Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy Memo

By Chris Bowers, Rick Jacobs, Matt Stoller and Joel Wright

To: Democratic Congressional Challengers
Re: CA-50 Post-Special Election (Busby-Bilbray) Polling Memo

Fall Election Environment Overview:

This fall, you will face a grotesque political environment, one that requires strategic knowledge, great courage and fortitude to successfully navigate. Facing low approval ratings, Republicans will introduce you to the voters as a flip-flopping, gay-loving, liberal terrorist coddler who wants to cut and run from Iraq, all at the behest of self-absorbed Hollywood moguls and liberal elites.

The establishment Democrats have proven ineffective at combating this positioning, introducing empty slogans like `Together we can do better' that no one repeats or remembers, and policy proposals that few voters believe Democrats are capable of enacting. Most of the polling and advice you'll get from DC insiders and journalists will largely rehash bad information, false choices and irrelevant answers to poorly framed questions. If you take their advice, you will not make significant headway in convincing voters you are best to represent them. And when you lose, it'll be you who ran a bad campaign, not "them." Just ask Francine Busby how that works.

Perhaps worst of all, you will probably face some form of October surprise from the Republicans and your opponent: a game-changing event or message stream. And you will be blind-sided because establishment Democrats will be caught off-guard. Again. And you and your campaign will pay the price of their failure.

Realistically, when it comes to developing a winning position and messaging, you are on your own. Or rather, you are on your own, except that the voters - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - agree with the outrage that you feel towards the political system and agree that Republican leadership is the problem. Yet, voters will only vote for change if they know you can deliver on that change once elected.

So far, few believe that will happen, as our data in CA-50 show.

Why CA-50 matters to you and your campaign:
Francine Busby and the DCCC spent more than $5 million on a nationalized Congressional race in California's 50th District. As the Democratic contender in the only partisan federal race so far this year, she was the Petri dish for testing Beltway techniques and messages. She ran on the national party's first semester message of "the culture of corruption" against Brian Bilbray, a former Congressman turned lobbyist in a district where his predecessor is in jail for taking millions of dollars in bribes from defense contractors. A conservative, heavily military district where Dianne Feinstein won in 2000 and where Barbara Boxer lost by less than one percentage point in 2004, she ran as a "bi-partisan Democrat who would go to Washington to clean house and accomplish a seven point policy plan." She dodged the Iraq war as if it were a bullet aimed directly at her. In short, she played by the national insider rules.

And Francine Busby lost. The national committees and insiders have moved on. Her campaign team has simply moved out, taking the blame for doing what they were told by the `experienced' Beltway consultants.

Focus on this: Francine Busby lost a race to Brian Bilbray, a Republican lobbyist and former member of Congress, someone about as "inside" as it gets. Even though Busby ran on the culture of corruption line and Cunningham sits in jail with a mere 6% favorability in the CA-50, and, further, even though few voters believed that Bilbray had credibility on standing up to Bush on immigration, she lost. We know this because we polled extensively in the district this summer to find out why an extremely well funded national campaign utterly failed. Given that this was the only Congressional election so far this year between a Republican and a Democrat, we wanted to learn some lessons. This is the only data set on the only Federal partisan election that has happened in 2006 so far. It is very much worth understanding.

What happened in California's 50th?
California 50th is a right-leaning district, though not overwhelmingly so (John Kerry got 44% of the vote in 2004). The seat was open because Duke Cunningham resigned and ultimately went to jail in the midst of a bribery scandal. Democrat Francine Busby's messaging was therefore focused on the then national message of "the culture of corruption." She ran a policy-heavy campaign, proposing what she asserted was the `toughest' ethics legislation out there, while at the same time attacking Bilbray for his lobbying work. Republican Brian Bilbray focused his campaign on a hard-right message of cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Surprisingly, neither message worked. In an open-ended question, less than 4% of voters cited Republican corruption as a reason for voting for Busby. Similarly, Bilbray voters did not believe that Bilbray had the ability to divert from the Bush agenda and crack down on illegal immigrants. In fact, both candidates were largely undefined to the electorate, despite a highly agitated voter pool seeking change. While there was high Democratic turnout, Busby lost because independent voters did not believe that she could deliver on her policy promises and did not believe she was substantially more ethical than Bilbray. So, in large numbers, they either stayed home or voted for third party candidates.

Busby's lack of definition as a candidate and lack of message credibility allowed Bilbray to solidify his voter base, even though that base evidenced a substantial amount of dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and President Bush.

Lessons for Candidates Around the Country
The obvious problem with Busby's messaging was that she dodged Iraq as though it were a bullet aimed at her head. According to all available polling information, Iraq is consistently the number one issue on voters' minds. The absence of Iraq as an issue in the campaign is one likely reason why turnout was so low in CA-50. This in contrast to record breaking turnout in the Connecticut primary, in which messaging strategy did focus on the war. To the extent Busby discussed the situation in Iraq, it was in the context of a vague withdrawal plan rather than as a challenge to Bush and Republican war strategy.

In our research, we asked respondents in California's 50th a series of questions about Iraq and the political impact of the war situation. The findings were stunning, and reveal a deep split in the Republican base vote.
  • 63% of Republican voters believe that Bush has made some or a lot of mistakes in Iraq.
  • 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush has definitely or probably not told the truth about the situation in Iraq.
  • 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush should probably or definitely be held accountable for the situation in Iraq.
  • 40% of Republican voters believe that the Democratic Party is more likely to hold Bush accountable for mistakes in Iraq.
See charts of these questions here.

While the country is open to the idea of partial or total troop withdrawal, according to our data in CA-50 existing withdrawal messaging loses badly to Republican `cut and run' counter-attack messaging. This suggests that voters are seeking a set of actors in Congress who will tell the truth about the war and hold Bush accountable for mistakes. This is in contrast to an immediate end to the conflict and /or yet another withdrawal plan that Congress cannot enact. Voters intuitively understand that Congress doesn't run the military, and that regardless of the outcome of the 2006 election, Bush will be in charge of the military until 2009. As such, framing the election as a choice between rival Congressional military plans sacrifices the credibility of Democratic candidates who can only legitimately promise to hold hearings, restore congressional oversight of military matters, locate and identify blame, and serve as a check on a widely disliked and distrusted President.

Recommendations
Candidates should run aggressively on accountability and the war in Iraq. Here are six specific `rules of thumb' we recommend you use for planning purposes.
  • 1. Iraq must be central in your campaign and you must blame Republicans for it Ignoring Iraq, downplaying its significance, or accepting Bush's framework by not blaming leaders is a sign to voters that you are weak, unlikely to bring change, and not addressing the main issue of the day. Regardless of how you approach the policy going forward in Iraq, the key trait that voters seek is a willingness to hold failed leaders accountable for the debacle. Be willing to uncover the truth, place blame, and demand consequences.

  • 2. The debate on whether Bush is a competent, trustworthy President is over. He is considered among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents a leader who makes mistakes and then won't tell the truth about those mistakes. This is not about competence. This is about massive failure of leadership with no end in sight.

  • 3. Republicans cannot run against Bush and Iraq. Voters do not think that Republicans are willing to hold Bush or other administration figures accountable for those mistakes, so Republican Congressional dissent on the war is unlikely to help Republicans. But dissent will, in fact, work to Democratic candidates' advantage. It shows strength and, most importantly, principle and personal values.

  • 4. `Terrorism' scares only work in the absence of strong accountability messaging, since Republicans are no longer trustworthy on issues of war and peace. Voters know Republicans will let mistakes slide and they want accountability in the face of that.

  • 5. Oversight beats withdrawal. Journalists or other messengers who frame politics in terms of a need to have an alternative plan in contrast to Bush are insulting voters, and should be taken to task aggressively for framing false choices and misrepresenting the role of Congress. Congress primarily serves as military oversight, not military policy. Voters know that.

  • 6. Pick a fight, any fight. Voters need to be convinced that Democrats can credibly challenge Bush. Whether the fight is over de-funding Cheney's personal staff, attacking John Bolton's confirmation, impeachment hearings, or stopping war profiteering with a new `Truman Commission', Democratic candidates must demonstrate strength through aggressive confrontation where the term "accountability" is more than just an abstraction or corporate lingo. It must be made real through a fight you plan to pick.

    When presented with squeals from journalists and Republicans over your fight, a resolute willingness to not back off in the face of criticism is key. Your willingness to hold Bush accountable must be made real. For example, demand that the president and the party in power come to account for having squandered lives, security and treasure while enriching CEOs of major corporations such as Halliburton.

    Here's a real-world example of this dynamic from US history: Harry Truman became vice president because as a US Senator, he had the backbone to demand that major figures in the American economy either give back money stolen in the provision of shoddy materiel for World War II, or go to jail for treason.
In sum, whatever fights you pick, whether specific local issues or national ones, our poll shows that accountability regarding Bush, Congressional Republicans and your opponent is crucial to building the credibility you need in order to break through with a majority vote in November. Democrats, Independents and even many Republicans want this to occur. Do it.

********

Data for this polling memo was commissioned by the Courage Campaign, a non-partisan, progressive 527 based in Los Angeles, and MyDD.com, a progressive political blog. Wright Consulting Services conducted all polling. More information is available at www.couragecampaigns.org.

You can read the full report in PDF here:
http://www.mydd.com/images/user/217/Demo cratic_Challenger_Memo.pdf

The questionnaire for the follow-up questions can be found here:
http://www.mydd.com/images/user/217/foll owupquestions.pdf

The clean, easy to understand crosstabs to the poll can be found here:
http://www.mydd.com/images/user/217/Cros stabs.pdf

Complete information on the MyDD / Courage Campaign Poll can be found in our two earlier memos: Why Francine Busby Lost and Republicans Divided On Iraq, Accountability.


Display:


this is fantastic. (none / 0)

The stuff about the independents is fascinating.

I hope every Dem candidate for office is paying attention.

-C.


by neutron on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 04:36:31 PM EST

Re: this is fantastic. (3.00 / 1)

I don't know about every candidate running for office, but this one is.  And we are paying attention.

[Barry Welshhttp:/www.barrywelsh.org] Indiana 6th District Democratic Congressional Candidate


by Congressional Candidate Barry Welsh on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 12:54:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is fantastic. (none / 0)

Barry, I'm just to the south of you, down here in the Indiana Ninth. I have made Baron Hill's campaign aware of this important piece of work, and at least one of his staffers has recognized its value.


by ErictheBlue on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 04:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How To Win in Wyoming (none / 0)

and Idaho and Indiana...this is a winning strategy for Democrats everywhere. The only October Surprise that might well trump this is a new war against Iran.


by Arthurkc on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 04:42:16 PM EST

Re: How To Win in Wyoming (3.00 / 1)

A new war in Iran would mean certain victory for the Dems.  Bush may be stupid enough to try it, but the American public clearly doesn't want more war.  


aklm
by RaisingLilDemocrats on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Osama (none / 0)

is the only thing that can ruin this election.

His capture or death.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 07:17:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Osama (none / 0)

not really


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 11:26:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Osama (none / 0)

We aren't looking for him anymore though. Old news. ;)


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 11:27:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Osama (none / 0)

why look when he's in a cell somewhere : )


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 12:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (3.00 / 1)

Well this is as good advise as most will get for the next two months, the problem is that Congressional campaigns, really all campaigns are funded by such a very small group of people and if any candidate thinks they need that money, they listen to Rahm and Chuck, unless you have a lot of your own money like Lamont.

Freedom in politics comes from developing a wide citizen funding base, which is really the still most underappreciated and significant accomplishment of the Dean campaign, he never really got it either.

But the really figure out of the CA-50, that shows the complete incompetence of Democratic political class is Bilbray still won even though on that same ballot he recieved only 54% of the Rep vote for the November primary -- the only word for that is pathetic.


by brutus1 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 05:07:44 PM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (3.00 / 1)

The ideas in this memo are all good, particularly the idea that a candidate demonstrates toughness simply by being tough, and being tough against Bush is as good (if not better) than any other way to demonstrate it.  Don't talk about it, just show the voters you can be tough.

It seems that it would make the most sense to try these ideas in places that aren't already on the A-list, places where the GOP isn't expecting much of a push-back, such as in the Mountain West and the few competitive races in CA and WA.  Also the midwest in the second tier races.  The memo should be sent to all the netroots candidates.


by Mimikatz on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:40:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

I'd say do it everywhere. No question. We've sown the so-called 'fruit' of passivity and accomodation for the past six years.


by Sun Tzu on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (3.00 / 1)

I can't find it now, but yesterday I was reading that DCDems are sending their consultants to help Lamont......talk about a sinking feeling.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 05:12:39 PM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Jeez, talk about "be careful what we wish for"! All week I've been thinking, I wish the party were more behind Lamont...forgetting what tends to happen when the Democratic party gets behind something!


by jamfan on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Where did the "accountability" buzzword come from? I noticed that Chris has been using it a lot for the last week.

I think it's great. It implies strength. It can imagine that it rallies progressives without turning off the more skeptical independents.


The truth about McCain
by nstrauss on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 05:21:20 PM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional (none / 0)

I remember it first being used during katrina to which Bush tried to respond with 'the blame game' which the media loved, but the American people almsot universally seemed understand "no, it's about accountability" I think Katrina changed everything- including the end of the debate on what peo thought of Bush's leadership. No one- not one person could defend him that I could find.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:06:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great stuff! (3.00 / 3)

For a start, the style is authoritative, measured and direct. Grown-up stuff. Neither turgid and self-congratulatory like the DC standard, nor hysterical and rabble-rousing like all too much to be found in the lefty sphere.

The substance seems pretty much on the mark too: in particular, the part nailing the dismal offerings of Dem alphasoup:

The establishment Democrats have proven ineffective at combating this positioning, introducing empty slogans like `Together we can do better' that no one repeats or remembers, and policy proposals that few voters believe Democrats are capable of enacting.

Realism ≠ Defeatism - quite the contrary!

To promise oversight is realistic, being both essential as a governmental process and narrowly tailored to the actual power of a Dem-controlled Congress. It's also modest and redolent of the Founding Fathers, useful points, I suspect, in getting independents out and voting for the right candidates.

I hope the report is going to get some media play, by the way...


by skeptic06 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 05:22:03 PM EST

first things first (2.33 / 3)

we must emphasize that without real quality leadership we are bogged down before we begin. real leadership as a maxim: we concern ourselves not primarily with where the public stands today, but where it might travel under a steady hand, possessed of a clear truth, imbued with compassion for all who might be touched by the effort.
by Emory Walker on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 05:27:54 PM EST

Re: first things first (none / 0)

Leadership, as in, a total disregard for the polls! George Bush-style! </snark>

But seriously, before you say that we need "leadership," you should probably define the term, since there's a lot of disagreement about what it actually means. Most people say that leadership has something to do with charisma and the ability to inspire. Those qualities are difficult to develop in oneself over a lifetime, let alone in the 3 months before an election. So if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that we have no "real leaders" so we'll just have to throw our hands up in the air. Not very productive. These guys, however, are trying to come up with solutions.


The truth about McCain
by nstrauss on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:32:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

jump to conclusions a little? (3.00 / 1)

nowhere did i say there are no potential leaders. i was actually focused on offering a solution in the form of an aphorism, something about the nature of excellent leadership in an ethical sense. for this i merit a 1? "this" being your wanton addition of ideas never proferred by in what was intended to be a relatively simple and general declaration of principle. holy cow folks. let me guess, you're in college or something? high school?
by Emory Walker on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: jump to conclusions a little? (none / 0)

I just don't see how calling for leadership is a solution. People have been clamoring for great leadership since the dawn of civilization, usually without success. What concrete steps can MyDDers or political candidates take to follow your advice? Recruitment season is over, so it's a little late to try to find great leaders for this November.

And if you want to avoid being trolled, I would suggest laying off the personal attacks. We're all adults here. Or at least pretending to be. :)


The truth about McCain
by nstrauss on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dumbfounded (none / 0)

that was an operational definition, by the way. people disagree about what leadership means until it arrives. eh, why am i bothering here. evidently you are possessed of all the answers. god bless you.
by Emory Walker on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:47:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dumbfounded (none / 0)

Read "Moral Leadership"--great book and can be easily applied to the current dem situation. For example, upon reading the book I would agrue that the main reason the dems feel we lack leadership is because of the lack of a true feeling of Ethical leadership. There is no resounding voice of true Morality and Ethics in our top ranks;much less in the party itself. Yes, it is spoken of and many progressive Dems are true examples of the Ethical leadership our country so dearly needs,but we are only close. The vaccum of Dem leadership still exists. Obviously the defention of Ethics and Morals is up to debate, but I think most can aggree that for politics it is pretty straightfoward and it is obvious that many leaders are being very unethcial(even some on our side).


Jeremy Bentham is a tool!!
by Foward with Feingold on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 12:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for the recommendation (none / 0)

you make a great deal of sense. is it just me, or is there a lot of unbalanced commenting going on around here? maybe the whole connecticut situation and the latest hostilities in lebanon have everyone on edge or something.
by Emory Walker on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:53:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

If Busby lost because Independents didn't turn out, then why are you telling me what Republicans think? Tell me what will turn Independents out.  Yeah, it can be inferred, but it seems like your supporting evidence has little-to-nothing to do with your thesis.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 05:57:53 PM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Lucas,

Accountability, aggressively implemented, will build the credibility of Democratic candidates, especially in terms of values, principles, and specifically including the sharpness of voters' definition/perceptions of Dems, so they have a real shot at the strategic targets: the vast majority of Dems to energize and hold the base, a majority of Indys to realize the crucial structural coalition needed, and even a third of Republicans (could be more), or, in other words, the low-hanging fruit of that party. We do that and we win. Period.

This can and should be done. That's what the CA-50 research is about. It's summarized in that last paragraph of the post.

But, most importantly, this strategy is now out in the open. The establishment Dems and their Beltway consultants now face an alternative strategic view of waging Campaign '06. As I said in comments the other day, we are throwing down the gauntlet to these people. And I also said we will see what we will see. Won't we? And that is surely the case now. No. Excuses. Anymore.

Ever.


by Sun Tzu on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

And I don't disagree with any of that.  It just seems odd that you go from

Busby lost because independent voters did not believe that she could deliver on her policy promises and did not believe she was substantially more ethical than Bilbray. So, in large numbers, they either stayed home or voted for third party candidates.
To feeding me numbers about Republicans instead of Independents.  This information is all exceptionally useful of course, I just took issue with the narrative flow of it.  The argument starts that winning independents will win elections, but then explains how to reach Republicans.  Perhaps it's self-evident to you or I that Independents will get rolled in along with notable numbers of Republicans, but for these purposes, it didn't hang together as well as it seems like it might.

I read all this and it all hits me as quite useful, but I wonder what, if I'm a candidate, I'm supposed to take from this.  Is your point that a candidate can reach both Independents and disaffected Republicans with the same strategy?  If so, I happen to agree with you, but since the section on Independents and the section on Republicans were structured so differently, that point isn't evident so much as just stated at the end.

I take no issue with the conclusions, just the way it was presented.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

I'm hip, Lucas. I think, I hope, I get where you are. Here's the deal: the Indy's didn't show up because of crappy messaging. Big time 'ho-um', they said. The Dems did show up, they wanted a win. The Reps were vulnerable but we didn't exploit it.

The key point to understand is this: defense is holding the base, which Busby did, offense is a majority of Indys, and they were so so-so on this race, and picking the low-hanging fruit of the GOP failed. She failed on the latter two, which is where we focus. That's the reason you see us talking about Indy's and then Republicans. That's why.

We're developing national strategy, Lucas. Strategy unencumbered by the Beltway ididots. The Loser-Men.


by Sun Tzu on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 09:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Like I said, I don't disagree with anything you said or anything you concluded.  I think you're bang on the money saying that indys and a respectable number of repubs will show up if they see passionate and (measuredly) angry Dems on the ballot.  People who are opposed to the President, the Republican-led Congress, etc.- it isn't passive.  These people are pissed off and want other people who are pissed off.  So to that extent, absolutely.  And if we get all or most of our challengers on that same page, we dictate the ways in which the Democratic Party nationally is perceived.  I'm down with ya on that one as well.  But compositionally, you didn't follow people by the nose, which seems necessary, at least if you're trying to crack the CW circle jerk in DC.


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 11:41:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with Lucas, plus you buried the lead (none / 0)

Great stuff overall. But I thought the theme was accountability? That word never appears until the recommendations section. Trust me, that's way too late. You'll lose a significant percentage before they ever get there.

Meanwhile, the phrase "Together we can do better" was atop paragraph #2. So you're immediately telling them what not to say, instead of what the theme should be. That almost sounds like our overall campaign dependence, relying on vote-against and not vote-for. Accountability needs to be emphasized earlier and often. Abuse that word, so it's the one thing they remember from every paragraph.

I agree with Lucas that it was beyond strange the Republican percentages were included but not among independents or Democrats. Scan every preference poll crosstab and our fate is determined by the percentage among women, independents, and moderates. How we can gain among those groups, and inspire them to vote, is much more revealing and vital than what Republicans think about Bush's handling of the war.


by jagakid on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, accountability debuts one paragraph earlier (none / 0)

In the "Lessons" section. Still way too late.


by jagakid on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:35:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with Lucas, plus you buried the lead (none / 0)

Thank you very much for the kudos. FYI, please take a look-see at the crosstab tables. Chris has provided a link above to do that. Please let us know if there's something you want you're missing. We've crosstabs out the wazoo, trust me.


by Sun Tzu on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 09:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Well ... if they were Republicans, they would want Republicans running things, only doing a better job of it. If they were Democrats, they would want Democratcs running things.

As Independents, putting Democrats to hold a Republican Administration's feet to the fire when they screw up yet again will have more than a little resonance.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 02:57:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Certainly.  But that point wasn't made.  It can be inferred, but why skip it and go on to make other points if the fundamental point is the one you just made?


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 11:44:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Isn't the single best predictor of how a person will vote their party registration? It's no surprise, then, that Busby lost the special election. This is very Republican district. CA-50 contains San Diego,
right? No candidate can win there being against war, even if it is only one specific war. SD is about the last really big military district left in CA.

On a different note, check out the Pew press and the people poll.

http://people-press.org/reports/display. php3?ReportID=285

It's got a very significant finding that Americans think Republicans will only get us into more military entanglements and that Democrats won't.
Charles Barkley put it more succinctly, "I was a Republican until they lost their minds."

If I were a Democratic candidate, I'd be stressing
my belief in active diplomacy and engagement vice
the bullying tactics of the Bushies.


by phillydem on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:11:24 PM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

CA-50 is the northern suburbs of San Diego. It's quite republican, but as noted in the original post, it went for Feinstein and isn't as knee-jerk military as one might imagine.  Plenty of that sure, but also lots of the more ideological, church Repubs.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

I might also add, that instead of focusing on the nefarious decision to invade in the first place, a candidate could fire salvo after salvo against the sheer incompetence of the strategy, the cronyism of the contracts, and the indecision that has left our troops in a state of limbo, caught in an insurgent meet grinder between two factions of a civil war.

They can argue that "aside from the lies and distortions and playing politics with terror" (said almost dismissively) the Republicans have forced our troops into an occupation of a country in the middle of a civil war and have refused to give them the armor, equipment, and supplies they need to save themselves from unconscionable harm. Lying to our troops is un-American, but forcing them to die for those lies is unconscionable. And furthermore, keeping them in the middle of an insurgent civil war is fueling terrorist recruiting like dropping control rods into a nuclear reactor. And there's no one at the controls in the Republican Party to avert a catastrophic meltdown.


by Reality Bites Back on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:47:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Yup.  I don't think it's very difficult to say

"It doesn't matter now whether we should have invaded Iraq because, well...we did.  But since then, this leadership has criminally failed to provide our troops with the supplies and the strategy and the institutional support they deserve.  It is a testament to how incredible our troops are that they've managed to perform with such absurdly unnecessary handicaps, all delivered courtesy of a lazy, incompetent and corrupt Republican Congress.  It's time for a Congress that will make sure that anytime our troops go anywhere or do anything, they have an embarrassment of support from back home and that those responsible for failing them are held accountable."


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 11:50:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

The California congressional districts were set up to protect the incumbents.  Within that framework, this is not a bad district.  The incumbent congressman had plead guilty to stealing $2.4 million and the Republican administration of San Diego had just managed to blow the city's pension funds, or a lot of them, with its ineptitude.

Bush ran (per Barry Welsh) at 55.2% in this district, his third worst showing in the 20 California Congressional Districts held by Republicans (Pombo and Drier are in rougher districts).  Busby in 2004 ran about even with Kerry.  This is no OH-2 (where Hackett was running in a district where Bush got 63% and the GOP congressman Rob Portman took 72%).

On a national scale, CA-50 is a tougher place for Democrats than pretty much all of this year's competitive districts.  That does make it a friendlier place for a Democratic candidate than most of the districts Republican hold.  Bush ran better in all 22 Republican-held CDs in Texas than he did in CA-50 and the evidence against DeLay while overwhelming is less than Cunningham's guilty plea.

As the only national race, CA-50 got the money and attention.  Yes, there are plenty of districts in Michigan and Ohio with better numbers that are starving for cash but that was the luck of the draw.  The Spanish Civil War served as a testing place for German and Anglo-French weapons because it was there.  This served as a testing place for campaign themes.  Well, "culture of corruption" failed.


by David Kowalski on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 08:24:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is an important refinement (3.00 / 2)

...of the general blogosphere meme of a few months ago of simply "get out."

What I'd say:

"Look, I'm going to be a congressmen/senator. I don't run the military. But I do help run the congress and what we're going to do is hold the feet of the people who do run the military president bush and his cronies, to the fire. We're going to do that so that we in congress know exactly what they are doing over there and why and can tell it to you. Unless the Administration faces the reality on the ground absolutely nothing is going to change in Iraq. Unless we hold our leaders accountable they're not going to listen to us. We've seen that over the last 3 years. I don't think Republicans can make the Administration open up, be accountible for the mistakes that led up to today and ask the hard questions we need to end the blooshed. But you KNOW I will."


by MNPundit on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:19:02 PM EST

This is phenomenal (none / 0)

  I am sending this link to my local Democratic listserv, which includes a few candidates for office. There are lessons here for races at ALL levels.


by Master Jack on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:36:18 PM EST

The Politics of Contrast (3.00 / 1)


   Armando diaried on this over on Kos today. I think that Lieberman's final plunge into the arms of the Republicans now frees Ned Lamont to run the kind of campaign described in this posting. Lieberman will emphasize his similarities with Bush and the Republicans; Lamont will emphasize his differences.

  It's going to make for a great test run. And I like our odds.


by Master Jack on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:47:24 PM EST

Re: The Politics of Contrast (3.00 / 1)

I agree that it's likely to work out roughly that way, but it isn't a test run.  That election is on the same time-frame as every other race.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics of Contrast (none / 0)


   Well, it's a test run in the sense that most other candidates nationwide are (unfortunately) likely to go with the same old losing strategies.

  I have some hope Tester will be an exception, along with Lamont.


by Master Jack on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics of Contrast (none / 0)

Of course, you really must factor in the local conditions. I am from Connecticut, and I can tell you that they are a rather special case. This is due to a very intricate, interactive set of reasons. The people of Connecticut would really have to be rather dumb to vote for anyone remotely connected with Bush Jr. But they can be dumb at times. This thing with Lieberman is beyond strange.

Lamont probably should not listen to the Beltway Mavens at all now. I must admit that I know fairly little about what he needs to do to win, but... But, for example, I know how to raise a dog. And I also know the the dog training experts are so totally full of it. And the election experts sure seem to smell like them.


by blues on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 11:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers (none / 0)

The key element of what you are saying is to eliminate the foot-in-mouth disease that plagues the party. Or, as my friend, a conservative Democratic, said to a challenger, "Learn to cut the shit, I may disagree with you, but if you do that , I will still vote for you."


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:10:01 PM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (3.00 / 2)

This memo has some interesting insights, but also many short-comings. I'm certainly not convinced it offers a magic bullet for how Democrats can create a winning strategy. I wouldn't be compelled to speak against it -- indeed I applaud the authors for their ongoing efforts -- but too many people have commented on this as if it were the greatest thing since punch-hole ballots.

The last thing Democrats need is to talk themselves into the wrong tactics simply because it satisfies another urge, namely to show how those DC consultants are wrong again. Those DC consultants may be wrong about a lot of things, but that doesn't make this memo any more or less of an improvement.

I'll start with the fact that Francine Busby was a poor candidate. Her message failed because SHE lacked credibility. Her message also sounded canned, true, but strong candidates win because they engender voter confidence.

More importantly, your poll is NOT a basis for extrapolating a national strategy. Sounded like you already had the strategy you wanted, then did the poll to justify your point of view. That's bad political science, regardless of party.

Keep in mind, I happen to share a lot of that point of view, but claiming it represents something all Democratic challengers should use is a stretch.


by wolff109 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:20:09 PM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

I dont understnad y our argument. it's similar to what the triangulation strategists say. well, it's not that triangulation didnt' work, it's just that the right candidate didn't try it. How do they account for republicans winning who aren't all great charismatic candidates. Billray wasn't I am assuming a great charaismatic candidate either. So I think ont hat level the argument falls flat.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

With all respect, I humbly, and vociferously, disagree. This memo is not about triangulation. This memo is about standing up, screwing on courage, and holding Bush and this Administration accountable for huge, massive and obvious failures.

We haven't done that in a long, damned time. That's why Republicans win. We've been passive and accomodating. Thank you, sir. May I have another?


by Sun Tzu on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 09:09:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

I dont think you understood my post. I was arguing against the idea that it is simply a matter of candidates as the DLC type would argue. They would look at HRC and say she can use triangulation even if it didn't work with 10 other candidates because they would say its the candidate. This poll indicates to me that it is a combo of the character but also the strategy. The strategies such as triangulation have failed as much as candidates have.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 09:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

I'm very confuse-ed, Bruh. Perhaps it's because it's late and I'm very tired. I think we agree but I'm not sure.

I re-read your post and I don't know where we disagree, in one sense. We're OK when our guys get the idea of standing up. We're fucked when they don't.  I say that when we stand up, we win. Wheher it's Hillary makes no diff. I personally don't think she's got what is necessary to win the US.

Triangulation is history. Key point: there ain't no triangulation when there is tyranny. The fed courts today ruled against tyranny. There you go. I'm thrilled.


by Sun Tzu on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 10:13:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Its the second mid-term election faced by a President who is widely unpopular.

Dueling foreign policy strategies are for Presidential election cycles.

"I'm not going to let him get away with it anymore" is a lot more like a mid-term election cycle.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:04:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Wolff,

Good points and you've made them well. My compliments.

Of course I disagree. This is no surprise. But why I disagree might matter in your thinking. Let's examine:

1-There has been no alternative view of Campaign '06. So, while you say at the outset it might not work, the fact is the opposite, passive strategy, HAS not worked. For the past six years. Sorry, it's definitely time to re-think, especially given CA-50. As we have done in this analysis and post.

2-The point about DC consultants is they fail. It is not an 'urge' on our part to bang them for some childish reason. The fact is: they. have. failed. repeatedly. We do not hold a majority in any branch of government. Period. It's a simple fact, and I offer it in the utmost respect for your thinking. I'm serious.

3-This one is easy, because you say Francine was a poor candidate. I agree! Totally! She lacked credibility, and did not engender confidence. Agreed! We fully discuss why, especially as her race represents a lab trial that we can understand now. That's the point of that section, Wolff.

4-That CA-50 is not a point of departure for national strategy, I must, humbly, disagree. One, there's nothing else available that analyzes up-to-the-moment national Democratic political strategy like we did. Two, you're talking to a scientist here, so it's problematic for you to say that a situation does not mirror larger truths. You don't know that's the case here. You quite simply have no data to indicate such a sitation exists: CA-50 is not important in understanding national strategy? Show me. Prove it.

Further, this assertion on your part is unconvincing on a gut and intellectual levels, minimally. If your assertion is true, then Stephen Hawking had no right to conclude that black holes exist when his theory on them was supported by data. Yet he did. He relied on the data, as we have. And science has moved forward greatly because of what he did. In short, you have absolutely zero basis to conclude this research is not indicating key national political srategy. None. You've set yourself to be in opposition of solid data when you have no data. Oopsie. That doesn't work, my friend.

With all respect, your views are interesting, and laudable in challenging the findings in various aspects, but, nothing personal, you are wrong in my experienced and practiced view.

Thanks very much for your interesting thoughts. That's what we do here at MyDD.


by Sun Tzu on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 09:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

I'm at least partly playing devil's advocate here, but I have to ask about #4- if the 50th is a legitimate reflection of the country nationally, and Busby made up something around 15% of the partisan index, then why wouldn't we extrapolate that nationally and presume that a culture of corruption theme would be good for a 15% bump and then just ride that into the Capitol?


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 11:56:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Sun Tzu,

Forgive my slow response. Your well-reasoned points deserve full consideration and an equally thoughtful response.

1 - You stated that there has been no alternative view of Campaign '06 and that the "passive strategy" (ostensibly the term you give to the strategy promoted by many DC consultants) has not worked. On both points we agree. I believe that any Democrat who can forcefully and clearly articulate their perspective will win in all but the most partisan of circumstances. Nevertheless, a flawed alternative is still a flawed strategy. A new strategy is not necessarily better than the current failing one just because it purports itself to be. My overall point was that the strategy which the authors advocate did not convince me of its own efficacy. I would hope that it could be improved to indeed be a viable alternative to any strategy that would present Democrats as GOP-lite. I think the authors are on the right track, but simply not quite there yet.

2- You stated that DC consultants fail. Period. I was not disagreeing with this point at all, nor was I defending consultants, especially since I agree their recent track record has been terrible nationally. But I think the failure by consultants is only part of the story of what is afflicting the Democratic party. To lay all the blame at their feet will not help Democrats achieve the clarity necessary for thoughtful, objective analysis. It seemed to me that the report was, whether intentionally or not, biased toward discrediting consultants.

4- You advocate that the CA-50 is a point of departure for national strategy. I did not disagree with this at all either, and in fact am glad that the race offers useful insights. My original point specifically concerned the poll and authors' findings, and was simply cautionary. It is not a good idea to read too much into a single race, especially if one's reading of that data is biased toward a particular pre-conceived viewpoint. In this case, that was my impression of the authors' interpretation of the data. I hope I am wrong, but I am being honest in presenting my unbiased response to the authors.

You challenge my perspective, as you should, since I do not offer alternative data. Alas, I am being a nit-picker by criticizing the report's findings while not offering an alternative of my own. But my intention was not, nor could it possibly be, to present a competing theory. It was merely to give the authors unbiased feedback to their work, namely, that at least one person who is open to and hopeful of their perspective found their work to fall short. If your friends cannot criticize your work, who can?

So for me it comes down to this. I try to absorb many of the competing perspectives within the family of Democratic voices to distill insights that might help us win elections and govern more effectively. This one fell short for me, I tried to express some reasons why in my post.

Frankly, another issue I had with the report was that it was wordy and not actionable. It reeked of brains but felt starved of practical, campaign experience. I realize this criticism is harsh, and I do not intend to offend the authors (especially if they do in fact have campaign experience). But again, I am simply being honest in my reaction -- with the best of intentions -- not to dismiss the report but to improve it and others like it.

The Democratic party has been unable to deliver a brand message on both domestic and foreign/security policy that reaches beyond its base. I agree this is due in part to poor strategy articulated - and poor tactics executed -- by typical consultants. I too think that the way to win is not by pussy-footing in the center, but by offering a bold and unique vision that embraces and challenges voters while standing up to the right-wing. I applaud the authors of the report for trying to present insights and ideas that would improve our electoral tactics. But I'm simply not on board yet with their proposal.


by wolff109 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 02:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This was really smart (3.00 / 1)

This was really smart. Smarter than anything I've heard come out of the cookie cutter campaign consultants in DC who keep telling people to avoid talking about the war, or criticize the President. Well researched and well thought out. Thank you for posting this. It is something I'd recommend to anyone wondering what to do in the last 90 days!

Thing is, though, I never really saw why it was that people put so much stock in Ms. Busby in the first place. After all, in 2004 she was the sacrificial candidate with no real hope of winning and the district still leaned heavily republican in 2006. I never understood how it was that a candidate not ready for prime time in 2004 could some how magically transform into some great candidate. What, there wasn't one person, one Dem or leaning Dem candidate with a bit more pull than "my name was on the ballot when I lost bigtime in 2004?" Hmm.

Plus the "culture of corruption" theme was a stillborn concept. To most voters, all politicians are crooks, and one saying they're not just doesn't pass the smell test. Sure the GOP has been pretty awful in a short time, but still.


by Schadelmann on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:25:37 PM EST

Re: This was really smart (none / 0)

You make great points. One, which I think might be imbedded in your critique of Beltway thinking, is that all you have to do is say the right thing, push the right button and the voters will come to you like automatons. That's the thinking that would make, perceptually speaking, a sacrifical candidate a 'star' candidate two years later. I can't describe the contempt I have for such an approach.

The fact is Francine wasn't the 'star' candidate in the special election. For the most part, her campaign did what the Beltway said do. They flamed out. Close, but no cigar.

However, more than anyone I'm aware of, and God bless her for standing despite all this, Francine now has the ammo/knowledge to win. We've X-rayed her district and her situation. This is how she does become the star candidate. A real one. On the Accountability Train. With Ned.


by Sun Tzu on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional (none / 0)

Lamont: ..and I think someone should be held accountable for it. ...and the American people want someone to be accountable.


by mrobinsong on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 07:44:29 PM EST

This makes so much sense (none / 0)

that I recommended this diary to a diarist on Kos today who is running in the HI-02 primary for Ed Case's seat. There are about 9 or 10 challengers, of which 5 seem very competent (I'm soooooo envious), so I suggested to the candidate that he come over here and read this article, especially the parts about stressing Iraq (he was always opposed to the war) and accountability. This also seems to be the Lamont approach: How many times have we heard Lamont say "I'll stand up to George Bush"? Isn't that just another way of saying that he'll hold Bush accountable?


by grayslady on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:22:18 PM EST

Please cross post this to daily kos (none / 0)

This needs wider coverage and all liberal blogs should cross post this, including Huffington post.  And get interviewed at Air America and TDS


by jasmine on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:23:37 PM EST

Challengers Strategy Memo (none / 0)

I've been thinking a little about the "Democrats are weak on terrorism" canard.  I think here is an appropriate place to post it.

Most of the good targets are in blue zones or blue cities.  The Democrats have to be concerned about terrorism, because it's their constituents at risk.  Conversely, why are the Goops so manic about terrorism?  Their people tend to live in the safe areas.  Who's going to waste an explosive device on Tupelo, Mississippi?  (Or anyplace else in Mississippi, for that matter.)


by drlimerick on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:30:22 PM EST

Regarding Rule of Thumb Number One, Iraq (none / 0)

I notice how aggressively the Bush administration is fighting back on Iraq. At every hint of anti-Iraq war positioning from a Democratic candidate there is a swarm of heat-seaking rhetorical missiles from Cheney, Bush, Faux News, etc.

Second, they are putting significant effort into diverting any criticism on Iraq criticism to being weak on Terror, soft on security. I'm sure these frame-shifts are supported by focus group discussions.

Republican support of Lieberman over Lamont, not to mention over the Republican candidate is quite extraordinary. They really, really want Lieberman to win. This has shown up by the framing (earlier) that Lamont was a single issue candidate, and (recently) that his win was somehow followed intently by Al Qaeda.

All this suggests just how extremely worried they are about Dems running against them on Iraq. If they are squealing now, watch them scream if the heat is turned up a little.

But, that also leaves the right-wingers in the Democratic Party in a tough spot, especially as 90% of the Dems are anti-Iraq war in some fashion. The pro-Iraq voices are a small, small minority in the Democratic party, yet they are the ones pushing the Democratic Party to take on neocon foreign policy positions, and they are the ones supporting Lieberman. As if being neocon on Iraq trumps all the other traditional Democratic issues: Health Care, Privacy, Labor, Minimum Wage, Government and Religion out of the Bedroom

Strange coincidence. Somehow they have convinced so many Dems to soft-pedal the war issue.  If the Republican neocons can be taken out on Iraq, perhaps we can also take out the right-wing Dems.

So, let's pay close attention to the newer, less establishment-committed candidates this session.


There's more of us than there is of them.
by MetaData on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 09:16:11 PM EST

Re: Regarding Rule of Thumb Number One, Iraq (none / 0)

This suggests that if there are ten or twenty candidates putting out the same "the administration screwed up again, they need to be held accountable" message on the same day, they have to try to "swarm" ten or twenty candidates.

At some point it just attracts attention to the number of people saying that they screwed up and should be held accountable.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:10:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Standing for truth whether it polls well or not (none / 0)

Everything talked about by the memo is the truth and public is already honing on it.  

You know what even if public has not honed on it yet, if it is still true then it should be the strategy.  It is called standing up for the truth whether it polls well or not.

Luckily, it polls well.


by jasmine on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 09:57:01 PM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

I think this is extremely interesting, but would caution that it should be applied on a case-by-case basis only.

CA-50 is different than OH-19 which is different than NC-11 which is different than CO-07 which is different than IA-01 and so on and so on.  

Applying the lessons learned in one Republican-leaning district in a California special election to other districts is potentially helpful, or potentially political suicide.

I don't have any major qualms with the memo itself, or the advice it offers as it applies to this particular district.

That's the key, though.  That particular district.

I think it is dangerous, and more than a little irresponsible, to suggest that this is a strategy that will lead to victory in other districts, particularly in the absence of research within those districts.

At best, this is a very interesting study that provides food for thought in other districts.  

At worst, it is precisely the kind of cookie-cutter, "nationalized campaign" that the beginning of the post criticizes.  

My advice to campaigns would be to read this, enjoy it and digest it, but take it with a grain of salt.  Do the the research to see if the type of messaging and strategy outlined here will fly in your district.  

If it does, terrific.  

If not, don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole.


by Politicalhack06 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 10:33:09 PM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

I see the memo as saying don't think you can run and hide from key issues just becuase you are in a difficult race. That if you want to have a better shot of winning- you have to face those issues with as much force as you can muster. To do other wise is to ceed territory that you dont want to ceed. I don't see it necessarily as formulating that one has to do the exact recommnedation sas much as indicate the idea of taking risks. Nothing can be gained by avoiding is the point.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 10:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

Agreed. Specifically- BE PARTISAN.  People really don't like republicans right now, don't try to talk about how you'll work with them or be kinda like them, talk about how you'll nail their asses.


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 12:06:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Strategy Memo (none / 0)

Re: 5. Oversight beats withdrawal. Journalists or other messengers who frame politics in terms of a need to have an alternative plan in contrast to Bush are insulting voters, and ... Voters know that.

No, no, no, no...NO!  STOP DRINKING YOUR OWN KOOL-AID!!!

Voters are CRYING for the Democrats to provide a viable alternative to the Repug failures in Iraq that does not use the word "withdraw."  Every Demo should have tattoed on their forehead the following WITHDRAWAL = POLITICAL SUICIDE.  Y'wanna die at the polls, just talk withdrawal, all day long.  'Cuz though we might be up in polls in sunny August, when cold November comes around people just won't have the strength to overcome the weight of gravity to pull the Demo lever.

The only REAL effective solution to the Iraq mess is to begin working multilaterally with other countries to provide an acceptable framework for a stable country for the Iraqi people to live in peace.  And gee, the #1 problem with implementing this proposal is that we stop throwing money and contracts to Halliburton and open them up to other companies.  Gosh 'n golly, what a losing proposal for Democrats to campaign on!


by equern on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 10:47:07 PM EST

Re: Democratic Strategy Memo (none / 0)

By the way, take this all with a grain of salt.  No where is it mentioned that Busby threw away the election with her comment that an illegal alien didn't need papers to vote.  Whether taken out of context or not, that's how it was played in the media, and that's the way it stuck.

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

Nor am I BLAMING her, considering the enormous pressure she was under, it was an accident waiting to happen.  But happen it did, and while I'm not completely sanguine the outcome would have been different, it's undeniable the remark cost her votes.


by equern on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 10:51:47 PM EST

Re: Democratic Strategy Memo (none / 0)

Threw the election away with her comment?  No.

I view her remark as more of the 'cherry on top' of a campaign that was going to lose.  She was already very likely to go down, and that just sort of punctuated it.

However, you raise an excellent point that is frequently ignored in these discussions about why campaigns win or lose:  candidate accountability.

A candidate who has been caught saying dumb things is frequently going to have a hard time winning.

Busby's remark is a good example of saying something stupid and getting caught.  While it certainly didn't help, it happened so late in the campaign that it's questionable how big an impact it had.

A much better example came in 2004, when the constantly-targeted Heather Wilson was facing a very serious challenge from Richard Romero.  The race was essentially a dead heat.  Then Romero made some off-the-cuff remark about Wilson and bin Laden.  

That quote became the Wilson campaign's message for the remainder of the campaign, and the race was for all practical purposes over.

In 2000, Ann Northup was facing a well-funded challenger in State Representative Elenor Jordan.    Jordan was caught on tape during debate on the State House floor urging the discussion to be moved along because 'she had a fundraiser to attend.'  

That tape became a Northup ad that essentially closed the door on the campaign.  

There are probably hundreds of examples just like these, and in many of these cases, it doesn't matter if you've got the best consultants or the worst.  If candidates aren't disciplined, they can get themselves into trouble.

The same case can be made for candidates who could be in a position to win, but refuse to put in the time trying to raise the money to do so.

Again, you can have the best or worst consultants in the world, but if the candidate doesn't do his or her part, it might not matter.

Bashing consultants is easy, but doing so while ignoring the many other issues that can determine victory or defeat is naive.  


by Politicalhack06 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 11:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you need to read the previous post (3.00 / 0)

You are criticizing them for not addressing a point they already discussed at length.  

Why Francine Busby Lostwhere they argue


#

# The Gaffe: A few days before the election, at a campaign rally Francine Busby accidentally said ""you don't need papers for voting." This "gaffe" was widely publicized in local and conservative media. While the "gaffe" was widely known (61% of voters had heard about it, Q11), and while it hurt her image among many voters (41% of those who heard about it said it gave them a less favorable opinion of her, Q11a), those voters were overwhelmingly within Bilbray's conservative and Republican base (Q11). Overall, the percentage of people who heard about the gaffe, who had a lower opinion of Busby after the gaffe, who had not yet made up their minds, and who were predisposed to potentially vote for Busby anyway was very, very small (lower than Bilbray's winning margin). Specifically, only 28% of the voters had yet to decide for whom they would vote after the "gaffe," which means the it probably had an impact, and may have caused more Republicans to turn out and / or Independents to go with third-party candidates. However, data from this poll does not show that it swung the already close election.



John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 02:09:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you need to read the previous post (none / 0)

I did read that.

And as they pointed out, "However, data from this poll does not show that it swung the already close election."

What I'm saying is that in general, it's just naive to simply blame consultants for losing campaigns when many other factors help to decide races.  

Candidate screw-ups DO affect races.  The Busby screw-up doesn't appear to have changed the outcome in her race because she was likely to lose anyway.  

Other screw-ups do, particularly when they happen earlier than 72 hours before the election.

And perhaps even more important, which I didn't mention before, is that the candidates themselves may have flaws that the best consultants in the world can't do anything to fix or overcome.

Shelly Moore Capito is a member of Congress today in large part because her Democratic opponent in 2000 had a long record of late tax payments.  

Terry Van Horne's anemic fundraising made it virtually impossible for him to respond to attacks made by Melissa Hart in 2000.  

Incuments David Minge and Sam Gejdenson lost their races because they didn't run real campaigns until it was too late.  They were convinced their incumbency made them safe.  Mark Kennedy and Rob Simmons won those seats, and despite being scumbags, proved them wrong, and haven't taken their seats for granted since then.

Linda Chapin lost a raise that was practically handed to her because she essentially didn't have a ground program until the last three weeks of the campaign, ignored the Hispanic portions of the district and didn't respond to attacks coming at her from the NRCC, Club for Growth and her opponent.

Ann Hutchinson was viewed as a strong challenger to Jim Nussle in 2002.  Nussle dredged up the transcripts of an old and unflattering court case and her campaign was finished.  

Patsy Keaver lost in 2004 largely because she was pretty liberal in a district that isn't.  It's fair to suggest that if you voted to allow porn shops near schools, you're going to have a hard time winning in Western North Carolina.  By all accounts though, she ran a great campaign and came up short.

Richard Romero made a dumb joke about Heather Wilson and bin Laden and that became the primary issue for the rest of the campaign.  

These are just more examples of why the whole 'blame the consultants' or 'blame the DC establishment' stuff is interesting, but fails to address many of the other reasons why campaigns lose.  

Let this not be interpreted as some blanket defense of the consulting world, or the DC establishment.

There are some consultants who are better than others, and some who probably don't get the credit or recognition they deserve and some who in an ideal world would never work again - unless Republicans decided to hire them, which would be fine.  

More to the point, the 'blame the consultants' game ignores the reality that each and every campaign is different, and every candidate and campaign brings strengths and weaknesses to the table.  

The outcome of a race frequently has nothing to do with which consultants a campaign hires, but the candidates themselves.

The candidate can screw up, has something in their past that can't be easily explained away or has positions that are simply not in line with where the district is, putting them at an extreme disadvantage in a normal election year.

The candidate may insist on 'staying positive' even in the face of blistering attacks that are quickly eroding his or her support.  

The candidate may not believe, or simply ignore, their own polling.  

The candidate might very well disregard the (correct) advice of those dreaded consultants.

The campaign may not be able to raise the money it needs, or the candidate might not be willing to put in the time to raise that money.

The staff hired by the campaign may not be capable of implementing the campaign plan, whether it's because of a lack of experience (or competence), or more frequently, not having the resources or additional staff they need (see fundraising above).

I could go on and on here.  

The point is that blaming the consultants sometimes fits the bill.

Making it the catch-all crutch for the reason why campaigns lose, however, is an incredible over-simplification of a complex issue.  

Ultimately, playing that game does an unintentional disservice to the larger goal of figuring out how to win tough races.  

It's easier to just blame the consultants whether they deserve it or not.

I really admire and appreciate the effort to dig into the CA-50 results to find out exactly what happened there.  The findings are extremely interesting, and I think that some of the messaging suggestions might very well apply to other districts.

But again, I would caution against the assumption that these findings, which are based on a special election in a Republican-leaning district, ARE applicable elsewhere.  


by Politicalhack06 on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 03:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

There's an obvious place to attack Republicants - national security.  Our border security sucks.  Our container scanning sucks.  Homeland dollars are a porkfest.  They've had years to implement the bi-partisan 9/11 commission findings, and they haven't?  Why not?  Because they're not serious about protecting the American people.


by forethought on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 01:50:50 AM EST

one suggestion (none / 0)

I think that word 'accountable' in all its variations is a tricky one.

I've noticed that when Bush uses this idea, for example, he says 'held to account.'  They must have a rule for Bush that all words must be translated into two syllable versions or cut.   In education, he says 'testing' (same idea).  

Not that I agree with that rule, but I think the words 'accountable' and 'accountability' in this proposal could also be qualified (one extra sentencec) as ideas not the actual word to be used, and that each bullet point in the list will bear out a different way to say it.

For example, I don't think we should say 'hold failed leaders accountable,' but should express that idea actually saying, "Bush and Cheney need to answer for what they've done."   That's just one suggestion and I think each candidate, as the memo says, will need to figure out how to do this on their own.

I know not everyone agrees with this approach--and that's fair--but if a campaign can afford one (and not all can) this memo will also go to the person hired to run communications.  And in that situation, a line about the difficulties in that word 'accountability' would be useful.

And thanks to the four of your for the initiative.


by Jeffrey Feldman on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 09:17:22 AM EST

Good Stuff (none / 0)

That detailed analysis is good stuff. It's unfortunate that there was only a single race to pull data from. As posted by others, it's hard to validate results from a single district since there could be so many other factors affecting those particular results. Having said that - I do feel the 6 rules to run by are pretty good. I personally feel ANY candidate for public office should spend significant time on the ground and find out what people are saying - town meetings, getting out, things like that. Consultants are important, but sometimes they cause you to lose site of local issues. GM can do everything stock analysts tell them to do to make their company better, but until they make a better CAR, things won't improve for them I'm truly amazed and inspired by the grassroots efforts being undertaken here and on other sites.
by Matt248 on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 10:42:05 AM EST

Re: Democratic Congressional Challengers Strategy (none / 0)

While this data is well put together and analyzed...there is one major factor not considered...

The Democratic candidate was at BEST D+ grade.

Why did the "Culture of Corruption" message fall flat?  The Democratic candidate was using (state) government computers to host her website.

The DNC, DCCC, and a dozen other "liberal" organizations dumped millions of dollars into this campaign, when all they really needed to do was put up a good candidate.  Yes, the district leans right, but the folks wanted a person they could trust, someone with honor and integrity.  Party is far less important when the previous office holder took huge bribes and gets caught red handed.

I actually worked in this fray and was amazed at how crappy a candidate Busby was.  Her responses in debates were 100% canned.  Any time she went off script, she sounded stupid.  There is no point sugar coating it.

The lesson Democrats should take away from this is...there is nothing more important than starting with the right candidate.

Many Dem's felt Busby "earned" the right to be the candidate by being the last sacrificial victim to Duke Cunningham, that attitude is foolish and silly.  The only way one can earn the right to be a nominee is to win the primary through a demonstration of intelligence, honor and integrity.  There was another Democrat who ran in the special election primary, but she didnt get millions of dollars thrown her way.

The last 10 days of the race, Busby showed how crappy a candidate she was...she ran radio ads supporting the 3rd party candidate as a better option for those voting