Bluewashed Gerry Connolly Defeats Leslie Byrne

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 21:01


In Virginia's eleventh district, Gerry Connolly is winning by 18 points with 48% reporting over war opponent Leslie Byrne.  The final results aren't in and are delayed by spectacular weather (Aravosis has amazing pictures of the lightning here).

I'm waiting for Maine's first district to report to see how conservative Adam Cote does in his contest against Chellie Pingree and Ethan Strimling. John Nichols has coined the term 'Bluewashing' to describe corporate interests playing in Democratic primaries to move the party to the right.  I'm not ready to draw any conclusions about larger trends, but here are some observations.

  • In three special elections this year, three conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats have been elected, padding the conservative working majority in the Congress.
  • There is substantial funding from corporate PACs for nearly every Blue Dog Democrat and frontline freshmen.  While internet contributions provide some counterweight, it is far less reliable a stream of capital.
  • There have been no significant Senate primaries from the left, and one from the right in the form of Rob Andrews in New Jersey.
  • There were two significant House challenges from the left (Al Wynn, Leonard Boswell), and two significant challenge from the right (Dennis Kucinich, Steve Cohen).
  • Progressives have won one House seat over Democratic incumbent, in Maryland 4th, conservative Democrats have not won any House seats over progressive incumbents (Cohen-Tinker is ongoing).
  • Matt Stoller :: Bluewashed Gerry Connolly Defeats Leslie Byrne

    I have not analyzed open seat primary results yet, but I would not be surprised to see a mixed record across the board, which, in a progressive window environment, is a missed opportunity.  It shouldn't though be surprising.  After all, while progressives have limited institutional support, here's what the conservatives have to help them.

    Today State Sen. Parker Griffith got the endorsement of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative Democrat congressmen co-founded by the man Griffith hopes to replace.

    In a conference call, U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer - the former district attorney from Huntsville who is retiring after serving nine terms in Congress - said Griffith had to undergo a "dynamic, selective" interview process to win the endorsement...

    U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who co-chairs the Blue Dog Coalition, said that as an endorsee, Griffith will get the maximum contribution allowed by federal law - $5,000 - plus can likely expect donations from Blue Dogs "who don't find themselves in tough races."

    Cramer isn't saying what he'll do, but he'll likely become a lobbyist, which only reinforces the cycle of corporate PAC money and bad decision-making.

    As progressives, we have to figure out a way to break this cycle.  Obama has shown tremendous leadership by refusing lobbyist cash, and both he and Clinton have trained millions to contribute and get involved.  

    It's going to take two to three more years before the base will turn fervently ideological, and we're having successes on the way.  More soon.


    Tags: , , , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email
    Confused (0.00 / 0)
    In three special elections this year, three conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats have been elected, padding the conservative working majority in the Congress.

    How does replacing a conservative Republican with a Blue Dog pad the conservative working majority?  It would seem that such a majority would be the same size as otherwise.

    And do you really think that a more Liberal Democrat could have won in Louisiana or Mississippi?


    working majority, or a majority hardly working? (0.00 / 0)
    Well, if the conservative middle grows, and the new members are in the majority party, they will have more access, get bills thru committees, etc.

    To stete the obvious - corporate america, in particular the folks who donate the big bucks to campaigns, have seen the writing on the wall, and realize that the Republicans are going to be out of power for a very long time.  So, they are betting their money on the winning horse, which is why you see so few of Bush's donor's supporting McCain on the national level (and either waiting it out or spending money on local races, or in many cases supporting Hillary or Obama or both), and the conservative dems winning so many red seats.  I don't have to drive home the point that the two parties are getting money from the same places, 'cause that should be obvious by now.


    [ Parent ]
    Whatever your verb of choice (0.00 / 0)
    There is a lesson to be learned from the movement conservatives of the sixties and seventies, and it's completely lost on those who wish to maximize the Democratic majority at whatever cost to the general ideological disposition of that majority, and the lesson is--progressives can win in Louisiana and Alabama and Mississippi in the same way that reactionaries have been able to win in Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and New York. The caveat is that you must be willing to lose before you can expect to win. It's forgotten that the Goldwater movement, as lauded as they are for building a Dixiecrat party into a national movement, lost, and lost big, when they were building their conservative base. The leaders of the Goldwater movement made it clear they were about electing conservatives, not Republicans. Does anyone see that attitude among Democrats, or even among mainline progressive organizations? I don't. And without it, there will be no tectonic movement in ideology. I'm willing to bet that an Obama presidency with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress will deliver results not that different from those delivered by Congress during the four-years of Carter and first two under Clinton.  

    [ Parent ]
    One might further add... (4.00 / 1)
    that Andrews' challenge was only coincidentally ideological.  It was much more a regional challenge (South Jersey rising up against North Jersey) and an expression of Andrews' personal ambition.  

    You are creating patterns where none really exist.


    also (0.00 / 0)
    While one could object to Andrews's actual record, he did not run as a centrist.  He was the one talking about health care for all, for example.  


    New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

    [ Parent ]
    sure (4.00 / 1)
    He ran as a progressive.  So did Gerry Connolly.  So did Joe Lieberman.

    His record was not progressive.


    [ Parent ]
    Connolly is a progressive (4.00 / 1)
    Connolly stood up to the anti-immigrant hysteria of last year. He is the first Fairfax politician to put smart growth policies into effect. He has taken the lead in preserving and now increasing affordable housing. There is a reason local Democrats overwhelmingly supported him. The progressive candidate won.

    [ Parent ]
    He's Also Better on Transit (4.00 / 1)
    Greater Greater Washington (one of the best local blogs out there) wrote a great post on Connolly's stance on public transit.

    http://greatergreaterwashingto...

    Anyone who cares about the environment, social justice, and economic equality should take a hard look at a candidate's stance on infrastructure.  It's hard to fake real progressive vision on this stuff, and it looks like Connolly has got it.

    This progressive isn't disappointed by the results.

    http://twitter.com/DrewCourt


    [ Parent ]
    sure (0.00 / 0)
    I didn't actually claim that conservatives boosted Andrews, only laid out that his challenge was a oonservative threat to a Democratic incumbent within the party.  That's an ideological statement, even if it came from a regional basis.  And, um, there's a reason South Jersey does not have the most progressive candidates and that North Jersey does.

    [ Parent ]
    well, I don't think it's demographics (4.00 / 1)
    Because of Camden, that's about a 20% black district with socially progressive suburbs.  It could easily handle someone more progressive than Andrews.

    Is the Tennessee race being battled on ideological grounds, or just as a racial power play?


    [ Parent ]
    The problem .. (0.00 / 0)
    is getting George Norcross' approval ...  the machine bosses in South Jersey want someone beholden to them

    [ Parent ]
    Not so fast (0.00 / 0)
    Andrews challenge was not primarily geographical in the slightest.  It was about Rob Andrews and his personal ambition.  The loser, Andrews, pitched his case as 1) generational change and 2) geographical (very much in that order).  The winner, Frank Lautenberg, made the election very much about ideology tieing Andrews very firmly to his support of Bush and Bush's war.  I must have gotten 2 or 3 ideological based e-mails from Lautenberg per week for several months. I live in Jersey.  OK, Noth Jersey, but this was an ideological victory for the left and one huge one.  

    Andrews has by far the worst voting record of any NJ Democrat in the House (check the lifetime Progressive Punch scores).  I hope fervently that Andrews $2 million bank account is spent so we don't have to deal with him for another 10 years at least.


    [ Parent ]
    don't worry about that (0.00 / 0)
    Given how badly he did, he scares no one on a statewide level now.

    [ Parent ]
    The VA-11 Race Was Never Nationalized (0.00 / 0)
    The VA-11 race is a case of "All Politics is Local" -- Connolly came into it as a very, very successful local politician in Fairfax County.  In order for Byrne to win, there had to be a nationalization of the race.  It never happened.  The final nail in Byrne's cofin was the Washington Post endorsement.  The voters decided this one on roads, traffic & federal pork, not war, peace or any national issue.  

    Candidates matter (0.00 / 0)
    Byrne is just a poor candidate.  People just don't like her on a personal level and she doesn't inspire anyone.  She loses almost every time she runs.  

    Bullshit (0.00 / 1)
    Stick to Maryland.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'll comment anywhere I have knowledge (0.00 / 0)
    and I've done plenty of political activism in Virginia. Leslie Byrne is an awful candidate who keeps losing elections.  It may be hard to accept those facts, but facts they are.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, Ron's right. (0.00 / 0)
    You don't know what you're talking about. Byrne has competed in seven strongly contested elections, and she's won three. That record does not equate to "loses almost every time she runs." Please inform yourself before commenting next time.  

    [ Parent ]
    she won a couple of legislative races (4.00 / 1)
    but has lost each time she tries to stop up to the big leagues.  We would not have had Tom Davis at all if she wasn't such a poor candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Bullshit (4.00 / 1)
    She was a Congresswoman from 1993-1995, winning in 1992 and defeated in 1994 by Tom Davis in the Republican Revolution. So, your first point is automatically wrong again. Why did she lose in 1994? Because she is a politician of conviction -- she voted AGAINST NAFTA, and for the tax raises that balanced the budget. Looking back, those were the correct votes -- but when the race became nationalized in 1994 during Clinton's lowest popularity, she was ousted. She lost because she decided to do what was right, and to hell with the consequences.

    She won a very competitive Democratic primary for Lieutenant Governor in Virginia in 2005, and then lost statewide by 0.07% while carrying the 11th District handily. She lost yesterday by a wide margin to a popular establishment candidate.

    Your original comments were and are bullshit. Leslie is a popular politician of conviction, a progressive in the Paul Wellstone tradition. Sometimes, politicians of conviction lose, because they don't try to be all things to all people like conventional pols like Gerry Connolly.

    Stick to Maryland.


    [ Parent ]
    Edwards vs Wynn may not be indicative (0.00 / 0)
    Not to rain on people's parade, but as I commented at the time, Edwards win over Wynn may have had a lot to do with federal worker demographic.  Remember Connie Morrela in 2002.

    Why would federal workers... (0.00 / 0)
    ...necessarily favor Edwards over Wynn?  Did Wynn do something "bad" to them (besides his many bad votes against all workers)?  I'm just curious about your reasoning here.  

    [ Parent ]
    Federall workers better informed, and they believe in their mission (0.00 / 0)
    Working for the federal govt, it's plausible to believe they are politically better informed (I do not have data on this).

    I'll bet a very large proportion of them believe in the mission of government, and detest the pervasiveness of patronage.

    It would be interesting to get data on this.  My point of reference is the turfing out of Connie Morela in a year that was otherwise a debacle for Democrats.


    [ Parent ]
    Gender election and more (4.00 / 1)
    Last night, Democrats filled 1 open Democratic seat and provided opponents for 12 GOPers.  Some quick rersearch shows that this was a phenomenal night for Democratic women even allowing for Leslie Byrne.  We wound up filling those 13 positions with 7 men and 6 women.  Currently only one of the 20 House members from these 4 states, Republican Thelma Drake of Virginia, is a woman. Chellie Pingree, for one, is a strong favorite to pick up one of those 13 seats.

    My back of the envelope calculations show that to date:

    Filing deadlines have passed on 375 of 435 House seats (86.2%).  This includes 193 (of 236) seats held by Democrats (81.8%) and 182 of 199 seats held by Republicans (91.5%).  Nearly half of the seats where the filing deadline is till open are in New York state (29 out of 60 and it will be 29 out of 58 on Friday when New Hampshire's deadline is reached.

    Primary dates have expired on over half of all House seats.  The figures are 249 of 435 seats verall (57.2%).  This includes 118 of 199 GOP held seats (59.3%) and 131 of 236 Democratic seats (55.5%).  Eleven states, including New Yorkm hold September primaries.


    Cohen/Tinker (0.00 / 0)
    The worst thing that could happen in the Memphis-area race where true progressive Steve Cohen is being challenged from the right by Tinker.

    This race continues to be a referendum on the Ford family, who ran politics around here for years, and are now, slowly but surely, seeing their power slip away.  And that's how people like it.

    I frankly think as long as Cohen focuses on transparency, crime, jobs and other local issues, he will do just fine.  The last thing he needs is to be saddled with is the perception that he went to Washington in 2006 and became one of "them" and no longer one of "us," and is now bringing "them" back from DC to help him fight his battles.

    Support Steve Cohen with your dollars, and leave the war and immigration and other national issues out of it.


    USER MENU

    Open Left Campaigns

    SEARCH

       

    Advanced Search

    QUICK HITS
    STATE BLOGS
    Powered by: SoapBlox