As an admitted political junkie and former campaign hack, I think it appropriate to pay compliment to the other side of the political aisle when a campaign's work is duly impressive. Accordingly, let me take a minute to say Darcy Burner's campaign manager, Zack Silk, performed exceptionally well this past campaign season.
Now of course, readers of Sound Politics know full well I'm glad to see Silk fail to reach his final goal of getting Burner elected, but the essence of the campaign itself was impressive, putting aside strong partisan differences. He facilitated a disciplined effort that stayed on message; not an easy thing to do at all with a rookie candidate. Moreover, that candidate was seriously raw material at the beginning. When I first got a look at her in January of this year I recall she came across more as a disheveled, legislative candidate than a refined competitor for a Congressional seat. By the end, she had matured signficantly on the campaign trail from where she had started. Having had to work through such issues in my own campaign experience, I can attest the candidate deserves some credit for this, but the staff's job in guiding such transformation is often overlooked.
Besides candidate development, the Burner campaign just flat out raised a lot of money. While some can be attributed to an influx of cash directed to her by the party, Silk and Burner deserve to be complimented for constructing a highly effective fundraising machine, including harnessing the money-capturing power of the netroots, which Howard Dean first brought onto the political scene.
In the end, Reichert ran a well-funded, intelligent, and effective campaign. He's human, he has limitations as a candidate, and his staff dealt with those well. As we here at Sound Politics have discussed, however, Burner too has her limitations. Yet, she grew remarkably on the campaign trail, no matter how strongly one disliked her actual message or where one views her final stage of development. Such a change doesn't happen without exceptional staff work.
I know good campaign work when I see it: message discipline, fundraising prowess, and consistent ability to stay on target. That's impressive, no matter which side of the aisle you're talking about.
Mr. Silk, my compliments.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 15, 2006 06:54 PM | Email This
And I agree with the others who state that just because she 'stayed on message' doesnt mean she should be given applause.
She got most of her money from outside the state (Dem leadership who thought they could buy her a seat) and her lack of anything substansive to say about her own positions.
At her concessions speech, she was standing up there all alone... which just looked... odd.
Posted by: Ann on November 15, 2006 10:35 PM"Bush sucks. I hate Bush. Dave Reichert likes Bush. Look, a picture of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld! Boo, Republicans, boo!"
Posted by: Mumblix Grumph on November 15, 2006 10:39 PMGood of you to make mention of it.
As for the comments, I don't know how you put up with this crowd.
Posted by: Daniel K on November 15, 2006 10:47 PMI hear the presidency of Anderson Lake is still open.
Posted by: pbj on November 16, 2006 12:55 AMAnd the Rs, like George Foreman, kept jabbing and couldn't get these people off the ropes and make them fend for themselves.
Burner was the same way. Taking shots at Bush was extremely easy. Tying Reichert with Bush was also easy. So, when she wasn't on the ropes (she seldom was there) she was out with these little jabs after jabs just delivering damage to her opponent, just like Cantwell on McGavick.
Like Eric, very good campaign on her part. But Eric, this year the Ds had the MSM on the side of the Ds exclusively. It was like the Super Bowl where the supposed referees decided the contest when they were supposed to be neutral.
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2006 07:14 AMBurner likely didn't show up in south King County or Pierce county because she likely knew she couldn't defend her positions when challenged. By staying in King County she could preach to her disciples..she didn't have to do any converting.
Posted by: DennisODell on November 16, 2006 08:05 AMAs for the comments, I don't know how you put up with this crowd.
As opposed to the festering cesspool that qualifies for debate on the left side of the aisle? Snort. Thanks for making my point. One gets nowhere trying to make kissy-face with the opposition. See the door, DK? Hit it.
And get to work on solving all the world's problems ... just like y'all said you could do.
Posted by: jimg on November 16, 2006 08:13 AMWow, and not a single profanity. . . .
In 2004, which was arguably a much better year for the GOP, Reichert won 51-47. In 2006, Reichert won 51-49.
In an election year where Democrats made huge national gains, and in a Congressional District where Democrats made significant gains in state legislative races, a well funded candidate should be expected to do a hell of a lot better than the Burner campaign's net gain of just under two percentage points.
Dave Ross got more votes in King County alone in 04 than Burner got in the entire 8th in 06. Sure the overall turnout is much higher in a presidential year, but the fact is that there were plenty of Democrat voters who were never ID'd for turnout and never given a reason to back Darcy.
Her campaign wasted too much money on TV ads linking Bush and Reichert. The goal of a negative ad push is to take votes away from your opponent. Reichert walked away from 06 with roughly the same 51% he won with in 04. The Bush-Reichert tv blitz was a flop.
Burner failed to give the voters a reason to vote for her and failed to convince any additonal percentage of voters to vote against Dave Reichert.
In a year when much more experienced incumbent campaigns were defeated by Democrat challengers, and in a campaign that was the most expensive in history, the Burner campaign produced nothing more than a less than 2% increase over the previous failed Democrat challenger.
Staying on message doesn't mean having only one talking point in your speech notes.
As a veteran of lots of winning and even a few losing campaigns in more than a dozen states, I can comfortably say that there was nothing impressive about Darcy Burner or her campaign.
Posted by: Kevin on November 16, 2006 05:19 PM