Regarding Tuesday night's results, I had a rather intemperate post ready to go early Wednesday, and the further analysis here, by David and others, gave me pause. But I just can't shake the conclusion that it shouldn't have ever been this close. The Sages of Beverly say they made us sweat. They were right, and it never should have happened this way.
I know what the maps say. I know it's a more conservative district than it might seem. I know it went for Romney in 2002. I know there was some (deserved) sympathy for Ogonowski as the brother of a 9/11 victim, and that he was apparently pretty good at retail politics. I now know that Tsongas won by a somewhat greater margin than Patrick last year.
But I also know that Marty Meehan made mincemeat of Republican opponents for some 14 years. Bill Clinton showed up. Deval showed up. We had the widow of a locally sainted pol as our candidate: For cryin' out loud, they named the hockey rink after him. Her campaign vastly outspent its opponent.
Furthermore, this was a race about national issues: Iraq, immigration, health care. The opponent represented a party that ought to be absolute poison in Massachusetts; and contrary to his “non-partisan” self-portrayal, he seemed happy to parrot GOP talking points sent directly from HQ. The Patrick/Healey race shouldn't be the baseline: To my mind, Kerry vs. Bush should indeed be the baseline of comparison.
A five-point victory? We should be satisfied with this? Under what ought to be the most favorable possible circumstances?
I'm not going to put too much blame on Tsongas herself. I suppose she could have seemed more passionate, but she was clear enough in her messaging, and certainly competent in public appearances. In spite of what I consider an over-reliance on money and media, her grassroots organization seems to have been pretty effective.
The local Democratic organizations ought to be very concerned. I was not the only one who felt that the primary was somehow not over after September 4; I was feeling a definite lack of enthusiasm from supporters of Eldridge (in spite of Jamie's personal willingness to pitch in), and some of Donoghue's supporters were outspoken in their unwillingness to help out. And many of the local Democratic organizations are absolutely dead, or dysfunctional — when with some effort they could have some real influence over the character of their state.
The national Democrats need to understand what an enormous mandate they have, and they need to use it. Their low approval rating comes from the fact that the public is ready to take on the President on Iraq. And when they spinelessly accede to an unpopular President's demands, there are consequences. Yes, the “base” becomes demoralized — but that ignores all of the independents and loosely-affiliated folks who are just looking for someone to do something right: How could a candidate in favor of prolonging the Iraq War possibly have ever been leading 2-1 with voters under 35? There's a reason why so many have “checked out” — and there's a reason why some may find Ogonowski's purportedly “non-partisan” blandishments appealing.
This is the national party's call to WAKE UP. You need to show that you deserve the votes you got in 2006. There is something worse than being “too far left”, and that's weakness and ineffectiveness. End the war; restore the Constitution. Build up victories. Restore your reputation. Otherwise no one will believe the righteous anger that you will no doubt trot before the voters in 2008.
Enough of the happy talk. We've got a problem.
I wouldn’t let Tsongas herself off the hook quite so easily. After all, we endorsed Eldridge in part because he seemed to have more passion behind his positions than his rivals. Fire matters, and I think our newest representative’s relative lack in that department helped to account for the narrowness of the margin. I agree with those who say MA-05 can be a competitive race in 2008.
<
p>
That said, the central message of Charley’s post is the most important. The question is if the Democrats have the courage to lead — I’m looking at you, war funding-approving, FISA-extending, Gonzalez-not-impeaching ladies and gentlemen. If they don’t, the Republicans may, horrifyingly, unbelievably, bad-for-America-ly, hold onto power in some measure in 2008 rather than being routed across the board as they so richly deserve.
<
p>
This country can be dragged back into the past, as Bush and his regressive pals have established. We have to push hard for progress.
and get them functional again. On the town committee but fat and lazy? Get out of the way.
<
p>
The towns need precinct and block captains. They need to have good lists. They need to know just where to knock on doors, who to offer rides to the polls, who to help obtain absentee ballots.
<
p>
It’s a lot of work for a few votes hear and a few votes there — but that’s often a few percentage points, more than enough to swing an election. Let’s get on it folks!
I personally think people of any size should be welcomed into progressive Massachusetts politics and encouraged.
I absolutely agree that we need to have strong Democratic Town, Ward and City Committees.
<
p>
I welcome Democrats whether they can give a day a week or an hour a year. I encourage anyone who even thinks good thoughts about the Democratic Party.
<
p>
I recently had a discussion with someone who mentioned that he wanted to set up an event for “good activists.” My response was, “Can’t we have bad activists as well?”
<
p>
If people are holding leadership positions and are at a time in your life when you are not able to contribute, focus your efforts on bringing in new leaders.
<
p>
Ready to contribute and not sure how to get involved? Go to http://www.massdems.org and contact your local committee. If there are openings, get yourself nominated. If your community doesn’t have a Democratic Committeee, this is the time to file nomination papers. See my post. The first filing deadline is Friday, November 9.
<
p>
If you want to be on my weekly e-mail list, sign up by sending an e-mail to subscribe-ddemdispatch@yahoogroups.com or contact me directly at KateDonaghue@aol.com
<
p>
Thanks!
with a small group of people over the summer, before the primary. She didn’t seem passionate about running, to be honest. She gave stock answers about health care, Iraq, etc. She gave off a palpable sense of entitlement. I think the primary didn’t challenge her sufficiently, for whatever reason (please don’t read this as an indictment against the other dem primary challengers – it’s not.)
didn’t challenge her enough??
Here’s this big name candidate with all the money and all she can muster is a 4% win during the primary election? That should have given her the scare that money and name recognition are not enough sometimes. Do you want to simply win, by whatever margin, or win big? One reason why Hillary is so ahead in the polls is because she’s running like she’s 20 points behind.
Not great? Sure. Normal? Nope. Why compare to normal?
<
p>
<
p>
The comparison shouldn’t be with the other races mentioned, but with other houses races in which the follow metrics exist:
<
p>
– Short notice
– A large field of primary candidates in de facto party.
– no incumbency issues
– exceedingly short time span (both overall and between primary and general. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, the time between the announcement of an election and the primary was longer than the time between the primary and the general)
<
p>
There has to be numbers on races like this…
<
p>
the answers to the following should be sought:
<
p>
– Is a drop in voter turnout (between primary and general election) in these instances anomalous?
<
p>
– What percent of voter non-participation in an election with a clear frontrunner who garnered all major endorsements as well as campaigning by major state and national politicians (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Deval Patrick) is indicative of an implicit endorsement (“Are you gonna vote today, Ma?” — “No, Niki’s got it in the bag and I don’t want to take off work.”)
<
p>
<
p>
Now this I agree with… and find the under 35 voting patterns exceedingly disturbing.
The areas where Tsongas ran the weakest v. expectations are thos communities with the higher concentrations of white working and middle class voters. There was not a sufficient message to appeal to them in Billerica, Chelmsford, Andover, etc… The irony is that Tsongas won the working class communities of Lawrence and Lowell and the “upscale” communities like Concord, Carlisle.
<
p>
It wasn’t organization. It was message. How is the Democratic Congress going to address the economic insecurity of the broad middle and working class. That is the message we need to lead on. Otherwise it is easy for Republicans to succeed with a demogogue like message on immigration (the dark people are taking our jobs and driving down wages).
<
p>
For example, today we lost another important battle on health care for children (and some adults). We need to show how the constant buckling under to insurance interests are killing our economic competitiveness and soaking up money that should be in the pockets of workers and business owners but instead go to insurance companies. It can not all be about George Bush.
<
p>
Right now in Massachusetts the most visible achievement (and an important one) of the Dem hold on Beacon Hill has been the dispatch of the anti-equality crowd. But we must start talking to the concerns of the working and middle class voters of our Kansas (start at the sea in move inland through to upper Middlesex…apologies to Tom Frank). Perhaps if we can do it here, the Dems can do it in Kansas, Tennessee, Missouri, etc…
<
p>
PS – Someone has probably made the point elsewhere that Ogonowski got more mainstream press than the last twenty challengers to Mass Dem Congressional incumbents combined.
agreed. Tsongas’ economic conservative streak hurt us.
For no real reason whatsoever, here are my retroactive predictions for what the general election numbers would have looked like if others had one the Democratic primary:
<
p>
Donoghue: 57
Ogonowski: 40
Other: 3
– Overall turnout: slightly higher
<
p>
Eldridge: 50
Ogonowski: 48
Other: 2
– Overall turnout: higher
<
p>
Finegold: 47
Ogonowski: 49
Other: 4
– Overall turnout: same
<
p>
Miceli: 22
Ogonowski: 64
Other: 14
– Overall turnout: lower
<
p>
Donoghue would have cleaned up, Eldridge would have been closer, but the race would have been much more energized on both sides, driving up turnout. Eldridge would also have captured a chunk of Patrick Murphy’s votes. Finegold would have lost by a small margin after running a completely ineffective campaign, and Miceli would have had his clock cleaned (why go for a conservative Dem when there’s a real conservative in the race?) Patrick Murphy would have broken 10%, picking up the liberal vote.
<
p>
If Tsongas had run a campaign like Donoghue or Eldridge would have, had they been the nominee:
<
p>
Tsongas: 57
Ogonowski: 40
Other: 3
I hate to say this, but if they keep doing nothing about Iraq, it’s really going to come back to haunt them. It could be the difference from having total control over the Senate and a great deal more control in the house, with a Democratic shoo-in executive, to having only added a few Senate seats and who knows what regarding the house, with a close, expensive and bitter Presidential race.
<
p>
They ought to get their butts moving on this, or Bush’s mistakes will take decades to fix, instead of 1 or 2 terms. Yet, the Dem leadership seems like its mostly filled with pansies, so I’m not going to get my hopes up.
of election implications
This campaign has done one thing.. it has shown both sides that to win an election you have to work for it.
<
p>
Money isn’t everything.
<
p>
It is obvious that my side needed to do some work in the south and the big cities (especially Lawrence, the city still being funded almost completely by the state).
<
p>
But what I do see is an invigoration of both sides.. and that can’t be anything but good for everyone.
Next time – POST the intemperate version.
<
p>
That said, there is a new book out…what’s it called…that takes your premise and expands it, providing concrete examples and analysis…what was that called…
<
p>
Oh. Yes. It’s called The Bluest State by Jon Keller.
<
p>
You should consider reading it – it’s taking a lot of criticism as being a ‘conservative’ book, but I really didn’t find it to be one. Rather, it speaks in an exasperated fashion to Dem loyalists like yourself, who see that all is not as you might wish it to be.
Yet, if you want to find it, you need to go ask at the information desk for them to dig it out off some shelf hidden in the back of Barnes and Noble..
<
p>
I guess Bill Clinton’s book needed too much space up front.
That’s not the only criticism it’s taking.
<
p>
Beyond that, you’re commenting on the book that you (and I) wish Keller had written, not the one that St. Martin’s published. What a gigantic missed opportunity that thing is.
I self-edited. That’s different, I’m sure you’ll agree.
<
p>
I’ve read a few chapters of Keller’s book, Peter. I’m not really that curious about the rest, although I suppose I ought to be a good sport and trudge through. As David indicates, you really could write a terrific book about how the Democratic Party in Massachusetts undercuts its stated ideals with hackery, complacency and mediocrity.
<
p>
But look, Keller just makes #@$@ up. I keep thinking back to that paragraph where he talks about a “backlash” against GBIO being responsible for the miniscule assessment on uninsuring employers. I mean, that is just completely ass-backwards: There might be no health care law without the efforts of GBIO and a raft of other groups. And Keller doesn’t even try to prove causality — he just asserts it, and assumes/hopes/prays his reader won’t ask how it happened that way.
<
p>
That’s crap. Keller seems to write by the Italian aphorism, “Se non e vero, e ben trovato” (Even if it’s not true, it’s a good [story].)
I have to admit, I’d love to find out what the result would have been had Ogonowski not gone off the deep end about the treacherous “Brown Peril” from beyond the Rio Grande. I think we dodged a bullet on that one. He was a strong, able candidate, and Niki was not. I think it’s silly to argue otherwise.
<
p>
But looking at it through a wider lens, I think a couple points are worth making:
<
p>
I’m not saying that there’s nothing to learn from this race. However, I am saying that many of the dynamics that saved Tsongas will be working to an even greater degree in November 2008.
…in fact, there were a number of reports in the MSM after the 2006 elections about how many near-misses we had with Dem woman challengers against Repub house members. If I remember right, I think that a little less than half of our woman house candidates in tight races won last year, while it was closer to 2/3 for male candidates.
<
p>
I think we can agree that it’s sad that in this day and age, gender will count against you in a run for office. But think about it…do you think Bob Reich would have done better against Mitt than Shannon did? Would Charlie Baker have come closer to Deval than Kerry Healey?
<
p>
Denying that this issue exists and is a problem won’t make it go away.
Throughout the entire MA 05 election I couldn’t help but think that the final outcome of this special election would be close and that there would be a rematch of the same race 1 year from now. Then probably another rematch in 2010. Then when MA loses a seat in Congress the district will be eliminated (unless another MA Rep. leaves, in which case his district will be eliminated). So basically this was an election to see who would temporarily become a Congressperson only to face constant rematches against the same foe that will end regardless of the outcomes 3 years from now when they both will lose.
… there is always the money advantage one gets with incumbency, ask Marty.
Tsongas will likely win the next few elections, but ultimately the MA legislature will have to decide which congressional district to excise and their decision will probably be driven by seniority. As the district with the newest member of the congressional delegation the MA 5th is the most likely to be eliminated. So she will face a competitive rematch in 1 year and then she will start to hear the clock start ticking on her tenure in office. Her likely limited time, combined with her age, make it unlikely that she will serve long enough to gain enough seniority in Washington to become a powerful representative or to make much of a difference.
Does it ever occur to people that the big government, “progressive” view of the world might just not be a good idea in the minds of most Americans?
… which D loss are you referring to? chuckle
Your question isn’t really applicable here, since there wasn’t a D loss, but I’ll answer anyway.
<
p>
The short answer is: Because progressive positions, when presented in a poll isolated from party politics, do better than conservative opinions.
<
p>
A quick example: 64% of Americans think the government should guarantee healthcare for all, and 65% think that this is a more important goal than keeping the costs down, according to a CBS poll conducted back in February.
<
p>
So when Democrats lose, or suffer narrow wins, it’s usually assigned to tactics rather than policy, because our policies are more popular. Democratic problems lie in (a) getting the message out, (b) countering or avoiding Republican spin and (c) actually implementing the policies.
<
p>
So, to summarize, the answer to your question is “No, that never occurred to me.”
I think you may misinterpret the polls –
<
p>
When you ask people would they like to have something for free (the typical progressive position) they tend to say yes.
<
p>
When the big government not to mention confiscatory tax implications of the promised freebies become clear, then support is not quite so strong.
<
p>
Also polls usually* favor a stronger national security position than that which the liberals typically take, i.e. run awaayyy!!
<
p>
*current circumstances excepted
<
p>
I don’t know why the “35 and under” used for “young” voters, except for the fact that “Gen Y” (which SUSA defines as born 1979 or later) is third of that group, but general it’s the GenX (1966-1979) aka the “Reagan youth” that skews the young voter polls. Though it’s only a tiny 12 people, the Gen Y numbers were more reflective of the total poll numbers.
I just wanted to say how much I agreed with your last 3 paragraphs.
<
p>
I think your analysis is spot on and your conclusion correct. Thanks for making the wake-up call.
I agree that the results warrant making changes.
<
p>
As for the town committees I think they did make a difference in a few towns, but there was a definite lack of enthusiasm. It was not just Nikki or the fact that other candidates lost, but the reality that ardent supporters of canidates felt that the Meehan and the Congressional delegation tried to fix things for Nikki. If she had won without the assistance of the establishment there would have been more heartfelt support from the bakcers of other candidates. As it was Tsongas did rack up big margins in towns in the southern part of the district such as Acton and Maynard but it was more a result of fear (of a loss) than of enthusiasm. She needs to really reach out over the next year.
<
p>
Secondly many of the middle of the middle class (or working class) voters who make up much of the district seemed to respond to Oganowski’s military record. I’m not sure there’s much to do about that.
<
p>
What is distrubing is the extent to which Ogonowski got a free ride for extremist anti-immigrant views. His position on S-Chip was frankly ridiculous, but the Dems need to come up with a good way to respond to these kind of campaigns in the future.
Typical Globalist, open border, Illegal Alien rhetoric.
Yea securing the borders and taking a stand against tax payer benefits for Illegal Aliens is somehow an “extremist anti-immigrant view.”
For the 100,000+ time Illegal Aliens are not Immigrants. Stop blurring the line between Illegal and legal. It is an insult to every American Citizen and Legal Immigrant.
BTW I am in the majority on the “Illegal Immigration” issue. You know it better as the “Immigration” issue.