Bilbray wins Cunningham’s seat ( all politics IS local )
Posted by Moonage on 07 Jun 2006 | Tagged as: 2006 US Senate Races, The Media, US Regional Politics
I have stated many times here that all politics is local. Not heeding my advice, the Democrats have very openly and vocally made this year’s races a referendum on Bush, again. The early result? Brian Bilbray defeated Francine Busby for the 50th legislative district in California. This was a hotly contested race. The incumbent Republican, Duke Cunningham, is in prison. According to polls, Bush is an anchor dragging all Republicans down. According to Nancy Pelosi, all Republicans are crooked. Result? The Republican won.
Once again I’m going to some up two very critical issues that will cost the Democrats the House this year, it is their’s to take according to most media:
1. Making all races a national referendum on Bush will backfire because they are creating a void by trashing Bush and offering nothing in his place. All this does is create a sense of doubt with the voters. When in doubt, people stick with what they know best. That works in favor of the incumbent. That’s the exact opposite of what the DNC needs to be doing.
2. All races are local. Although I listened to someone on Fox yesterday trying to debunk that theory, yesterday’s results totally discredited her argument. Picking on Bush is the farthest thing from local as you can get. The President is the ONLY national position there is. Everything else is local, period. People vote for congressmen because of what they perceive their congressman can and will do for them pretty much on an individual basis. Discussing border issues in Kansas won’t work. Discussing border issues in Texas and Arizona will. The DNC can not take a blanket platform and win individual races. That’s just lazy and it will cost them the House.
The writing’s on the wall already. The Democrats should NOT have lost CA-50. There’s not a lot of truly contested races this year, each position is critical. They have very likely already lost the House. All races are local, and this may not affect the races in rural Kentucky, but it sure made the math a lot more difficult.
And honestly, with Dean still sticking to his misguided tactics and not recognizing what the local people want, I’m fairly certain the Senate is safe too.
I’ll wait till I see who’s running before even pondering the next POTUS.
Added: Of course MSNBC can’t take it:
First Read: Moral victory for California Dems
My first read? They lost. That’s the ONLY thing that matters. Morals don’t vote on capitol hill.
- Got an interesting exchange going on at Exposetheleft. ( The rationalizing amazes me. What does time have to do with media bias? I mean, Dan Rather exposed his bias in real time. Not once, but every single time he commented. )
- California Conservative has a more local take.
- Independent Sources infers what I blurt right out.
- Added June 8, 2006: San Diego Politics Blog has a good conversation going on this as well. ( see comment below. )
7 Comments »
on 07 Jun 2006 at 11:43 pm 1.mw
said …
“My first read? They lost.” - moon
True. The Dem “moral victory” is nonsense. Dem’s don’t need moral victories. They need electoral victories.
On the other hand, the statement: “The Democrats should NOT have lost CA-50.” is completely false.
This is a recently gerrymandered safe Republican district. Kerry got 44% in 2004 in this district in a heavy blue state. Busby got 45% in this election. This is a hard core Republican majority district. Nothing changed, and nothing was proven one way or the other.
Finally, you are arguing with yourself. Moon1 says “all politics are local” then Moon2 says the Dems will lose local elections because National Dem Chairman Dean is “still sticking to his misguided tactics”. I’ll side with Moon1 in this arguement. This election result was a local phenomena. In Busby the Dems had a weak candidate that had already lost twice before, and will lose again when the same two square off again in November. A great local dem candidate may be able to overcome the unlevel playing field. A moderate local candidate might squeek out a victory with a lot of help from outside factors, and a bad republican campaign. A bad local candidate gets 45%.
There is an interesting local perspective including local Dems and a candidate in the comment thread here:
http://sdpolitics.blogsome.com/2006/06/05/no-papers-needed-to-read-this-blog/#postcomment
on 08 Jun 2006 at 8:39 am 2.Moonage
said …
I don’t feel I’m arguing with myself regarding the DNC. The RNC has targeted individual races for the last 15 years or so by pumping in money and resources to allow local candidates to define their own issues. Granted they may pick and choose which candidates they prefer within the party, the design is to keep the race local. The DNC on the other hand has used the bulk of their resources to define national issues thereby compelling local candidates to campaign on those national issues. This has failed repeatedly. That is still Howard Dean’s philosophy as best I can tell. This was the only general election in the country. The DNC should have poured resources into this race as the Republicans, even if in the majority, were extreemly vulnerable due to Cunningham’s issues and the overall negativity surrounding the Republican party on a national level. They didn’t do that, they were horribly outspent, and looking at the turnout, did not motivate any excitement at all to get their people out to vote in that district. They got a lot of media attention on a national level, but very little locally. This was the Republicans’ to lose, but IMO that loss was when Cunningham went to jail. It then became the Democrats’ to lose. They did that by misplacing their resources. I don’t think they’ll get a better shot at the 50th for a long time.
That’s the gist of my entire point, all politics are local and the DNC did not recognize that and therefore lost.
Thanks for the comments and drop by more often.
on 08 Jun 2006 at 12:25 pm 3.mw
said …
I can whole-heartedly agree with: “I don’t think they’ll [Dems] get a better shot at the 50th for a long time.”
But that is a very long way from: “The Democrats should NOT have lost CA-50.”
And there is certainly no reason to think there will be any difference in November when Bilbray and Busby go at it yet again for a full two-year term. This will make Busby a four-time loser. You have to lay blame for lack of turnout and excitement directly on the candidate herself, and not the DNC. Definition of insanity applies to local dems here (do the same thing repeatedly expecting different result).
I did think it would be closer, which would have made the 3rd party vote relevant and was the focus of my pre-vote blog post:
http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2006/06/california-dreaming.html
Turns out all the “thirds” did was depress the margin of victory for Bilbray and were just as irrelevant as usual.
Thanks, I probably will have to stop by again to keep you in line. My bi-annual political fever has taken hold - hence the blog. - mw
on 08 Jun 2006 at 2:43 pm 4.Moonage
said …
I think the only real difference we have is you’re looking at it from a local perspective, while I’m looking at the national scene and how it’s playing out locally. I don’t doubt for one second Busby blew this by getting nutty at the end. If the DNC had done what I consider a more appropriate job, I don’t think she would have been allowed to have made the bizarre comments she made at the end. She would have had some guidance on how to deal with issues and deflect those she wasn’t prepared to deal with. Plus, she would have had a LOT more advertising revenues to work with. I don’t know at all how much her comments at the end registered with people who actually voted. What I do know is face exposure on tv, billboards, and the like work. That’s very simple stuff that the DNC could have been helping her with moreso than trying to get her to deal with national issues which she obviously wasn’t prepared to deal with and proved her likely undoing. She obviously was not prepared for the question properly. That’s what the DNC should be doing to get Congress back. That’s the reason I don’t think much is going to change come November. The DNC is still more concerned with promoting John Kerry and Hillary Clinton on a national level than they are making sure the Busby’s don’t trip themselves up. And because of that, the Republicans are going to have organizations all over the US promoting their national candidates on a local level. And, all politics is local.
on 17 Jul 2006 at 6:11 am 5.Divided We Stand United We Fall said …
The unexamined meme is not worth propagating.
Moreover, the “Divided Government” meme may be just the cattle prod needed to get the electorate over the “all politics is local” hurdle (more on this subject in a future post).
on 17 Oct 2006 at 11:12 am 6.Moonage Political Webdream
said …
Bilbray wins Cunningham’s seat ( all politics IS local )
I have stated many times here that all politics is local. Not heeding my advice, the Democrats have very openly and vocally made this year’s races a referendum on Bush, again. The early result? Brian Bilbray defeated Francine Busby for
on 08 Nov 2006 at 4:46 am 7.Divided We Stand United We Fall said …
All Politics is Local. Except when it is not.
I had an interesting off-again on-again dialog on this topic with a blogger who goes by the moniker Moon across both our blogs throughout the election season. It started with his post on his blog Moonage Politcal Webdream coincidently subtitled “All Po…