Swing State Project

« SCOTUS: Rehnquist Announcement... | Main | Rove Fingered as Traitor »

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Senate 2006: Democrats' Candidate Recruitment Woes

Posted by Bob Brigham

Well into the season for candidate recruitment, it appears that the DSCC under Sen. Chuck Schumer's leadership is doing a miserable job. Failing.

So here's the first Senate Recruitment Cattle Call:

OHIO: Calling Ohio critical is an understatement. Senator Mike DeWine's son was spanked in the OH-02 Special Election -- suggesting the DeWine brand isn't even good for much in GOP circles. This is one of two states Bush won, but now has an approval under 40%. Weak incumbent, state trending hard away from Republicans, CoinGate scandal -- yet no candidate. If Sherrod Brown runs, he'll be a strong challenger, but to-date, the DSCC has failed to get him in the race.

NEVADA: This is the other state Bush won yet now has an approval rating under 40%. Of all of the states in the union, Nevada is the state with the most potential for backlash against the GOP over-reach. People move to Nevada to get away from the theocons telling them what they can and can't do. This state is primed for an easy pick-up, yet we don't have a candidate and the party bosses have decided John Ensign will get a free pass in 2006. I am not making this up. Apparently, the mob gambling bosses have decided they are happy with a senator in each caucus, so there is no need for an election. The people of Nevada aren't as happy as the mob gambling bosses, in fact less than half approve of Ensign. By not running a candidate in Nevada, there is no way Schumer's leadership of the DSCC can be considered a success, no matter what happens people will (correctly) wonder what if...

INDIANA: Yesterday's news that Tim Roemer is not running pretty much takes this state out of play. Roemer is so ambitious that we was running to lead the whole party just six months ago, but the DSCC couldn't even convince him to run in his own state.

MAINE: A startling 56% disapprove of Bush. If you look at the crosstabs on Olympia Snowe, her support comes from the left of her party label. People like her, but realize her Republican Party is a disaster in the majority. Huge opening in a BLUE STATE, yet no candidate.

VIRGINIA: George Allen's approval is under 50, Bush is under 50 and the DSCC has failed to get Governor Mark Warner into the race.

MISSOURI: Weak incumbent, critical state, and announcements from Democrats have been of the "I'm not running" variety.

PENNSYLVANIA: Rick Santorum is an anti-women theocon. The party bosses cleared the field for anti-women theocon Bob Casey, Jr. To date, the DSCC has failed to recruit a non-theocon for the race.

In Montana, Democrats have a dream candidate in Jon Tester. But we're looking very weak everywhere else. And Nevada, what the fuck is up with that? Watching the DSCC flail and fail at candidate recruitment, I think it is clear that the top-down, Washington based days of candidate recruitment are over. It is time for the grassroots to run candidates, let the voters decide instead of the bosses, and get some movement. Once, the party committees were the only game in town, now they are one of many committees. Their relevance has been sinking for years and refusing to recruit and/or doing a piss-poor job is only reminding everyone they aren't as relevant as they were and not as useful as they could be. It is still early, so maybe Schumer can turn it around. But in the first half of 2005, it is clear to all he has failed.

[UPDATE: Tim] jkfp--I deleted your comment by accident. Mine posted three times in a row and I went in to delete it and consumed yours as well. Please re-post. I figured it was at odds with mine and didn't want you to think I was just deleting comments because I disagree.

Posted at 11:28 AM in 2006 Elections - Senate | Technorati

Comments

Sigh,

this post is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the American left, espeically in the blog world.

I'm a fairly liberal guy and I've done put my money where my mouth is to forward the liberal movement (working for Howard Dean for over a year, then working to elect Kerry, now working to re-elect a vulnerable US Senator) unlike a lot of the loonies that post on blogs and complain about establishment Dems and think they can change the world via the Internet. Those people are fing pathetic.

There's a lot that we have accomplished using the Internet. And the establishment DOES need to be help accountable. But when I see someone complaining that Bob Casey is not only a recruiting failure but also a "thecon" it makes me want to throw up.

There just seems to be no grasp on reality. Bob Casey is a fabulous pro-worker, economic progressive. Yet single-issue jihadists like you want to disqualify him because of his position on abortion. Who would you run? Chuck Pennacchio? Christ, he wouldn't break 35% of the vote.

Casey can win. He is the strongest candidate. We need that seat. Not only that, he can rid the Senate of its worst REAL theocon. I guess reality doesn't matter to you though.

The irony of all this is that you are complaining about recruiting failures, but our biggest recruiting failure this cycle is BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU who forced Jamed Langevin, who was a slam dunk winner, out of the RI Senate race.

Wasn't the Democratic Party supposed to be big tent party? People like you are just the same as the Dobsons of the world who want to veto any pro choice candidates.

Let me ask you this - do you care about winning at all? Being able to govern so that we can actually defend Roe v. Wade. Or is a foolish purity all that you will demand?

After saying all this, you do have a point about DSCC recruiting, though it's not quite as bad as you note. Casey was a good get, Sheldon Whitehouse is a solid candidate in RI (though no Langevin), Tester and Morrison are good in Montana, Ford is our strongest candidate in Tennessee.

Also, some of your complaints, I think, are overblown. Snowe is unbetable in ME as is Lugar in Indiana (it would have been nice to have Roemer force the RNSC to spend money there of course). I wish we could have gotten Warner to run against Allen but he wants to run in '08 so what can you do?

You're right about Nevada. Ensign is getting a pass, I would guess because he and Reid are chums. We should have pushed Oscar Goodman for that race.

Really Ohio and Missouri will make or break this recruiting class. I think there is a good chance of getting either Brown or Ryan in. McCaskill I think is less likely, unfortunately.

If we get both Brown/Ryan and McCaskill in then this year will definitely have to be considered a recruiting success. If we get neither, it's definitely a failure.

Posted by: Win The House at July 9, 2005 01:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I decided some time back that the DSCC, Dem Party, and its committees will not get another dime or hour of my time again. Whatever contributions I make will be to individual candidates and outfits like MoveOn that are willing to fund candidates on their own.

I'm not sure you're not jumping the gun a little, as it's still early, but the situation in Nevada looks genuinely sickening. For Dems to openly speak of giving ANY Republican a pass is sheer treachery, and not what party supporters thought we were buying with our time, money, and partisanship.

So what's your theory as to why in hell they'd be taking this suicide march? It gets easier day by day to buy into the belief that they're all being blackmailed, threatened with death or injury, or getting fabulous bribes.

Posted by: DaveW at July 9, 2005 03:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Casey isn't labled a theocon because of his view on abortion, but because he is a theocon he's against choice. And he's anti-cure with his anti-science stance on stem cell research.

Casey Jr. has already done long-term damage to the reputation of the DSCC. If we lose no matter what happens, then I think it is fine to call that a failure.

Posted by: Bob Brigham at July 10, 2005 12:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Win the House,

I would argue that it's those who fail to look critically before conveniently pronouncing people are single issue jihadsists because they can't stomach Bob Casey Jr. are a bigger problem.

You see, as I have said dozens of times, it's more than just choice. And for me, choice isn't even the biggest factor.

There's:

The War
Stem Cell Research
Gun Violence Prevention Laws
Pro-Death Penalty (anti-moratorium)
For intervention in the Schiavo case
Pro-nuclear option compromise
Separation of Chuch and State

And as far as choice goes, he would prefer no exception for rape and incest even--but he'll settle for it if we could just overturn Roe. He is a militant.

And that's just a start.

I don't know enough about Langevin to pronounce judgement, but with Casey, it's far from a single issue. It's a big tent, but not big enough to fit an elephant.

And please tell me what Bob Casey Jr. has done to prove he is so wonderfully pro-labor. He got a lot of money from labor in 2002 because he wasn't Ed Rendell and people thought he had a better chance to win.

Then his Bob Shrum led campaign lost a total of 27 points to Rendell in the last six months in what is considered one of the "worst campaigns in modern political history."

You can have Bob Casey. I am not demanding purity, and if Bob Casey wins the nomination, I'll probably stop taking him to task, but I won't merrily spout the company line that Casey is a progressive on all issues but choice.

Posted by: Tim Tagaris at July 10, 2005 01:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Thats ok Tim, don't worry about it. I don't even remember what I said...oh wait...ya I got it.

I think the dems are actually doing better than this diary states. I mean should Sherrod Brown and Claire McCaskill jump in (I think they both will), we will be fairly sucessful in recruting.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at July 11, 2005 01:05 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This is one of the most absurd analyses I have ever read. Bob Casey is hands down the best candidate in PA - not because of his views on choice but because he is a proven vote-getter.

Posted by: Randy Miller at July 11, 2005 01:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

To Win the House:

I just want you to know that you expressed everything that I felt when I read that article/analysis, and you did it articulately, intelligently, and accurately. I truly mean that- everything from the "I'm a fairly liberal guy and I've done put my money where my mouth is to forward the liberal movement" bit to the comments about Snowe and Lugar was what I was thinking, practically verbatim. Put it this way- I actually registered and created an account for this site, for the sole purpose of registering my respect for your comment. That's something I've never done, I'm much more of a lurker. I really think your brand of realism is going to be a necessary counterweight to the sometimes self-destructive idealism that will be manifesting itself as 2006 approaches.

This is not to say that idealism doesn't have its place- indeed, we need it- but it must always be checked by a hearty dose of reality. We pride ourselves on being the "reality-based community," remember?

I've greatly enjoyed the past 6 months or so of strolling through the liberal blogosphere, but some tendencies of it tend to irritate me beyond measure. The "echo chamber" quality, the hyperbolic and simply irresponsible name-calling, and the perception of any moderate (or indeed, any moderate position) as pure treachery. It's easy to be hard-left on every issue when you're sitting at your computer- try running for election or re-election with that record. There are very few places in the US where that can be done.

Further, while I attribute a lot of "moderation" to the reality of keeping one's job, there are some out there who believe what they believe out of conviction. Casey, I think, is one of them. Do you really think he *enjoys* being a pro-life Democrat? That he loves being called a theocrat? If he were seeking to translate his pro-life position (or should I call it anti-choice, and get mad when others call pro-choicers "anti-life"?)into votes, you can damn well bet he wouldn't be on the left side of the isle. He'd be cozying up to Ralph Reed and James Dobson right now.

One more note on this: I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay marriage and gay rights, against the 10 Commandments outside our courthouses, the works. I'm an atheist and I give to the ACLU. And I think Harry Reid is an absolute godsend to the Democratic Party. Is he a Mormon pro-lifer? Yes. Has he compromised with Republicans occasionally? Yes. And I don't know his position on gay rights, but I'm fairly certain that he doesn't support gay marriage (few openly do). And you know what? I don't care! The man's the best thing to happen to Senate Dems in a long time. He plays chess, not checkers, and does it extremely well given the hand that he's been dealt (45-55 imbalance, and apologies for the mixed metaphor). When he puts up a fight on other issues that matter to me, like Bolton, filibusters, and Social Security, he produces gold. I can deal with him being pro-life.

A few notes on the article: Ohio is dead on, and I hope to the IPU (bbhh) Sherrod runs.

Nevada: I don't like it at all. But if Reid's behind Ensign, then I'm not going to argue with him. As mentioned, Las Vegas likes a man in both camps, and I'm not going to sour relations between Ensign and Reid for the sake of a losing battle (make no mistake, going against the gambling industry in NEVADA, of all places, as well as the state's top Dem is very unlikely to break 40. Maybe 45). That relationship may come back to help us when Reid needs a swing Republican vote.

Indiana: If I were Chuck Schumer right now, I'd be really pissed. Telling me that I can't find a candidate to run against *LUGAR* in a *DEEP RED* state which will make a race competitive is ludicrous. It's like asking the RNC to find somebody to make Teddy Kennedy sweat. Not happening, and Chuck shouldn't get blamed for it. Roemer's reasons were mostly personal, anyway, and Chuck can't exactly influence Roemer's family life.

Maine: Snowe is very solid in Maine. She plays her Republican-but-with-a-maverick-streak very well and peels off a relatively good number of left-leaning voters. While I'd love to see a Dem in Snowe's place, I'm also worried that a spirited Democratic effort despite obvious failure would just convince Snowe that if she's going to take too much crap from the Dems anyway, why bother making compromises and voting moderately? Go party-line 100%. Believe me, pick her off if it's reasonable, but don't throw away her moderation for the sake of a sure-to-lose battle. I also think that the correlation between Bush disapproval and Snowe-disapproval is slightly suspect, given Snowe's ability to distance herself from Bush on some issues (like Bolton, IIRC).

Virginia: I'd love to see Warner here too. I think Warner's got his eyes on 08, though. Too bad. I don't know the extent to which Chuck can influence Warner's POTUS ambitions, so I don't feel comfortable attacking him for this.

Missouri: Man, we need a good candidate here. If Chuck convinces McClaskill, I'll kiss him.

Pennsylvania: I think my sentiments are pretty obvious on the Pennachio versus Casey battle. I don't blame Schumer a whit for this one, and am eagerly looking forward to seeing Santorum pack his bags.

Montana: I like Tester and his rival (Morrison?). I think they'd both be good Dem candidates, and I applaud SSP's support of Tester, who I fear would have been overlooked by much of the blogosphere otherwise.

Cheers.

Sorry for the long post- had a lot to get off my chest.

Posted by: Philosofy101 at July 11, 2005 06:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

To Win the House:

I just want you to know that you expressed everything that I felt when I read that article/analysis, and you did it articulately, intelligently, and accurately. I truly mean that- everything from the "I'm a fairly liberal guy and I've done put my money where my mouth is to forward the liberal movement" bit to the comments about Snowe and Lugar was what I was thinking, practically verbatim. Put it this way- I actually registered and created an account for this site, for the sole purpose of registering my respect for your comment. That's something I've never done, I'm much more of a lurker. I really think your brand of realism is going to be a necessary counterweight to the sometimes self-destructive idealism that will be manifesting itself as 2006 approaches.

This is not to say that idealism doesn't have its place- indeed, we need it- but it must always be checked by a hearty dose of reality. We pride ourselves on being the "reality-based community," remember?

I've greatly enjoyed the past 6 months or so of strolling through the liberal blogosphere, but some tendencies of it tend to irritate me beyond measure. The "echo chamber" quality, the hyperbolic and simply irresponsible name-calling, and the perception of any moderate (or indeed, any moderate position) as pure treachery. It's easy to be hard-left on every issue when you're sitting at your computer- try running for election or re-election with that record. There are very few places in the US where that can be done.

Further, while I attribute a lot of "moderation" to the reality of keeping one's job, there are some out there who believe what they believe out of conviction. Casey, I think, is one of them. Do you really think he *enjoys* being a pro-life Democrat? That he loves being called a theocrat? If he were seeking to translate his pro-life position (or should I call it anti-choice, and get mad when others call pro-choicers "anti-life"?)into votes, you can damn well bet he wouldn't be on the left side of the isle. He'd be cozying up to Ralph Reed and James Dobson right now.

One more note on this: I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay marriage and gay rights, against the 10 Commandments outside our courthouses, the works. I'm an atheist and I give to the ACLU. And I think Harry Reid is an absolute godsend to the Democratic Party. Is he a Mormon pro-lifer? Yes. Has he compromised with Republicans occasionally? Yes. And I don't know his position on gay rights, but I'm fairly certain that he doesn't support gay marriage (few openly do). And you know what? I don't care! The man's the best thing to happen to Senate Dems in a long time. He plays chess, not checkers, and does it extremely well given the hand that he's been dealt (45-55 imbalance, and apologies for the mixed metaphor). When he puts up a fight on other issues that matter to me, like Bolton, filibusters, and Social Security, he produces gold. I can deal with him being pro-life.

A few notes on the article: Ohio is dead on, and I hope to the IPU (bbhh) Sherrod runs.

Nevada: I don't like it at all. But if Reid's behind Ensign, then I'm not going to argue with him. As mentioned, Las Vegas likes a man in both camps, and I'm not going to sour relations between Ensign and Reid for the sake of a losing battle (make no mistake, going against the gambling industry in NEVADA, of all places, as well as the state's top Dem is very unlikely to break 40. Maybe 45). That relationship may come back to help us when Reid needs a swing Republican vote.

Indiana: If I were Chuck Schumer right now, I'd be really pissed. Telling me that I can't find a candidate to run against *LUGAR* in a *DEEP RED* state which will make a race competitive is ludicrous. It's like asking the RNC to find somebody to make Teddy Kennedy sweat. Not happening, and Chuck shouldn't get blamed for it. Roemer's reasons were mostly personal, anyway, and Chuck can't exactly influence Roemer's family life.

Maine: Snowe is very solid in Maine. She plays her Republican-but-with-a-maverick-streak very well and peels off a relatively good number of left-leaning voters. While I'd love to see a Dem in Snowe's place, I'm also worried that a spirited Democratic effort despite obvious failure would just convince Snowe that if she's going to take too much crap from the Dems anyway, why bother making compromises and voting moderately? Go party-line 100%. Believe me, pick her off if it's reasonable, but don't throw away her moderation for the sake of a sure-to-lose battle. I also think that the correlation between Bush disapproval and Snowe-disapproval is slightly suspect, given Snowe's ability to distance herself from Bush on some issues (like Bolton, IIRC).

Virginia: I'd love to see Warner here too. I think Warner's got his eyes on 08, though. Too bad. I don't know the extent to which Chuck can influence Warner's POTUS ambitions, so I don't feel comfortable attacking him for this.

Missouri: Man, we need a good candidate here. If Chuck convinces McClaskill, I'll kiss him.

Pennsylvania: I think my sentiments are pretty obvious on the Pennachio versus Casey battle. I don't blame Schumer a whit for this one, and am eagerly looking forward to seeing Santorum pack his bags.

Montana: I like Tester and his rival (Morrison?). I think they'd both be good Dem candidates, and I applaud SSP's support of Tester, who I fear would have been overlooked by much of the blogosphere otherwise.

Cheers.

Sorry for the long post- had a lot to get off my chest.

Posted by: Philosofy101 at July 11, 2005 06:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Nice posts, guys, by the way.

I think another recruitment woe which not many people have mentioned - and which is also needed for our "miracle of the west" - is recruiting someone to challenge and defeat Kyl. Of course i've heard that the former senate majority leader will be challenging him, but I think we should not overlook him and give him more coverage (if there is any) than we have been in the past. Kyl was seen to be the most endangered Republican senator in 2000, yet we could not find anyone to challenge him whatsoever. Let's not make the same mistake this time around!

Posted by: KainIIIC at July 12, 2005 03:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment