Progressive Change, the Netroots & the Party Committees

SSP Contributing Editor Crisitunity posted an excellent trio of linked diaries this past week. The first looked at the House seats where we’ve made the most “progress” in the 110th Congress – that is, where the new Member of Congress was more progressive than the person he or she replaced. With the Democratic tide of 2006, it’s not surprising that we’ve made some big improvements in a number of seats.

The companion piece, meanwhile, sought to answer a forward-looking version of this same question – i.e., where might we make the most progress in 2008? Crisitunity relied on a third post which employed some clever data-crunching and a bit of speculation to give us at least a ballpark guess as to which challengers this year might wind up being the most reliable progressives in Congress should they win.

I love this kind of analysis, because it’s hugely important to what the netroots is all about this cycle. As you’ve heard often enough – if not repeated yourself – now that we have federal majorities in hand, we can focus more on helping good progressives win office, not just on any politician with the proverbial (D) after his name. This sort of thinking informed the new set of questions we’re posting to candidates for the Orange to Blue List, which Trapper John elucidated so well today and which I encourage everyone to read. In my role as a Daily Kos Contributing Editor, I helped formulate those questions, but really, it’s Trapper’s bold statement of principles which stand out most.

But those of us in the netroots – especially here at SSP – have always been clear-eyed about where we stand. And we know that the party committees focused on congressional races – the DCCC & the DSCC – are largely unconcerned with things like progressive principles when it comes to recruitment and resource allocation. This isn’t a criticism – to the contrary, I’ve supported Rahm & Chuck’s “just win, baby” approach. They’ve long made it clear to all that they want to back winners, so long as they caucus with us.

Which is why I was surprised by this post at FiveThirtyEight.com, which suggests that the committees (or at least the DSCC) might spend money based on how often a challenger or vulnerable incumbent would vote with the party:

If you’re the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and you’ve got a few extra dollars to throw around, where do you put them? Into the Louisiana race, where John N. Kennedy is challenging your incumbent Mary Landrieu? Or somewhere like Kentucky, where Bruce Lunsford is trying to knock off Mitch McConnell?

The obvious answer would seem to be: “whichever race is closer”. But I’m not sure if it’s that simple. The reason is that there is a much bigger difference ideologically between McConnell and Lunsford (who is actually fairly progressive and would become a reliable Democratic vote on issues like health care) than there is between Kennedy and Landrieu (who is not a reliable vote on much of anything). So in terms of the actual, long-run mechanics of getting the legislation you want passed, the stakes could easily be twice as high in Kentucky as they are in Louisiana.

These are considerations that the netroots take seriously, but I’ve never heard anyone even remotely suggest that the likes of Chris Van Hollen or J.B. Poersch concern themselves with this sort of thing. (I’ve also never heard anyone call Bruce Lunsford “fairly progressive,” either, but that’s neither here nor there.) Only two things enter the analysis: which incumbents are vulnerable, and which challengers are most likely to win.

I also disagree with the notion that the GOP establishment is doing anything like this. Norm Coleman, John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell aren’t raising tons of cash because the Republicans are most worried about the ideologies of their Democratic challengers. Losing to Paul Wellstone is as bad as losing to Sam Nunn for the GOP. Rather, Coleman has raised a lot because he’s vulnerable, Cornyn because he hails from Texas, the biggest red state of them all, and McConnell because he’s the extremely well-connected Minority Leader (and he took in most of his campaign funds before he even knew he’d have a serious contest this year). John Ensign is just as calculating as Chuck Schumer.

The fact is that it’s up to the netroots and our progressive allies to focus on candidates who are our ideological kinsmen. Perhaps it might be nice if the DS or D-Trip did the same, but I’m not even sure that that would be the case. The way things are currently, we, and not the establishment, get to take the lead in defining progressive principles and articulating those which matter most. And I think I prefer it that way.

19 thoughts on “Progressive Change, the Netroots & the Party Committees”

  1. I also came across that post today, and made several comments myself.  My view of this broader issue falls pretty much entirely in line with Chuck Schumer’s: the most important thing is recruiting the candidate who has the best chance of winning, getting him or her into the race, and doing whatever is possible to ensure victory.  

    Sure, we would love to have Ted Kennedy’s in all 100 seats, but this is impossible.  Schumer correctly sees that while a guy like Ronnie Musgrove might not be with the caucus on abortion, gay rights, immigration, or guns, he would at least be a vote for majority leader and a host of other economic issues.  I know a lot of people take issue with this line of thought, but I think it is simply pragmatic and right.  

    Let’s take a concrete example.  Say Rick Noriega has a better chance of winning than Andrew Rice, but he is more conservative.  If I were forced to choose who got an October infuse of cash, I go with Noriega every time.  Winning is what matters in elections.  Policy comes after the elections.  

    Of course, this logic applies mostly to non-blue states.  In a place like MS or NC, I just want a winning candidate, and I will worry about disagreeing with him or her down the road.  In an open blue state where we will be favored almost regardless of our nominee, then the focus can start on ID-ing liberal ideology.  

    I find it fascinating that the GOP, aside from maybe Tom Davis, fails to fully grasp this.  As a result, we are seeing fools like Jeb Hensarling and Pat Toomey at the Club for Growth arguing that the GOP is losing now because they are not far enough to the right.  

    Incidentally, while I too thought the post was very interesting, I disagreed with the focus on McConnell, Coleman, and Cornyn.  The reason those guys have fundraised so well is not so much because of the quality or views of their opponents — though the former is certainly a piece of the calculus — but rather because the three of them are some of the best fundraisers in the GOP Senate caucus.  I have no doubt that all three of them would have raised a ton even if they did not have such credible challengers.  

  2. It is the job of the DSCC and DCCC chairs to ass more blue seats, and I agree. I am donating money to Paul Carmouche in Lousiana though I am sure he is much more conservative than I am. He wins, John Conyers is a little more secure in his chairmanship. Ronnie Musgrove wins in Louisiana, it strengthens Barbars Boxer’s hand in her committee. We are not going to elect Paul Wellstones in every corner of the country, but Travis Childers’ win gives us one more vote for SCHIP. And that makes it worth the effort.

    If anyone wants to specifically help our more progressive candidates, there are plenty of opportunities to do so. Think of a donation to the DCCC as a shotgun blast and a direct candidate donation as a precsion shot.

  3. Winning seats is all that matters when a party is in the minority.  When it comes to building a party (brand identity), some other factors come into play.  First and foremost, we don’t want to be spending money electing people who undercut the brand at any and every opportunity.  Yes, that’s you, Joe Lieberman and you Steny Hoyer.  The vast majority of Democrats don’t do this.  So there is room for Ben Nelson and Dick Durbin and Jack Murtha in the same party.

    Second, if we do want to pass legislation (and win reelection) there is a natural pre-disposition to support candidates from Democratic leaning districts.  That may not be enough and it is not self limiting.  Just makes sense that someone from a D+10 district is easier (and costs less) to re-elect than someone from an R+10 district.

    Third, there is no force like the Club For Growth within the Democratic party enforcing its ideological purity tests even if it means losing seats.  It’s just amazing that the 80,000 member CFG is OK but MoveOn gets officially slammed.  No more chickens, please.

    So, yes, everything being equal I could see a preference for a more progressive member.

  4.       The reality is any Democrat is better than any Republican that would be elected from the same state or district. We cannot calculate how “loyal” a challenger will be, but will only find out when they are elected. It is best to focus on how to get the largest number of Democrats elected.

        Some will complain that my philosophy will result in more moderate/conservative Democrats in our caucus, but I do not see this as a bad thing. I think most of us want to see progressive legislation passed. If we have a large majority, while are more centrist members will vote against us some of the time, different centrist members will be with us on different issues. This will allow us to pass more progressive legislation. We could afford Southern Democrats voting against S-Chip due to how it is funded because moderates from other parts of the country are with us. Meanwhile, the Southern Dems will support us on trade, making up for the fact that other Democrats are supportive of free trade. A larger majority, even one made up of more moderate Democrats, is the path towards advancing a progressive agenda.

Comments are closed.