Darcy Burner's campaign is crowing about her fundraising this past quarter, saying it "is more 'than any Washington state challenger's congressional campaign has ever raised in the second quarter of an off-year in the election cycle.'" Think that might be due in part to the fact it's tough to recall a challenger in a local Congressional race that started serious fundraising this early in the cycle?
Moreover, it shouldn't be any surprise the darling of the netroots is able to tap into the same enthusiasm to raise some coin. She and her campaign did an admittedly good job of that in the last election. But crowing about a "record" at this stage is a bit much.
Besides, even the P-I is recognizing some of her warts:
Other Democrats say if Burner couldn't beat Reichert last year, when he was a one-term incumbent shackled to an unpopular president and running against a Democratic tide in a Democratic-trending district, she's had her chance. Some criticize her for largely repeating her 2006 theme of tying Reichert to President Bush's policies when next year Bush will be near the end of his term.Posted by Eric Earling at July 10, 2007 08:04 AM | Email This
I'm sure there are people whispering in her ear, telling her about all the important and meaningful things she will do for them....
Posted by: John Galt on July 10, 2007 08:35 AMHer attitude about her loss (and that of her nutroots) is the born of the same smugness and sanctimony they have regarding socialism: it only failed in the past because the little people were too darn dumb to give THEM the chance.
I think (God, I hope) that this same attitude will doom the dem majority. They were elected by their far left nutty cousins and preened over over their 'win', but now are having to face the reality of actually governing, and in fact, have to face the reality they are spectacularly failing at it.
There is a lesson here for Conservative candidates:
Run on what YOU believe, not what your nutty neighbors believe, no matter how many votes or dollars they promise.
Be realistic: don't promise gourmet pie in the sky when all you have to offer is down home nourishment
STICK to your own beliefs.
Let the other gal be the whiner, let the other gal be the alarmist, let the other gal be the frenetic reactionary, let the other gal make the outrageous claims (lies) and let the other gal be the smug, santimonious phony.
Huh! I guess that's prett ymuch what Dave did!
Posted by: Ragnar Ranneskjold on July 10, 2007 09:28 AMHow well do you think that plays amongst mainstream Americans?
Look at Live Earth ratings for a clue to the answer.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 10, 2007 10:38 AMI'd be interested to see how much of that "record" revenue came from inside the 8th.
Too bad they are hiding on a totally unwatched and insignificant network during the dog days of summer.
Even THAT says volumes.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 10, 2007 12:20 PMWhen one party has a banner year like the Democrats did in '06, the next election is almost invariably not as good. The winning party gives up some of its gains in the vast majority of elections or at least gains nothing significant in addition.
Look at 1994, Republicans gained 56 seats in Congress (losing 4 open seats) for a net pick up of 52. They came within 5% in another 35 or so districts. In the next election, the GOP only picked up 3 of those 35 close districts and in one the incumbent did not run. That year Democrats did pick up 8 or 9 seats but they did it by surprising a number of longer-term incumbents and knocking off around 10 freshmen GOP house members, like Randy Tate. The GOP kept its losses down by picking up a number of open seats.
A similar pattern emerges from 1974 and 1976. Democrats picked up a lot of seats (around 45) in 1974 and came close in dozens more. They only managed to knock off one of their near misses in 1976--but did have a net gain of one seat because they did well in open districts.
I suspect if you compared big pick-ups for one party with the following election like 1966 and 1968, 1958 and 1960, 1946 and 1948, 1942 and 1944, 1938 and 1940--you will find a similar pattern. You would have to go back to 1930-1932-1934-1936 when you would find Democrats making gains through 4 straight elections. I don't think GOP unpopularity from the Iraq War rises to the level of it's unpopularity during the Great Depression.
In 2006, Democrats came within 5% of beating Republicans in about 2 dozen districts, including Washington 8. If the previous pattern holds, Democrats may pick up one or two seats out of these threatened GOP incumbents. But remember this group survived a tough year already--will 2008 really be that much worse than 2006? I doubt it. I think it will probably be a somewhat better.
And I also think it likely that the Democrats will target seats where the Republican incumbent has run into trouble since the election like Doolittle in CA, Renzi in AZ, and Wilson in NM.
There is no reason to think Burner will run any better in 2008 and probably significantly worse.
Posted by: brent boger on July 10, 2007 12:49 PMLook at it this way - a Burner win and subsequently useless single term in the House will flip that district back to red in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Steve in Queen Anne on July 10, 2007 01:18 PMRagnar, do you think it wouldn't be so hot today if more of us had watched the Al Gore freak show on Saturday? HA-HA.
Posted by: ameslaker on July 10, 2007 01:51 PMGreat cartoons skewering the The Al Gore Hot Air Show and Great Big Hypocrisy Tour! over at Townhall.com:
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/20070711RZ1AP-LiveEarth.jpg
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn070715_cmyk.jpg
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0710cd.jpg
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/07.07.09.Indulgences.jpg
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn070714_cmyk.jpg
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/PN071007.jpg
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 10, 2007 02:48 PMAl could have flown there in a private Hot air balloon, he would have needed no fuel to propel him.
He could just start preaching and away the balloon goes...
Posted by: GS on July 10, 2007 07:57 PMBecause 62% say the war was a mistake.
#14 the general trends don't matter--the R's are asking for a do-over of 2006 and the antiwar ;majority would take out Rchiert (unless, as I said a while ago, he starts to vote to gt out).
Burner's cash is impressive, and it shows organization, dedication, zeal and campaign smarts.
I personally don't like her. But rathr than make a bunc of cheerleaer coments pro or con, sometimes it is interesting to talk about reality......
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on July 10, 2007 09:29 PM"Darcy's cash" was impressive in 2006, too, and you saw how well that turned out for Darcy.
It's a matter of record that a candidate like Darcy can raise plenty of money from donors in Seattle, and outside Washington.
And it's certainly true that it's difficult to win an election without sufficient cash.
But it's impossible to win an election without sufficient votes, and Darcy isn't going to find many votes in Seattle and outside Washington.
Posted by: ewaggin on July 10, 2007 10:26 PMI cringe at the idea of having to see Darcy in her little Mao inspired pants suit again on tv (especially with that whiny little voice) but it's good to know that we're going to have a dem candidate we really don't have to worry about.
Did anyone really find out what she did at Microsoft that was worth having her considered for a spot with authority anyway? (It sure as heck couldn't have been anything concerning the early releases of .net.)
Posted by: johnny on July 11, 2007 12:16 PMOh, and as for dismissing Burner's record Q2 haul as being because she's starting early. Well, duh! That's the point - she is starting early. Reichert began his campaign the minute the last one ended. Any serious opponent had to get in the race early as well to keep pace.
But what amuses me at Sound Politics more than anything is the complete and utter lack of you folks standing for anything. You tell us what you are against, as if we would expect you to like any Democratic candidate for Congress, and you guys go after Burner trying to find something, anything, that might stick, and failing. We already know how much you love Rodney Tom (not), so you've got him covered as well. But what do you guys stand for? You can't bring yourself to support and endorse the incumbent, Davey Rocket, or whatever he should be appropriately called in Sound Politics speak. And perhaps that's appropriate because he himself doesn't stand for anything as he sways in the wind on issue after issue. If it isn't stem cell research or the minimum wage, it will be global warming and the Iraq occupation. It is just a matter of time with him. Damn, if the Democrats don't beat him in 2008, who knows he might just end up converting into a Democrat completely anyway which should make you guys apoplectic. I'd at least expect you folks to be eager to find a more solid Republican, or small 'l' libertarian, or whatever you call yourselves these days. At some point in time, there will be a Democrat in Congress from the 8th because Republicanism in the district has already died any way you look at it.
Posted by: Daniel K on July 11, 2007 09:23 PMYes, you could look at it that way.
Posted by: Daddy Love on July 12, 2007 10:51 AMYes, you could look at it that way.
Or, you could look at it this way: in an election where a Democrat wave swept many GOP incumbents from "safe" GOP districts, locally and nationally, Darcy couldn't even beat a supposedly weak, one-term GOP incumbent.
Which might lead you to look at it this way: either Reichert is much stronger than generally given credit for, or Darcy is much weaker.
Yes, you might look at it that way.
Posted by: ewaggin on July 12, 2007 12:26 PMHere's what I stand for: not electing self-absorbed twits, like Darcy, who pad their resumes to cover their utter lack of qualifications for public office, spend lots of time campaigning out of district in order to raise lots of money from deep-pocketed out-of-district donors, and who spend almost no time in district, meeting with, and listening to, the voters.
Posted by: ewaggin on July 12, 2007 12:39 PMAs I said, you don't stand for anything.
Posted by: Daniel K on July 12, 2007 07:40 PMOh, how precious! Aren't you just the feistiest little fellow!
So, Daniel, one more time, in terms even you can understand, here's what I stand for: electing whoever runs against self-absorbed twits, that, like Darcy, pad their resumes to cover their utter lack of qualifications for public office, spend lots of time campaigning out of district in order to raise lots of money from deep-pocketed out-of-district donors, and who spend almost no time in district, meeting with, and listening to, the voters.