Post-Election Report

A lot of progressive bloggers are focusing on Francine Busby's loss last night to ex-lobbyist Brian Bilbray as proof that Democrats cannot just expect voters to show up and vote out Republicans by running the campaign of a moderate technocrat. Matt Stoller probably puts this the best:

Busby's loss was a loss no matter how it's spun, but it's also a clear sign that the Democrats must become a progressive party. Busby ran the ultimate DC campaign, downplaying ideology and party, and making the campaign about competence, corruption, and issues. I don't expect this to wake up DC insiders, but you never know.

The counter to the Busby loss are the twin victories of Jon Tester and and Phil Angelides, as well as the unexpectedly strong showing of Marcy Winograd. Tester and Angelides won through progressive grassroots oriented campaigns. Angelides's campaign was ugly, but he beat Westly's big money and he was clearly the more progressive candidate and ran a more grassroots-oriented campaign. Winograd took an unexpectedly large 37 percent in a primary against Jane Harman. Winograd was not a credible opponent and had no local blog support, so this is the level of support the conservative Democratic leadership is turning off. And Tester CRUSHED his opponent with 60% of the vote, working with the local Montana netroots to push a progressive message that clearly resonated. I'm more optimistic about Lamont now because progressive messaging worked, and insider Democratic messaging surrounding 'issues' did not.

So let's look closer at the loss in CA-50 for Michael Duka, I mean, Francine Busby. What is there to say about Busby? She lost against a corrupt lobbyist running as a progressive in a district whose last Congressman resigned because of bribery and prostitution. If any district was tailor made for competence and corruption messaging, it was this one. That it didn't work should wake some people up. Busby ran explicitly as a 'moderate' to restore ethical government, with a patina of 'issues' (just look at the incomprehensible 'issues' area of her web site). She hid from progressives and liberals explicitly, running on a technocratic vision of minor benefits for the electorate. Busby argued that goverment is a service delivery vehicle, and she can make the trains run on time. The voters rejected that argument because they didn't trust the messenger. You can say she made up 15 points or something and the Republicans had to spend a lot of resources on this race, and I respect that argument. You can say she made a last-minute gaffe on immigration, and I respect that argument. You can argue that the California Governor's race depressed turnout. All those are valid arguments. Unfortunately, reality isn't fair. The map is gerrymandered. The Republicans have more money, a lot more. They have the ability to create last minute gaffes for every Democrat in the country. They have a proven turnout model, and the ability to dominate the agenda with wedge issues and hatred. And Democratic leaders don't have a history of effective messaging, which means that with some exceptions the top of the ticket ain't going to be particularly inspiring.

I sort of agree. We're talking about an area of San Diego County that is certainly Republican, but Kerry only lost there by 11 points. Busby lost by 5 and didn't move her percentage an inch from the open primary to the runoff. However, her campaign didn't do everything wrong, and I don't know what else you wanted her to talk about in Randy Cunningham's district other than corruption; she certainly couldn't ignore that elephant in the room. And it took $11 million in Republican machine money and a manufactured controversy at the end to hold her at bay. They can do that in special elections, but in a general election there's not enough money to spread around to all the trouble spots.

But I think she ran against Cunningham more than her opponent, and that was a mistake. Bilbray, on the other hand, made immigration the centerpiece, and ran against Bush. You can almost see Bush's insistence on talking up a comprehensive immigration plan as a form of ju-jitsu designed to allow GOP Congressional candidates to distance themselves from him.

The evidence is there to suggest that progressive politics are a winner with the electorate. Jon Tester beating a DLC insider in Montana is stunning. He had less money and lower name ID. However, that evidence so far only applies to primaries. Progressives are clearly winning the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. That message in an election against Republicans is not yet fully tested. But we know, through Busby, that "together, we can do better" isn't going to work. The politics of contrast are really the only way to go right now. Offer the public a clear choice and they will be more motivated to turn out. All elections are base elections from this day forward. The myth that you can win independents and take an election is just that, a myth. Your side has to be more inspired than their side. Stoller, again:

The lesson from last night should be clear. Hiding from progressives and the left will lead to Democratic losses in 2006. Running as a progressive will lead to victory. Running on 'issues' and 'competence' instead of character will lead to Democratic losses. Talking about how the 'American people' care about gas prices and not gay marriage is insulting and loser politics. Running on bullet points is wrong. Running on character is right.

Busby was no progressive, so she lost. She got the indy votes, but couldn't turn out progressive voters and couldn't keep in conservative voters. That's my reading of the race. We should cut the 'googoo competence and ignore everything else strategy', it doesn't work.

Iraq. Gay marriage. Immigration. Iran. Corruption. Get used to election season, 2006. Grab your progressive principles and hold on tight.

I think that you must recognize regional realities; Stephanie Herseth and Ben Chandler aren't necessarily progressives, and they won special elections in much redder parts of the country in 2004. But you have to offer contrast and a full vision beyond mere competence.

Overall I think Democrats kind find a lot to be excited about from last night, and a lot of food for thought.