A lot of people at BMG had their fingers crossed hoping that Busby would win the CA-50th for the Dems. There was a prior post on BMG to that effect IIRC.
Alas, it was not to be. Results here.
All the results are being sliced-and-diced but I think if the Dems cannot win in a special election where the former Congressman (an R) is in jail for taking bribes, with Bush’s poll ratings at 30%, and all the other preceived Rebuplican “problems,” it’ll be a challenge to take control of the House.
One can make the arguement that the R’s should have won by 10 or 20 points, not 3% or 4%.
Nonetheless, perhaps BMG can discuss.
Please share widely!
I think you’re right. I’m sick of the excuses for not defeating vulnerable Republicans, even in heavily Republican districts. A “moral victory” is a defeat, pure and simple. The Dems have to figure out how to win these outright. And analysts are saying Dems need to win redder districts than this to take Congress.
<
p>
It’s bad news for the Dems, pure and simple.
As I posted to the Blue Mass Group event calendar, progressive political strategist and blogger David Sirota will be in Cambridge on the 20th. He was a top strategist for progressive Democrat Brian Schweitzer’s successful campaign for Governor of Montana. He also worked for Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist who continues to receive very high marks from both the most liberal to the most conservative areas of Vermont. So if you want to learn how the Dems can win over red areas of the map, he has valuable and compelling insights.
I think it was a decent showing, and that seat will have a rematch in November. If Bilbray doesn’t impress and Busby can make up that last ground, she can win it next time. From what I saw of the first round of voting is that she didn’t gain anything over those two months, so her 30 point lead turned into the 4 point loss as the right coalesced around the immigration issue, and the GOP was able to heavily put money into that one race. In November, everyone’s money will be spread thinner, and the general public atmosphere against Bush will play a heavier role IMO.
30 point lead? Is that true?
Regardless- I agree with “it’s a loss, period”. Every election represents an opportunity to win; the viable party makes good use of every opportunity. For Busby to lose by a few points means she got out-maneuvered in the immediate competition, which is more significant to me than what the demographics of that region were two years ago.
Also, let’s talk about the strategic importance of this race for the Dem’s. The national party has placed all its chips on the “culture of corruption” message. Does anyone see the benefits of having a victory in Duke Cunningham’s former district to champion that message nationwide? Or, what about, Cunningham’s former district takes a good long look at that message and elects…A REPUBLICAN! What is the national significance of that, anybody?
Now let’s talk about spending. I saw Busby spent about $4M on this race, and for the repubs I saw figures between $4M and $7M. At best, she spent dollar for dollar, at worst, she was out-spent almost 2-1. WHY? How about national party resources? How about putting your resources in key locations where they will have a multiplied impact? How about spending any conceivable amount to walk away with a win? And how about then using Busby’s SUCCESS as a cornerstone to make back 10X your spending in donations between now and November?
I don’t blame any one individual for this, because there is no one person to blame. I blame the Democratic national movement for not accepting the importance of strategic direction and unified leadership. These strategic decisions didn’t get made because no one, either formally or informally, is in charge of Democratic strategy.
the results of both rounds
<
p>
Busby gained in % of the vote but, got 5000 less votes. She had gained all she was going to gain in April, but lost turnout, perhaps from expectations beign too high.
Charley you are going to be mad at me but I guess I am going to make an “excuse.” What would we say if Kennedy’s challenger got 45% of the vote? Would we say that he lost? While technically he would have lost, the notion that a Republican could come that close to beating Ted Kennedy would say an awful lot about the state of things here. Busby got 45% in a completely RED district. Not purple, the light red, but deep, dark, blood red. And Busby wasn’t a pro-life DINO that might have appealed to the district. She was a down right, latte sipping, Volov driving etc…..LIBERAL. In 2004 she only 35%. This means that she got 10% more given the factors Charley mentions. So if we can gain 10% in all of the PURPLE districts we will be talking about what Speaker Pelosi plans on doing in January!
<
p>
Sometimes a loss isn’t just a loss, and that is no excuse
Andy, if Busby takes the seat in November and the Dems sweep into power again, I’ll accept the “excuses” or rationalizations, or whatever. But the prognosticators who study this stuff say it’s not enough to come close — Dems have to win these kinds of races.
<
p>
Really, check the link. Sobering.
I noticed that link in your original post after I made my comment. You are right, it is sobering. Stu Rothenberger (or however you spell his last name) was on NPR talking about how many Dem pick ups were in fact not that red at all, which directly contradicts Hotline. I think the headlines of the newspapers are the best analysis on whether you or I are right on the this issue. (Click the link and you will see what I mean.)
Yeah, who knows … well, I’m just sick of losing and pretending that’s winning. Bleah.
But such is the spin of politics, every loss has to be a win. However I much prefer winning to spinning.
charlie is right: the notion that “losing” is “winning” because it was “close” – i’m not buying. the district is not super-red, as a post here claims. bush beat kerry there 55 to 44.
<
p>
on the right, they’re pointing to DailyKos’s 1 win/19 loss election record – with the “win” (Tester in MT) knocking off a moderate Dem with a more progressive Dem, which may mean November defeat).
<
p>
possible viewpoints:
<
p>
a) right message, just need to do better election blocking and tackling.
<
p>
b) wrong message, need new message.
<
p>
c) netroots liberalism has upside (volunteers, $) but can backfire – puts candidate in sound chamber where all he/she hears is far left….which leads to….gaffe.
and think they put out good stuff. But don’t forget, it was started by a moderate Republican. That’s the viewpoint you’re getting. Not frothing-at-the-mouth Jerry Falwell, but certainly George Lakoff or David Sirota.
Property tax and illegal immigration. When I went doorknocking with a state rep candidate in my city, those two issues were the first things people talked about. You can argue the rightness or wrongness of both issues – supporting the rollback and the management of the illegal immigration problem – but the fact of the matter is that people are worried about them and will vote for the person they think will best represent them.
<
p>
A moral victory is a nice pillow to hug at night. Personally, I think we need to be more pragmatic and actually win the corner office. Ignoring these issues will be at our peril.
Medicare Plan D and the Iraq war. We can win these battles, people are tied of being duped by Bush and his lackeys.
<
p>
To err, see the recent trend toward gay-bashing by Sam Brokeback and the Republican Party. Americans care about a lot of things.
One thing we Dems can’t quite get around is that so many of us are so excited with the big picture — namely, will we take back congress? That’s what went wrong with Busby. Few people were as excited about sending Busby to congress as they are about taking Congress back, which makes sense… but this is the result. We need candidates (and we have many) that we need to talk about how great it would be to send that person to congress. Voters are voting on the candidate, not the implications of what will happen is enough cogs fit into the Washington machine to switch the majority. That’s just what we’re thinking about. So that’s issue #1.
<
p>
Issue #2 is that Busby was, contrary to what others on BMG think, a bad candidate. She bungled with illegal immigration in a HUGE way. She campaigned IN AGREEMENT with Bush’s immigration plan in SAN DIEGO. The Republican was against it.
<
p>
Issue #3 is that Busby ran to the middle, which was what she was advised to do. PLEASE don’t hire Busby’s consultants ever again. They will all make great professors, but let’s make sure they don’t run any more of our congressional campaigns. Part of Busby’s running to the middle was this campaign slogan of hers “I’m going to clean up Washington DC.” I think the voters responded with a resounding “You’ll be a freshman Congresswoman… you couldn’t possibly do that on your own.” Busby didn’t localize her message or run on REALITY. Her campaigns was running against Duke Cunningham from the start and wasn’t able to change their campaign plan to focus on Bilbray.
<
p>
Lesson #1: Fire the consultants. Never hire them again. Distance them from the party.
<
p>
Lesson #2: Take a page from Ken Melman (sp?): run on local issues and what you can do for your voters. Of course you take federal issue stands but you can’t win elections only on federal issues. This means that when there is a federal issue like immigration, Dems must focus on how that effects their districts in order to win on that issue.
<
p>
Lesson #3: Busby candidates lose. Put resources into races with better candidates.
<
p>
Lesson #4: RUN AGAINST YOUR OPPONENT, not the president, or congress, or culture or any other abstract thing that voters can’t see and identify with.
<
p>
Lesson #5: It is possible that we don’t win back either the house or senate in 2006. If that is the case, make note of the consultants used in each race and form a do not hire list, followed up by not hiring said consultants.
In order to get the seats we need to win back the House and/or Senate we need to give voters something to vote for and not bank on votes against Republicans. In 94 Republicans rallied around the Contract for America and gave people a reason to vote.
<
p>
Dems need a plan (not a postition!) for what they would do. As of yet, I can’t tell you what it is and I’ve been listening for it.
Anytime a republican or anyone of this domineer and caliber gets elected it’s a loss. Not just a loss for Democrats or people of a sound mine, but sadly this is a loss to the people they represent and the American people.
It’s a heavily Republican district, and the RNC helped coordinate to spend $5million on that one congressional race alone. This is all part of Dean’s 50 state plan. If you notice, Howard rarely says that we’re going to win in all states, and in all districts. Instead he says we’re going to make them fight in all districts. What that means is Republicans can’t just raise an ungodly amount of money for their campaign and then send their troops off to fight in vulnerable districts. Instead, in order to win, they have to raise that money for themselves. The outcome in the heavily Republican districts are the same as they always were, but they don’t have the resources, or at least have fewer resources, to fight in the competitive races. By comparison, the DNC hardly spent anything on this race. Busby’s race is a success because it means that even in the most Republican districts, they can’t top 50% even spending millions of dollars with few other races in the same month.
Reading these comments I think people are getting too hung up on arguing about whether Busby “won” or “lost”, and that gets in the way of understanding what happened and learning what we need to from it.
<
p>
From all I’ve heard from people in the district, including the DFA group there, Busby was a very good candidate who would’ve made a great Representative. And she did quite well in this election, getting much closer to winning than she ought to have, or than she did in the past. People who want to make the point that we lost feel the need to bash these claims, and then we get into unproductive arguments about them, because even if they’re completely true (and I think they are), she still lost the election.
<
p>
What we need to learn from this election is that the “culture of corruption” message is effective, but not good enough to give us control of Congress this year. This was the perfect district to test that message, we tested it, and it came up short.
<
p>
Now, it might still work against the likes of Bob Ney or Conrad Burns, who are themselves seen as corrupt, and are running for re-electing. What this district tested is what happens when everyone is very aware of the corruption problem, and you try to use it against a Republican who isn’t personally tainted in the voters’ minds, by tying that Republican into the general concept that electing a Republican Congress will lead to corruption. And apparently, that gains you 10-15 points in the current climate. Which is great, but not good enough – particularly in places where corruption isn’t as high on people’s minds, and we’d gain less than 10 points.
<
p>
In Montana, we have an amazing nominee for Senate whose message will probably be much better than just the corruption stuff. But nationally, the Democratic party needs to find something that will work better, or we won’t win control of the house this year. That’s what we learned from CA-50.
<
p>
Arguments about whether Busby “won” or “lost”, aside from the obvious point that she’s not going to Congress this year, are entirely beside the point.
Precisely. Saying that the Republicans are bad is important, but we need to also say not just that we are good, but why we are good. We need to articulate a message about how we will make the lives of citizens better.