Blue Catablog

The DCCC has announced its first Democratic candidates that they will support under their “Red to Blue” program. These candidates will be given extra support in the quest to turn these Republican-held House seats into Democratic ones. The goal is laudable, since in order to gain the 15 seats that are necessary for the Democrats to control the House of Representatives, and I like many of the choices made by Rahm and the DCCC:

Democratic Challenger -- Incumbent -- District’s % for Kerry
Darcy Burner (Wash.) Dave Reichert 51
Phyllis Busansky (Fla.) Michael Bilirakis (ret) 43
Francine Busby (Calif.) Vacant Cunningham’s seat) 44
Joe Courtney (Conn.) Robert Simmons 54
John Cranley (Ohio) Steve Chabot 51
Jill Derby (Nev.) James Gibbons (Gov race) 41
Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) Henry Hyde (ret) 47
Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) John Hostettler 38
Diane Farrell (Conn.) Christopher Shays 52
Steve Filson (Calif.) Richard Pombo 45
Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) John Sweeney 46
Tessa Hafen (Nev.) Jon Porter 49
Baron Hill (Ind.) Mike Sodrel 40
Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio) Deborah Pryce 50
Ron Klein (Fla.) Clay Shaw 52
Ken Lucas (Ky.) Geoff Davis 36
Patsy Madrid (N.M.) Heather Wilson 51
Harry Mitchell (Ariz.) J.D. Hayworth 45
Chris Murphy (Conn.) Nancy Johnson 49
Lois Murphy (Pa.) Jim Gerlach 51
Heath Shuler (N.C.) Charles Taylor 43
Peter Welch (Vt.) Bernie Sanders (I) — running for Senate 59

SOURCE: The Hill

These 22 challengers are just the first round of the “Red to Blue” program, with more expected to be added in a few weeks. But I am curious as to some of the choices made for the first list.

I am pleased to see Darcy Burner chosen, as she is in a district that voted for Kerry and she is running an energetic campaign (Full Disclosure –She is a Blue Catapult adopted candidate). But why add at the first step those candidates who already have raised a large amount of money. Howard Park has discussed on MyDD the problem of diminishing returns – that at some point more money doesn’t help as much in some races as it would in others where the cash has been less prevalent. The “Red to Blue” Program meant an average of $250,000 more in contributions in 2004. For candidates who are already prolific fundraisers, such as Madrid, Lampson and Duckworth, this extra money is probably not going to be a deciding factor. In other seats, such as Harry Mitchell running in AZ-5, who just recently got in the race against J.D. Hayworth, this extra boost will probably be incredibly helpful. I also like the choice of Tessa Hafen in NV-3 against Jon Porter, which is a seat that can be put in play IF there is money behind it.

But I am surprised with the Peter Welch choice. The VT seat should be safe Dem and extra help should not be needed until later in the year, if there are signs of danger. John Cranley in Ohio is a good choice, though from what I know from friends near his district, his campaign has been somewhat lackluster so far.

In the end, no real major complaints, though I wish the DCCC would focus on expanding the map of challengers rather than just buffering the so-called “top-tier” candidates. I do have a few thoughts on who they should add in their next round:

Angie Paccione in CO-4 running against Marilyn Musgrave
Eric Massa in NY-29 running against Randy Kuhl
Chris Carney in PA-10 running against Don Sherwood
Dan Seals in IL-10 running against Mark Kirk

Anyone have any other suggestions? They should be candidates who really become more viable with the extra help the DCCC could provide.

The Hill newspaper, one of the two main Capitol Hill newspapers, had an interesting article about whether the Democrats should offer their own alternate agenda, like the Republicans' Contract with America in 1994. Republicans and strategists who were involved in creating and implementing the agenda make some interesting observations:

• There seems to be consensus that while the Republicans would have won seats in the 2004 election anyway, the Contract helped with the magnitude of the win -- 52 seats. Ed Gillespie, who later became RNC Chair but at that time worked on the Contract as a staffer for Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) said “We wouldn’t have picked up 52 seats [in the House] if it weren’t for the fact that we ran on a positive agenda.” The positive agenda helps give a reason to not just stay home.
• Former Rep. Bob Walker (R-PA) noted that those mid-term elections saw 9 million new voters -- a very large number for mid-terms.
• Frank Luntz, who did the polling behind the Contract, explained that when the items in the Contract were identified as a Republican Contract, it did not receive majority support. That is why it was titled without a party label. This seems to be a good lesson in not trying to seem too partisan and appear more as though you will work with anyone to get things accomplished.

Interviews with Democrats in the article seem to illustrate that despite studying the impact of the Contract, they do not see it as something the Democrats should emulate this year. Steve Elmendorf, who was one of the top advisors to former Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, sees a Democratic version of the Contract as distracting from the main idea: “People want to be positive. That’s fine... But I don’t think it’s the most important thing in this election. The most important thing is that Bush is unpopular, people don’t like the war and they want new leadership in Washington.”

While the problems of Bush and the GOP are what give the Democrats this opportunity, the question is: How do the Democrats actually take full advantage of the situation? A specific agenda will give voters an idea of how a Democratic Congress would be different. It will give voters specific items to hold onto, understanding exactly the ways in which their lives will improve if there is a change in leadership.

My concern is that what the Democrats are doing right now is slowly reeling out talking points rather than action items. The agenda areas they are unveiling sound like the same old political claptrap that the average voter will tune out. They have unveiled their first two "agenda areas" which are Real Security and Honest Government. These are uninspired generalities that won't gain the Democrats any seats in Congress. Even though these categories contain specifics, the items themselves should be specifics. Nobody is going to read the details of the Democrats' "Real Security" program. But they would understand "Inspect all cargo in U.S. ports." It is those proposals that are simple, understandable and doable. It is those specific items that the Democrats should be touting.

--Ian

With the political atmosphere both in Washington and in the country as a whole being compared to that of 1994, there is serious discussion as to whether the Democrats should have their own Contract with America a la Newt Gingrich in those elections 12 years ago. The idea being that this could give reasons for people to vote FOR the Democrats and not just AGAINST Republicans.

There are other ways to nationalize the elections:

• The Democrats could just focus on the corruption of the Republicans and general incompetence of the Administration. This would mean that there would be no specific agenda for the GOP to attack and in current circumstances would probably be somewhat successful. The problem with this strategy is that it relies on creating and sustaining angry voters, who often will just as likely stay home rather than vote for someone.
• The Democrats could make this election about the Administration's incompetence in Iraq and the Republican Congress' failure to critically examine the strategy and execution of occupation in Iraq. This would definitely galvanize the base and put the Republicans on the defensive, but the Democrats are not united behind an alternative policy that could attract more voters than are probably going to vote against the Republicans as it is. And, frankly, there probably is not a policy the COULD unite the Democrats in Congress right now.
• Democrats could run against the "Do-nothing" Congress that has abandoned its job beyond tax cuts for the wealthy. Again this would get some traction, but probably not the tidal wave that is needed for Democrats to retake at least one chamber of Congress.

All of the above are important strategies, but they do not bring more people to the voting booths than otherwise would have without those strategies. What is needed is a reason to vote FOR Democrats and some type of national agenda would be an important piece of the goal of increasing turnout for the party.

But what should be contained in such a national agenda? Last month, James Carville and Stan Greenberg, in one of their regular Democracy Corps memos, provided some interesting suggestions based on their polling:

1. Block any payraise for Congress until the average worker's wages begin to rise.
2. Replace Bush's prescription drug plan with a simpler one that controls costs.
3. Raise the Minimum Wage to $7 an hour.
4. Repeal the tax loophole that encourages companies to move operations overseas.
5. Implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and inspect 100% of containers coming in through America's ports.
6. Repeal the cuts in all student loan programs and increase tax breaks for college costs.
7. Create tax incentives to expand the development of wind, solar, and biofuel technologies.

While I don't know if these items really constitute an agenda rather than a few small items, there are aspects I like about them. They address an array of issues from personal economics to security to education so it gives candidates something to say on each of the areas.

They are very specific -- vague language about "Bringing back ethics" and "Protecting America's Ports" sounds too much like the language of a weasely politician. People respond to specificity because it sounds like someone will actually do something rather than just talk about it. Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" was also specific and it gave Republican candidates around the country action items to talk about.

They are all very doable. The most complicated item would be the simpler prescription drug plan and I would prefer a few more specifics about that, but overall these are items that could be passed within a year putting President Bush in the position of either signing these popular items or vetoing them for ideological reasons.

I do think that offering an alternative agenda, and a specific one at that, is the right direction to go in 2006. The Carville/Greenberg proposal could probably be revised and gain additions but I do think it is an excellent place to start the debate. I know that the Democratic leadership and the DNC have been working on some kind of national platform, but from what I have read, it is expected to be more vague goals. Nice, tight, specific items would, I believe, be much more effective in nationalizing the elections and in giving Democratic challengers around the country specific talking points.

If you want to see the full Democracy Corps memo (It is a pdf file), click HERE

--Ian

So we are divided as to what to think about the resignation of Tom DeLay. Yes he will not be in Congress to wreak havoc on all that is good, but it will be harder for the Democratic Party to use him as the symbol of a corrupt, out-of-touch, hypocritical Republican Congress. But while he may not be the symbol, the Republicans in Congress certainly have done enough themselves to make certain their overall competence and corruption is the main issue in the November elections. And who says that just because he is gone, that we must forget The Hammer.

The biggest loss, however, could be the potential of the Democrats taking the congressional seat that DeLay is leaving. DeLay's claim that the reason he is resiging is that he probably could not win back his seat, but another Republican could probably keep it in GOP hands, is most likely part of the truth (though his former Communications Director and Chief of Staff pleading guilty to various charges is probably the greater reason.) But TX-22 will still now be an open seat with the Democrats running a formidable former member of Congress, Nick Lampson, who already has raised over $2 million.

While the natural advantages are certainly with the Republicans in the district, DeLay actually gave up some of his GOP partisans during the redistricting he maneuvered a couple years ago in order to protect other Republican TX House members. In 2004 DeLay received 55% of the vote against a weaker opponent than is Lampson and with Bush at the top of the ticket. Granted, some of the ethics problems had already appeared, but still 55% is not a safe seat by any means. However, the Democrat in that election only received 41% of the vote as third party candidates got about 4%. Before the mid-decade redistricting, DeLay had received 63% in the 2002 election.

But will the citizens of TX-22 want to go back to the status quo of being represented by a Republican representative? A lot, I believe, will ride on who the Texas Republicans choose as their replacement candidate. The selectors, according to Roll Call, include 4 county Republican chairmen, and four representatives selected by precinct chairmen. These are basically party hacks and it will be interesting to see whether they choose someone who has curried favor with the party, or whether they look at someone who is electable. According to various articles, the potential replacement candidates are:

• David Wallace, Mayor of Sugar Land
• State Representative Charlie Howard
• State Senator Kyle Janek
• Harris County Judge Robert Eckels

Supposedly party insiders think that if Eckels wants the nomination it is his. And considering the ethics issues surrounding not just DeLay but the Republican Party in general this year, a judge could be a good choice. The problem with any of these choices, however, is that none of them have been on the ballot in more than a quarter of the district. Nick Lampson's old district covers part of the current TX-22 and as he has been running for months, his name recognition is probably fairly high. Sugar Land covers about 10% of the voters in the district, and considering that it is a satellite of Houston, Wallace probably isn't that well known beyond his city's borders. Howard was unchallenged in his last election. Kyle Janek's district covers an interesting slice of the 22nd CD and may be the most viable candidate geographically.

I don't know the backgrounds of any of these candidates, but on the surface it seems that we shouldn't write off Lampson' candidacy quite yet.

--Ian