June 7, 2006

A Bird In the Bush Ain't Worth Much

Hatched by Dafydd

It's looking more and more like Brian Bilbray won the critical California 50th district race to succeed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who currently resides in prison. But it's not yet clear whether the second half of my prediction will come true; at the moment, with 96% counted, Bilbray leads by only 4.2%, not 5%... but it wouldn't take much to add an extra 0.8%, so we'll have to wait a day or two to see whether I get a full point or only a half.

But a win is a win, in any case.

However, this retention shines a big, bright light on the Democrats' dilemma: their strategy for taking back the House relies upon winning a bunch of races -- many of which just don't look at all likely to fall to them. They must win virtually every open seat, and they must wrest a number of seats away from Republican incumbents... one more, now that the Cunningham seat will remain with the GOP up through the election.

The main unifying theme of the Democrats this year has been the Republican Kulture of Korruption; but if it's going to work anywhere, it would have to be either in Cal-50 or in Tex-22 (Tom DeLay's erstwhile seat). The Democrats just lost Cal-50 when it was open; I don't think they're likely to win it in November, when Bilbray will be the incumbent. (In fact, he'll probably do better... the power of name recognition, which works even for former congressmen being re-elected in a different district).

And as far as the Texas seat goes, the biggest boon that Democratic candidate Nick Lampson had going for him was that he was running against the indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX, 88%).

But now he's not; DeLay is resigning from Congress this Friday, and presumably his brief replacement in the 109th Congress will be chosen by a special election (open, anyone can run). Thereafter, the Republican parties in the four counties that have voters in the 22nd district (Fort Bend, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria) will select a nominee to replace DeLay on the ballot for the 110th Congress.

But with DeLay himself, the lightning rod, gone from the scene, it's very likely that Tex-22 will stay in Republican hands in both the special and the general elections.

So where does that leave the Democrats? They staked everything on winning Cal-50 and Tex-22, and it looks pretty unlikely that they'll win either one. There is only one other Republican congressman who is in serious legal jeopardy: Bob Ney of Ohio (88%). And Ney is very unlikely to be indicted before November, if he is at all.

So far, all that the Democrats have against him is rumor and inuendo, and that's nothing like indictment (as in DeLay's case), and certainly nothing like conviction and la calabooza, as with Cunningham. If the Democrats can't make the Kulture of Korruption theme work in those two cases, I'm very skeptical they can make it work for a smoke-but-no-fire-yet representative like Ney.

When all is said and done, I doubt that this election is going to turn on charges of Republican corruption -- especially with the various Democrats who have suddenly found themselves on the wrong end of the law. I believe it will turn on other issues: policy issues, such as immigration, taxes, and the Iraq war.

It's still possible for the Democrats to take the House back; but they will need to have a real campaign after all. Yet so far, they haven't even made the effort to come up with an agenda, let alone a "Contract With America."

And perhaps even more important here in California, the "Meathead" Amendment, Proposition 82 -- taxing the rich to pay for "free" preschool for all California kids, pushed onto the ballot by Rob "Meathead" Reiner -- went down in flames. Go, team!

This is the ballot proposition where Reiner was caught red-handed (shouldn't that be blue-handed?) funneling at least $23 million of taxpayer money into an ad campaign for his pet Proposition 82; so at least in this case, crime did not pay.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 7, 2006, at the time of 4:04 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/818

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Bird In the Bush Ain't Worth Much:

» Yesterday’s Election from Flopping Aces
Hell, you would think after the Republican was put in jail for corruption that a Democrat would win easily since their WHOLE strategy is to run on the “culture of corruption” mantra and they lost. Does this really give them a “moral ... [Read More]

Tracked on June 7, 2006 9:52 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: MTF

Between the special election in Texas six weeks ago, and this one (for the Duke's spot) the Dems are going to be looking hard for some good political harbingers, given that November is fast approaching. It'll be interesting to see what the media comes up with to rally the troops. More of an open tilt toward Kos-ism ahead, do you think?

One thing we can surely count on for the present is that the LAT and fellow-travelers, the NYT most particularly, will treat this election with either contempt ("those stupid voters!"), indifference ("it really doesn't matter"), or spin ("it's amazing she drew so many votes in a 'solidly' Republican district"). What they won't want to say is that the Dems are stumbling, which may well be the truth.

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 6:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: Maimonides

RNC but 4.5 million into a race that should have been a lock, we gained 7% in a Republican stronghold, all with a liberal teacher who isn't very good at speechifying . . . I'd say you all should be wetting yourselves about now.

The above hissed in response by: Maimonides [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 7:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

"Reiner was caught red-handed... funneling at least $23 million of taxpayer money into an ad campaign for his pet Proposition 82; so at least in this case, crime did not pay."
But he won't be prosecuted, will he?
His pal's ad agency doesn't have to give the money back, does it?
So, in that sense, crime did pay.
They just can't use an election victory as a springboard to newer bigger campaigns to spend other people's money.

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 7:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

Maimonides makes the point that Repubs can't gloat over winning, true enough. But a post over at polipundit.com was interesting. They point out that there was a 3rd party candidate running to the right of Rep Bilbray on immigration. The rough outcome of CA-50 was:
Repub 50%
Dem 45
3rd 5
In the 2000 Pres election the (rough) results:
Repub 55
Dem 45
Recall that the Dem Gov race was contested and drew interest whereas Ahnold was a shoo-in. After all the feverish Dem/Netroots activity in CA-50 the Dem vote didn't gain. The Repub vote stayed the same but re-stabilized more to the right.
What does that say to you about the fall election?

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 7:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

Monk'boy [re: above] Sure, to you $23M is small change. And, yeah! I'd sure like to see Dem legislators stop enabling these Republican spendthrifts! Perhaps Dems could get off "culture of corruption" and go with "eliminate wasteful gov't programs". Odds? In our lifetime?
Gotta run, have good 'un, all.

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 7:53 AM

The following hissed in response by: Maimonides

Hey Jim,

Didn't know about the 3rd party guy, which throws things for a loop, especially since he may have pulled out people who don't usually vote. I'll retract my comments pending statistical analysis ;P

Cheers,

Rambam

The above hissed in response by: Maimonides [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 8:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: ordi

Dems should not get to excited about the numbers for Busby.

Busby received 45.46%

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/Special/cd50/elections_cd50_genresults.htm

In the 50th Congressional District Presidential Vote in 2004: Kerry only got 43.9% -

Just 1.56 more that is not much of a trend.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2004_general/ssov/pres_general_ssov_congressional.pdf

The above hissed in response by: ordi [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 9:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

Monkeyboy said: "I don't think the Dems can win on a "cut spending and raise taxes" platform..."

That of course would be the Clinton platform, if you mean "cut the rate of growth in spending", and we all know how unsuccessful that was for the Democrats.

Of course they could win with that platform, but they'll never adopt it. Heck, if the Democrats ran with a promise to actually cut spending, even I'd vote for them.

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 10:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rhymes With Right

Speaking as one of the CD22 precinct chairs who is actively involved in selecting DeLay's replacement candidate, I can tell you that that the biggest hope the Democrats have down here is "victory by lawsuit" -- mounting a legal challenge to the process by which DeLay becomes ineliible to be on the ballot and/or the process by which the replacement candidate is selected. Democrats have already said that they are going to seek an injunction to forbid DeLay's removal, forbid the formation of the CD22 Executive Committee that is to select his replacement, make a legal challenge to any procedures or actions taken by the group once it is formed and generally tie the matter up until it is too late under Texas law to place a candidate on the ballot. In other words, they don't want the people to have a choice.

The above hissed in response by: Rhymes With Right [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 12:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: chriso

ordi:
Boy, numbers sure are useful, especially when used selectively. From my reading of the tables you posted, George W. Bush got 62.5 % of the vote in CA-50. Bilbray got 49.33%, after outspending Busby by an enormous margin. You can whistle past the graveyard all you want, but there's no way that's anything but a dark omen for the Republicans. Busby always had an uphill fight in that district, and a 3.87% margin of victory would have been previously unheard of. So give Griffith's 3.67% to Bilbray, although it's likely that Griffith attracted a lot of single issue voters who might otherwise not have gone to the polls (especially since Bush isn't exactly inspiring the rabid anti-immigration crowd). That still leaves Bilbray far short of Bush's numbers. You'd have a lot more credibility if you didn't cherry-pick statistics to make your point. And do you really think the Republicans will be able to outspend the Dems like that in every contested race?

The above hissed in response by: chriso [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 12:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: chriso

Rhymes with Right:

Are you truly trying to pretend that the timing of DeLay's resignation wasn't solely designed to game the system? Putting aside whatever I may think about DeLay's ethics, you've picked a strange topic to try to wrap yourself in the mantle of justice.

The above hissed in response by: chriso [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 12:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

If this keeps up, Democrats will claim a "moral" victory over Republicans in November if they can only prevent Republicans from GAINING any seats.

LOL!

One always has to be careful about reading too much into special elections, but it is hard to see how Democrats can take ANYTHING good away from this. Republicans had to spend a mountain of cash to keep a Republican-leaning seat? So? Democrats spent a smaller mountain of cash FAILING to take it. Both parties ALWAYS overspend on competitive special elections because of the opportunities they offer. There also isn't much to crow about in Democrat gains in this district when compared to previous elections involving a popular INCUMBENT. In November Bilbray will be the incumbent with all that means. Nor is there much to crow about in holding Bilbray to around 50% since Busby only managed 45%. Besides there isn't much debate that the two third party candidates arguably pulled most if not all of their 5% from Bilbray.

What you had here, like the Paul Hackett race in Ohio, was a perfect storm against Republicans: the incumbent jailed for corruption, competetive statewide primaries in the Democrat party, the opportunity for Democrats to go all out on a single race, and with control of the House NOT at stake the perfect opportunity for Republicans to make protest votes or just stay home. Yet the Democrat still LOST.

Sooner or later Democrats will have to start actually getting more VOTES than Republicans if they expect to get back in power.

ROTFLMAO!

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 2:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Criso:

From my reading of the tables you posted, George W. Bush got 62.5 % of the vote in CA-50. Bilbray got 49.33%, after outspending Busby by an enormous margin.

Hm...

  1. In CA-50, Bush won 55% to 44% in 2004 and 54% to 43% in 2000;
  2. According to OpenSecrets, Busby outspent Bilbray in this race by more than two to one, $2,250,582 to $1,083,091.

Other than those two trivial errors, your sentence is fine!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 4:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

Dafydd "According to OpenSecrets, Busby outspent Bilbray in this race by more than two to one, $2,250,582 to $1,083,091."
Thanks for pointing that out. All day I've been reading that the Repubs outspent the Dems by a lot. But thinking back, the comparison was always between NRCC spending vs the Dem equivalent. Not for the campaign totals.

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2006 10:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

Oops. I was wrong. Dafydd's number is (I think) the amount raised directly by the candidates themselves. Indeed, the Repub Party stepped in to help Mr Bilbray and his campaign wound up spending more overall, as far as I can tell.
More analysis here
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/closing_the_books_on_ca_50.html

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2006 7:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

The Jay Cost article you linked doesn't appear to mention how much the Democratic Party spent in the race. Do you have those figures?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2006 12:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

No, sorry-don't know those numbers.
What I've see in the blogosphere are assertions like this--
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=629
which claims Repubs spent $4.5 million and "... outspent us 2 to 1". So, roughly two and a quarter mill for Ms Busby? (Sounds like a match with the Open Secrets number). But I haven't seen any links to the FEC or anything. The above link quotes someone as saying that the $4.5M is NRCC money, which to my mind implies it is not Mr Bilbray's. Would the $1M raised by the Bilbray campaign be added to the $4.5M, then, to get an overall total?
Kinda murky at this point.

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 6:06 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

No, sorry-don't know those numbers.
What I've see in the blogosphere are assertions like this--
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=629
which claims Repubs spent $4.5 million and "... outspent us 2 to 1". So, roughly two and a quarter mill for Ms Busby? (Sounds like a match with the Open Secrets number). But I haven't seen any links to the FEC or anything. The above link quotes someone as saying that the $4.5M is NRCC money, which to my mind implies it is not Mr Bilbray's. Would the $1M raised by the Bilbray campaign be added to the $4.5M, then, to get an overall total?
Kinda murky at this point.

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 6:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

Hm... but if the Democrats spent only $2.25 million, and Busby herself spent $2,250,582... then either they're claiming that the Democratic Party spend nothing at all on the race -- or else they should be added together to get $4.5 million.

Then even if you consider the $1 million that Bilbray spent to be separate from the $4.5 million the GOP spent, that would still make a total disparity of only $5.5 million to $4.5 million, GOP over Dems.

Which hardly seems like they were "outspending Busby by an enormous margin," as Criso claimed.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 6:44 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved