Campaign Leadership

The news today is that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlmen is on his way out, and that Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland, recently defeated in his bid for the Senate, has been or will soon be offered the job. First, let me say that I was impressed enough by Steele to think that he could beat Representative Ben Cardin in the Maryland Senate race. I was wrong, but I think Steele captured the attention of Republican Party leaders, and this move makes some level of sense.

This news got me thinking about the leadership troika in each party - the heads of the National Committees, the Senate Campaign Committees, and the Congressional Campaign Committees. It's quite clear which of them performed the best in this election cycle, and who left a little something to be desired. Here's the rundown, from worst to first.

Elizabeth Dole - RSCC Chair - F
It's hard to do worse than Elizabeth Dole did in this role. Dole was unable to find engaging candidates to run in several states that should have been competitive (most notably in Florida). More problematic, her fundraising abilities are seemingly subpar, as she raised just $77 million in the 2005-2006 election cycle - dwarfed by the nearly $104 million raised by her counterpart in the DSCC. Dole also is a very poor mouthpiece for Senate Republicans in the media - anyone who saw her on Meet The Press had to be embarrassed by her performance. Dole will absolutely NOT be the RSCC chair for long - 2008 is too important for Republicans as they defend nearly twice as many seats in the Senate. Norm Coleman would be an ideal choice if he wasn't up for re-election in 2008, but he'll need to devote his attention to winning re-election in a very tough climate for Minnesota Republicans. Whoever is the next RSCC chair will need to begin the process of recruiting candidates early, and make sure that the fundraising doesn't get left behind.

Tom Reynolds - RCCC Chair - C
Reynolds did a better job than Dole, $152 million this cycle. He also helped recruit some reasonable candidates - but only for open seats in districts that Republicans already held. There was very little pressure on any Democratic incumbents (and not a single Democratic incumbent lost - which was a bit of history). I suspect that Reynolds will be out of a job soon as well, but he at least deserves a second look due to his fund-raising abilities.

Howard Dean - DNC Chair - C
Dean is lucky that the Democrats won, because if they hadn't he would have been lampooned nationally a second time. His major contribution, and the reason he receives a C rather than a D, is the focus on the so-called 50-state strategy, moving the Democratic Party into competitiveness through a broad swath of the country. As head of the DNC, he had considerable ability to direct money - and he did so on a wide basis in support of the 50SS. Unfortunately, there wasn't a lot of money to direct - the DNC raised just $118 million, compared to the nearly $208 million raised by the RNC. Had a better fundraiser been in control of the DNC, the Democratic victory on Tuesday may have been a tsunami rather than a mere wave. Dean also looks foolish for sparring with Rahm Emanuel, head of the DCCC and one of the Democratic heroes of this election.

Ken Mehlman - RNC Chair - B-
As just mentioned, the man raised a ton-0'-cash. Unfortunately for him, he didn't have the political climate or the candidates to spend it on. Money isn't everything in politics, but it is important. The blame for this loss lies first with the President, second with the scandal-ridden members of the House, third with Karl Rove and his failed run-to-the-base strategy, fourth on the heads of the RCCC and RSCC, and then whatever blame is left could fall to Mehlman.

Charles Schumer - DSCC Chair - A
How do you argue with a strategy that helped the Democrats capture the Senate in a year when they had to win races in Montana, Virginia, and Missouri to do so? Schumer directed his money well, and while increased support may have helped Harold Ford win in Tennessee, that's not certain. Schumer helped recruit candidates and directed money effectively, and he raised about $26 million more than his opposite member in the RSCC. He deserves a great deal of credit for this victory.

Rahm Emanuel - DCCC Chair - A
Had he raised a little more money (he got beat by the RCCC by $45 million dollars) he would have picked up an A+. But Emanuel helped recruit great candidates throughout the country, as victories in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kansas, Minnesota, California, Arizona and elsewhere show. In fact, Emanuel nearly won 6-10 more seats that came close but not close enough (that's where the extra money would have come in handy). He should be a fixture in the House for many years, and as long as he's as active and engaged as he was in this cycle (even challenging Howard Dean when necessary), he should continue to find success as the head of the DCCC.

The Meaning of 11/07/06

I already posted on my immediate, visceral reaction to the results of Tuesday's election. Now, I'm going to talk a little bit about what comes next, and what reaction should be had to the results.

First, I'm not going to overanalyze what happened on Tuesday. It was a solid butt-kicking by the Democratic party over the Republicans, and it was driven by disgust and anger, which were triggered by repeated scandals, incompetent management and leadership, and the continuing bad news out of Iraq. It didn't help matters, I suspect, that Iran and North Korea don't seem to be that concerned about the United States - and at least outwardly are both moving full-steam-ahead towards full-fledged nuclear power status.

Now, I'm curious about exactly what Republican power-brokers really thought heading into this election. Karl Rove had been telling everyone that Republicans were going to keep control of both houses, that he knew what the numbers really meant, blah blah blah. If Rove really believed this, then he's a hack pure and simple. This analysis is not my own, but I fully endorse it: Rove is and always has been over-rated. He essentially got lucky, winning an election for President Bush by 537 votes in 2000 (and losing the popular vote in the process) and pulling off narrow wins in 2002 and 2004 (although the presidential vote was fairly decisive). The problem with crediting Rove for these wins is that we don't know what would have happened absent Rove - in other words, a different "architect" might have been able to get Bush more votes (and an outright win) in 2000 by moving to the middle rather than to the base. We just don't know. Enough about Rove - he's been proven to be either delusional or ineffective, and there isn't a lot more to say about him. I'm guessing Republican presidential candidates won't be lining up to hire him for 2008.

Strategy
So, about that "run to the base" strategy - it doesn't work. Or, at least, it won't work for long. The Republicans have painted themselves into a very uncomfortable corner - a corner that will continue to shrink year after year as Republicans are pushed into the South. If you look at the Senate breakdown right now, it doesn't look that bad - Republicans have a big majority in the Southeast, and have good margins in the Mountain West and the Plains states. However, running to the base has lost them support in the Mountain West (look at Montana, which now has 2 Democratic Senators), and has eroded support for "new Republican" ideas elsewhere. My sense is that the "moderate middle" is growing - at least outside of the South, and maybe there - and so Republicans will find that the base is disappearing. Every year will bring fewer voters, and barring a change in strategy this is awfully problematic. Not to mention that the "base" isn't exactly pleased with the Republicans right now anyway, what with the runaway spending and what appears to be a willingness to talk about so-called "moral" issues without doing anything about them. This Rove-ian strategy is a loser, and the Republicans need to ditch it, fast.

The Next Two Years
The conventional wisdom is that the president and Congress will fight continuously over the next 2 years. I don't think that has to happen. Democrats should take advantage of a weakened president and push hard to get some legislation passed - if I were them, I would move to get a minimum wage increase and a guest worker program, along with some other reforms they favor. Tied together with the right concessions, the president will go along with these reforms, and it will make the Democrats look like they can govern. They will also avoid the temptation to get too aggressive in terms of oversight - it would make them look like the Republicans did circa 1998-2000, when the party overreached in fighting Bill Clinton. They don't want that to happen. That said, contention is the most likely result over the next few years - but it doesn't have to be that way, and it shouldn't be that way.

Leadership in Congress
Who's going to end up as leaders in the House and Senate? It seems that the Democrats won by a big enough margin to put to rest any worry about Nancy Pelosi not becoming Speaker of the House - I don't see any way that she doesn't win the post. But who becomes Majority leader? I think the race between Steny Hoyer and John Murtha will be telling about how effectively Pelosi will be able to control her caucus - Murtha is an unabashed supporter, while Hoyer has been a thorn in her side as Minority Whip. If the caucus supports Murtha, I think it will indicate that they are fully behind Pelosi; if they go for Hoyer, it means they want a bit of control over her. We'll find out on November 16, when the Dems will hold their leadership election.

The next day, we'll find out whether the Republicans really want change. Speaker Dennis Hastert is returning to the back-benches, so current Majority Leader John Boehner is positioned to take over as Minority Leader. However, Boehner was tainted by the Foley scandal just like Hastert, and he's going to be challenged by Mike Pence and Joe Barton, both of whom seem to want to bring the party back to its roots. Boehner may be a goner, having lasted as leader for just a year. Roy Blunt, the Majority Whip, may retain his leadership position by becoming Minority Whip - but he too may be challenged.

In the Senate, there is no surprise on the Democratic side - Harry Reid will be the Majority Leader, and Dick Durbin the Majority Whip. As for the Republicans? Mitch McConnell is almost certain to become Minority Leader, but the post of Minority Whip is open and up for grabs. All indications are that Trent Lott wants that job and has been campaigning for it - but will he be hurt by the pseudo-scandal that knocked him out of his leadership position a few years back? He seems to think that he's cleansed himself, and he may be right - the Whip position is not as high profile as Leader.

2008

In 2008, Republicans will have 21 seats up for re-election while the Democrats have just 12. Of those, seats in Oregon, Minnesota, Colorado, and New Hampshire have to be considered very vulnerable. Kansas is moving noticeably towards the Dems, and may be in play. Freshmen will be running for re-election in Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Georgia, and Minnesota. In other words, it's not a particularly good situation for the Republicans. But all is going to depend on how the Democrats do in their trial run over the next 2 years.

As for the Presidential race that has already kicked off, I'm not going to go too in-depth yet. I'll be talking about this in detail later. Suffice it to say, I think John McCain is the likely Republican candidate, and I think Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama is the likely Democratic candidate. It will be a very, very interesting primary season.

So there it is - I have more to say, but I've rambled on for long enough in this post. More will be coming over the next few days and weeks, and remember to watch late next week when the parties pick their leaders in the House.

Random Musings on Last Night

The majority of the races have been decided, and it's time to dissect what happened last night. Here are my general thoughts on what transpired and what is to come. Let me say that nothing clarifies your political views more than who you find yourself rooting for on election night. I don't consider myself a member of either party, because I don't think either party is a comfortable fit for my views. Nonetheless, for many years I have considered myself more closely affiliated with the Republican Party over the Democratic Party, largely because I grew up in a very conservative household, believing that Democrats were pretty much evil.

Even as my social views have drifted to the left, I have still hesitated to support the Democratic Party. Back in 2002, I thought I had changed - outwardly I was supporting Democrats. Then, election night rolled around and I found myself pleased that the projected Republican losses never materialized. Clearly, I wasn't yet ready to break from my past. In 2004, I voted for John Kerry. I believed very strongly that I wanted the Democrats to win. Yet, when I went to bed in the wee hours that night, I found myself relieved that GWB looked to be on his way to re-election - turns out my head had been sold on Kerry but my heart hadn't.

Turn to last night. In every race, throughout every state, I found myself unequivocally rooting for the Democrats; I guess the transformation is complete. To my Republican friends who might read this blog, I say only this; your party has lost its way. Last night was essential if the Republicans are to regain their principles and find a real sense of purpose again. Scandals, incompetence, stubborn refusal to deal with reality, utter disregard for thoughts and ideas not generated by the party elite - these are the sins for which Republicans were punished last night. Do your part to purge your party of these things and maybe, just maybe, you won't suffer a horrific loss in 2008.

A Deeper Analysis of Maryland

Yesterday, I posted my (sort-of) final predictions for the election. The most left-field pick I made was in the Maryland Senate race between Congressman Ben Cardin (D), and Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele (R), who are running to replace the retiring Paul Sarbanes (D). Bucking the conventional wisdom, I am predicting that Steele will win, preserving Republican control of the Senate (if only barely).

Why buck the conventional wisdom in this race? First, the CW is largely built on polling data, the pseudo-incumbency advantage held by the same-party candidate for a seat long held by one person, and the general anti-Republican atmosphere that is pervasive this election. But look more closely at the polling data (thanks to Real Clear Politics, the best source of polling data on the web). Since October 30, 4 major polls have been released:

10/30 - Baltimore Sun - Cardin +6
10/31 - Rasmussen - Cardin +5
11/02 - Survey USA - Tie
11/03 - Mason-Dixon - Cardin +3

The tie is the statistical anomaly, and with multiple respected polling outfits suggesting Cardin has a slim (and closing) lead, I have to concede that Cardin is probably "ahead," whatever that means divorced from the actual counting of ballots.

However, Cardin has stumbled when it comes to courting black voters in Maryland, a critical constituency. For instance, for whatever reason (and there are some legitimate excuses circulating) Cardin did not appear at an NAACP event/debate on October 26, which angered those present and let Michael Steele, get significantly more attention and praise than could be expected for a Republican candidate.

The Washington Post offers a simple, and inadequate, explanation for why Cardin might be in trouble, buried in a story about trouble for the GOP: "unpredictable votes by African Americans could undo predictions in Maryland . . . where GOP nominee Michael S. Steele, who is black, is running against Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D), who is white." To be fair to the Post, the statement was attributed to Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee - but it's clearly in line with the reasoning of the Post, which does not comment elsewhere.

But this is simplistic and frankly a little insulting. It suggests that African-American support for Steele is built on the simplest and least useful premise of "he's black, we're black, we're voting for him." Now, undoubtedly this is true in some cases. However, black voters are not a monolithic, simplistic cabal anymore than are white voters, or aged voters, or any other group of voters. I believe that Steele will peel off votes from Cardin amongst African-Americans because Cardin has neglected this fairly vital portion of his base. Ask any politician - it's a reality that keeping contact with the base, keeping people feeling like you are attentive to their needs and concerns, is essential. The majority of African-Americans who vote for Steele, or don't vote at all, won't be doing so simply because Steele is black - they'll be doing so because they don't feel Cardin is going to be an effective advocate for them.

So, I am essentially making an educated guess that the pollsters aren't adequately covering this aspect of the Maryland race, and that it won't really surface until the returns are counted on Tuesday night. I'm picking Steele because I think enough black voters will either vote for him, or not vote in the race at all, to erode Cardin's numbers to the point that Steele can get the win. Republicans, who have little chance to gain seats elsewhere, had best hope that I'm right.