11.25.07
MA-05 lessons learned
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!
Originaly from Source