It's not that the other side needs a strong 60, Democrats need a strong 40. With Nelson and Landreiu certainly out of pocket, and Pryor, Lincoln, the other Nelson, and one or two more possibly unreachable, it's hard to keep 40.
Moreover, Democrats have apparently agreed not to filibuster in exchange for having their amendments considered. Perhaps that means they have some hope they can poison the bill, but I'm doubtful. We'll see.
Great stuff. I love the Stay the Course/New Course contrast.
Note that Webb does not identify as a Democrat, nor does he even say "Republicans in Washington have let us down". I tend not to have a problem with the first one, but I'm surprised the ad doesn't make the second point. Oh well.
At 860 volunteers, that's roughly one per 180 voters, or one per 90 Democratic voters. Now, not all contacted potential voters will end up voters, so that's probably one volunteer per 250 potential voters (if you've got good lists). That's pretty good, but you'd really need three or four times the manpower, all made up of "neighbors" and not "strangers" to win a campaign on field alone. He'll need a serious cash infusion.
It depends on the activity of the Congressmen. Is Ferguson a one-trick pony, who gives lots of speeches on his anti-choice stance? Or is it just a check box. If it's the former, than he can be painted into a corner a la Marilyn Musgrave.
I can't explain the first, but I think the theory for the second is, people have a limited appetite for politics. Compressing both the primary and the general into post labor day allows the primary to occur at a time when people are at least a bit ready to pay attention to politics. Remember, most people only pay tangential attention, and make up their mind in the final few days of campaigning.
I'm sure there are also historical reasons relating to the harvest. For a long time, much of American life--the school schedule, the political schedule, etc.--was built around the agricultural season.
The Cantwell re-election is not a lock, there's Jon Tester's campaign (yes, Seattle is the closest major city to Western MT), and there are some important ballot initatives. So the state sort of has its hands full.
[I live in WA-7 and have worked for a candidate in WA-8].
First of all, the district profile is a very odd mix. It includes some of the wealthiest suburbs in the country, where Bill Gates owns a house, other well-off suburban in Microsoft's orbit, plus working-class areas to the south.
Second of all, the economy is actually doing pretty well here. Boeing has been very successful lately, so a lot of folks are pretty happy, particularly in this district that has lots of Boeing employees. To wit, approval of Bush is relatively high for a Blue State.
Third, Congressman Reichert is Famous, for a reason that it's basically impossible not to like him; catching the Green River Killer and getting a confession.
Fourth, as in much of the Northeast, Democratic presidential preference has yet to turn into down-ballot support; upper-middle class Bellevue, WA, which voted for Kerry 54-46, has a city council made up only of Republicans (though most are pro-choice).
Fifth, it's early; I'm sure the offensive firepower will come later, and since she was one of the first targeted races, she'll get plenty of anti-Iraq war ads later on.
All of this leads to several different potential strategies for the Burner campaign. Judging by the ad, the goal is to emphasize that Burner knows what problems face people who work for a living and eat into Reichert's "just a regular guy" appeal. Conveniently, this effect will be strongest among working class voters, who are most likely to get their news from local & nat'l TV rather than the internet or newspapers. You can still reach the Bill Bradley Plus coalition through other media.
I don't recall a lot of grousing when Paul Hackett ran ads touting his military service and "independence". In a district that's not quite 60% Democratic -- at the Presidential election, which means there are lots of "I'm a Republican; I just don't like Bush" voters -- I wouldn't tout my party ID either; or at the least I'd say "I'm a Democrat, but I'm interested in solving problems more than attacking Republicans".
My guess is that Booker lost in 2002 because he wasn't seen as 'local', and people assumed he would run for bigger office rather than following through on a commitment to Newark.
Did you watch Street Fight or read any of the coverage of the James-Booker election? Or are you just going to keep guessing as to why candidates win and lose? Here's the Washington Monthly on Booker, in a piece on Barack Obama.
Then Booker lost. His opponent, incumbent Newark mayor Sharpe James told newspapers and television during the campaign that he didn't believe Booker was black enough to be mayor of Newark, and the incumbent's campaign was accused of spreading rumors that Booker was Jewish. (Flyers appeared in Newark's wards depicting the Rhodes scholar with a stretched, Semitic nose). A veteran machine pol, James also worked his base to the bone, cornering the union endorsements and playing up his generous patronage in a city where government is the biggest employer. He effectively portrayed Booker as too brainy, too earnest, and too babe-in-the-woods to play political hardball in a place like Newark--a figment of some white guy's dream, not a guy you could count on when the bus drivers threatened to strike. Booker lost by 3,000 votes, out of 53,000 cast.
I'll freely admit that white liberals have a conception of what African-American candidates should "act like" that is pretty patronizing, but sheesh.