IA-03: Boswell-Fallon Post Mortem

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 20:16


In the IA-03 Democratic congressional primary, progressive Ed Fallon lost to Bush Dog Leonard Boswell by a seemingly wide margin by on Tuesday, 61%-39%. That is a margin quite similar to Mark Pera's defeat at the hands of Bush Dog Dan Lipiniski in the IL-03 primary back in February. As such, it appears that our only progressive primary victory in 2008 will be Donna Edwards's historic victory over Al Wynn back on February 12th.

While a 22% defeat is not a cause for celebration, it still provides a very useful bit of information for future progressive primary challenges. Considering that Fallon had no paid media and Boswell was endorsed by every single establishment organization except the Des Moines Register, we now know the benchmark, floor support for an Internet supported, progressive primary challenge to a conservative Democrat. As Matt wrote the day before the election:

So now, this is the rawest test of an internet fueled grassroots campaign with none of the bells and whistles of a Donna Edwards or Ned Lamont, up against everything the establishment can throw at a candidate.  It's an interesting test case of paid media - this primary will demonstrate what percentage of primary voters have moved their information and political habits away from low information broadcast channels, and towards internet and a more social form of politics.

So, now we know the answer, and it confirms the results of the Illinois 3rd primary back in February. We start a campaign like this at 39%, and need more allies and paid media in order to earn the rest.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to Ed Fallon on Open Left. While a 22% isn't great, it is 78% better than we would have done if we didn't try at all. If we don't keep trying, we will never get better. If we don't keep trying, we have no means to hold Bush Dogs accountable. Even though they were unheard of only four years ago, now with Ned Lamont, Donna Edwards, Mark Pera and Ed Fallon, progressive primary challenges to incumbent, conservative Democrats are becoming something of a regular occurrence. We are learning a lot, finding our bearings, putting many Democrats on notice, and building toward the future. This is important, because next year, when we have a large Democratic trifecta in D.C., we will have to be ready to identify and recruit many more of these primary challenges. Any and all congressional Democrats who hand Republicans any victories during our brief progressive window need to be held accountable in primaries in 2010. Our primary campaign experiences in 2006 and 2008, even the ones we lose, will be invaluable to maximizing the impact of our efforts in 2010.

Building a movement is a marathon, not a sprint. Even without paid media and allies, we are at 39%. While that is not where we need to be, it is still progress.  

Chris Bowers :: IA-03: Boswell-Fallon Post Mortem

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
IA-03: Boswell-Fallon Post Mortem | 27 comments
Also Marcy Winograd got 38% against Jane Harman in 06. (4.00 / 1)
It seems that if you have a serious, credible case on the merits that the incumbent is not representing the constituency, and you have nothing much else, that gets you 39%.

So yeah: which exactly are the "much elses" that we need to get the extra 12 points.

It's also worth noting that Jackie Speier had successfully edged out Tom Lantos, even before his illness was discovered.  That bloodless challenge was built on largely the same public case as the case against Boswell, although Lantos was more out of touch with the parochial concerns of CA-12 than Boswell was with the parochial concerns (constituent service, earmarks, etc) of IA-03.

Wasn't Speier pretty well known already? .. (4.00 / 1)
so yeah .. she had a good head start .. but over all .. Chris is right .. you don't see CfG packing it in .. and they don't have a 100% track record .. so yeah .. we lost some .. but we have to pick up the pieces .. and keep moving forward .. the Republican machine wasn't built in a day .. so everyone better keep their heads up
[ Parent ]
Speier had ran for congress before (0.00 / 0)
represented most of the district in the state senate and had just ran for Lt. Governor. She was already a very well known and popular candidate before then.

Another thing. The Club for Growth spends close to a million dollars helping canidates when they endorse. The only time any progressive primary challengers got that kind of help was Donna Edwards's race.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
California state senate (0.00 / 0)
California has 40 state senators and 53 US House members.  The only other state afaik with more US House members than state senators is Texas (31 senators, 32 House members).

Term limits also means revolving office holders are very common in California.  It is quite possible that Tom McClintock would not have been treated as well in another state when he moved 400 miles to run for the House.

The typical ratio odf state senators to US House members for large and mid sized states is 2-1.  

[ Parent ]
I know CfG ... (4.00 / 1)
spends a lot of money on each race .. but the point is .. they don't let the losses(they tried to primary Snarlin' Arlen Specter a few years ago and failed) stop them .. they keep on trucking to the next race
[ Parent ]
Bay Area bump (4.00 / 1)
Plus, here in the Bay Area, the uphill battle is slightly less formidable than in most other areas of the country. There's a lot of active grassroots organizations like DFA, not to mention environmental, GLBT, and other highly engaged groups. We also have Pacifica Radio, Air America and Nova M on a commercial station, and several independent free weeklies in print journalism.

Of course, it's still a minority of people I'm talking about. Most folks here fall into the "Low info voter" category just like everywhere else, with perhaps a discernible dialing down of the most overt variety of anti-gay/anti-minority/hardcore Bible pounding.

It most certainly is a marathon, not a sprint. And it's an effort to keep myself from getting too frustrated with  newcomers who say they're going to pack up their toys and go home because we haven't thrown Pelosi out yet, and the like.

[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure about Edwards being the only one (4.00 / 4)
Regina Thomas is running against a much more conservative and hated by local activists John Barrow.  

She is not hated by the establishment as much as Fallon and she didn't vote for Nader which probably made this a 20 point loss not a 10 point one. Barrow is also MUCH worse then Boswell and so she has more material.

The primary is on July 15th. If we in the netroots get involved and give her more help then we did give to Fallon and do it earlier I think she could win. The primary electorate will be majority minority so I think she has a fantastic chance. At the least she starts out with the 40 percent base and I think she can create a liberal-minority coalition like Obama and Donna did.

It does seem like a 20 point loss is the base though beacuse Marcy Winograd got almost the exact same result in her challenge to Jane Harman in 06. The difference I think is you have to run someone who is already well known and respected and has a established base of support. Pera and Winograd didn't have that outside of friends. Donna had already ran once and Fallon and Thomas are elected officials.

The final, biggest factor, IMO is that the SIEU spent over a million dollars electing Donna. Donna also managed to raise a million dollars for the race. Fallon, Winograd and Pera did not get close to that in outside help and didn't raise close to that amount of money.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

GA-12 (2.00 / 2)
It would help when you refer to folks like this that you specify which district they are running for. A little googling tells me Regina Thomas is challenging John Barrow for GA-12. And here is Regina Thomas' website.
[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 3)
I guess since this is such a political nerds site I assumed people would know.

It's a little more Democratic of a district then IA-03 but there is only less progressive Democrat in Congress (Jim Marshall)

She has a very impressive background

http://reginathomas4congress.c...

I think she has what it takes to win we give enough help.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Another reason she's got a shot: demographics (4.00 / 1)
Take a look at this local commentary.
[ Parent ]
Cheryl Crist in WA - 03 (4.00 / 2)
against Brian Baird. I'm just going to keep on saying this, until y'all start to listen. Cheryl is a second Lynn Woolsey. We need her, and we can get her elected. Please visit  www.cristforcongress.us

You will like what you see, so I won't try to add anything to her own words. As for Brian and WA-03 - he is very beatable. Democratic Party activists here almost universally dislike him now. Party 'regulars' are standing with him for now, but they will break. Another problem for Brian is that, after 12 years, he has pissed off enough non-activists and independents to make him vulnerable.

As to the Republicans - we'll know later today, but the rumor is that they have essentially given up on this race and are letting a Libertarian who opposes the Iraq occupation 'represent' them. I bet that the turnout for this person in the August primary will be low.

Did I mention that WA now has a "top two" primary? Political party is irrelevant in that there are no guaranteed party spots on the general election ballot. It may well end up Brian vs. Cheryl.

Cheryl is going after this thing with great energy, and people like me are doing likewise. Sure would like to see sites like OpenLeft begin to take her seriously.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

[ Parent ]
Fallon's Problems (0.00 / 0)
I don't think there is enough data to really point to 39% as the magic number; the three districts are really nothing like each other, the elections themselves were very different, and even if they were similar three is not enough data to make much of a claim.  Fallon had plenty of issues in terms of his political actions (endorsing Nader, needlessly alienating his colleagues), personal life (affair ostensibly leading to his divorce), and his credibility was very reasonably questioned due to his own business (partnership, so not technically corporation) that solicited donations, supported his campaign, paid his salary, and did not reveal any of its donors.

Fallon was a distinctly flawed candidate, but one who I still supported.  Still, someone with his liberal profile and without his baggage could have done quite a bit better in the district, where Boswell is liked but not loved any many people feel like it is about time he moved on with his life.  He likely will leave in 2010 or 2012, and we definitely need to play hard then since there are a number of conservative Democrats interested in the position.

Personally (0.00 / 0)
I hope it's super progressive and awesome mayor of Des Monies Frank Cownie. That is if he doesn't run for Senate or Mayor or something statewide like that.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
He'd be great (4.00 / 1)
There's a touch of haterade out there for Cownie too, but nothing at all like there is for Fallon.  The two biggest names that have been kind of throwing their own names around are Geri Huser and Kevin McCarthy, with Huser being a "proud conservative Democrat" and McCarthy being at best questionable (and a 2004 Lieberman endorser, which should be enough to take the race national if he has a progressive opponent).
[ Parent ]
Huser would be worse than Boswell (0.00 / 0)
McCarthy would probably be a little better. But if they both ran they might split the conservative establishment vote and let Cownie win with strong Des Monies support.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
McCarthy and Huser would both be bad (4.00 / 1)
I think it would be a very crowded primary, possibly even going to a district convention if no candidate got 35 percent.

I have heard speculation about John Norris or even former Lieutenant Governor Sally Pederson running for the seat if Boswell retired.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Doesn't Norris live in (0.00 / 0)
the 4th district?

At this point his vote for coal would make him a pretty bad candidate.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Also, 39% is wildly inaccurate (4.00 / 1)
Lipinski got 53%, Pera got 25% and there were two other candidates who seem to have been intended as spoilers.

There's probably a base of at least a third of the electorate any time a Dem isn't progressive enough, but more than that depends on the challenger. Fallon was good but had burnt too many bridges and had no money, Winograd had no money and no record to run on, whereas Edwards had money and a lot of institutional support.

Right now it's pay to play if we want to affect a primary. Changing the state party hierarchies enough that they'll smile on primary challenges is a much longer process.

Also, if we want clean election reforms, then we need to prove that stacking the deck no longer offers incumbent protection. If we're regularly able to win a couple of primaries a cycle, then incumbents become much more willing to take the money out of politics, because it turns off our leverage and because that way they aren't beholden to corporate donors, so they don't have to choose between funders and district.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Also a good point! -nt- (4.00 / 1)
-
[ Parent ]
If Fallon is a flawed candidate (0.00 / 0)
Should the goal be to wound Boswell as much as possible between now and 2010 (assuming he is re-elected)?  Even if Fallon says he wouldn't run again, an attack campaign beginning in 2009 could make him a tasty enough morsel that someone else with political ambitions might find him to be a good target.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I agree, particularly the Nader thing (0.00 / 0)
Part of the rallying cry is "he's not a loyal Democrat, he votes with the Republicans too much."  That message is a much tougher sell if the alternative voted Nader.

Also, I think the Gore endorsement hurt, a lot.  Gore's an icon and not beholden to the party in any way.  

When I saw those 2 factors---Nader vote, Gore endorsement of Boswell---I didn't think there was a chance.


Saxby Chambliss  

[ Parent ]
Andrea Miller (0.00 / 0)
in Virgnia's 4th congressional district there is a chance to replace a rubber stamp republican with a Anti-War, pro Medicare for All Democrat. This is a great opportunity to make history and shift the entire Virginia landscape to the left and set us up to take back the state legislature in 2009.

I hope every will take a glance.

Fallon could have had paid media (4.00 / 3)
but he miscalculated how much he would be able to raise. I found an article from January in which he said he would raise $600,000 for his campaign, and I think he only brought in about half that amount.

I don't know the basis for his estimate. Almost all of the major Democratic donors in Iowa stuck with Boswell, so he must have been counting on a lot of help from progressive organizations outside the state.

He hired a very large campaign staff (larger than Boswell's). In retrospect, if he hadn't spend so much on payroll in the first four months of the year, he should have been able to stretch that $300K to buy some radio and tv ads in the final month.

He did buy tv ads when he ran for governor, so I'm sure his campaign budget included money for paid media. It's not as if he planned to conduct an experiment on whether he could win with grassroots organizing alone.

I also agree with those who say he had particular liabilities, such as the divorce and the Nader factor, which other progressives would not have. Those cost him many votes. On the other hand, he had a credible resume for a Congressional candidate (14 years in the state legislature), which many progressives might not have.

With some paid media to focus attention on Boswell's many bad votes, and without the Nader issue, Fallon would have had a much better chance.

Then again, maybe only someone crazy enough to support Nader in a swing state would be crazy enough to take on an entrenched, well-funded incumbent.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

I saw 700,000 (0.00 / 0)
but yeah. I think he was expecting us in the netroots to step up and raise Donna Edwards like money for him and that maybe MoveOn or some other non DFA national group would give some help.

I think if Fallon had raised as much as Edwards he would have won. He would have at least come a lot closer. If he'd had three times as much money he could have had a sizable media buy and matched Boswell in direct mail.

Any chance he or someone else runs again in 2010 dmd?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
I don't think anyone else will run (4.00 / 1)
unless Boswell retires.

But someone who is much better connected than I am (and supported Boswell) thinks there might be one or two other Dems who would consider taking him on next cycle. A strong challenge, backed up by real fundraising, could push Boswell to retire.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
School (0.00 / 0)
While a 22% defeat is not a cause for celebration, it still provides a very useful bit of information for future progressive primary challenges.

It hurts us only if we learn nothing from it.  If it helps a progressive in the next election cycle, then it was just the cost of tuition.

Immediate dividends are not possible in politics (4.00 / 1)
It took the conservative movement that began with the Goldwater candidacy sixteen-years to get their president and  thirty-years to actually seize control of the House of Representatives and Senate (it is true the GOP gained control of the Senate in 1980, but that caucus had several moderate to liberal members that were not in good-standing with the movement conservatives.) It's ridiculous to believe that a few primary challengers are going to pop up, and just lay waste to bad incumbents.

The hardest thing to do in politics is to beat an incumbent in a primary. There is no institutional support for such challenges, and never will be, because the prevailing orthodoxy amongst any political leadership is maintenance of their own power even at the expense of substantive accomplishment. We saw this in California during the redistricting when the Democrats could have gained at least four more seats while still providing very comfortable, but not unassailable margins of victory in many Democrat-held districts. Nancy Pelosi chose incumbent protection over increasing the size of her caucus, what bigger indication of rot is there? The movement conservatives encountered the same difficulties when they set out to change the Republican Party, but they acted methodically and ruthlessly, can progressives do likewise? I wonder. Democrats, including some progressives, are too busy patting themselves on the back for being inclusive and non-comformist to perhaps ever change things. Many of the Great Society liberals of the sixties had actually started in the fifties proposing changes to the system itself, like abolition of the filibuster and the seniority system, radical ideas that they pushed relentlessly, even if it seemed quixotic, is that spirit present today?

Only repetition is going to make a profit in this enterprise. The right primaried Jacob Javits, an immensely popular, and very liberal Republican senator three times before they actually beat him, they never thought it a fool's errand, as many in the GOP leadership did. They never told themselves, hey, Javits is popular in his home state, he's good on what New Yorkers want, we're not going to bother him, no they said, Al D'Amato better represents what we're trying to accomplish nationally, and he's going to be our guy. Progressives must persist in their attempts to primary out of existence, as many bad Democrats as possible. If progressives go into this easily discouraged by defeat when defeat is going to be the most likely outcome in most of these challenges(Club For Growth, with their immense resources, loses most of their primary challenges) then change will never come, we'll have a political scene that vacillates between the reactionary Republicanism of Reagan, Bush and McCain, and the Eisenhower Republicanism of Bill Clinton.

The fact is that Congressmen like Boswell are old, fat and comfortable, the last thing they want to be doing is fighting off primary challengers every two-years. For that reason alone primary challenges, whether realistic, or not, are important. The system is so rigged that too many Congressman have no opponent at all in the general election, and certainly no opponent in the primary. A sense of entitlement prevails, laziness sets in. Even if the Boswells and Lipinskis of the world think they'll beat off a primary challenger, it's a bother many of them, especially at Boswell's age, probably do not want. Many are so arrogant that any sort of scrutiny is shocking to them. To some, like a Jane Harmon, a mere challenge is all that is necessary to wake them up, to a Al Wynn, even a close call in a previous primary challenge is not enough to alter their behavior. They will need to be removed, or bullied into retiring, both are noble pursuits in my estimation regardless of what the party flaks say. You can be sure of one thing in the Democratic Party, if it doesn't pay off immediately, somebody will claim it's a waste of time, they are the enemy.  

IA-03: Boswell-Fallon Post Mortem | 27 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