49% in: 51-46% (0.00 / 0)

Even worse than the polls suggested?  This reflects very badly on Tsongas and the Democratic party.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:17:02 AM UTC

They're calling it for Tsongas (0.00 / 0)

Blue Mass Group seems to have the inside scoop.

---

by: brklyngrl @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:24:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm gonna copy my comment from SwingStateProject: (4.00 / 1)

I hope Niki Tsongas gets a real scare.  Like a 2 or 3% victory.

Dems in DC need to know that putting up the same old mushy generic limousine Democrat is not going to work this cycle.  They need to know that voters are demanding real change, and aren't willing to turn out for the culture of caution we've been getting.  Something needs to convince DC Dems that what they're doing is not good enough and is not going to get the election results they're obviously salivating over, and Niki Tsongas nearly losing might do it.

Paul Hackett showed Dems how to win in 2005, and then Ned Lamont did the same in 2006.  If Niki Tsongas shows Dems how to lose, and they take that message to heart as well, she might do us all some good.

Of course, the 06 results, where cautious Dems lost in PA-06 and CT-04 and IL-06 and TN-Sen and OH-15 and NY-26, while spunky challengers did WAY better than expected in a boatload of districts, should have taught them that.  But in the flush of victory they didn't notice.  Maybe this election will make the point.

[This is off of a post that makes the point that Ogonowski is running an aggressive, energetic campaign of change, while Tsongas is a Democratic insider looking for a coronation.  It's possible that a 2-point Tsongas victory would show DC Democrats that running cautious, careful campaigns, eschewing the politics of contrast, and allowing the base to become disenchanted and deflated have real, negative electoral consequences.  That would be a very good thing.]

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:31:05 AM UTC

You're assuming that the leadership actually WANTS an increased majority (0.00 / 0)

Especially in the house, I think the Dem leaders don't want a bunch of spirited new blood and a large majority.

Having a small majority gives them an excuse to maintain the status quo, because they have to protect those bush dogs (without them we would be back in the minority!! OMGZ!) I think that the senate is another creature entirely, because it takes so much money to run for/hold a senate seat that the grand majority of Dems have to cave just to get there.

Reminds me of a recent post here where Matt (or Chris?) said that Dem strategists advise senators that the only way they could lose their seat was to challenge Republicans in any meaningful way.

The house is different. It takes less money and less votes to get elected, and someone with a decent grassroots following can hang out to power. I don't think the leadership wants those kind of people -- they aren't as beholden to the blatant cycle of corruption that has produced such splendid leaders as Hillary Clinton, and such fantastic legislation as NAFTA and free trade with China.

Those have worked out great... Just not for actual people.

Without that small house majority, stuff like that may not make it through, and moreover, the rhetoric gets less clouded by people who tell the truth.

Hence, Nikki Tsongas.

Blech.

---

by: afterthought @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 02:10:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chris .. wasn't it you ... (0.00 / 0)

that said that mid-term House races like these tend to prodcue weird results? .. because of low turnout and the like? .. Sounds like this is one of them

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:59:40 AM UTC

Let's Hope Matt Stoller Was Wrong (0.00 / 0)

A while back, he wrote a post titled, "MA-05: Is this a proxy for the Democratic Presidential Primary?", where he basically drew connections between Tsongas and Hillary Clinton as the establishment candidates. The comparisons held, as Tsongas's primary opponents couldn't overtake her, and as Hillary Clinton seems poised to win the nomination, with Obama and Edwards pretty much stuck in their relative positions.

So, assuming Matt was right, will the presidential race follow the same pattern as MA-05 in the general election? GOP candidate blurs the differences enough and turns a certain Democratic win into a real contest...

Either way, I'm confident Clinton or anyone else would win in November 2008, as Tsongas did. But I was kind of hoping for a blowout, not a near-loss.

---

by: Fitzy @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 03:10:18 AM UTC

I think (0.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton certainly has shown she knows how to run a good campaign.  I hope the analogy ison doesn't have much merit.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 03:15:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A diary over on the Big Orange (4.00 / 1)

definitively debunks the angst over this race by comparing the returns town-by-town with those of the last governors race in which Deval Patrick cruised. Nearly identical.  This race ran true-to-form, nothing to see here and no cause for alarm.  Tsongas is a mediocre candidate, and Ogonowski was a better-than-average MA R.

Given the data he presents, a better question to be asking might be what a D+10 PVI actually means.

See here.

---

by: klondike @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 06:07:51 AM UTC

A few things to remember (0.00 / 0)

1. that this was the 2nd most Republican district in Massachussettes. Sure, that's not saying much, but it only voted 57% for Kerry, a native son of the state, and voted for Mitt Romney in 2002; if our nominee was someone not named Kerry, the Dem probably would have done worse. OH-02 on the other hand, Bush got 63%... Paul Hackett is still more impressive.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 06:20:53 AM UTC

I don't think this is a big surprise (0.00 / 0)

Mitt Romney carried the 5th in 2002 and Tsongas's victory is bigger than Deval Patrick's in that district in 2006. She'll do fine in a Presidential year in 2008.

---

by: AJ MA @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:49:59 AM UTC

Comparing Tsongas's vote to Patrick's (0.00 / 0)

it's worth remembering that Patrick beat Kerry Healy, who was about as lame a candidate as the republicans could have fielded.  That Ogonowski couldn't surpass Healy's vote tells you that all his message succeeded in doing was to turn out the hard core republicans and republican-leaning independents who would never support a progressive Democrat anyway.

---

by: pecos @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 16:10:58 PM UTC