MA-05 lessons learned
By Soren Dayton Posted in 2008 — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Jim Ogonowski lost. There's no walking away from that. But there are, I think, some lessons to be learned and some things put in context. Bear with me for a second.
Here's what happened. A candidate with a good anti-Washington change message and a decent conservative/liberal contrast was able to win independents. At the same time, the Democrat base was not energized. If it is like that next year, the Dems are in big trouble.
Read on.
First, Ogonowski lost pretty narrowly. He should have gotten blown away. He was outspent 3-1 in a liberal district.
Second, Ogonowski ran on liberal/conservative contrasts. He was for staying in Iraq. He attacked on immigration. Etc. In a liberal seat, a Republican ran on mildly conservative issues, and held his opponent to 51%.
Third, the Dem base wasn't too excited. This seat has a Partisan Voting Index of +9.1D. That means that Dems perform about 9.1% better in this district than the national average. Using the 2004 numbers, which are probably generous to us, that means that Tsongas should have expected 56 or 57%. She got 51%. The turnout models in special elections are strange, but there certainly didn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for the Democrat.
Fourth, Ogonowski won the independents. Jim Antle at the American Spector notes that we had some, frankly, shockingly good things in the polls:
I haven't seen detailed exit poll data yet, but if the trends in the last public polling held, even in defeat Republican Jim Ogonowski carried independents and voters under 35.
Let me repeat that. In a race with a decent liberal/conservative contrast, in a liberal district, the Republican carried independents.
Fifth, Ogonowski's change message seemed to work. Patrick Ruffini makes this point more eloquently than I will. So read him. Basically, a non-careerist politician competed with an insider and performed well.
So what does that mean? That a candidate with a good anti-Washington change message and a decent conservative/liberal contrast was able to win independents. At the same time, the Democrat base was not energized.
If, in a year, we can win independents and use our GOTV and mechanical advantages, while the Democrats maintain their unenthusiastic base, then the game is on! In addition, the RNC ran field tests on some technology that will be deployed in 2008.
There is room for optimism. You heard it from the national party, even going into election day. An NRCC spokesperson said, "There is clearly an anti-Washington sentiment out there if you are a Republican challenger who can capitalize on it. Democrats have reason to be worried." After the fact, an RNC spokesman mentioned their enthusiasm to me saying, "the RNC has proven they can compete anywhere in the country, including the ultra-liberal Northeast."
So here's the problem for the Dems. They will have Hillary Clinton, no change agent, at the top of the ticket. They will be defending a do-nothing Congress that has, currently, an 11% approval rating. And they will be asking for more of the same.
We will have a legitimate outsider candidate at the top of the ticket. Hopefully, we will have good anti-Washington candidates like Eric Egland. Even if -- better, especially if -- we have to beat some of our problem incumbents in a primary. (A couple of high-profile public shootings could help the brand quite a bit)
As I said, game on!
"(A couple of high-profile public shootings could help the brand quite a bit)"
This is not advocating the literal killing of anyone.
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed.
any advertising from Ogonowski. Emily's list and all the lib groups were smearing him day after day many of the radio stations. The last election was not a Democrat victory as much as the voters were throwing out the bums in power. Forget Iraq last year, I think most of the election was conservatives staying home and Independents voting democratic because of spending and corruption. The polls show a similar frustration this time around. Bottom line is that people don't like the Washington culture and that is something to run against.
There is no evidence that conservatives or Rs stayed home in 2006. Rs did much worse among Is and Hispanics. I have theories on why, but those are the base facts that need to be explained.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Question: Was that true about every state, or were there exceptions?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I don't know anything about this race or the candidates but you mention he was for staying in Iraq but that completely distorts his position. David Freddoso (someone I'm not really familiar with) over at NRO had this to say about the NRCC's characterization of the loss which he points out does the same.
"The fact is, Ogonowski, an Air Force veteran whose brother died on 9/11, ran as a dovish pragmatist on Iraq. He said he had opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and he wanted a sensible way of getting the troops out. Both candidates opposed a precipitous withdrawal, and so the only disagreements over Iraq were nitty-gritty details. That neutralized the Democrat's clear advantage on the issue that hurt Republicans the most in 2006."
All you're other points remain though I think you should mention that special elections are weird. When everyone expects someone to win in the district voter laziness factors in and a strong showing by the opposite party can produce upsets. I'm guessing that played a factor as well.
were pictures of him and W, saying he would be with Bush lock step. They had all the typically lib traits for commercials, the scary voice and darkened pictures, etc. Her only two talking points were Iraq (Bush's rubber stamp) and the Schips veto. She is an empty suit with her husbands last name.
One thing I have not seen in the media though is something about the margin of victory. Remember when Hackett lost 52%-48% in the OH special election? That was a very similar situation as this election and the parrots on MSNBC and all the mainstream media trumpeted the repudiation of Bush in a heavy republican district. This district in MA, like all the MA districts is very very heavily democratic and Ogonowski lost 51%-46%. My guess is that Bush would have received 35% of the vote in 2000 and 2004. The last R in the seat was 1972 and the last Rep, marty Meehan was unchallenged in half the elections since 1996 and really had token opponents in the other years. Only 10% of state legislators in MA are not D's and all statewide offices are D and all 10 congressional seats and both senate seats.
I think this is more a D seat than the OH seat that portman had and also you had the Gov Taft stuff in OH that tainted the entire party across the state. There was no D taint in this case to affect Tsongas. So when is Chrissy Matthews going to do the story on this?
...when is Chrissy Matthews going to do the story on this?
Never. The Boston Globe-Democrat is already downplaying the entire "wow, this was a really close call" angle.
It will be a non-story as soon as the hometown team gets eliminated from the ALCS by the Tribe tomorrow night.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I think we need to stop using this term. I heard it elsewhere (can't remember where - I think NRO). The Democrats in Congress want to do a lot. It is only Presidential vetos and Senate filibusters that have derailed most of it. That leads to a face-off that may not be good for us. We claim they are "do-nothings" and they come back saying that they would do a lot if only people would elect Hillary! and send more Democrats to the Senate. I don't like playing that kind of game
The problem isn't that Congress is doing nothing. It's that they are trying to do so much that is bad for America. It is that they are pushing so many liberal policies. We need to shine a light on what they are doing and be proud that we are keeping them from ruining the economy, national security, and the social fabric of the country. Simply running on do-nothing turns this into a war of words and perception - and with liberals in charge at the MSM outlets, who do you think is going to be better equipped to make their impression stick?
Let's call a spade a spade - Congress is trying to do things - they're just all the wrong things for America.
Harry Truman campaigned against the "Do Nothing Republican Congress - the worst in years," in 1948.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---