The Candidates
On Tuesday, I wrote that election in MS-01 really should not be considered a portent of anything. Most people disagreed with my analysis, which I based on Charlie Cook’s take.
So if that isn’t enough, let me give you Stuart Rothenberg:
The data don’t show that Davis had a major problem with Republicans coming out of the primary, even though I am well aware that that already has become the conventional wisdom.
It’s certainly true that Davis did poorly in Lee County (Tupelo), where his primary opponent came from, and in the eastern half of the district. But Davis drew almost the same percentage of the vote in Lee County as the unsuccessful GOP nominee for state attorney general did in 2007. I believe the results demonstrate that Republicans nominated a candidate from the wrong part of the district.
. . .
The national GOP’s problems are many and may have had some slight effect on the race, but they aren’t the main reason for Childers’ win.
Mississippi’s 1st district actually is a conservative district that will normally go Republican in federal races - a far cry from how the district has been characterized, including initially by some well-placed Republicans who dismissed early Democratic assertions that the seat could be in play.
Most of the state legislators in the district outside the Memphis suburbs are Democrats, and statewide Democratic candidates, including Attorney General Jim Hood (D) in 2007 and Secretary of State Eric Clark (D) in 2003, have carried the district.
The Republican Congressional nominee should have an edge in this district not because it is such a red district but because Republican candidates normally draw at least a quarter of the white Democratic vote - conservative Democrats who have become accustomed to voting for Republican candidates in federal races.
. . .
Polling in the district showed Bush’s “favorables” well above 50 percent, and Democratic pollster Anzalone minced no words when he told me, Louisiana’s 6th and Mississippi’s 1st “are not referenda on Bush and Republicans in Congress.”
. . .
Because Childers already successfully defined himself as a pro-life, pro-gun conservative Democrat, the GOP attacks bounced off him. Conservative Democratic voters didn’t believe the generic Republican attacks that Childers was a liberal.
To one smart Mississippian, the special election is easy to explain: “Travis Childers got the Bubba vote. He’s more like Bubba than is Davis, who hails from the Memphis suburbs.”
There is a lot more to talk about, including the nature, effectiveness and timing of the GOP ads; the fundamental appeal of the candidates; and Vice President Cheney’s visit to the district for Davis. But I’ve run out of space.
The best thing the Democrats have going for them is that they are a broad, diverse party that can play in any section of the country. This has always been the case. Even in good Republican years like 2002 and 2004, they have been able to win open seats in the South when they run the right kinds of candidates. This is especially true with problematic Republicans as nominees.
Of course, that’s also their weakness, and is exactly why, if Obama wins, it will be popcorn time again. Democrats like Childress will have two choices: Vote for Obama’s program (in which case 2010 will be a bloodbath) or vote against it (in which case Obama’s agenda is DOA).
May 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Sean is exactly right. I too was concerned when I heard that Childers won in a Republican district, but when I looked into Childers and found out he was basically a Republican anyway as far as ideology, I became less concerned. He’s a lot like their other Congressman, Gene Taylor, who is basically a Republican too. He voted for all four articles of impeachment against Clinton in fact.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The problem is that Republicans are reading so much into these special elections, where more than ever all politics is local. This defeatist attitude among Republicans may become a self-fulfilling prophecy if it keeps up.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
The GOP is doing a very poor job of making this race about party.
When you get these Conservative Democrats running, you don’t attack them as liberal - you attack them as pawns for a liberal party. Republicans need to go into areas with Conservatives, and make it clear, that, while one particular Democrat may be pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, and pro-war, the DNC is dominated by radical gays, feminists, abortionists, pacifists, and so on, and that they control the agenda, and that it doesn’t matter how conservative a Democrat is, only a Republican congress will advance a Conservative agenda.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Well said Act!
May 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
If this race is about party, we lose.
No, “lose” isn’t the word — we will be crushed.
Hmm … maybe “crushed” is too weak. Perhaps annihilated, pulverized, destroyed ….
May 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Then what is your proposal?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
The GOP needs to realize that its candidates HAVE TO STAND FOR SOMETHING in order to start winning elections. Rather than instantly go negative on Childers in this district, it needed to build up a storyline for its own candidate. It didn’t do this (and couldn’t do this in IL-14 and LA-06). Rather it immediately went negative, trying to tie a VERY conservative Democrat to the most liberal members of the party, which is ridiculous.
A cookie-cutter ad and a cookie-cutter campaign won’t work in a district like MS-01 against a candidate like Childers. Especially when Obama is still not thought of as the leader of the Democrats.
And sometimes, there’s just nothing you can do. In Childers and Davis, you had two candidates who were very, very similar on the issues. At that point, the race is about character and personality. And in an overwhelmingly rural district, the Dems nominated a Bubba and the Reps nominated a guy from the Memphis suburbs. Unsurprsingly, the guy from the Memphis suburbs lost.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
So, you are against Republicans pointing out that it doesn’t matter how conservative a Democrat is, the only purpose they serve is to keep a liberal party in power and prevent a Conservative agenda from being advanced?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Act:
That can’t be it. Just calling a Dem candidate a tool of Pelosi won’t work. Republican candidates need to articulate policy differences between themselves and the Democrats and focus on local issues.q
May 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
We’ve just established that the candidates were ideologically similar.
You can’t call him a liberal if he isn’t a liberal - the only thing you can do is remind voters that a Democrat in the House just gives more power to the liberals - because they set the agenda, they say what gets a vote and what doesn’t and so on.
We have to point out that, in a Democratically-controlled House, a pro-life Democrat will never get to cast a vote to end abortion, etc.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Or you can run positive ads trying to build your bona fides in the district. Rather than immediately going on the attack.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
again:
“So, you are against Republicans pointing out that it doesn’t matter how conservative a Democrat is, the only purpose they serve is to keep a liberal party in power and prevent a Conservative agenda from being advanced?”
May 15th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I’m saying that is an ineffective argument running against a conservative Democrat in a district dominated by conservative Democrats and Republicans. Something like that might tip the scales after the Republican establishes some type of life story.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
replace life story with “positive narrative.”
May 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Sometimes, yes Act. This isn’t a European parliamentary system, where party label means everything because the party leadership exercises such tight control over it’s members. American politics has long been more about the individual candidate more than the party. Pointing out the procedural rules that let the majority party theoretically exercise control of the agenda doesn’t carry much weight when it’s fairly obvious just how useless and ineffective Pelosi, Reid, et al have been at actually doing anything on their agenda. You also don’t make the election about party when your brand is the one in worse shape.
Sure, if your going to attack a conservative Dem on policy grounds you do it by pointing out who gets the majority. But it’s not a very strong argument in our system, and the time, money, and effort are much better spent building up your own image.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I must say I sometimes find real wisdom in comments here, wisdom that escapes some in the GOP leadership. I think it reflects the bubble that exists in Washington, the idea that you can go repeatedly to the well (be it taxes and terror for the GOP or social security and abortion for the dems). People are not buying the same ole bs this year and anyone trying to sell it will lose.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
There needs to be a new party. The right guys, real conservatives, already in positions of leadership need to start the New Republican Party and quick put up a decent conservative candidate for this election cycle. Otherwise, the majority of mainstream Americans waste a perfectly good vote this time around.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I mean, global warming? Amnesty? Higher taxes? Don’t waste my time, McCain, I know what you’re made of!!! By now Americans know how to re-group, re-organize, fund raise and get a move on. We need a new party.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I believe in the efficacy of a free marketplace of ideas. If we had a solid conservative vs. a hard-core liberal, we would win every time, as we often have in the past. This time we have a different scenario playing out, but forming a new party is not the answer.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Forming a new party is just one answer. Another is get McCain to step down and have a true conservative run as the Republican nominee, which used to be a conservative party. No more it seems.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
NEW PARTY! NEW PARTY!!
May 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Oh for God’s sake, McCain isn’t even President yet, and you all are already screaming “new party!” The GOP has been around since 1854 through far worse times than this. The Republican Party (or for that matter, the Democrats) are not going anyway.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
A couple months ago there was a post, in which a newspaper in 1996 outlined a theoretical process by which convention delegates ousted Dole and replaced him with, well, McCain, but I’m not sure you could ever get something like that to work, not with so many delegates being controlled by McCain.
—
“McCain isn’t even President yet, and you all are already screaming “new party!†”
I don’t think their fear is the GOP collapsing - I think there fear is moderates like McCain taking the party away from Conservatives.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Amen. Once the “conservative” party elects a “liberal” to the highest office of the land, it kind of becomes a shell at best….proclaiming to be one thing but de facto something quite opposite. Do I have to explain this? Somehow or another, true conservatives will have to create or find a new vehicle to express their views, they certainly are not embodied in McCain nor in many of the Republican party electorate. It’s a huge bummer, and I’m not sure how it crept up on everyone but you can’t like where it’s going.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
New party! NEW PARTY!!!
May 15th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Is it just me or does anyone else think there was some serious sock-puppeting going on about 6 hours ago on this thread?
I’ll echo BobH’s and Sean’s takes here (and not just because they’re fellow DalyThoughts alums). Republicans can’t afford to simply run as Republicans given the self-damage they’ve inflicted over the past several years, and they can’t simply play the Pelosi/Obama card as a scare tactic either (esp. against moderate and conservative Dems) because there’s a helckuva lot less anger at Democrats generally than at Republicans. Playing up the positives of their candidates - reminding people repeatedly of the positives - will help to reduce their losses this year a lot. We’ve had three cycles in a row where the Republicans trotted out the “scare voters into voting Republican” playbook and the big lesson from 2006 should have been that that playbook doesn’t work anymore.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
2008 will be a very good year for centrists.
If you look at 2006, and then at the special elections that have occurred since, Democrats won by running…moderates! Strickland, Tester, Webb, McCaskill, Childers…these are not candidates of the Left.
And if I’m right, and McCain bests Obama by staking out the center while Obama gets stuck with the Left, then we’ll end up with a centrist Republican president and a Democratic Congress that can’t pass any legislation without the participation of its new centrist contingency.
2004 was the year of the base. 2008 will be the year of the centrists and the independents.