During Clinton's first term, polls showed huge majorities (I remember something like 80 percent) wanted the government to "do something" about health care. Did the Republicans run scared and rubber stamp the Clinton plan? No--they fought what seemed like a political loser fight.

Yes, they had a lot of corporate advertising dollars and political donations backing them up in their attacks on the Clinton health care plan, but the bottom line is: the Republicans play to win, and we play not to lose. Amazingly, we play not to lose even when the polls show the Republican president in such poor shape.

I am confident we will make some gains in November, but I fear we are going to be disappointed by the lost opportunity to win back Congress.

"They aren't putting Iraq front and center, and it's not clear to me that the will exists to take on the right clearly and honestly."

There you have it.  The only thing I would add is that Iraq is not the only thing that can be put front and center.

I don't know if we will see any significant change in Congress this fall, or not.  If not, it will be taken as both mandate and opportunity by the Republicans, and we will see nothing but more, more, and more of what we've seen for the last five years.

"You can look at the generic Congressional balloting all you want, but it won't mean anything unless campaigns around the country decide that it's in fact a good thing to be a Democrat."

I think you're about 85 percent right here.

The generic polls don't mean much once things boil down to two actual names on a ballot.  

Generic polls are nice for taking the nation's temperature, but are too macro to provide a feel for how individual races will turn out.

To put it in hypothetical terms, if you have your standard Republican running against a Democrat with a handful of politically dangerous votes in their past, the generics go out the window and it becomes a one-on-one fight that has little or nothing to do with the national dynamics.  

But, I won't criticize candidates for not putting 'The Big D' on their chests and parading it wildly.

In many of the districts that are in play, in order to win, campaigns need to target very specific groups of voters.  

Those voters are likely to be people who don't like (but probably voted for) Bush, hate the situation in Iraq and don't really like the incumbent, but are generally inclined to vote Republican.  

They still are wary of (or simply don't like) Democrats, but are willing to listen to a Democrat, simply because of how miserably Republicans have done their jobs.

But that Democratic candidate has to speak their language.  They have to feel like that candidate can at least relate to their situation, and can at least do the job competently.  

They have to feel like the Democrat is going to be an actual upgrade over the incumbent, who they are predisposed to voting against, but will still support if they think the Democrat is the proverbial 'devil they don't know.'

Hardcore partisanship isn't likely to get these voters.  

It's EXTREMELY frustrating, but at the end of the day, it's a balancing act.  

These candidates obviously have the Big D next to their names on the ballot.  There's no running away from that.

But in these swing districts, they have to demonstrate that, as Democrats, they aren't the crazy leftists Republicans will attempt to make them out to be... while at the same time trying to make sure the base turns out for them.  

It's really freaking hard, and a lot harder than the rhetoric flying around this site would indicate.  

That's why I've been as annoyed as I have been about the Ad-Watch posts here.  

Without being privy to a campaign's polling and knowing which voters these campaigns need to move - and what messages they need to communicate in order to do so - to win, criticizing them because they haven't conformed to the CA-50 study (which, again, I thought was really interesting), is just shortsighted.  

I'm not trying to be nasty, but each campaign and district is different, and each group of voters that they need to reach is different.

What they need to communicate, and how they should communicate it, is something that needs to be done on a campaign-by-campaign basis.  

In some districts, going after Iraq front and center might be the ideal approach with the particular voters the campaign needs to reach.  In other districts, laying the groundwork with introductory spots that are boring vanilla might be what is necessary before going off on stuff like Iraq and Bush.

All I'm saying is... give these campaigns a chance.  

What happened in CA-50 is interesting, and might reflect what is going on elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that these campaigns aren't doing well because they haven't followed the CA-50 Lesson.  

They might end up running ads that follow the CA-50 lesson exactly, but might first need to do other things, like introduce themselves.  

Until or unless you're privy to their polling and crosstabs, give them a chance.  

You cannot fix political campaigns this close to the election; all you can do is fuck them up.

Let him call the plays.

--Steve

DCCC/DSCC strategy" "Whatever you do don't mention the war."

DCCC Vice Chair Davis just promised to support netroots all star Kissell in NC-08.

If Rahm doesn't come through....

Rahm has done more to bring the Dems closer to the majority than any chair since they lost in 94. I agree with politicalhacko6 that we should stop obsessing about CA-50 and focus on each individual race and give them resources to run their own campaigns.  

Agreed, put Iraq front and center.  Also the cost of Iraq, spell out in detail how the war is 100% borrowed money.  

What does any of that have to do with Dean?

My concern about Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC is their effect on local races for Congress.  When my guy won the Dem endorsement back in May, I expected Rahm and the DCCC to come in and instruct him about how to run his campaign.  While the Campaign Manager I know who was replaced as I expected, it turns out that The Replacement wasn't someone under the thumb of Rahm.  While I have many issues with how this Replacement is managing the campaign, the DCCC has been absent from supporting the Dem-endorsed candidate.  The evidence is that my guy has kept to his progressive message which I'm sure DCCC would quash if they were involved in this race at all.

What angers me in particular is that the Dem endorsed candidate is trailing in fundraising to two other Dems.  One failed to get endorsed and the other ignored the endorsement process entirely.  Now the Dem endorsed candidate doesn't have enough jing to buy more lawnsigns.

Holy Schnikey!

It unbelievable that in a strong Dem district, the DCCC hasn't supported the endorsed candidate.  All it would take is a couple of phone calls and Rahm would have sent $20K to my favorite candidate.  While I realize that the DCCC is targeting seats where we take out Republicans, where's the love for endorsed candidates.

I don't see any evidence of a fundraising advantage for the DCCC in my congressional district.

The Big E

The generic ballots show this should be a tidal wave year, but Emanuel is blowing it.

He micro-manages campaigns and most campaigns suck. If he were a good micro-manager, he would make sure that every ad mentioned Iraq. But he is a DLC micro-manager who didn't get it when it came to invading Iraq and is either too stubborn or stupid to get it since then.

Any Democratic gains will happen in spite of Emanuel, plus he is responsible for Bean DLC'ing herself into a situation she is going to lose her seat.

Murtha's Democratic colleagues reacted warily to his remarks, while Republicans pounced. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), head of the House Democrats' campaign effort, said, "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a position."
-Washington Post

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.

"What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president's policies have led to," Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, "the how and when gets buried" and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat.
-Washington Post

It is difficult to be more out of touch than Emanuel. The guy is a complete tool. Instead of wasting time writing BS books for the DLC, maybe he should have spent some time reflecting on his Iraq position.

I agree that it is hard to be optimistic, particularly after the last two elections.  Polls looked fairly hopeful in the presidential race in 2004, remember.  One of the biggest failings of the Clinton crowd is that they didn't manage to strengthen their own party overall. Not such team players, I guess. If the Democrats can't agree on the details of policy, they have tons of material to use in attacking the Republicans.  I don't know why they are so leery of this when they've lost so many elections after being viciously smeared. Competence and the inequity of economic growth are huge issues that work in their favor, but the Dems just seem to be twiddling their thumbs hoping things work out in the end.  

Rahm is stuck in the 90s.  He doesn't get the new dynamics at play, and he doesn't listen to anyone actually on the ground.  No grassroots for him.  He only listens to Washington-based pollsters.

"Rahm is probably affraid to make Iraq a front and center issue b/c 50% of the Dem senate voted for Iraq"

Actually, it was over 75% - 37 yeas to only 11 nays.  It's uncertain how that's going to play in national elections - right now, it's 0-1 intrying to explain it.