,000 people to vote for her.  

In the special election, Busby was able to get nearly 60,000 voters to mark her name.

In the run-off election, for all the marbles, the Busby campaign could only generate 56,000 votes.

That tells me that the safe message could not overcome the disgust of the electorate and that many potential Democratic voters simple stayed home because no one engaged them with meaningful ideas.

I knocked doors for Busby in April - and this is an uneducated electorate.  The learning curve here for voters was big - a primary, a run off, and another election in November.  This is a Republican district  - saying Busby is not a progressive and thats why she lost is such a bunch of crap. There were more GOPers than Ds.  They spent more.  They also had state GOP elections coinciding with these special election days. If you want to blame someone why don't you examine the DCCC?  Did they get in early enough?  Did they spend enough?  I bet if Tester had lost you'd find a way to turn on him too.

Busby came up a bit short in a substantial Repub district where the NRCC dropped major dollars shows that she has the opportunity to win in Nov.

But its going to require a lot better Dem & Indy turnout. If registered Dems are this apathetic it will be tough to win in wingnut strongholds.

Busby has to start right now to get the Dems to vote early. She knows the difference she needs to make up. The grassroots and netroots should redouble their efforts for Nov as this race is winnable.

This is disappointing.  She forced the GOP to lose more than $4 million in what should've been a safe district and came within 5% of winning and you seem to treat this as a campaign failure?  The fact that we brought such a conservative district to be so close means that we can expect, using similar tactics, to be able to get blowouts in the truly competitive districts.  This was a good sign, not a bad sign.  Winning would've been icing on the cake, but let's be realistic - this election was a trial run.  And 50-45?  That's a pretty good trial.

Man, better not post this on DailyKos or you will be banned for life. Markos hates this kind of talk.

I just love those who always fall back on "this is a red district" like eeor.  To them, Democrats will never win where they are minority.

Well, sorry to break it to ya, but Democrats are a minority in a lot of districts -- this is why districts are gerrymandered to look the way they do.  So, what are we to do, not put up candidates?

You win in "red" districts by putting up good candidates and telling the electorate why you should vote for a certain person.  I live in a "red" district -- yet have a Democratic representative.  My candidate ran a good campaign and put the focus on the issues that were foremost on the mind of the electorate.

ab initio is right, the issue is turnout and apathy.  The blogs give a distorted view of reality: in reality, the electorate is apathetic, they blame both Republicans AND Democrats (despite the wail of those on liberal blogs who refuse to believe this).  They hate Bush, with his 29% approval rating.  But why ignore the fact that Democrats have an approval rating even lower?

Only 34% of registered voters showed up yesterday in California.  Until those who say they care prove it by showing up, the results we saw in CA-50 will be repeated nationally.  I'd like to be excited by Tester's victory last night, but all last night proved to me was that the only way a Democrat can be guaranteed to win is if the opponent is another Democrat.

Everyone in coastal San Diego County runs as an environmentalist, except maybe Duke, who could play the hero card.  It's simply not a left/right issue down here.  Republicans have to talk about it to establish their credibility.  Democrats typically don't.

But as anyone down here knows, the 50th CD race was, in the end, entirely about immigration.  Bilbray ran hard on the issue, while Busby seemed at a loss as to how to handle it.  At the 11th hour she chose her words poorly, talked about "not needing papers to vote", and was annihilated in the local media.  

To my mind, the fact that she came so close tells us three things: 1) she ran a pretty good campaign for this district; 2) people are still really angry about Duke; and 3) Bilbray is an unappealing, oily lobbyist who doesn't really live in North County (as the locals refer to it).

A truly progressive campaign in the 50th CD would have been a sure loser, in my view.  This is a district of retired military, upscale yuppies (if they're still called that), and Latinos who (unfortunately) still don't vote in very high numbers. Y'know, the 50th did elect Duke over and over again.

Now Bilbray will concentrate on using the powers of his incumbency to his advantage, buy a home in the district, vote the right way, and lock down the 50th for the next decade or so.

Democrats definitely need to build a coherent progressive message and give their voters a reason to go to the polls.  The DLC strategy is both spent and failed.  But the 50th CD is safe GOP turf and Busby's only hope was to fly under the radar and hope that revulsion toward Duke and Bilbray would give her a fluke victory.  It's impressive that she came so close.

49% Republican 38% Democrat and 14% Indpendent. The Republican base in the district is just to bi g to win in.

The lesson here is to not analyze after you've been up all night. You may be right about progressives and populists ability to win, but last night didn't prove it. The only populist/progressives you tout that won, won only primaries in their own parties. In general elections other elements are in play- strength of candidate and political make-up of the electorate to name two.

about a candidate this website, Kos and countless others supported enthusiastically. We win some and we lose some, but I definitely expected us to win this one and I'm very disappointed that we lost. But to turn around and say the reason Bilbray won was cos he appealed to CA-50 voters as a progressive while the Democrat wasn't is insane and probably the worst form of revisionism this side of common sense. I mean let's face it..maybe she wasn't a great candidate but she tried and we tried to support her, but we did not win. We could have won this seat (55% Bush mark in 2004) and we need to win seats like this if we plan taking back Congress. But its also quite possible that voters in this district just did not buy the argument to "send a message" to the GOP by picking a Dem/Progressive. Bilbray is, was and will never be a progressive...he's an anti-immigrant (read anti-brown skin) card carrying GOP who only chalked up moderate votes in Congress cos his old district was more liberal..once he gets back to DC, he's going to side with the RSC and their ilk like white on rice. Its bad enough we have yet to win one netroots inspired Congressional election this cycle, but for God's sake..don't insult our intelligence by kicking our candidate for losing by saying he/she lost cos the other guy used our message. That's absolute baloney. Believe it or not, progressive/liberal politics don't work everywhere no matter how hard you try and I think Busby tried the best she could.

This is what is unrealistsic: CA-50 is a GOP majority disctrict and while it is certainly disappointing that Busby didn't win, it was also not a shock.  Here is what else is disappointing: progressives (esp. bloggers) beating up on everyone who doesn't meet their moving target of a standard for a candidate or a campaign.  Matt, I would like to see you get on the ground and recruit some "progessive" candidates, run them in a district like CA-50 and see how it goes...  How can you expect ANYONE to want to participate when progressives sit back, watch and try to be the smartest guy in the room, poking holes in campaigns?  While criticism is often deserved, so is some respect - if you aren't running yourself, if you're not on the ground, have some appreciation for those that are.

LOL winograd better than expected? ha.  Her supporters were saying she was 'running even'. she got crushed because Harman isnt that conservative and the district isnt ultra-liberal like Winograd is, with a neville chamberlein esque stance on foreign policy

So its Busby's fault......

...then I'll sit back and listen here and on the corresponding DKos thread.

Maybe this District liked "Duke," minus the corruption.

They did elect and re-elect him. Maybe they just wanted him without the bribery. That sounds about like what they're gtting with Bilbray.

Forest? What forest?

Do people commenting here understand what this district is?  It's North County San Diego.  Quite wealthy (especially along the coast) and extremely suburban.  These are people who choose commute an hour to work each day into the city and back to live their suburban lifestyle away from San Diego (which is a very nice city).  They choose to sit in traffic on 78 (if you've lived there you know exactly what I mean).  By any stretch of the imagination this is not prime Democratic territory.  It just isn't.  

What was Busby supposed to do?  Get more progressives?  From where?  Where is the Democratic stronghold in CA-50?  I don't see any.  She needed to grab independents and moderate Republicans (who are all over the district).  She didn't get enough.

People seem to be under the impression that we can take any seat if we just campaign correctly.  Even in a perfect world with unlimited resources, we can't.  We can, however, force Republicans to spend resources and, in this situation, learn from our mistakes and try again in November.

I agree with you on the bad advice and the detachment, but I'm not sure that it was progressivism that was lacking so much as tangible proposals.

Busby was the hero of the netroots untill last night. Bashing her as an 'insider' today is silly.  This was Duke Cunningham's district, and so they might even like insiders.

Plus, being the 'anti-corruption' pol makes a lot of sense in her position (replacing the dukestir, and what is a dem to do in a heavy rep district)

If anything, it was probably the two idiots running for the governor primary.

I'm glad angelides won. I don't know anything about him but he sounds Mexican so that will help get more Mexicans to the polls on election day. Busby might have a chance then.

Actually, what Bilbray served was the San Diego Republican Special.  Go right and left of your opponent simultaneously and end up looking more moderate.  This is what Dick Murphy did to Ron Roberts the first race for mayor.  And let me tell you, it was a thing of beauty to behold.

Bilbray used progressive ideals on the environment to soften his hard-line stance on immigration.  What drives me nuts is that Bilbray has always done this, and the DCCC has run 3 campaigns against this guy (1998, 2000, and 2006) and completely forgot about this.

Busby was also not a strong candidate.  She lacked experience and ability to convey her message.  So when the going got rough, she listened to the DC guys and not her heart (or at least the San Diego guys).  Its not that she wasn't progressive, its that she had no idea how to articulate her message.  She didn't impress people.

So, I think the real message of the night is that having a good candidate matters.  Dems, even with netroots support, don't have the resources to elect a stuffed shirt (and particularly not in a +14 Rep seat).  Still, the difference was only 4 points, so all in all, I figure the Dems have a +10 advantage.

It's like comparing apples and oranges to compare the Busby campaign's situation with Angelides and Tester.  Angelides and Tester ran in party primaries.  Busby race yesterday was in a special general election and her race in April was an OPEN special primary election.  Believe me, in that district she was considered a flaming liberal.  In many parts of that Republicant district, "running the trains on time" is a socialist concept.  Notice that the Libertarian candidate pulled about 4% of the vote, and that is an underperformance compared to past elections.  There are many libertarian-minded social conservatives in this district... unless the libertarian issue concerns civil liberties and rights.  They believe in less or no government (but they'd better get their social security check on time!).  Everyone knew who the progressive was: Busby.  The posturing that you wanted her to do (in hindsight only) would only have waved the red flag at hardcore rightwingers to come out and vote against her.  And that is what happened with her "you don't need papers" stumble.  The Minutemen and other rightwingers did email blitzes of that video to the media, conservatives, and targeted voters over the weekend to try to turn them out to vote against her.  What she did in this race for local Democrats and progressives is tremendous.  Please cut her some slack.

Matt I have to disagree on points.  But fisrt I offer this disclaimer.  I am a spirited progressive and am unapoligetic about it.  That being said I think you're arguments are off-base and oppurtunistic.  I do not seek to attack progressives, nor progressive policies.  It is simply my goal to rebuff poor logic before it becomes conventional wisdom and challenge progressives to rethink their tactics and arguments.

First, I think your comparisons are poor.  Tester and Phil A. were running as progressives in Democratic primaries.  Of course their progressivism was popular.  Busby on the other hand was running in  a general election in a district that is 44% Republican.  The difference between a primary and a general is like night and day.

Second, you're argument ignores (or forgets) important information.  Phil has amazing name recognition in CA, he might have run anywhere on the Democratic spectrum and won.  And Testers primary opponent was up in the polls until certain "character issues" were make public.

Third, there's more it than 'message'  Message is ONE element of a sucessful campaign.  The blogosphere seems particularly, and overly, obsessed with it.  Whenever I hear complaints about I message, I suspect I'm hearing from someone who want to "talk the talk, but won't walk the walk."  

Bilbray received less than 50% of the vote.
And at least part of the decline in support can be attributed to corruption and competence, simply because it didn't 'get the job done' isn't reason enough it reject it.  It brought Bilbray below 50% in a district that performs, on averge, close to 60% for Republicans.  Imagine how powerful this national message will be in district that aren;t Republican strongholds!

I'm glad Francine ran a tough race and I think she deserves our condolences, not oppurtunistic second guessing.

Great Post! I So agree with you on this race.

I was astounded by the poor quality of the Busby media presentation. The creative execution and production was godawful and the strategy was all wrong. With the time, energy and money that was spent on this race (not to mention the high stakes), there was no excuse for this.

A few humble observations:

1. This is totally a DCCC effort. All of the consultants on the Busby campaign were probably the "best of the best" DCCC approved consultants. I think they are full of shit. These guys should be sued for malpractice for this stuff. Pathetic and inexcusable. TV, website, graphics, photography-- all horrendous.

2. The television ads were downright amateurish. You should NEVER script a non-actor.  

3. I hate to even get into the message thing--the aesthetics were bad enough. But it was all research-driven milquetoast. Especially offensive was the anti-corruption ad about NO Exceptions, blah, blah, blah-- totally the party line on lobbying reform-- no gifts and all that phony shit!  It totally ignores the real corruption issue, which is public financing of  campaigns.

3. The graphics sucked. Confused and not clean at all. Who designs this stuff??

4. The website was totally uninspiring. Horrible digital photographs, links that didn't work and a layout from the last decade.

5. The photography is strictly OLAN MILLS --  they obviously never heard of a stylist or an art director.  

OK, OK! That's enough, but suffice it to say, if she had won, she would have won NOT because of her DCCC "approved consultants" but despite them. She'll have another shot at the guy in November, but she'll need a much better creative effort.  

We progressives have most of the great creative film people and producers on our side. We don't have to settle for hack producers, photographers, filmmakers, web designers, etc.  We can do so much better. Let's hope the powers that be in DEE CEE hear see the handwriting on the wall. Straight ahead!

I think the real story that you're missing is the fact that the 50th is a district where immigration really is a potent issue.

It is a wealthy, conservative suburban (historically) white district.  Less than a hour from the border.  This is the demographic imgigration plays too...and it couldn't put Bilbray above 50%.

I think that's reason for hope, not criticism.