What is the Matrix...uh, Establishment?...

Opponents of Vietnam War at the Pentagon (wikipedia)

The answer to what the "establishment" is has never been clear, but use of the term “establishment” has escalated since it was used as a generic stand-in for the enemies of 60’s radicals.  Today, in political spheres, the term implicitly refers to the power brokers of a party or region, party elders, or special interest groups.  No candidate wants to be affiliated with the establishment or at least be described as such in public.  Still, the malleability of the term suggests that when the media or even other candidates use it to describe another candidate, greater care needs to be taken.

Today in Boston, Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor and consumer advocate who set up the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau at President Barack Obama’s request, spoke to the Greater Boston Labor Council at their annual breakfast.  Her speech was seen as further, if not explicit evidence that Warren is on the verge of joining the race officially.  There was some minor griping by Bob Massie, the one-time candidate for lieutenant governor and liberal activist, that other candidates were not given a chance to address the group.  Others like Alan Khazei, who can be defined as the candidate with the best fund raising record, welcomed Elizabeth Warren to the race, but indicated he would contrast himself her status as the favored pick of Washington and Massachusetts “establishment” Democrats, as the Boston Globe phrased.  But is that description fair?

Elizabeth Warren (Facebook)

The way that Democrats in the nominating race are likely to paint Warren in a bad light by linking her to the establishment consists of two components.  First of all, Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray rocked the boat of the implicitly non-establishment Massachusetts Democratic establishment by announcing a new candidate would emerge "in a few weeks."  It has been months.  Murray, who is tasked with holding the US Senate for the Democrats, has been accused of issuing pronouncements to the insult of the Bay State’s grassroots.  At the time, Massachusetts Democratic Party chief John Walsh was supportive of the candidate field at the time.  More recently, he has appeared to encourage Warren’s entry into the race.  Many other Democrats in Washington and in Massachusetts have followed suit.

The other component of the attack will be stirring up the argument that Martha Coakley, too, was the “establishment” candidate and that bore no fruit.  Notably, Coakely announced her intention to run at the same breakfast two years ago that Warren spoke at today.

However, the second part of the attack runs aground the facts.  Coakley, was not, actually, widely pushed by the establishment.  She received substantial backing from state and national party folks, but there was a definite split within the party.  Many Congressman who serve with Rep. Mike Capuano, including Richard Neal, supported their colleague over the popular Attorney General.  Many liberals broke from the centrist Coakley and voted for Khazei, who also ran in 2009.  The splits were deep enough that it became one of a number of secondary contributing factors to Coakely later loss to Scott Brown.

Our 100th: Warren and Peace...

Sen. Gillett (Wikipedia)

The last Senator for Massachusetts from Western Mass (the four westernmost counties if you think Worcester is Western) was Frederick Gillett.  Prior to serving one term in the US Senate, Gillett represented the 2nd Massachusetts Congressional district, the same that Richard Neal represents now.  Gillett would also serve as Speaker of the House from 1919-1925.  Like Neal, Gillett was from Springfield.

This bit of historical trivia is not directly tied to the questions among Democrats in their quest to unseat Scott Brown in 2012.  It does, however speak to some of the challenges that will face the nominee whoever, he or she is.  Western Mass went hard for Brown, save the cities, but then swung back hard for Gov. Deval Patrick last year.  It seems that while Western Mass has lagged the rest of Massachusetts in terms of growth, it often becomes the margin of victory for statewide campaigns with a possible assist from the Cape & Islands.  For the moment, Democrats' problems do include geography, but not east and west.  Rather there problems lies between here and Washington.

Sen. Murray (Wikipedia)

The Boston Globe , perhaps overplaying the discord a bit, did highlight the chasm between the national Democratic party and the State Party this past Saturday.  Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is tasked with defending the Democrats' 23 seats up in 2012 and possibly grabbing one or two from the Republicans' 10 seats up next year.  She said earlier this week that a strong challenger would be coming forward "within weeks."  The Globe reported that this has rankled the declared candidates notably Alan Khazei, a philanthropist and Bob Massie, a former Lietenant Gubernatorial candidate.  Setti Warren, Mayor of Newton, notably, had no comment.

In some ways the implications of a better candidate is insulting and could, as some in the story suggested, hurt fund-raising in the future if one of the declared candidates does become the nominee.  Some also suggested that it was wrong for the national party to dictate terms as to who should become the nominee.  

On the ground in Massachusetts, some Democrats seem to agree with Gov. Patrick's call for an organic process.  However, the reality is that the field is weak, perhaps as the New York Times noted in a misleadingly titled story, because Ted Kennedy outshone any efforts to build up a bench for Democrats in Massachusetts.

Ex. State Sen. Rossi (Seattle Weekly)

While Sen. Murray could be a bit more tactful in her language, her fear and her desire for a stronger candidate may come about due to her own experiences.  Although on the winning side, Murray witnessed what happens when candidate rise with a track record of failure and the party on the outs lacks a bench.  Dino Rossi an ex-legislator in Washington state, challenged Murray in last year's Senate election, but lost.  Rossi had earlier run for governor in 2004, lost (after an acrimonious recount) and then went for a rematch against incumbent Christine Gregoire only to lose amongst the Obama wave by a larger margin.  Why did Republicans pick him to run?  They had nobody else.  Republicans seem doomed to repeat this in 2012 against Murray's fellow Washingtonian, Senator Maria Cantwell.

While Rossi was hardly an "organic candidate," he was well-known in Washington State's Republican circles.  His candidacy may be instructive for both supporters of an organic nominees and those who want somebody with star power (it may  be a stretch to say Rossi had star power or was organic, however).  Essentially his candidacy exposed the Republicans for reaching "into the Pickle jar" to quote Rachel Maddow.  The organics should worry about an untested candidate lacking name recognition (like Setti Warren) or one with a track record of failure or no political experience...or name recognition. (like Massie, Khazei).  Remember, Brown's best non-monetary strength is name recognition.

Sen. Brown (Wikipedia)

While Scott Brown came from nowhere, his path cannot necessarily be replicated.  Brown's candidacy and term thus far, were/are an exercise in political manufacturing.  Once Coakley let her guard down, the Republican message machine led by Eric Ferhnstrom and others sensed their moment and swooped in.  A combination of out-of-state financing and well placed tropes about Brown's Everymanhood shot him from Wrenthem to Washington.  A Democratic candidate can become likewise known, but should not assume that mirroring Brown's path is possible or without its own perils.

Taking all of this in, risks and all, this leaves the field with three possibly four candidates, declared or otherwise, that can/could overcome the hurdles ahead.  Mayor Warren, Elizabeth Warren the Harvard professor struggling to set up the Consumer Finance Protection Agency against generic Republican tripe about liberty and Mike Capuano, the Congressman from Somerville Coakley defeated in 2009. Other Congressmen are possibilities, but they seem more remote than Capuano.

Surveying the Wreckage: Congress...

Nothing beats an election wave, if we want to call it that, than a tsunami of postmortems on the election itself.  And WMassP&I, never shy to mouth off, would be remiss to not join this cacophony.  The Republicans took 60+ seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.  Outside of districts where Republicans awkwardly held the seat to begin with, no pickups occurred for Democrats.  It was all defense for them and many old guard Dems fell in the onslaught in both the House and the Senate.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but the elections were bad for Democrats, very bad...catastrophic!  Or were they?

Let's start with the Senate.  Frankly, the biggest loss that Democrats had in the Senate was the loss of pickups.  By all right, New Hampshire, Ohio and maybe even Missouri or North Carolina should have been in position for a Democratic pickup.  Kentucky was always on the edge, but even when a more right-wing candidate emerged as the Republican in Rand Paul, outside of a perfect political climate, the Blue Grass state was likely out of hand.  However, in Ohio the Democrats did not field a strong enough candidate.  As things turned out, it is improbably any Democrat could have won, but the Lt. Governor Lee Fisher quickly fell out of competition against former Bush staffer Rob Portman.  New Hampshire bluing over the years has not ended, but Democratic successes there are contingent on capitalizing on a moment.  No such moment this year and that meant GOP wins for Senate and both House seats (the Democratic governor Stephen Lynch, held on).  The real tragedies may be Missouri and North Carolina, where neither of the Republican nominees were particularly popular, but absent the energy of past elections, Dems could not beat the spread.

Outside of those seats, look where Democrats lost Senate seats.  Democrats have won seats in the Dakotas on the strength of some odd luck, because otherwise those states always seemed odd fits for Democrats.  Still, until 2004, Democrats held all federal seats of both states.  In a pro-Republican year with an open Senate seat, for the GOP it was taking candy from a baby.  Moving onto Indiana, we find a state that actually went for Obama, but otherwise seems  not congruent to modern Democratic successes.  Only historic names like Bayh have been able to win statewide recently.  Finally, there's Arkansas.  The only incumbent Senator running for another term who faced a near impossible battle.  However, Blanche Lincoln had, for many Democrats, simply run out of chances.  Progressives had no use for her, which is a problem in Clinton Country, which had remained a Democratic bulwark in the South.  After a bruising primary, her opponents on the barely lifted a finger to help her later.

Senator-elect Mark Kirk R-IL

As to the seats Democrats lost, one can view those defeats as part of something bigger than just the race themselves.  In Illinois, there remained a taint of whole Blagojevich scandal.  Roland Burris' ill-gotten term made the whole race stink and made all the worse by the failure of the bank Alex Giannoulis' family owned.  The only silver lining was the Mark Kirk, the eventual victor also had a tainted, or at least embellished record.  This led Illinois voters to hold their nose one way or another.  Indeed, if you add all the votes on the left (there was a Green party candidate for Senate), the Dems may have kept the seat.  Embattle incumbent Gov. Pat Quinn, who take over after Blagojevich was booted by the legislature, won his race.  Notably, Kirk may be good for the Senate, if not Republicans' agenda as he has a far more moderate record than the GOP average these days.

Pennsylvania may be Democrats' own fault.  From the end of the summer to October, Democrat Joe Sestak, who had taken the nomination from Arlen Specter (himself a GOP to Dem convert) was behind.  Then a poll showed him even or possibly ahead.  By then, though it was too late.  A little bit more money and ground game work might have won the day (Rep. Bob Brady of Philadelphia and other in the city managed an impressive turnout there despite crimped enthusiasm).  Pat Toomey, a former head of the Club for Growth, a self-proclaimed pro-business group, won the day, but only by 2%.  Further complicating Democratic chances was an unimpressive campaign for governor.  Alleghany County (Pittsburgh) Executive Dan Onorato had been lagging behind PA Attorney General Tom Corbett for some time and they may have contributed to the Democratic loss in the Senate.

By far the most troubling loss was in Wisconsin.  Incumbent Russell Feingold, known for his independent and refreshingly honest, if progressive perspective, was taken down by a wholly unimpressive candidate.  Ron Johnson, a plastic packaging maker, financed his own campaign laden with lies (though Feingold, too embellished in his campaign) and an even more vague campaign platform than the average Republican mustered this year.  Still, there, too Feingold may have been dragged down by an unpopular outgoing Governor and an bitter gubernatorial contest that trended Republican.  Republicans made gains in moderate, but left leaning areas in the north due to dampened voter enthusiasm.

Otherwise, Democrats held the line.  Yes, six losses are really bad, but one only has to look at where Democrats kept their seats to see the silver lining.  Victories in California and Washington, though hard fought, were not all together surprising.  Murray's race was divisive though, with her relying almost exclusively on votes from Seattle's King County, though in fairness the county hold a third of the state's voters. 



Sen. Michael Bennet D-CO



Colorado was actually a surprise to many, but incumbent Michael Bennet, who never ran for office before (he was appointed in 2009 to fill out the term of Ken Salazar, now the Secretary of the Interior) beat the challenger, Ken Buck.  Buck had stumbled a bit in the later weeks, a victim, perhaps of his own honesty.  While Buck attempted to stay on the economy, Bennet focused on other issues as well, a strategy that paid off.  Republicans--like Democrats elsewhere--suffered from poor gubernatorial prospects.  Denver's mayor John Hickenlooper ran against Constitution party candidate Tom Tancredo (remembered for his support of illegal immigration vigilantism) and Republican Dan Maes.  Maes and Tancredo split the conservative vote, but Hickenlooper still secured a majority.  Bennet won by plurality.  Bennet, who worked for Hickenlooper as Chief of Staff and as head of Denver's Public Schools, made every effort to pry voters out of Denver and Boulder, the state's liberal bastions and it paid off.

In Nevada, Harry Reid held back Republican Sharron Angle, who seemed to epitomize the "WTF" tendencies of the tea party.  Angle's gaffes, bizarre views, and general absurdity (Harry Reid would call it extremeness) may have doomed her campaign from the beginning.  Her blatantly racist commercials turned off voters (and their national rebroadcasts may have hurt Republicans in CA, CO, and WA).  The highlight of her campaign may have been when she beamed into the camera at the only debate "I'm an optimist" like Ronald Reagan.  Well played pandering to fans of the Gipper, but it seems merely mentioning Reagan's name did not make Nevadans weak in the knees.  Even more absurd, was the campaign's favorite, Christine O'Donnell, who single-handedly made Delaware media capital of the United States, what with her witch-craft, Constitution expertise (we have a separation of church and state?) and gay whisper campaigns against the Republican favorite, Mike Castle.  Senator-elect Chris Coons crushed O'Donnell.

Rep. James Obertar D-MN

In the House things were far worse and expansive, but there, too silver lining for Democrats may yet be found.  Two great tragedies unfolded among Democrats' House losses.  Many longstanding Dems from Jim Oberstar of Minnesota to Ike Skelton of Missouri were ousted (losing such Dems with longevity is not a tragedy to the public, but to Democrats).  The other tragedy was the loss of Dems who were swept into power back in 2006.  There were other noteworthy additions in 2008, like Tom Parriello, who lost last Tuesday.

However, not all of the class of 2006 were lost.  Ed Perlmutter in Colorado and Chris Murphy in Connecticut held onto their states.  Some regions sustained minimal losses.  Out of 22 seats based in New England, only two were lost and both were in New Hampshire.  Only two Democratic seats were lost on the Pacific Coast.  Only one seat flipped in North Carolina, possibly confirming that state's formal transition to purple.

Having captured numerous governor's mansions and state legislatures, the GOP will have a strong hand in drawing Congressional districts.  However, that is not an absolute power and some states leave the job to bipartisan commissions.  The Supreme Court has ruled gerrymandering that depresses minority voices is unconstitutional.  All this means that the Congressional districts of the 2012 will be very different from those of today.  Reapportionment is not thought to be friendly to Democrats this year as states like Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey will lose seats while Texas could gain four.  However, some winners might help Democrats.  Washington is expected to gain a seat and Florida, being a state ever in flux, could go either way.  The redistricting, though, means that Democrats and Republicans will be scrambling to organize and bring together supporters within the new districts.



Rep. John Boehner R-OH



As of this writing, Republicans appeared prepared to draw battle lines against Obama on tax cuts.  They seem resolutely against anything less than permanent extension of tax cuts for all income brackets.  Still, John Boehner, the man that likely will be speaker, could be the most reasonable man in the room.  Thus far, the most partisan comments about the issues (health care excluded) have not come from Boehner.  Unlike a presidential administration, leadership in a house of Congress is not a strictly top-down system.  Therefore, noise from leadership is not necessarily indicative of the whole caucus' thinking.  America's first tanorexic speaker could hold the balance between becoming the next Newt and hand Obama a second term, or actively seek out accommodation with the White House for the good of the country.  While in minority, Boehner could afford to lead a party of "no" it had no political cost.  Now that his party leads a majority of only one House of the Congress, incidentally, the spending bill originating House, he has to pony up.

Boehner got misty-eyed on election night, once he knew he would be Speaker.  Although MSNBC personality Keith Olbermann noted snarkily that the Speaker-to-be would cry at the opening of a supermarket, that emotion, however corny, betrays a less craven character.  Indeed, even at his most partisan Boehner has not been quite like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who recently changed his middle name to partisan obstructionist.  Boehner, if he wishes to govern responsibly may actually need Democrats.  While the president's agenda may not have any traction, common sense issues may require Democratic votes to counter tea party pull to fiscal Scroogedom.

Pres. Barack Obama

The narrative of this election season has been a President who overreached was whipped by an angry electorate.  That story only tells the story conservative want to hear.  We will discuss Obama's issues next time, but we will simply say a drained and not enthused progressive base was simply unmotivated this time around.  Still, more was happening this election than the popular narrative suggests.

 

Voter turnout, was actually not low in all areas.  In Massachusetts it was at near records for a midterm and in Connecticut controversy erupted over unexpectedly high turnout in Bridgeport (and a lack of ballots for them).  Higher turnout may have made the difference in Nevada and Colorado.

In those two states, Democrats showed their organizing advantage by actively seeking out young people, Latinos, and women.  In Denver, Bennet supporters were trolling neighborhoods looking to prod as many voters as possible, practically "bumping clipboards" with one another.  One can view getting any one of the above named groups or geographic turnout as being key to Bennet's success.  To see how much of a difference not organizing can make, look to Pueblo, a reservoir of Latino voters, perhaps unreached and untapped.  Turnout was low there and the Democratic Congressman for that region lost.

The pattern repeated itself elsewhere.  James Oberstar could not organize his campaign apparatus until it was too late.  Better on-the-ground organization may have saved him.  Massachusetts Democrats took no chances and did that themselves (we'll explore that, too in a later posting) and it paid off.  Democrats must hang onto their system for organizing the ground, which has in recent years been better than that of Republicans.  That will be key to winning back the House and hanging onto the Senate in 2012 as many Democrats will face tough fights having been swept in on a wave in 2006.

This year was bad for Democrats, but the real losers could be the country if Republicans do not grow up and work together with the President.  Already, their calls for adult conversations have gone juvenile as they still refuse to answer reasonable questions about their plains.  If they felt he went too far to the left, they would be remiss to think their positions are already at the half-way point.  There may be hope if Boehner loves his country more than his party and moderates like Mark Kirk can still be elected.  Democrats can still have hope, too.  The President, too, can hope for a better tomorrow...if he gets up off the floor.
*All photos from wikipedia