We're All Partisans Now
Bloomberg reports that six Republican-held congressional seats in New York State may be seriously in play in November, a pretty nice downpayment on the 15 seats Democrats would need to take back the House. This confirms something that one of the serious analysts of congressional campaigns told me a month ago: that with a national tide in favor of Democrats, and the strength of Senator Clinton's reelection bid and Eliot Spitzer's gubernatorial campaign, all the Republican seats in that state could be vulnerable.
As a Democrat, I see this as is great news. (And incidentally, if you’re looking for just one campaign to support in this group, may I suggest Dan Maffei, who’s running against Rep. James Walsh in the Syracuse district, which hasn't appeared on a lot of "hot races" lists even though it's the only Republican-held New York district that Kerry carried in 2004. I’ve known Dan for almost ten years, and I’m enthusiastic about his candidacy not just because I think he can win, but because he would make a great member of Congress, with deep roots in Syracuse but also having worked for Senators Bradley and Moynihan and for the Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.) [UPDATE: I corrected the error in this paragraph which said that NY-25 was the only district in the state Kerry carried.]
With that experiment in violating the FEC’s regulations on blogs completed, I’ll return to the main point: Six Republican seats in New York could switch. Three of Connecticut’s five seats are held by Republicans; at least two are in play and possibly the third. Several Philadelphia-suburb Republican seats are vulnerable, along with a few in Ohio. I notice that even Frank Wolf of Virginia is potentially vulnerable, having been outraised by a great opponent, health policy expert Judy Feder. These are seats that were once as reliably Republican as Mississippi’s were reliably Democratic, the wealthy green suburbs of the Eastern Seaboard and industrial Midwest, where the Bush family has its roots.
One consequence of this outcome, however, is that the partisanship we’ve been discussing in the Book Club will become all the more acute. Not all of the Republicans who hold these seats now advertise themselves as "moderates," but many are allies on environmental causes and/or try to maintain good relationships with organized labor.
This November, even if the Democrats fall short of capturing the House, we are likely to find a Congress made up of two parties that are more ideologically homogenous and more regionally based than ever in history. There will be no truly conservative Democrats (some opportunists, of course), but that’s been the case since 1994 and the party-switches that followed. But there will also be no significant number of Republicans who are pro-environment (simple measure: the 34 Republicans who voted against Rep. Pombo’s near-repeal of the Endangered Species Act includes all of the NY, CT, PA representatives mentioned above.)
This will be an enormous challenge for, for example, environmental activists, because they are accustomed to operating across party lines, and in general it means that those trying to move any good policy will find themselves, through no choice of their own, more deeply embedded within the Democratic Party and more consistently opposed to Republican policies. The alternative is to wait around for the Northeastern moderates to reappear, which is as futile as waiting for Waco, Texas, to suddenly start electing Democrats. [Another error caught in comments: Waco is represented by Democrat Chet Edwards, one of the few survivors of the DeLay redistricting. Let's substitute "Gwinnett County, GA," for Waco.]
This is an important point about partisanship that needs to be made: Even someone who doesn’t have an ounce of partisanship, who has no interest in or respect for the Democratic Party, but who cares about one or several issues, is going to find herself increasingly in the position of a partisan. Since resistance is futile, it’s best to embrace the role.
And that means you NARAL.
April 22, 2006 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The alternative is to wait around for the Northeastern moderates to reappear, which is as futile as waiting for Waco, Texas, to suddenly start electing Democrats.
Geez. I hope that's a joke. Currently, Chet Edwards (D-TX) represents Waco in the House. Chet's not one of my favorite congressmen, but overall he plays for the right team.
April 22, 2006 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
... Dan Maffei, who’s running against Rep. James Walsh in the Syracuse district, the only New York district that Kerry carried in 2004.
I missed that factoid. Does it mean that Kerry carried NY state only because of the exceedingly lopsided majority in the Syracuse district, in spite of not carrying New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Long Island etc.?
April 22, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Demand the Truth
Sorry but if Republicans (GOPers) get re-elected then they still control Congress and nothing changes!
Defeat them all or is does not matter they are marketing themselves as moderates. They still enable the GOP leadership to continue with they agenda to destroy America and American government.
April 22, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just such talk that lulled the Democrats into a sense of complacency resulting in the Presidential campaign fiasco of 2004. "Bush is SO terrible, how could we lose?" went the mantra, and the cautious, MOR oriented consultants emerged to give us a notably bad campaign which ultimately failed to give enough voters a reason to change things.
I only bring this up because, while the numbers are appealing, the Republicans have shown they can inject an irrational emotional charge into elections that the Democrats just don't understand, because it is so out of bounds to them.
Until Democrats learn this technique of appealing to the basest nature of the voter- something inherently foreign to them- we will suffer at the hands of those who have demonstrated they are cataclysmically incapable of governing, but are idiot savants at the election part.
April 22, 2006 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe the hard core truth is that they stole the election again?
April 22, 2006 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would go with the "theft" explanation. Too many shenanigans with exit polls.
April 22, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or for that matter, he could have used Sugarland, TX.....Oh wait, I forgot, Delay dropped out and Nick Lampson is polling well in a redrawn district that includes large portions of his old district....
Marc
April 22, 2006 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to look at this
http://ifk-johnkerry.blogspot.com/2004/12/more-painful-lessons-from-2004.html
I would like to help. I know a bit about data/text mining and NORA; I am working on a tool for the local 2008 elections (Without help, I do not think I will finish in time for the 2006 elections)
I heard Ickes is working on something for the DNC as a whole. Any futher info on that?
Other than that, is there any non monetary way I can contribute?
April 22, 2006 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, here, Ellen.
Mark says that this
And presumably this goes for pro-choice activists, too. But they'll be looking at an enourmous challenge only if they can't pull their heads out long enough understand that the moderate Republican is a near-extinct beast. And given this, there really doesn't seem to be any good reason at all for why progressive activist groups should have to face any challenge. If they do, it's their own damn fault.
April 22, 2006 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lesson that the Dems might learn from the '92 elections is - it is not always wise to let bygones be bygones.
Many of the schysters who are in power today would have been tossed on the ash heap of disgrace had the congressional Democrats been just a little more partisan after the first Clinton win. By letting Iran Contra fall by the wayside and not holding people like George Bush (41), Negroponte, etc... accountable for crimes committed while in office, this cast of characters and their prodigious heirs were allowed to evolve and merge into the cabal that has effectively decimated our international and fiscal crediblity.
If the Dems should be so lucky as to win one chamber of congress this November, they should aim for the jugular.
If you want bipartisanship to return in any meaningful sense, let's start by expunging or emasculating the right wing extremists that have hijacked the GOP.
April 22, 2006 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only bring this up because, while the numbers are appealing, the Republicans have shown they can inject an irrational emotional charge into elections that the Democrats just don't understand, because it is so out of bounds to them.
I don't know if two lying, cheating, corrupt parties instead of one is much of an improvement. If it's impossible to win by honest means then there's nothing left to fight for.
April 22, 2006 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exacellent point. So when the Sierra Club endorses Chaffee they are surely signing their own death warrant.
What all environmentalists, pro-choice, pro-civil liberties, pro-open economy (as opposed to crony capitalism) single issue groups should realize that the only way to have a chance of any support for their issues will be a Dem majority in either or both houses.
April 22, 2006 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems DC leadership and their "safe" consultants need to realize the the elections this Nov will be an emotional, gut-level election. Voters are not looking for a Ph.D thesis policy positions but are looking for candidates with character that are willing to stand up and fight and bring to account the deceit, abuse of power and corruption.
April 22, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it is certainly tempting to simply lambast single-issue advocacy groups for supporting individual lawmakers rather than a party, I don't think it is effective.
These groups support politicians who vote their way on issues, period. They are not big-tent players as organizations. The individuals involved may support multiple efforts, but the organizations themselves are inherently self-interested.
There would also be some legal issues shifting from a issue group that supports Dems to a Dem group that supports an issue. Different organizations.
They can't support those legislators who vote against them, but to have credibility, they must support those who vote with them, at least to an extent.
It's not easy to accept their position in this divisive age.
There may also be a secondary benefit in encouraging legislators to think about doing the right thing on the issue, not just for the party.
Just because it works for Republicans doesn't mean it is good for representative democracy.
(In fact, that is exactly how you get the extreme, wingnut Republicans that we see in Congress today).
April 22, 2006 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that now it is the only Republican held NY district. Mystery solved.
April 22, 2006 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As between this argument and Mark Schmitt's, I'll take the latter.
But the politics of today’s moment, of the situation defined in “The Death of Environmentalism” as “the radical right’s control of all three branches of government,” brings interest-group pluralism to its knees. Pluralism is a strategy for making improvements while holding governing power; it is not a strategy to save the world from those with unchecked power.
And the pro-choice and environmentalist "interest group pluralists" don't hold power.
April 22, 2006 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
A BUCKET OF ICE COLD WATER REGARDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN NEW YORK STATE
Check out this article about the Democratic Party in NY State running away from the possibility of what would have been their likeliest pickup of a House seat in the state -- on Long Island:
---------------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mehno/shut-up-and-just-win_b_12452.html
SHUT UP AND JUST WIN
by Scott Mehno
Huffington Post
Comedian, philosopher-genius George Carlin has a line somewhere back in his repertoire that goes something like this: ‘If you can’t beat them, arrange to have them beaten.’ The quip is more than appropriate for how the Republican Congressional delegation from New York owns the Democratic Congressional delegation when it comes to arranging a noncompetition deal in fielding a candidate to run against blowhard Republican congressman Peter King.
According to the Long Island newspaper Newsday, the Democrats elected from Long Island blanched at helping a candidate take on the island’s sole Republican Bush-backer, which proves once again when House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi utters meaningless pap like: ‘There is no one Democratic voice…and there is no one Democratic position,’ (supposedly talking about the Iraq war) the exception is the lengths Democratic powermakers will go to behind the scenes to not try for the big win, now and then.
King, the highly obnoxious chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee (you see where that’s gotten us, yuk, yuk) has been quoted as saying Valerie Plame “got what she deserved"; “that downtown Baghdad is safer than downtown Manhattan”; and that he “thanks God every morning that George W. Bush is our President” – whether it’s before or after his morning bowel movement that he thanks his maker for Bush, he has never elaborated.
Needless to say, the latter two quotes are so out of step with voters in King’s district that a poll commissioned by Suffolk County Legislator David Bishop and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) showed that when voters learned of King’s boner for all things Bush, they turned on him. In fact, the test-run showed Bishop defeating King by an amazing 20 points. The pollsters' analysis, according to Newsday, is that with sufficient resources Bishop could win.
Resources are the purview of the DCCC, which told Bishop that the Congressional delegation would take ownership of the race, opening up their donors to him so that he could amass the more than $1million necessary to wage a race. Apparently, that didn’t happen and yesterday’s (December 16th) Newsday article points out that these Democrats have extremely cozy personal relationships with King that trump party loyalty. Bishop dropped out when informed that the delegation wouldn’t step up.
The next time one of these towers of strength attends a soldier's funeral, perhaps they can explain why being chummy with a Bush apologist congressman is more important than changing America. Politicians engaging in non-aggression pacts that promote their self-interest over a broader sense of mission is nothing new. But you would think that Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean (another doofus with a loser mentality who crows about being ‘right’ as if it’s some sugar-substitute for victory – and I am not talking about Iraq) and the party leadership could overcome such pathetic self-interest. Honestly, could you imagine Tom Delay ever allowing GOP members to shit-can an aggressive attack on a Democrat.
I used to think victory in both houses of Congress was the only way to disable Bushco, but after this cowardly debacle, maybe Democratic Party voters would be better off forging the equivalent of our own purple finger, the middle digit, fully extended, please–with our own slogan dumbed-up a notch for sissy-fighters like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and the weak-kneed Democratic Congressional delegation: ‘Learn how to win, M***erf*****s!’
----------------------------------------------------------
Now, that is what is REALLY going on in this year's Congressional elections. True, if we had honest elections, the Repugs would be dead meat. But we don't have honest elections, so democracy is dead meat. Just do the math.......
April 22, 2006 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The interest groups haven't changed, the landscape has. They exist to support a policy, thats all.
Certainly some of them seem to think they are working in the early 90's and that has lead to some bad decision-making.
That said, they are self-interested entities, they play both sides because they are in the game for different reasons. Right now, Democrats are the only ones really open to many of the groups we are talking about, but there are a few Republicans that have played a part as well.
If the tide turns and the we move to a divided government where pulling together support from various factions is necessary to push legislation, then it may be necessary for these groups to again work accross party lines. (Though there is some thought that we may never see the days when a leislator's vote wasn't sealed in stone merely because of the capital letter behind their name.)
Just because some of these groups make bad choices doesn't mean trying to cross the party divider isn't still the right thing to do. I think Democratic support for Clinton's welfare reform was a mistake, certainly plenty of the votes were done merely for party.
April 23, 2006 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that there is another piece to this. The limits in numbers of Democratic moderates has come largely from GOP wins in the South and West in places where the Dems were traditionally more conservative. It was the result of redistricting and targeting. CHarlie Stenholm.
But the limits on GOP moderation, up to this point have come in no small part from a serious investment by conservatives in purging moderates from their ranks. Club for Growth is the obvious example. But if you look down ballot you see tremendous battles - Americans for Tax REform's "pledge" system is a loyalty oath designed to pigeon hole GOPers early on this issue. And All Children Matter, the pro voucher pac, and its ilk have turned its guns largely at Republican state legislators who oppose vouchers. There were hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a handful of Texas primaries this year, largely over this issue.
One obvious answer to this is to push for more partisanship from the Dems and to confront, rather than bow to, the GOP machine. And I agree with that. And there are signs -- Ciro, Ned Lamont, Dean for DNC, that indicate this is where a lot of people in the blogosphere are. But another way to get our country back is to change the GOP. The primaries in Texas also featured efforts by public education supporters to knock off pro voucher/anti tax Repubblicans. They succeeded, with Kent Grusendorf, the chair of education going home. His replacement, should she win the general, will no doubt cast votes I disagree with, but she'll be a lot better than what was there.
April 23, 2006 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yours is an excellent point and it is even more true in the midwest where there really are moderate Republicans. Republicans lost 13 seats in the Minnesota legislature in 2004 in upper-middle class districts where suburban Republicans rejected cuts in health services and education.
April 23, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's enlightening to see what I said morphed into something entirely not of my thought. Such is the blogosphere.
While I certainly agree that there was wholesale theft involved in past elections, I hoped the phrasing of my post neutralized that.
I've been in on the revelations of Diebold, Sequoia et al since its inception, and here's one thing I've noticed- such theft is only possible in a CLOSE election.
The trick is to overwhelm them with such conclusive victory that such theft attempts become blatant and idiotic.
I am convinced he way to overwhelming victory is moving away from tepid consultantcy and caution, and articulating a campaign that give enough non-voters reason to go out there, because currently the poorly conceived "appeal to the middle voter" strategy is shrinking the electorate, not growing it.
Energizing or injecting emotion into the election is easy, and we need not create neocon-like sleaze to do it, just our own earnest populism.
It is THIS that our "leaders" inside the beltway have lost track of, much as the old line DNC guys fail to understand why we need to have a presence in all 50 states and articulate our message even if there is no chance to win a particular race. It's how you get your message across: from the ground UP, from the people level, not from the national focus group down.
This consultant driven focus group beltway political strategy is the political equivalent of "trickle down" economics.
April 23, 2006 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not for nothing, but a considerable chunk of Gwinnett County, GA is in the Fourth District, currently held by (God help us) Cynthia McKinney.
April 24, 2006 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink