Chris Bowers says he's "
extremely worried" in the wake of the Duckworth/Cegalis primary in IL-06 yesterday...
Nearly the full-force of the Democratic and progressive electoral apparatus "succeeded" in only helping Duckworth win 44% of the vote in the Democratic primary. This wasn't the blow out I was told it was going to be. This wasn't the blowout I imagined it would be considering the establishment support Duckworth had. It wasn't even close to a blowout. It looks like the final margin will be somewhere around 1,000-1,100 votes. IT was very close, and it was a real nailbiter.
This makes me very worried about 2006. The same people and the same organizations who supported Duckworth remain in charge of winning elections of nearly every Democrat nationwide in 2006…
Apparently assurances from the Duckworth camp that Duckworth was a lock put Bowers and some fellow bloggers off an effort to gin up some 'netroots' for Cegalis. Might their efforts have been the difference? Impossible to say. It's gotta be frustrating, though, to be had, I suppose. And make no mistake, Bowers was had.
Didn't it ever occur that the reason Duckworth's sponsors lined up such a panorama of institutional support was that they knew she would need it? Cegalis, after all, won this nomination just two years ago. In a low turnout primary (and this one apparently fell 30% or so short of modest projections), virtually every Democratic voter had likely already seen Cegalis' name on two ballots in '04, and almost certainly voted for her at least once (some doubtless thought she was already their congresscritter because they voted for her last time). That's a pretty powerful position to enter with. When you bring along a campaign organization that's stayed organized and active under the auspices of DFA, there was a hill for Duckworth to climb before she was in a position to run from the front. After all, as Bowers had
pointed out earlier, "Strong ground games in primaries and other low turnout elections work." The Cegalis campaign was almost all 'strong ground game.'
But what's Bowers really afraid of? That the "same people and same organizations" that he credits with the Duckworth win are "in charge of winning elections of nearly every Democrat…"
Well, no, they aren't.
While Labor and the D-Trip and John Kerry and Dick Durbin, yada, yada, yada all made contributions to the campaign in various ways and degrees, the only person in charge of winning elections is the candidate. The candidate can choose to run with, without or even against any or all of the above. Maybe that works, sometimes, somewhere. While some tasks can, and some must, be delegated, there is work that only the candidate can do, and the candidate who does that work - fundraising, interviews, appearances, managing the campaign manager, cultivating influential supporters - best may not be the winner, but that's the way to bet.
Tammy Duckworth should be credited with a win on the basis of a compelling personal story and a willingness to do the work (believe me, the DCCC wouldn't drop a dollar on a candidate who didn't do the work). Clearly, Chris Cegalis did a lot of work, too. Building a grassroots field operation is political work of the highest order. She didn't, though, get the fundraising job done and whatever advantage she entered with disappeared in a flood of Duckworth dollars. That didn't happen by accident. That happened because Duckworth did the work. Other candidates would do well to study her efforts and profit from her example.
There are lessons to be learned on the other side, as well. Cegalis showed that a strong ground game can keep you close. That's why the candidate with the most money doesn't win every election. Bowers is right about that one. He's a bit off the mark, though, in a couple of his
other conclusions...
Believing in a candidate is a lot more effective than either believing in an "electability profile" or working to defeat another candidate. The Cegalis true believers kicked ass.
First, I'd be willing to bet a monetary amount of money that Duckworth's victory party was chockful of people who believe wholeheartedly in their candidate and don't care a whit about 'electability profiles.' This is a Democratic primary. We can afford to credit each side with a degree of virtue.
We can't, though, walk away thinking that Cegalis supporters "kicked ass." They lost. That's important. That's the consideration that has to color every other consideration in any post-mortem analysis of the campaign. Cegalis didn't raise enough money, didn't secure enough institutional support and didn't, finally, turn out enough votes. The Cegalis campaign most certainly did not 'kick ass.'
There's another misstep in Bowers' conclusions, the one that reflects his current state of worry...
The Democratic establishment is weak. I haven't seen this much establishment support line up against someone since Dean. Considering the massive amount of fundraising, big name support, advocacy group support, free media, and direct DCCC contributions, Duckworth will finish way, way under 50%...
But Chris, all that establishment support produced a win. One insufficient to salve your conscience about giving up on Cegalis early, perhaps, but a win just the same. 43% or so in a three way primary is not an awful result if it's a winning result. That's the goal, after all. Considering that Duckworth came from politically nowhere to challenge an organized campaign for a candidate with recent ballot experience, it's a good win.
Like Chris, though, I'm a bit worried. In fact, he's the one who got me worried, with this…
Hold your heads high Cegalis supporters. The Dem establishment that tried to swing this election is going to wish they had you after Labor Day.
Whoever swung what how, we now have a Democratic nominee for IL-06. It's reputed to be a competitive seat. That's all that matters, and it's time for all hands on deck. If the Cegalis supporters haven't licked their wounds and joined the campaign by Labor Day, it's everyone's loss, maybe theirs in particular.
Being there in the fall is how you
become the 'Dem establishment.' The Party is, after all, just the people who show up...
