The Last Refuge
The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Republican congressional campaign committees plan to spend "more than 90%" of its funds on negative attacks on Democratic challengers based on local issues and scandals.
I’ve seen two reactions to this. First, the suggestion that it contradicts Republican threats to nationalize the election around security. And, second, that it’s more or less business as usual, because the party in power always wants to treat elections as local fights between individual incumbents and challengers, while the party out of power always wants to use a national tide to give its challengers a boost.
Neither response recognizes quite how unusual this is. And the article doesn’t quite say it either.
The article is missing a key phrase. Cosider the conventional wisdom that the party in control of Congress wants to keep the focus on local races. Usually, the saying goes, it’s because "People hate Congress but they like their own congressman." But the article tells a very different story.
If you take a basic course on congressional politics, you’ll be taught that there are two possible rhythms to a congressional election. In most elections, the national trend, whatever it is, doesn’t quite cross over into local races, and 98% of incumbents are reelected. In 1988, for example, George H.W. Bush won a solid victory but Democrats actually gained two seats in the House.
But every so often, the national trend is so strong that it breaks the back of incumbents who have held on to their districts for years through the usual incumbent advantages: name recognition, constituent service, delivering pork, an advantage in campaign money. 1994 was such a year.
Those advantages of incumbency are typically positive advantages. But not only is the national trend this year strong enough to overwhelm them, most of the natural positive advantages of incumbency aren’t there for Republicans. They can’t count on Americans liking their own congressman, because people don’t like their congressmen. They can’t count on ribbon-cutting ceremonies and pork-barrel spending because large forces have been unleashed that make those things look -- as they are -- trivial. (The ultimate irony of big-government conservatism is that it may have no political payoff.) And they can no longer count on the basic fundraising advantage that incumbents have. And that will get worse as the K Street Project turns on itself. (An acquaintance who runs a sizable trade association PAC told me the other day that their giving up to now had been 70:30 Republican, and her job between now and November was to get it to 50:50, so that they’re not shut out in the next Congress.)
Without the usual local advantages of incumbency, the Republicans’ second choice is to nationalize the election themselves, as the incumbent party, making it a referendum on the Bush-defined "War on Terror." That’s an unusual move, but to some extent it’s what they did to win the 2002 elections. And certainly until the Post article, this is what they promised. But it’s getting old.
And the Post article is an indication that, at least from the point of view of those following congressional races most closely, it’s not working. And so, time for Plan C. There’s nothing new about negative campaigning in congressional races, of course, and nothing per se wrong with it. But if your opponent is unknown and underfunded, and you are a well-liked incumbent, the last thing you want to do is even mention your opponent. You don’t debate, you don’t do anything that brings the challenger into the same zone. And so a systematic negative campaign by incumbents against challengers, across the board, is highly unusual. But it may be the only option available.
And it may well work, at least in just enough congressional districts to avoid a Democratic takeover of the House or at least keep it vanishingly close. The strategy of aggressively disqualifying a challenger before the race even begins, defining the challenger before she can define herself, worked against Kerry and its worked in some Senate races. I wouldn’t write it off. But have no doubt -- it is the strategy of a party and a movement that is on its last legs.
A Times article the other day was easy to overlook outside of New York, as it was about elections within the state and probably only in the New York section. It reported that Democrats are having trouble picking up seats except, ironically, from a liberal Republican. It explained this as pork, although it also mentioned in passing a problem others have often stressed: safe districting. I'd be curious what you thought.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 12, 2006 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Times article was interesting, as it offered almost no evidence that the other seats in NY weren't vulnerable, except for a poll in the Sweeney/Gillibrand race that was extremely flawed methodoligically. (For example, it did not bother to test Bush approval/disapproval in the district, which will be a huge variable as Gillibrand becomes better known.
The headline and lede of the story were misleading. What it really said is that the DCCC isn't putting much money into these races yet, and the challengers are trying to persuade them that they're good races. And they are. In particular, NY-24, the Syracuse district where the challenger, Dan Maffei, is quoted in the story, is a district that went for Kerry in 2004.
This is an old story, though: the campaign committees focus too narrowly on a small number of districts, which reinforces the belief that safe redistricting makes the other seats off limits. The case this year for opening up the table is very strong.
See this discussion at the Democratic Strategist for more on this topic:
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/0607/index2.php
September 12, 2006 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
i suppose this is my chance to note, yet again, that as satisfying as it would be to investigate the hell out of the bastards, and as useful as it would be to end the days of the rubber-stamp republican congress, so many chickens are going to come home to roost in the next 2.5 years that i believe the ultimate beneficiary of a dem victory in one or both houses of congress is st. john mccain, who will run as a reformer to clean up the bush/democratic mess in washington....
i want to sweep it all in 2008, not win a partial victory in 2006.
September 12, 2006 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you don't think the Dems should try this year. Save their gunpowder for 08? I think it would be wise to try to win every election year. These off-year elections can be important, even if the Dems don't take back Congress - it can pave the way for a strong 08 election.
September 12, 2006 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks a lot. That's very helpful context. I do recall that Dean got severe criticism for suggesting the party contest more races.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 12, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear ya, but personally I don't think the country will survive in its current form to 2012 if we don't get an opposition party in one house of Congress in 2006.
sPh
September 12, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
to clarify, i do believe the dems should try as hard as possible (and, frankly, harder than they have been trying with their semi-stallball approach) to win. As cynical as Rove has made me, i want to play to win.
but i fear that winning may be quite hollow, and if a gop low-road onslaught means that we end up with a 218-217 gop house and a 50-50 senate broken by cheney, the bush administration will still be hemmed in quite a bit, and i'm not going to set myself up to believe that the world ends if the dems don't win at least a house in 2006.
the world does end if the dems can't sweep everything in 2008.
September 12, 2006 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The world doesn't end whomever wins in 2006 or 2008. To think otherwise would be to believe that the world ended when Hitler took over in Germany.
However, our country may be unrecognizable in 2010 if the Republicans remain fully in control of the government that long. And, our place in the world will be equally unrecognizable and unprecedented since the 1800's. Some problems are serious, even if they are not apocalyptic.
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 12, 2006 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Neither response recognizes quite how unusual this is. And the article doesn’t quite say it either."
Meh. It's not that different a campaign than in '02. Bush talkin' Al-Qaeda while the local candidate says Max Cleland loves Osama.
Attack the Dems nationally on national security, and hit them locally on national security.
As usual with this WH, they're taking a very high risk route. They really are trying to nationalize this election, and given the President's approval numbers and the national GOP Congressional numbers, that's certainly a counter-intuitive strategy.
At first thought, you'd have thunk they'd do anything to stop the elections from being nationalized.
But I think it's actually pretty savvy strategy on the GOP's part. If Bush can inch his numbers up into the low 40's, he'll be able to provide a bit of an air force for GOP congresscritters attacking their opponents on national security.
It certainly may not work. The GOP has some deeply lousy cards to play this year. But they've been playing those lousy cards very, very well over the past 3 weeks.
And remember, given the structure of House apportionment, Bush at 43% - 45% becomes an unalloyed plus for them.
------
"the Republicans’ second choice is to nationalize the election themselves, as the incumbent party, making it a referendum on the Bush-defined "War on Terror." That’s an unusual move, but to some extent it’s what they did to win the 2002 elections. ... And the Post article is an indication that, at least from the point of view of those following congressional races most closely, it’s not working. And so, time for Plan C."
Nope. No way in hell. You should know these guys better than that by now.
Plan B is the one they've settled on, and it's the one they're going to play out to the bitter end of November 7th. Even if it doesn't look good now, they know there are three more quarters in the game to keep running the same play.
These guys never change strategy after Labor Day. Never.
And maybe it'll even keep their fingers barely in the dike.
------
As stated above, I've got a lot of technical respect for what they're trying to pull off. It's bold and brave, and it even, kinda, makes electoral sense.
But the downside for them is that if it doesn't work, they'll have done all the hard work for the Dems of nationalizing the election, and if they things turn against them, a gale force wind will sweep across the country, with no local refuges to hide. They're risking a Senator Pederson or Senator Carter scenario with this risky play.
September 12, 2006 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And somewhat off-topic, The Ballerina and The Howard have officially kissed and made up.
Good news, if it plans out the right way. Although the necessity of having 3 separate GOTV ops strikes me as beyond nutty, although I suspect it was all they were going to get out of the Burlington Bruised.
Weirdest bit: The Howard was trying to get a clause in the agreement that The Ballerina couldn't say any more mean, nasty things about him. That clause apparently got laughed off, hopefully with lots of mean, nasty jokes getting thrown The Howard's way in the process.
Someday Ho-Ho will be off running activist training camps, the grownups will be in charge, and we'll get to have an organized machine just like the other side does, so we can actually play this game at a pro level.
September 12, 2006 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: It's not that different a campaign than in '02.
Except that in 2002 Al Qaida's boogeyman value was quite high, whereas now they are Old News. Moreover, reminding the American people that bin Laden is still on the loose and making them think about foreign affairs at all (where things are a god-awful mess) is not at all a smart move.
September 12, 2006 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one who doesn't know what the hell petey is talking about?
September 12, 2006 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
July 30, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Howard and HoHo are Howard Dean, but agree that it is silly and not helpful. The Ballerina is obviously Karl Rove (just kidding, but I like the image of the fat old pig in a tutu!)
Jan Knaus
September 13, 2006 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question for the election strategy veterans here. The Dems clearly have a strategy, and that's to nationalize the election. Why is it that there's no national message to go with the strategy?
I've heard all kinds of great suggestions from the blogosphere, ranging from asking "Do you want more of the same?" to turning every national security attack into a counterattack by asking "why haven't you Republicans done anything about this?". But as far as I can tell those memes only become a message if they are repeated across multiple campaigns and multiple engagements. Is this because Dems as a party suffer from the John Kerry syndrome of listening to too many voices? Is there just not strong enough whipping? Why is this so hard for Dems?
September 13, 2006 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question, but the answer I think is fairly straightforward: for the last 15 years the Radical Republicans have had Grover Norquist, sitting in his office at whatever pseudo think-tank he happens to be at holding his Thursday breakfast meetings and acting as the gateway for a campaign slush fund some have estimated as high as $2 billion. Radical politicians receive regular updates on the party line and they either toe that line or get cut off from funding. This system in turn is backed up by a network of what are essentially marketing firms that develop and test memes and frames and then package up the successful ones for release. The Dems don't have this kind of system, wouldn't follow it if they did, and have no way of funding it anyway.
This is now falling apart a bit for the Radicals with Abramoff and deLay gone and the Club for Growth having suffered several serious rebuffs this primary season, but the machinery is there and well funded. I expect the Radical marketing machine to bounce back with a vengence in 2008.
I noted above that the Dems can't build a similar system for structural reasons, but if they would just /acknowledge/ that the Radicals DO have this system I think it would help a lot. As of now most traditional Dems play head-in-the-sand when hit by a blast from the Radical noise machine.
sPh
September 13, 2006 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm used to dance ballet.
September 13, 2006 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Committee chairs and the power of subpeona trumps any concern over who is going to clear the radical right hurdle of the Replicant primary season.
It certainly won't be a catastrophe if its only the House ... AFAIR, at the moment 2008 seats are 21 Replicant, 12 Democrats, so even a handful of Senate gains this year can be a great base for a Senate Majority in 2009.
September 13, 2006 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a large part of it, but there does seem to be something especially precious about the incompetence of the Democratic political class. They continually fail to press home the advantage when they have the Republicans on the run. Think: the postscript to the Social Security debate, the veritable dog that didn't bark. They continually run scared on national security issues rather than try to confront them head on. Think: Iran this year.
If you continually demonstrate that as party you're stupid and scared, on what grounds do you earn people's votes? That you'll be nice to them?
I speak as someone who wants to see the Republicans obliterated this fall, like the Conservatives were obliterated in the 90s in Canada. Perhaps if we had an opposition party that knew how and what to oppose, they would be.
September 13, 2006 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it Will Rogers that said "I don't belong to any organized political party---I'm a Democrat"?
Which would you rather be a part of---the GOP machine or the wild bunch? I know, we'd rather win, but it goes against the grain to imagine GOP message-type party consistency in Democrats.
September 13, 2006 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the North American Network Operators' Group meeting coming up soon, I am inspired to share the curse of the Internet backbone engineer, for any appropriate political purposes:
(tries, and fails, to picture Fred Dobbs in possession of a microclue)
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
September 13, 2006 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans will do anything to prevent subpoena power. They are completely out of control and have -0- respect for any law that might get in their way.
September 14, 2006 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
davis, get back where you belong.
Old sod!
Hell, it's good to see ya.
July 30, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
howard:
If I understood correctly your concern is that winning this November could be a hollow victory because it would set the scene for losing the Presidential election in 2 years - presumably because voters will not be impressed by the results that many people here want and expect from a Democrat majority.
Since March I have several times raised this issue, recently quite explicitly (though without your empathy and concern ;-)
As an Australian viewing US politics from the outside, it seems a plausible analysis to me but I was hoping for some argument in case I had missed some obvious feature of US politics.
My impression has been that people here "just don't get it" rather than that people who understand the point are raising arguments against it.
Have you had a different experience? There are nearly 50 pages of links listed in your comment tracker so I don't know where to look to clarify what you are actually saying and what responses you have received so far. Could you please provide links to specific discussions that shed light on this? If not at this site, elsewhere?
Finally, I don't see how a 218-217 gop house or anything less than a substantial working Democrat majority would be possible at this stage, no matter how badly the Democrats campaign.
The Republican strategy seems to be designed to ensure full Democratic control of at least the House of Representatives. Even if were possible for Democrat leaders to openly explain that playing to win isn't a good strategy now for winning the Presidency later, how could you possibly avoid winning at this stage?
September 15, 2006 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that night in the Garden you came down to my dressing room and you said, "Kid, this ain't your night. We're going for the price on Wilson." You remember that? "This ain't your night"! My night! I coulda taken Wilson apart! So what happens? He gets the title shot outdoors on the ballpark and what do I get? A one-way ticket to Palooka-ville! You was my brother, Charley, you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn't have to take them dives for the short-end money. You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, Charley.
September 15, 2006 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure there are plenty of people here who "get" this arguement (Dems must lose in order to win; things must get worse before they can get better). The posters here tend to be fairly high-level compared to even the other liberal blogs. Even the trolls operate at a higher level here. So yeah, we "get it".
The problem is that when doing a strategic analysis you have to look at all the negative scenarios, including the worst-case ones. E.g., unopposed invasion of Iran. 1st use of nuclear weapons on Iran. 2 more Radical Supreme Court justices appointed with no meaningful opposition. Continued dismemberment of the most functional departements of the Federal Government. Destruction of Social Security.
These things seemed so far-out as to be impossible - even after the 2004 election. Today? Not so much. I fully understand your argument, I have some sympathy for it: I just don't think the US can afford to take that risk.
sPh
September 15, 2006 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm asking because I agree that the posters here tend to be much higher-level than elsewhere and I often see references to "tactical" and "strategic" issues in a way that shows an actual connection with real politics rather than just mouthing off so I would expect responses here (agreeing or disagreeing) that really do "get it"
Thanks for your clear answer, but I'm still not sure whether you do "get it" or whether your disagreement is with a slightly different proposition.
"Dems must lose in order to win; things must get worse before they can get better" might well be the way a Democrat strategist who really DOES "get it" would explain an actual leadership proposal not to try and win to the troops. But those words aren't the ones I would expect you to use to summarize it if you really did "get" MY "it", as opposed to some OTHER "it", so I'm still not sure.
My summary would be "If Dems win they will split over Iraq and discredit themselves to voters. If Republicans win they will bear sole responsibility for whatever happens in the next 2 years".
Your reasons for rejecting "things must get worse before they can get better" seem to illustrate my point. They imply an actual belief that the US might invade Iran or use nuclear weapons against Iran in the next 2 years as opposed to rhetorical hype about how crazy you believe Bush is.
As long as you are in opposition people who say or even really believe that sort of stuff can coexist with DLC types in denouncing the Republicans. But once Democrats are in a position where their votes actually matter I don't see how you could coexist in a united party for two whole years.
Whether a third party splits off or the liberal base is demobilized or the existing leadership is purged by the base, you can't elect a Democratic President once apocalyptic claims like that cease to be a matter of empty rhetorical posturing and become matters for legislative decision making.
September 15, 2006 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The answer should be that the Democratic platform is about health care, job security, the environment, renewable non-carbon based fuel and a little economic isolationism to boot.
What we are likely to get is a muttled Democratic platform that has something to do with national security. Something along the lines of, "We would have done a bunch of what Bush did but we would have done it better." It's a strong message that will certainly turn out the vote in '06.
The sad thruth is that if the Democrats win control of either house of Congress, it will be because Republicans overreached and basically screwed up.
September 16, 2006 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but wouldn't it be nice to have a few more Democrats who truly believed in the liberal agenda. Would it be too much to ask a few more Dmeocrats to support the leftist union organizations in this country? Most Democrats in Congress are afraid to be labeled a liberal. They should be proud of being labelled liberals and should use the term liberal frequently.
I just feel that too many Democrats try to play the fence with so-called "centrist" platforms. I think Democrats are selling themselves and their party down the river by allowing themselves to be pulled to the right. I truly believe this to be the curse of Bill Clinton. Too many inside-the-beltway Democratic consultants are convinced that if you want to become relevant nationally you have to be a centrist - just like Bill Clinton.
I personally believe Bill Clinton was a great politician who got re-elected in '96 because there is no way he could have possibly lost to Bob Dole - not ever. And when he beat the incumbent George "Read My Lips" Bush in '92, he worked his ass off. He didn't win because of his centrist platform.
Clinton was a genius and a political animal. The Democratic party shouldn't put too much stock in his victories because they were largely a result of one charismatic man.
September 16, 2006 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ballet?
Well it beats the hell outta balancing oneself on the fence with the fence post stuck up the ol wazoo . . .
Like some folks 'round here.
~OGD~
September 29, 2006 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee ... Thanks Petey.
But I really didn't ask you to show me your IQ ....
~OGD~
September 29, 2006 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
comment moved
February 4, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink