Destroying The Myth: CD-Level Obama-McCain Results Show There Is No Red California

have to take some exception here, dday (8.00 / 1)

I'm as big an opponent of the bipartisan death cultists as anyone, but presidential level results are no indicator of the possibility of success for lower-level races, which even with good candidates barely register on the radar beyond name recognition.

It's true that with the adequate budget to make the race visible, any candidate can do well enough to win in any circumstance.

But with funds being what they are, it's a little disingenuous to say that "Democrat X" from a red district has any shot at the same numbers Obama got in the district.

---

by: David Atkins (thereisnospoon) @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 20:30:42 PM UTC

Except that (0.00 / 0)

we have in this case a guy who was demonized in the very ways that a California Republican would supposedly recoil from - as a socialist with scary left-wing economic ideas.  In supposedly red areas, this is supposed to be a disqualifier, and yet it was not.  National Democrats are much more often than not more unelectable than their local counterparts in these kinds of areas.

Not to mention the wide shifts toward the Democrat in this case compared to four years earlier.  This is a different map and I don't think that's contestable.

---

by: David Dayen @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 21:19:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i hope you're right, of course (8.00 / 1)

but I think the difference isn't ideology; it's visibility and name recognition.

What it does show is that a local candidate doesn't have to shy away from progressive positions: it's the money, influence and recognition that is the problem--not the ideology.

---

by: David Atkins (thereisnospoon) @ Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 00:32:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry But I Don't Buy It (0.00 / 0)

Obama's performance, which was truly a landslide in California, had ZERO effect on the Senate and Congressional races, and we only flipped three Assembly seats.  In 2006 -- another banner year for Democrats -- I think the only seat that flipped was the 11th CD.  In two landslide years, we moved 4 out of 306 seats.  The facts on the ground indicate the reverse of your hypothesis.  

It was precisely that "hopeless gerrymandering" -- engineered largely by JOHN BURTON, remind you -- and the unwillingness of the party leadership to make a realistic effort to expand the playing field, that kept the California legislature frozen in amber all decade long.  Even with the wind at our backs, we couldn't break through in either '06 or '08.  Because of that gerrymandering, we don't have 2/3 in the legislature and California's careening toward "failed state" status.

---

by: SolanoVoter @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 21:15:07 PM UTC

the facts on the ground (0.00 / 0)

fully indicate my hypothesis. Even despite the effort at gerrymandering, a Democrat won big at the top of the ticket.  The fact of Obama's nonexistent coattails is a function of people like you saying the situation in red districts is hopeless, and the party leadership generally agreeing with you and making no effort.  It's a corrupt bipartisan bargain not to challenge one another's turf.  When that is taken out of the equation, as in the Presidential race, you see that the gerrymander is not impossible to overcome - far from it.

---

by: David Dayen @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 21:26:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

gerrymandering (0.00 / 0)

  This complaint about Burton and redistricting makes no sense.  We have 63.75% of the seats in the Assembly (51 out of 80) and 62.5% in the Senate.  Obama got 61% or so of the vote.  When the redistricting was done in 2001 the desire was to ensure Democratic control throughout the decade, even if there was a very popular Republican president.

 Progressives need to remember that if Bush had been competent, we might very well have a Republican country
(tax cuts offset with spending cuts, no vanity war in Iraq,
modest regulation of financial institutions).  Most Americans just don't care about the 1/3rd of the country living in poverty/near poverty.  In that context, maintaining Democratic control of the legislature was a reasonable goal (think if the Reps every got hold of the legislature and governorship--privatization of state services, end of collective bargaining for public workers, welfare slashed to Mississippi levels).  

---

by: MarkD @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 21:27:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so we need 3 seats in the Assembly and 2 in the Senate? (0.00 / 0)

To reach 2/3rds we need 54/80 and 27/40 and we're currently at 51/80 and 25/40....

Where will those 5 seats come from??  

##########################

The Mad Professah Lectures
http://www.madprofessah.com

---

by: MadProfessah @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 21:53:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disagreed (0.00 / 0)

In the 44th, in 2006 - a banner year, you say, Calvert won reelection with around 60% of the vote. Last year, he won with only 52%. Obama only outperformed Hedrick by a little over 1% of the vote.

Yes, there were other factors, including the economy and voter registration trends in Riverside County. However, from personal, anecdotal evidence Obama's campaign helped to drive more volunteers and more voter awareness to Hedrick, particularly in Orange County. Usually we ignore our Congressional races. This year we didn't. That is a huge shift in perception.

Yes, the 44th is gerrymandered - just enough of Orange County to prevent the Riverside portion from being easily competitive, linked together by a strip of the Cleveland National Forest. But for this year, at least, it was competitive - and some of that was surely due to the Presidential race.

---

by: salamander @ Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:14:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hedrick is a rare success story (0.00 / 0)

His rise mirrored Obama's rise in the district, which he won, pretty closely.

---

by: David Dayen @ Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 16:46:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It also was not an Obama priority (0.00 / 0)

On the whole, the Obama campaign was much more focused on winning for itself than winning for Democrats generally.  Obama's general disdain for "partisanship" seems to have gone very far down in the organization.  While my local county Democratic committee can be a very serious PITA, my sympathies in disputes between the committee and the local Obama organization is with the local Democrats.  Resources weren't shared even in places where they really could have been.  Local races were not on radar for the Obama people, and on the whole, we are not seeing the kind of involvement with past Obama volunteers in local affairs the way we did four years ago with Kerry or Dean volunteers.

I heard a lot of stories from a lot of states from people who had similar or worse experiences.  Obama is not about party building.  So it should surprise no one that Obama's win in a state like California -- where GOTV was not an Obama priority -- did not translate into benefits for down ticket races.

I don't know how widespread an issue this was nationally, but I do believe it was strongly a factor here in California.

---

by: mbayrob @ Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 23:23:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is exactly how we feel in NoCal (0.00 / 0)

What made the Obama campaign work was an organization built on the belief that it really could happen. This led to floods of small donations and even more resources to expand on that organization and on and on. It's really hard to get people to commit to an organization when they think it's a lost cause and when the party ignores us it only reinforces that message. The consequences are that nobody will give any money to a campaign that doesn't have any organization. It's a vicious cycle that's leaving us hi and dry. It will take an investment by the party up here. We need to show people that there is a real presence from the party and then when people are asked to help and build an organization they really believe it can happen. It can feed on itself, but we need a kickstart.

---

by: Dan @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 22:20:09 PM UTC

Good post, but gerrymandering is still the bane of our existence ... (0.00 / 0)

Look at how many Democrats came super-close to winning in various State Assembly, State Senate and Congressional races this year.  These were all in districts drawn to be safe Republican seats; and while California has decisively become bluer, such gerrymandering proved to be the G.O.P.'s firewall.

You're right that Democrats can (and should) be competitive everywhere.  But you can't deny that the current map has made such a goal far more difficult to attain.  Republican primary voters in "red" districts still largely determine who gets to represent them in Sacramento, which gives us more Grover Norquist, anti-tax extremists.

I do disagree, however, with the notion that gerrymandering creates extremists on both sides.  While it's certainly the case on the Republican side, I haven't really seen safe blue districts giving us the most liberal legislators.  For example, Joe Canciamilla -- a viciously anti-rent control DLC Assemblyman from the East Bay -- had a safe Democratic seat.

Progressives, in my opinion, have little to lose with more competitive districts -- as long as it's not an insanely skewed redistricting proposal that artificially creates "competition."

---

by: paulhogarth @ Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 22:37:58 PM UTC

Thanks for the great post... (0.00 / 0)

and a great thread with some very good comments. I like the drive but I think you overstate the case that any district can be won.Certainly though there are those that can be won and(with 50-50 hindsight) might have been won in 2008 with more lawyers, guns and money(hedrick in the 44th case in point). But I think Obama transcended party politics in some GOP areas(48th CD for example which Obama won) where the GOP voters went right back to the Party down ticket. Young ran an aggressive campaign but I'm not sure that another $500,000 would have made a difference. And there is not a bottomless ATM out there, especially in these times. That doesn't mean waving the white flag, just a realistic assessment given scarce resources.  But if the Party doesn't aggressively go after some of these seats while the political surf is up they will miss that one or two seat opportunity to catch the victory wave. To that end you are spot on.

A look into the past gives us the mirror image. Reagan carried all but 3 counties in 1980 and 4 congressional Dems lost. Lots of talk about Republicans being able to win everywhere except a few inner city congressional seats. Trying to register Democrats in suburbia was about as difficult as it is to register Republicans nowdays along the coast. What stopped the Red Menace? Probably a number of things, but right up there in front was the modern artwork of Phil and John Burton(with a little help from the Waxman-Berman combo). That was the real firewall. We went from a 22-21 edge in 1981 to a 29-16 edge at a time when Democratic registration was tanking. It proved a firewall in the Reagan 58-41 rout in 1984(although Mondale added Marin and Santa Cruz to the San Francisco, Yolo and Alameda that Carter had won)as Dems only lost two seats in the Reagan tsunami. Things would have been much, much worse but for these Democrats.

I'm not sure that a big Obama win translates to victory anywhere but it should be a clarion call to arms in districts that may only be winnable for one or two election cycles(but if won, may re-elect an incumbant who proves popular).  

---

by: Northcountystorm @ Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:54:55 AM UTC