Left Behinds

The anti-andrewsullivan.com. Or, the Robin Hood (Maid Marian?) of bright pink Blogger blogs.

Friday, February 03, 2006

Sometimes I rhyme slow, sometimes I rhyme very, very geeky

This analysis is somewhat technical, but what it boils down to, essentially, is that in 2006, the battle for the House is contracting to seats currently held by Republicans. In other words, hapless as they may be on TV, behind the scenes Democrats have actually done a pretty decent job of recruiting and financing a broad enough slate of candidates to have a shot at retaking the chamber.

New CFI Analysis of House Candidates’ Twelve-Month Fundraising Reports


Only 20% of the Democratic Incumbents So Far Have a Financially Active Challenger, Compared to About 55% of the Republican Incumbents


"It's far too early to say how close an election nine months from now will be," said Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. "But it is not too early to say that both parties are priming their muskets for a shoot out. There may or may not be a national tide. But if one develops, enough Democrats on a district-by-district basis look as if they will have the money to put control of the chamber at issue." This makes the 2006 election potentially far different from the House elections of 2002 or 2004, when few political analysts saw this much at stake.

This is not a partisan analysis, trust me. It's the first time I've had a sniff of hope since the debacle of 2004. I don't know whether to let myself really smell it.

Tags:, ,,,


  • At 5:59 PM, Anonymous Elana said…

    What do you make of the "Fighting Dems" PAC of Iraq war vets running as Dems for Congress on an anti-war message?

    btw I love your blog

  • At 9:10 PM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    Thanks for the kind words, Elana. That's especially nice to hear because we love the DMI Blog.

    I'll let AH answer the question about the Fighting Dems PAC...

  • At 11:18 PM, Blogger Antid Oto said…

    Okay, I'll give my 2 cents: I think there could be a great effect here, but I don't think it will happen, mainly because--and here I have to take issue with your premise--I don't think the Band of Brothers Democrats are running on any kind of anti-war platform. If they were, that would be incredibly powerful, 50 veterans all running simultaneously against the same failed war. But they're not. Check out what they are actually running on. Weak beer.

    Iraq and corruption are going to be the two main reasons voters have for rejecting Republicans in 2006. Meanwhile, the top two campaign issues of the Band of Brothers (and, to a large degree, of Washington Democrats as a whole) are health insurance and expanded access to higher education. Now, the party absolutely should address those in its platform and candidates can make those signature issues. They are important. But not confronting Iraq, in particular, makes Democrats look like political pussies.

  • At 12:09 AM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    Tactically, corruption seems so easy for Republicans to spin (demonstrated by their relentless, and somewhat successful, efforts to spin the Abramoff scandal as a bipartisan issue).

    My sense of the conventional wisdom (when I say that, it means I heard it on at least two of the Sunday morning political shows;) is that most people consider a certain amount of corruption to be the name of the game in DC, and that outrage about it occurs in cycles but is never terribly stinging, because most people think all politicians are crooks anyhow.

    Iraq, however, is a different story. And I'm crossing my fingers that this new Supreme Court shows its true colors at some point in 2007. Plus there's the very real possibility that someone will be indicted because of the domestic spying scandal.

    And seniors are miiiiiighty pissed about the prescription drug plan fiasco, as they should be. I can see why Dems smell health care blood in the water.

  • At 12:25 AM, Blogger Antid Oto said…

    I can too, and I don't think they shouldn't talk about it. A lot, even. I just think that continuing to try and finagle their way out of taking a position on Iraq makes them look bad.

    It's early days yet on the Republicans' ability to spin their corruption. They may get away with it, but if members of Congress start being indicted (one already has been, one more--Ney--almost certainly will be), it will be a lot harder. Even so I doubt it will make that much difference on the national stage, but it's the kind of thing that could have a cumulative effect by altering a lot of races on the local level. Corruption campaign ads just about write themselves.

  • At 12:28 AM, Blogger Antid Oto said…

    Oh, and you should know better than to listen to the crap they say on the Sunday morning shows. Nothing is more depressing than watching a bunch of overpaid, effete Washington insiders condescendingly try to work out what "people" will think of things. I can totally see them saying "You know, I think people expect a certain amount of corruption from Washington," as if they had any idea.

  • At 1:49 PM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    Hey, I'm just saying that's the conventional wisdom. "Conventional" meaning "what self-involved beltway insiders think."

    I'm most hopeful about the domestic spying indictments. That shit could get ugly.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com