“I don’t think, quite frankly, that Darcy being in or out of the race will make that big a difference.”
That was state Rep. Christopher Hurst in today’s Seattle P-I, and while I’ve never met the guy, I have to wonder… is he an absolute moron?
He doesn’t think Darcy being in or out will make a difference? He thinks now that he’s decided not to run, the nomination is Rodney Tom’s for the taking? What planet does he live on?
“No disrespect to Darcy,” Hurst told the P-I, while totally dissing her, “but she had her run, in what was probably the best year in 40 years to run as a Democrat, and she came up short.”
That is the sort of simplistic analysis that may comfort the thumb-suckers in the GOP, but as the basis for a Democratic campaign, it is downright embarrassing. It is also insulting, as it implies that the only reason Burner came close in 2006 was a national trend beyond anybody’s control or power of prediction.
But there were many, many factors that played out in 2006, and the Big Blue Wave was only one of them. As Chris Bowers pointed out in a post over on Open Left, as good a year as 2006 was for Democrats in general, it was an oddly bad year for Democratic women:
In 2006, of the thirty Republican-held House seats most heavily targeted by Democratic Party committees and allied progressive organizations, twenty-one of the Democratic nominees challenging for those seats were male, and nine of the Democratic nominees challenging for those seats were female. With the elections over, twenty of the twenty-one men in that group are now serving in Congress. However, Kirsten Gillibrand in NY-20 is the only woman in that group who is now serving in Congress. For some reason, of the top thirty Democratic House targets in 2006, Democratic men won 95% of the time, while Democratic women won only 11% of the time.
I’m not exactly sure what is behind this statistical anomaly, but it is unlikely to be explained away by simple randomness alone. Something unusual happened in 2006 that we don’t fully understand, and it left Burner in some very good company.
Of course, each race is unique, and you have to look at both internal and external factors to understand the final outcome. As I mentioned yesterday, the Burner campaign made some tactical missteps during the final weeks of the campaign, and the late vote ended up breaking toward Reichert. Those mistakes won’t be repeated. Externally, second tier races like WA-08 drew the brunt of the GOP firepower, leaving Democrats to romp in the first and third tiers. Karl Rove’s now infamous PowerPoint presentation highlights the Reichert/Burner race as the RNC’s top example of a massive get-out-the-vote campaign that targeted 585,164 voter contacts into the 8th CD — 41,666 on election day alone. That’s over 100,000 more than the next closest district.
I suppose if Hurst had been the nominee, this never would have happened.
But perhaps the biggest factor that Hurst, Tom and other nay-sayers ignore is the most obvious one of all: turnout. Despite the national Democratic tide, turnout was actually much lighter than expected in WA-08. Only 251,383 people voted in in 2006, compared to 336,499 in 2004. Democrats simply don’t turn out in the same percentages as Republicans during non-presidential years, and thus with greater turnout and presidential coattails, we can expect that 2008 will be a very good year for the Democratic nominee. And with the war in Iraq continuing its tailspin into disaster, who’s to say that 2008 won’t be the “best year in 40 years to run as a Democrat”…?
Finally, wave or no wave, Burner started out with zero money, zero name ID, and zero support from the Democratic establishment. She worked hard to earn her credibility, and the media and institutional attention that made her viable, and she continues to work hard today. All of those disadvantages have been erased, and if Hurst really doesn’t understand how this changes the dynamics of the 2008 campaign, one has to wonder why anybody would take anything Hurst has to say seriously?
Hurst told the P-I that he and Tom “talked things over pretty extensively in the last six weeks or so.” If that’s true, it isn’t a very good sign for Rodney Tom fans.
Plus look at the races they pulled money from to support Doubletalk Dave … EACH of the Rs that had money moved from their race to the 8th CD LOST.
And with the war in Iraq continuing its tailspin into disaster, who’s to say that 2008 won’t be the “best year in 40 years to run as a Democrat”…?
Thank you for so clearly illustrating why the Democrats will not do well in ’08.
This defeatist, retreating, disdain for America, cheering the enemy, what’s bad for USA is good for democrats, is what the voters will remember in the ballot box.
You could not have put it any better. Thank you.
“second tier races like WA-08”?
DCCC spent over $2M in IE’s on WA-08. By my count, only 7 of our House pick-ups were more heavily fueled by “the establishment” … and most of those not more than 10% better-funded.
Though it may dump on you occasionally, reality is your friend in the end.
Like the Presidential race, having these choices among candidates is a good problem to have:
Rodney – Has proven he can win elections regardless of party affiliation, has shown a willingness to cross the aisle and vote his conscience (especially on social issues that the Dem base is passionate about), has had success fundraising, and has years of legislative experience.
Darcy – Trial by fire in 2006 at running a district-wide campaign. Incredibly successful fundraiser, gets the base excited, great progressive ideas.
Having volunteered on both campaigns in 2006 and spoken with both since then, I’m likely supporting Rodney based on my experiences and familiarity with both. But reasonable Dems can disagree, and I think this will be an exciting race all the way through August 2008.
RonK @3,
Well, both the D’s and the R’s had WA-08 listed in tier two. And the point was, the R’s gave up on tier 1, pouring all their money into tier 2, where they only lost a single race. The D’s won all the tier 1 races. The big surprise (and this was where the wave really came into play) was all the tier 3 races that went to the Dems.
DCCC made an investment. But anyway you slice, Darcy was substantially outspent.
RS @ 2
To which voters do you refer? Do you mean the 62% who think it was a mistake to go in there, the 79% who think that the “surge” is not making things better in Iraq, the 70% who disapprove of how George Bush is handling Iraq, or the 71% who favor removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1st of next year? Or some other voters we don’t know about?
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Serious question for people who know current electorate trends : isn’t it a big negative factor for a Democratic primary that Tom is basically a Republican who bailed when the political winds for his party began to blow the wrong way?
I don’t get why it isn’t talked about as a bigger factor.
OOOPs. Sorry. I missed the post below on this very question.
@7
Not in a district where voters themselves were Republicans or leaned that way and then recently switched as well. With the way our primary elections work here, a lot of people who will vote in the Democratic primary in that area will be ex-Republicans like Tom. Whether or not that number is significant enough is hard to tell.
7
Yes, it is.
This has been another installment of simple answers to simple questions.
9 Lee
I don’t have lots of information the the demographics of the 8th, but it has been the best of my knowledge that the changing demgraphics in the 8th are due more to an INFLUX of Democrats in the current period of rapid growth than to Republicans switching parties.
DL @ 10
It’s not a simple question. Rodney had been a pro-choice, pro-education, pro-gas tax Republican. And now he’s a pro-choice, pro-education, pro-gas tax Democrat. The good old “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” type who’s popular here on the Eastside, and can find a spot in either party depending on the priorities of the person.
Regardless of the party label, that will be a compelling argument to lots of voters in the 8th in each grouping (Dem, Repub, Indep). The only reason Jennifer Dunn and now Reichert have managed to hold the seat is by giving the appearance of being independent and to the left of the national GOP.
Rodney will appeal to a lot of those voters.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Daddy Love @11. From where I sit, it appears the last of the disappearing middle-class are migrating across the lake.
@11
I can certainly believe that. Especially since I’m moving into the district in a few months. :)
re 2: Gee, Right Stuff, I kind of miss the pride I had in America when we were beating the stuffings out of Grenada, Panama, and the nuns and peasants of Nicaragua.
I sure felt like a big shot with the GIPPER at the helm!!!
Goldy’s enthusiasm for Darcy
makes a very important point …raises a very important question … is the blogosphere becoming a political entity or even a party in its own right?The Lamont campaign certainly makes it look as if this may be happening.
The danger, if it does happen, is that orthodoxies will divide the nascent majority.
When it comes to Darcy, it seems clear that the bulk of the blogger support is outside her district. That is fine but it also raises the issue of whether the bloggers are the best judges of who should replace Reichert.
If we were in Europe the decision would be made by the Party. Here its made in more mysterious ways. I rather like our system and it seems to me that the best thing the bloggers can do is use this medium to create a real, meaningful debate between good people.
I feel the same way in re Obama vs Gore vs Richardson vs Clinton vs Edwards. I could support any of these folks and am absolutely thrilled that to date they seem to be campaigning as one ticket, showing us which one is best qualified to run in 08. If they can keep it up while the Publicans fight over who looks better in a dress, (we have that advantage too!) one of them .. I hope Barck .. will be wlel placed to win in November 08 AND to go on to govern!
Goldy says Darcy “earned her credibility”? Credibility? How? What?
She hadn’t done a thing to merit competence in her first run and hasn’t done a fuggin’ thing since. If that passes for credibility in Goldy’s world then Reichert will soon be named “Landslide Dave”.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/c.....e+Reichert
You could play football on all this astroturf.
16
Back in the seventies there was a quote — and damned if I can find it, or remember who said it – to the effect of “The political parties of the future will be ABC, CBS and NBC.” That of course never happened quite the way the quoter though, but it does raise a point — peoples’ ideologies are shaped by the media. One need go no further than the statistic that some astonishing percentage of regular Faux News viewers — something like 88% — voted for and support Bush.
I don’t think that there’s such a thing yet as a “blogosphere candidate” or a “blogosphere party,” for the simple fact that the Internet has not yet reached a critical mass as a mass medium. When that happens — when people are getting as much or more of their news from their favorite news aggregator than they do from TV, radio and newspapers — we’ll start seeing the possibility of a blogosphere candidate. Until then about all we can do is have the various blogs choose up their candidates and support them as best they can.
I hate to say this — but Darcy is a loser. She was very condecending to her constituents. If the Democrats did such a rotten job of GOTV — why did democrats pick up six seats in the 8th Congressional District? I have my questions about Tom — but at least he has proven himself as someone who can beat a sitting Republican in a (formerly) Republican district.
However it is true that Dave Ross got 35,000 more votes than Darcy when he ran!
elliero@20&21 I believe Goldy was addressing you here:”That is the sort of simplistic analysis that may comfort the thumb-suckers in the GOP, but as the basis for a Democratic campaign, it is downright embarrassing.”
Darcy? Darcy who? Darcy Burner? Who the hell is that? Oh wait, isn’t that that sniveling, whiney, unqualified arrogant twat than ran against and got creamed by Reichert? It’s all coming back to me now….looking forward to another comical ass-beating; I must say it was entertaining.
Goldy,
I’m leaning Burner, but don’t really care as much as you, and don’t live in the district, so my vote doesn’t count anyway. But Tom has one advantage that Burner doesn’t: he’s won elections. Personally, I think the free press you get from a primary is worth more than whatever you lose funding-wise. So whatever. The more the merrier.
Sockpuppet @20…
Darcy got more votes than Rodney Tom in the precincts they shared. Tell me, why’d Tom do such a sucky job?
Sockpuppet @21…
Yeah, Dave Ross got 35,000 more votes than Darcy in an election in which 85,000 more ballots were cast. Dave Ross got 46.70% of the vote, compared to Darcy’s 48.54%. But I guess you just think most people are stupid enough to fall for that kind of crap, huh?
Goldy,
Hurst is from the Planet Earth, the same one where Darcy Burner is a Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooser.
In the Seattle Times, Darcy is still runnning against Bush. This time she tried to link Rodney Tom with Bush. That is the strategy that lost the last time and it is the strategy that will loose again. She is an idiot.
Darcy Burner is a younger version of Heidi Behrens-Benedict. Remember how she wrote a “great” gun control letter and was recruited to run against Jennifer Dunn. Then she kept running and running and running, and loosing and loosing and loosing. She only appeared when it was time to run for congress…just like little Darcy.
The biggest differnce between Heidi and Darcy, at least Heidi exercised her right to vote. Darcy failed to vote in school levy elections. She is the anti education candidate. Goldy your crush on Darcy is clouding you judgement.
This exchange between me and Proud Leftist is so good, I am going to post it in every thread on HA from now on. It destroys the Publicans’ stupid talking points – period.
“I’m working really hard to understand how President Bill Clinton’s actions act as justifcation for the righties. Read this fuckwads.
If your lame ass argument is that Bill Clinton was a bad President – which is what you say – and if your argument now is that the AWOL coward GW Bush is in someway comparable to Bill Clinton, what you are actually saying is that GW Bush is NO BETTER THAN CLINTON.
Does it hurt to be that stupid? I really want to know.
proud leftist says:
RES @ 18
You’ve hit it on the nose. The rightwing fringefucks consider Clinton to be the personification of evil–indeed, he is the devil incarnate in their twisted little minds. Nonetheless, their justification for all of the Bushites’ sins is, always, “well, Clinton did it, too.” Methinks they never studied logic.”
And what’s better, is that the rightie traitor keeps pointing out that this is true. Thanks MTR. Please keep proving my point for me.
Goldstein, why do you always fall in love with the candidate? The affair should be over. The truth is, Darcy was an underwhelming candidate in ’06. She did succeed in getting the netroots behind her, but she campaigned against Bush, not Reichert. She’s never given that up–she’s still trotting out the same arguments and message from last year. What happens if in September, a major shift takes place, and the troops start coming home? What’s Burner going to run on then? Burner also has some personal quirks. She has a very noticeable tick, and despite her best efforts, she always comes off as whiny and abrasive. Her manner of speaking is simply insufferable. Move over Burner, it’s time to give someone else a chance. You had your shot, and you blew it, if she couldn’t win in ’06 (sorry Goldstein), at this point, it doesn’t look likely she’ll be able to hack it in ’08.
Anonymous @28,
And if you feel so confident about your analysis, why the anonymity? You don’t have any problems using your name over on Postman’s blog, why the caution here?
Man, nothing like a WA-08 post to bring out all the sock puppets.
Anon@28(Chris Hurst): Every Dem candidate for Congress in 2006 that won their election campaigned in much the style that Burner did, especially when it came to pointing out incumbent republicans’ support of Bush’s failed policies. Only a moron would think that this is a bad campaign tactic. It seems clear that in 2008 Burner will continue to support the withdraw of troops from Iraq while Reichert will continue to vote for endless war, or else “succumb” to his opponent’s relentless demands for him to join her in supporting withdrawal. Either way, she wins. But this only works if Darcy is the candidate. Also, people in Pierce County have no idea who Rodney Tom is. At all.
Tomorrow morning at 11am, PT, Darcy will be the Blue America guest at Firedoglake for a live blog session.