Donna Edwards versus Mark Pera

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 22:26


So I sent a Blogpac email out on Donna Edwards with a couple key points.  One, no sitting Congressperson, no one from the 'progressive caucus', or anyone else endorsed Donna, but Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi among others went with Wynn.  And two, we won this without their help, and their legitimacy is now somewhat in question because of the magnitude of the shellacking.

Some people wrote back and asked a very interesting question.  What was the difference between Donna Edwards and Mark Pera?  Pera lost badly, and Donna won with a rougly similar margin.

What do you think?  And I'd especially appreciate people from the various districts and with political experience chiming in, but feel free to chime if you have neither.  There were some weird local dynamics to each of these races, but in trying to systematize primary challenges we should start to tease out the differences.

Matt Stoller :: Donna Edwards versus Mark Pera

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Donna Edwards versus Mark Pera | 57 comments
The biggest factor (4.00 / 9)
in my opinion is that Lipinski had the backing of the Chicago political machine while Edwards faced no such city machine.  Sure their power has declined since the early 20th century, but they are still a tremendous force to be reckoned with, perhaps in Chicago most of all.

Netroots for Gore
Agreed (4.00 / 3)
Lipinski is a MUCH more powerful opponent in a much more moderate state (we are a BLUE state, but not a totally progressive one, unfortunately) with a machine system well known for fighting tooth and nail to keep incumbents in place for fear the new blood will fuck up the money train.  Very rarely do we see primary challenges work against the incumbent.  I can only think of one off the top of my head and that was when Braun first ran for Senate.  Other than that I can't think of a national office or a statewide office who falls in that catergory (state senators, etc are excluded from this)
[ Parent ]
BINGO (4.00 / 2)
I can attest to this as one who spent many frigid weekends canvassing in Chicago's 11th Ward, home of the Daleys. My DFA group, Chicago's Northside DFA, "adopted" Pera and that's where we worked for him b/c it was the closest part of the district to us and relatively easy to reach by public transportation (and also the campaign had no one else to cover that area).

We knocked on every door and thought we made some headway. And perhaps we did: Lipinski was 5% down from 2006 in that Ward (compared with 3% up in the rest of the city), but at the end of the day we still got our butts kicked.

The Chicago Machine is not what it used to be, but in the South and Southwest Side wards included in IL-3, the machine is still going strong.

You can read the gory details here: http://www.prairiestateblue.co...

[ Parent ]
Machines. (0.00 / 0)
It's not on the level of the still formidable Chicago machine, but there's a Wynn/Hoyer machine in the Prince Georges part of the district (about 2/3 of the district) that is pretty strong. I don't think the difference in machine strength can explain the huge difference.
I think the biggest difference in the two races were the huge involvement of outside groups on Donna's behalf. I don't get the sense that they put much into the Pera race.
I also think that Donna is just flat out one of the best candidates I've ever seen.
[ Parent ]
From someone who has neither political experience nor local insight (4.00 / 13)
Donna had clearly proved herself as a candidate already, and it took two elections to build the name-recognition and support to win it, even though it was obviously, based on the results, a very winnable argument. We went looking for Pera, and my impression is that he saw an opportunity in us and took it.

I'm not the first person to say this, but I think we need to find candidates like Donna who can prove themselves by generating local energy, not just look for candidates who fit niches we want filled.

I know that this doesn't bode well for systematizing the challenges, but for now at least, I think that's the state of things.

I also absolutely agree with the above that city machines are hard to beat, though one of my dreams is that we can eventually turn them into safe seats for really committed energetic progressives, not just reliable Democrats.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

Energy (4.00 / 3)
I had no involvement at all in either race, so this could be totally off base, but my observation (from a very distant viewing platform) is that Mark Pera didn't generate the energy or the engagement that Donna Edwards did in both of her runs.
[ Parent ]
Donna Edwards made the difference (0.00 / 0)
She is immensely talented.  She is not unique, but she was both talented and determined.

These factors got a large coalition behind her.  Pera was just not as good a candidate, and he didn't capture the interest of nationwide groups.  

The machine aspect is important, but so is the candidate.

Fortunately, the more victories, the better candidates we can expect to come forward.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Four Points (4.00 / 4)
-Lipinski had less time to not do anything.  Wynn had over a decade to be unresponsive: not handling casework, not responding to constituent issue input, not passing much legislation.  In the process, a lot of people were not particularly pleased with him.  A very real part of Wynn's problem was not even an ideological one, but simply that he hasn't done much of anything for constituents.  In contrast, only a limited number of people have personally interacted with Lipinski's office and had him not do anything.

-The Jason Jennings strategy failed.  I'm unsure of the underlying reasons for why, but Jennings fell apart and got about 1%.  I'm guessing that Wynn figured he'd get a similar percentage to the faux candidates in Illinois, but the fact that he didn't really widened Edwards' margin.

-Mark Pera is no Donna Edwards.  Not to denigrate Mark Pera, who seems like a tremendous person and a good candidate, but he didn't seem to have the political talent that Donna just oozed.

-The war.  The bankruptcy bill, net neutrality and so on are issues that really work up the ire of a particular group of engaged, Internet savvy progressive folks, but they don't necessarily have a ton of crossover appeal.  The thousands of new voters who came out just to vote for Obama can all easily understand that Wynn supported the war for the first three years, but, with Lipinski, you're really talking about minutiae of redeployment plans as far as many people are concerned.    

John McCain

The main dynamics here were (4.00 / 4)
A) Wynn was not well liked here in this district. His constituency services are poor, particularly when compared with Van Hollen in neighboring CD8. Yet no one had really challenged Wynn seriously in a primary before Donna.

B) The district was changed in 2002 when the Dems gerrymandered CD 4 and 8 to defeat Republican Connie Morella.  A chunk of Montgomery County was new to having Wynn represent them.

C) Donna Edwards is an articulate, intelligent, solid candidate that spoke to the issues concerning the residents of District 4.  

D) There is an anti-long time incumbent wave sweeping this country.  A throw the bums out mentality.

The Obama effect played some role, but that was not the main reason why Donna Edwards defeated Wynn.  In 2006 she proved she could beat him.  In 2008, with greater financial resources and a real campaign team, she was able to mount a stronger campaign as she reached more people within the district with her message than in 2006. She had a greater base of volunteers this time.  And more people knew more about her this time around.

Constituent Services (0.00 / 0)
How is Lipinski at this?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Donna's charisma (0.00 / 0)
Donna has rock star charisma. Pera was good on all the issues but just didn't have "it" to break through to casual voters
Are there big demographic differences? (0.00 / 0)
I know Lipinski's district has a PVI of something like D+10.3, but that's more a statement of a willingess to vote for a Democrat for President rather than a reflection upon the fundamental make up of the constituency.  Is his district more working class than MD-04? Are there other significant demographic factors at play that put Donna Edwards in an advantageous position compared to Pera? It seems Donna was able to truly harness progressive energy in a way that Pera wasn't, but perhaps that's because it was more prevalent in MD-04?
The incumbents aren't even comparable (4.00 / 3)
I mean, they are on their records, but keep in mind that Lipinski is the son of Bill Lipinski, whom everybody in his district loves.  Al Wynn, on the other hand, is hated by EVERYONE.

Think about it: if Russ Feingold had a son who was a DLC hack Congressman, you'd have a hard time hating him as much as you hate, say, Al Wynn or Steny Hoyer.  It's the same thing with Lipinski: the district loves his father, and they're not going to turn out the wayward son just because he's a dick.

The Crolian Progressive: as great an adventure as ever I heard of...

Halo Effect (4.00 / 1)
keep in mind that Lipinski is the son of Bill Lipinski, whom everybody in his district loves.  Al Wynn, on the other hand, is hated by EVERYONE.

THAT is the key difference -- multi generational name recognition, with the warm fuzzy feelings for the name, that automatically transfers with (most) low information voters.

The corrupt Lipinski's of the world can only be defeated by long term siege -- drive up their negatives, to the benefit of the (replacement) savior that eclipses them.

The other factor -- Donna Edwards was a rock star in her own right, and has a long history as an advocate for the underdog; the Pera / Lipinski race had none of that.

Key Findings -- to unseat an incumbent, have a rock star candidate with deep roots in the community, with the staying power to take on a multi cycle assault on the incumbents credibility.

Without that, the challenger will be a long shot; against a high name recognition incumbent in a low information race, it will be very difficult to succeed in a single cycle.

[ Parent ]
Or pick off guys who aren't sons of the previous Cong'man. (0.00 / 0)
Lipinski was, in retrospect, a much harder target than many of us appreciated.  We need another softer target or two or 3 for next time.  If we make that clear, we may get a little more backbone from some marginal Dems.

Bush dogs in Dem districts, or corporate hacks in Dem districts.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
We're still digesting it. (4.00 / 3)
Here's the PSB diary that has the current discussion with some relevant stats.

The anti-Lipinski vote was split three ways.

Candidate '06

Votes 		'06

Percentage		'08

Votes 		'08


Percentage

----------------------------------------
District81,580 114,649
Lipinski 44,401 54.43% 61,674 53.79%
Reformer 16,230 19.89% 29,172 25.44%
Diversion(s) 20,918 25.64% 28,803 20.76%

Reformer in 08 being Pera. Clearly it's close enough if all the anti-Lipinski votes go to one anti-Lipinski candidate that it's doable. Remember this is Pera's first run. We have nothing official or firm about his running again but it has been rumored that he was expecting it to take more than one run.

Name recognition seems to be a big reason. His name wasn't even out there enough for everyone to assume that he wasn't an pseudo-anti-Lipinski plant to siphon off anti-Lipinski votes. That's important.

But read the diary as there are a lot of details that are significant without any of them being "the answer". More bodies on the ground and better use of media dollars seem to be the primary ones.

Jeff Wegerson

Challenges and Reactions (0.00 / 0)
My experience with both campaigns was limited to what I read here and at various other blogs, but the Wynn/Edwards battles seemed more heated, both in how he attacked and how Edwards responded to those attacks than with Pera campaign.

Maybe an argument can be made that voters want to see a fight?  Not a no holds barred media circus fight, but something that refreshes the memory that there are indeed candidates around who have a principled direction, and are not afraid to get rough in defending it.

To me, that was something Donna Edwards managed to convey well when she spoke, more so than Pera; a willingness to fight back.  I think right now that is an energizing element for progressive voters to simply get to the polls.

Shameless Blog Plug: The SideTrack

Making Pera / Laesch comparisons is a good idea too. (4.00 / 2)
Laesch was running in a similar environment as Pera --  same Chicago machine, same massive Obama turnout, same presidential distractions -- and yet he lost to Bill Foster by only 351 votes.  There are obviously big differences in these two races, but there's probably something useful to be learned in the comparison.  I don't know what that would be, cause I don't know the details of these races, but still, Laesch clearly did something right to get the results that he did.
Laesch was (4.00 / 2)
the nominee last year so he was very well known and he had been running for a lot longer. Also it was a open seat and it's a lot easier to be a progressive in a open seat race because people can endorse you. Like Lt Gov Pat Quinn endorsed Laesch but not Pera because you just can't endorse Pera. It's in the "rules"

Also he solidly had the backing of labor which was a big factor in the Pera race I think.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Republican machine in 14 (4.00 / 1)
Some claim that if there was a Democratic "establishment" in 14 then it was the Laesch "oranization".

Jeff Wegerson
[ Parent ]
chicago machine?! (0.00 / 0)
are you freaking kidding me?

There is no chicago machine in northwest Illinois.  That's hard core republican territory.  

The machine didn't do a darn thing to help Foster.

The machine was too busy saving its own.

Mike Madigan wasn't going to let Lipinski lose.  That's all there is to it.

And that's the big difference.  This was the backyard of the second most powerful politician in Illinois, after Daley of course.

I don't know how Daley feels about Dan, but Madigan wouldn't let him get knocked off.  

Laesch did far better than I expected, but Foster's win has nothing to do with the "machine".  There is no machine outside of Cook County.  Democrats that far out, until you hit quad cities territory, are completely disorganized, and haven't had a snowball's chance in decades.  

[ Parent ]
I really meant Rahm Emanual's fundraising apparatus (0.00 / 0)
and you're right to call me out, cause that's not the same thing as "the Chicago machine."

Foster/Laesch is much more like Duckworth/Cegelis than it is like Lipinski/Pera.   And even then, Foster and Laesch had totally different geographic bases, which wasn't really at play in the Cegelis/Duckworth contest.

Anyway, I was thinking of Emanuel's influence, which was strong in IL-14, but that's not really the same thing as "the Chicago machine" per se.  Sorry.  I should have been more clear.

[ Parent ]
Candidates (0.00 / 0)
The trick is to simply find the best candidate you can and then place your trust in them.

That is a hard thing to do, but that is the way you win.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

Not on the ground eaither place (4.00 / 3)
But here is my stab.

Pera didn't have the (progressive) establishment behind him as much as Donna did. Look at Donna's list:

People for the American Way
SEIU
UFCW Local 400
Sierra Club
Progressive Neighbors
Clean Water Action
EMILY's List
Progressive Maryland
Progressive Democrats of America
League of Conservation Voters
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now! PAC
Friends of the Earth Action PAC
Democracy for America
Democracy for Montgomery County
Progressive Cheverly
National Organization for Women
Women's Campaign Forum

vs

Democracy for America (DFA)
Citizens Action/Illinois
Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century
Illinois Planned Parenthood Council
Jewish Political Alliance of Illinois
Mexicanos for Political Progress
NARAL Pro-Choice America
Northside DFA
NOW - National Organization for Women
Oak Park DFA
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
United Citizens for a Better America
United Muslims and Arabs for a Better America

Not really a contest. Donna got twice as much money via ActBlue. Plus the MoveOn and EMILY's List machines. That's probably close to a million right there. But more importantly those unions and the lcv and sierra club put real boots on the ground. Think about all the calls those groups made, how many doors they knocked on. All that. Also there was a real outside effort for Donna. That just didn't happen for Mark.

So to try to sum it up. Why did Donna Edwards win? Mostly because she got more help.

That's just my take though.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

To add on to that with numbers (4.00 / 2)
LCV staff posted a diary on DailyKos today with this bit in it:

"LCV committed more than $100,000 in resources to support Edwards's successful challenge to the incumbent Rep. Al Wynn. LCV's effort included sophisticated mail and automated phone programs that generated more than 190,000 household contacts.  LCV also ran a targeted door-to-door effort, mobilizing more than 100 canvassers, canvassing over 35,000 households, and generating more than 9,000 person-to-person contacts."

That's just LCV. I bet MoveOn/DFA did that easily on money and maybe a little less contacting. But add up all those other groups and they probably helped her just knock on 100,000 more doors then Pera's group. That's a HUGE difference and I think a real game changer.

Oh and those pesky unions can be pretty strong. The sad thing is from what I can tell many of the Chicago ones are with the machine. Chris, you were a union organizer in Chicago though. What's your feel?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
SEIU (4.00 / 1)
SEIU spent a million on the race.
[ Parent ]
WOAH! (4.00 / 2)
Basically we are talking about millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of face to face contacts by groups that Pera didn't have.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
But why did Donna get more help? (4.00 / 3)
She did not get more help from key bloggers - Pera was mentioned just as often, and raised less money. Here are a few thoughts to consider:

1. many of the progressive groups were located next door in DC, and their members and leaders had personal relationships with Donna. Pera did not have personal relationships with national political groups though he sought them.
2. the unions by and large backed Lipinski. They did not care about his track record on women's issues, petty corruption, or the war.
3. the choice groups backed Pera, but only Naral put any dollars - $30K - according to press reports. Most of the groups you list endorsed but did not do very much.
4. nobody brought together the national groups that were interested in defeating Lipinski as happened with Donna and
5. SEIU - with a cool million into the Edwards race - that is very serious money.
6. Pera did not have Matt Stoller working on his race both virtually and in person for three years. That has to count for a lot.

[ Parent ]
She didn't have the help in '06 (0.00 / 0)
Heck, we had a bare bones operation in 2006 (including no campaign manager) and practically beat Wynn then.  It was a low tech grassroots campaign.

The 2006 race proved to the unions and progressive groups that Donna was for real and worth their backing.  Most unions are reluctant to oppose an incumbent unless they know they have a real good shot at winning.

It was that near win in 2006 that set Donna up in 2008 to have the support she needed to finish the job of defeating Al Wynn.

Also keep in mind this go around she had the support of some of the elected officials in Prince George's County.  

[ Parent ]
Twice is the charm (4.00 / 2)
Donna built up name recognition in the district.  The first she ran she had to educate voters as to who she was.  This time around she was able to educate voters as to what she stands for.  I've seen a variety of races like MD-4 where the second time around is the charm, and I'm hoping Pera runs again in 2010.
McNerney is a good example (0.00 / 0)
Often a challenger (primary or general) has to run twice to build up name recognition.

Now I'd like to see some of the techno-savvy bright brains here find some solid challengers to GOPers that are just below the DCCC's radar that we could fund.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
it seems to me that Edwards was simply a better candidate. Perhaps as simple as that?
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
What does that mean?
[ Parent ]
More charismatic (0.00 / 0)
More determined (2nd try), more able to get big groups to back her.

And she had Pelosi and Hoyer against her, but not an actual machine like Lipinski had.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Chicago = Daley (4.00 / 2)
As has been said before, in high profile races like a Presidential, the local machine has less influence.  But in races like Pera's, the Chicago machine rules, and it's very hard to beat.  It's doable, but it is NOT easy.  Especially in a primary during a Presidential year with tons of uneducated voters, and literally hundreds of different tickets handed out with Obama's name at the top.

If Pera had done a great job of handing out flyers with Obama's name at the top, he may have had a chance...  Even still, I don't think he could've bested the machine this year.

And in Chicago, this was not a high profile election (4.00 / 3)
People not in Chicago seem not to realize that we in Illinois didn't have the same type of turnout that everyone else has experienced this winter.  There was no Obama-driven high turnout to spill over to Pera.  Illinois may have been the only state all the presidential candidates chose to skip, to not invest any time or resources.  We were told about 40 and 50 point Obama leads in the polls, and remember similar results from his Senate primary and general election 4 years ago.  We saw Obama only on election day, when he came home to vote - didn't even get to see the Super Bowl ad.  Turnout was about the same it would be for a typical off-year March primary.  The race for Cook County State's attorney got most of the TV adversing time.  And as others have noted, low turnout always favors the machine candidate; early voting always favors the incumbent - or at least the known candidate.
[ Parent ]
Obama as incumbent (0.00 / 0)
Ron,

Can you talk about how Obama was perceived there? It seems to me that in MD, 65% of the voters voted for the change candidate. Whereas in IL, 65% of voters voted for a guy who actually took 70% of the vote in the general election four years earlier.

In other words, if Obama contributed to high turnover in IL, it's not clear that all of those people were change voters in the same way MD's voters were. Some undoubtedly were--but even so they were voting for an IL incumbent.

[ Parent ]
Quite a few things (4.00 / 1)
I think Donna had the better name recognition and progressive organizations spent a lot of money on the race. I saw one article that said the SEIU spent $1 million in support of Donna. That about sums it up right there.

Lipinski also managed to get a pretty good distraction candidate up. Next time, I would just Pera or another candidate to focus tv ads on filming or pointing out Lipinski's bad record. Donna had some good ones like with the filming of Wynn at the energy companies.

Two Runs Helps? (0.00 / 0)
Isn't name recognition one of the biggest challenges to overcome when going up against an incumbent? Donna Edwards was running for the second time, so it seems likely to me that this would be less of an issue for her than it was for Pera.

I don't follow individual Congressional races enough to know if the second time proves to be the charm for challengers to entrenched incumbents often, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that that it was.

PBS coverage vs. Chicago machine (0.00 / 0)
Edwards had more high profile coverage than Pera. Obama also got out the vote for her.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
i'm a political newbie (4.00 / 3)
and I'm pretty close to IL-03

I had a strong feeling "wanting to do something" last september. in the sense of spending 7-10 hrs/week helping out.

I personally just could NOT get excited about Pera. He wouldn't say anything about core progressive issues like Healthcare and not attacking Iran.

I took my time elsewhere, and helped another candidate get 500 votes in another district.

He just could NOT fire up his troops. Donna did...I felt it from far away....and donated.

That I agree a lot with (0.00 / 0)
I am more fired up by Daniel Biss, candidate for IL State Rep in the 17th district, than I was at all by Pera. I think that, for me was because much of the info I got about the race was via the Internet and many of the articles I read rarely had Pera's actual name throughout the piece. This is the honest truth, I knew Lipinski's name MUCH better than I did Pera's from skimming blogs. Mostly my fault, I know...
[ Parent ]
that's true (4.00 / 1)
the excitement amongst progressives for getting Biss elected to the State house is higher than the excitement was for Pera.

I went to 2 fundraisers in December.  One for Pera, one for Biss.  Both were billed as "young professionals" fundraisers and were held at bars.

Pera's fundraiser had 50 to 75 people at it total.

Biss's was jam packed.  At least 250 people.  The bar was super crowded.  It was like a saturday night.  

I hope Mark runs again.  He needs to retool his message a bit, I think it was more appealing to progressives and national progessives than it was to locals.  
 

[ Parent ]
I think Pera was a first time candidate.... (0.00 / 0)
whereas Edwards had run two years prior, so she had a lot of time to build on her base and past experiences.
There is something special about Donna (0.00 / 0)
She is genuine, intelligent, and has a fire in her belly to fight against the status quo.  That's what sold many of us here locally to back her in her run against Wynn.  Also, we had been saying for several years that we really need to challenge Al Wynn.  He was voting poorly on issues that matter to us and his constituent services were quite lacking.  
[ Parent ]
Federal workers? (4.00 / 1)
My only qualification to comment here is that I lived in PG county once, but I wonder to what extent "federal employee" demographics made a difference?

I ask because if memory serves it was the federal employees who kicked out Connie Morella in 2002, running against the national tide, because of their disgust with Bush.

Two big differences (4.00 / 1)
(I originally posted this yesterday as a comment on a different diary, but I see this is the right place for it.)

One difference other commenters have already covered; her campaign has been going on almost continuously since Wynn barely fought her off in 2006. That sustained effort gave local people time to coalesce around the campaign, and for word-of-mouth to spread the good news about Donna, and the bad news about Al Wynn, throughout the community.  I get the impression that the Pera campaign wasn't the same kind of long-term effort, and in the face of the Chicago political machine, he needed it.

Second, not only is Donna herself a fantastic candidate (smart, charismatic, and a wonderful speaker), but Wynn is a really bad candidate. I've been told that he's charming in person, but in public situations he often looked uncomfortable and over-rehearsed. I don't know how Lipinski stacks up there, but if he's even average as a candidate, that makes him a tougher nut to crack than Wynn. I was just speculating with a friend that it almost seems like Wynn's heart wasn't really in it; it was like he was ready to check out after eight terms in the House and get paid off with a sinecure from one of the corporations that have long been his true constituency.

None of this is to diminish Donna's accomplishment, or that of her campaign. Powerful political and corporate institutions worked hard to elect Wynpeople of her district worked to elect Donna, and they had more leverage than those institutions.

My perspective on this race is that of someone who joined up for the last few weeks of Donna's campaign, including election day, as a result of learning about her from blogs like OpenLeft. (I live just a few blocks outside the 4th district, so I wasn't getting any of the campaign's phone and mail solicitations.) I first participated by donating via ActBlue, then later went to the local HQ and signed up. This was the first political campaign I ever worked on, and I spent nowhere near as much time or energy on it as Matt and many, many others did.

Based on my experience (and I guess it's easy to see how my experience would lead to this conclusion), I think the lesson for the national progressive movement is that we have to identify, grow, and support genuine grass-roots movements to win. Supporters who are far removed from the ground on which the election is being fought, even if they are self-sacrificing and pure of heart, cannot succeed without competent and committed local people working on a campaign.

So to defeat Lipinski in 2010, we would need to identify the people in that district who want to do the work it will take, gain a commitment from a good candidate (Pera, or someone else?) sooner rather than later, and help the campaign develop expertise and knowledge in addition to giving money and moral support from afar. It's certainly possible to imagine a national progressive activist infrastructure designed to promote such local efforts, but I don't know to what extent such an infrastrucure exists. Of course, this should be the Democratic Party's job, but by now we all know better than to rely on the Democratic party to promote progressive politics. So we need to do it ourselves.

That's what it looks like from where I'm sitting, anyway.

2006 vs. 2008 cycles (0.00 / 0)
Last cycle only two House members went down in contested primaries for their House seats:  Joe Schwartz (R, MI) and Cynthia McKinney (D, GA).  Both Schwartz and Gilchrest were targeted by the Club For Growth.  McKinney became controversial and perhaps that is a common link to Al Wynn.  If contriversies and bad behavior swirling around the incumbent become the issue he/she is in deep trouble.  There are also similarities in the districts.  How many suburban African American districts are there with controversial Democratic incumbents?
Other than (0.00 / 0)
MD-4 and GA-4, there are hardly any other suburban districts with an African-American plurality, let alone one with a scandal-tinged incumbent. The best example would be GA-13 (which is Atlanta's southern suburbs, centered on Clayton County), which is represented by David Scott:

Georgia Congressman David Scott (D-GA) has expent $52,000 to $344,000 to himself, friends, family and business from campaigns every election cycle since 2002. Shortly after the 2006 election, he was served with an IRS tax lien for over $153,000.

Sounds like kind of penny-ante stuff, but it's at least a starting point. And he's to the right of his district (currently about D+12): he's a member of the Blue Dogs (one of only two African-Americans), and has a Progressive Punch score in the high 70s, much lower than Wynn who was in the mid-80s.

[ Parent ]
RE: David Scott (0.00 / 0)
Then let's get him!!!!!!!!

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
SEIU (0.00 / 0)
I think they were a huge difference in the race.  500,000 of independent money was a huge boost to the campaign.

The other factor is that Donna never stopped running after her first try.  It often takes two elections to knock off an incumbent.

I don't know what it was like in Illinois, but all the energy here was with Donna.  You just didn't see Wynn volunteers.  You couldn't go long without running into a Donna canvasser.

Negatives (4.00 / 1)
Wynn had a lot of negatives. He was perceived as ineffective in constituent work, his attacks on Donna were clumsy and frankly mean-spirited; he even tried to play the race card in at least one of his TV spots. In a year when "Change" is the theme, Wynn was perceived as the establishment candidate.

That, and he was a marked man after the '06 primaries.

Social issues focus failure (0.00 / 0)
Having grown up in the Lipinski district and with my sister's family still living there, I was not at all optimistic about Pera's chances once I went to his website.

My impression was that the focus was on abortion and abortion related issues.

This is a heavily Catholic and socially conservative district. I believe that much of the criticism of Lipinski just fell flat.

That's at least one part of the equation even if other factors were important.

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.

The biggest issue that led to Pera's defeat, IMO, (4.00 / 1)
was that this was an anti-reform election.

Reformers/progressives got thumped in Cook County this time around.  

It seemed to be a rebuke to the reform municipal elections a year ago that saw 7 aldermen fall.  (a huge number in Chicago).

This year, reformers got killed.

Larry Suffredin lost in the State's Attorney race to a political newcomer (though she wasn't the preferred candidate of the machine - it actually didn't slate anyone)

Jay Paul Deratany lost to the head honcho at the Cook County Democratic Party for Board of Review.

Ed Smith lost to incumbent Gene Moore for Recorder of Deeds.

In my own state leg district/state sen district, both incumbents won handily.  Rickey Hendon is State Senate President Emil Jones' right hand man, and a big part of the reason for the problems with getting CTA funding.  He should have been kicked out, instead he took over 60% of the vote.  Annazette Collins is a poor legislator, and she thumped her challenger.

Reformers in Illinois got spanked, and Mark Pera was just another reformer who got spanked.  

I hope he runs again, but he's got to do a better job of getting the right people behind him.  He needs more south-side heavyweights backing him.  He lined up plenty of local support, but it was all north-side reformers.  Given the north side/south side dynamic and the labeling of reformers as "lakefront liberals" (a slur when used by many), he got hurt.  He needs some of the southsiders to back him.

Great Comments (4.00 / 1)
What a great bunch of comments. From all of this, I think we can learn what makes the difference.

One thing not mentioned: the Washington Post endorsement of Donna Edwards. For low-information voters, having the endorsement of a major newspaper makes the candidate seem like a reasonable choice (not a weird flake that you would later be embarrassed to have voted for). I don't know what enabled Edwards to get that endorsement, but I assume it was helpful. As far as I know from my distant perch, Pera received nothing similar.

Another race to consider in trying to figure out what works/doesn't: Robin Weirauch's run for OH-4 in December. Robin lost by the same amount she lost in 2006 (and this was her third run). The circumstances here are a bit different -- Democrat running against Republican in a special election in a very conservative district -- but some of the same problems are probably responsible: Robin is not very charismatic, she didn't get major endorsements from newspapers, she didn't campaign continuously from election to election. She did get good support from bloggers, but only in the last two weeks.  

The WaPo endorsement... (4.00 / 1)
...may have been of significant help to Donna Edwards in the Montgomery County portion of MD-04, at least according to a post/comment I saw over at (IIRC) Free State Politics.  I'm less certain of its value in Prince George's County, many of whose older* citizens, especially in the African-American community, who have been known to have mixed feelings about WaPo.

*This issue is of course quite age-dependent, since younger folks tend not to read the local newspaper.  

Keep your mind free and clear, Donna Edwards, and don't sell your soul.

[ Parent ]
A special district (4.00 / 1)
I can't speak to Pera's district, but MD-04 voters are highly educated and engaged.  Donna's increased funding and volunteers allowed her to get her message to more of these voters than in 2006.  Some blogs have mentioned low-information voters in the district breaking for Donna, but I would posit that there were very few voters in MD-04 who were unaware of the stark differences between the congressional candidates.  We can see the crushing numbers in Montgomery for Donna, which was expected.  However, it was her huge support increase in PG county that led her to victory, and a lot of resources were spent calling, visiting, and generally educating PG voters about Wynn's record and Edwards' positions.  The truth finally reached voters in PG and they voted based on the information available.
Donna Edwards versus Mark Pera | 57 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox