End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment

I just arrived back in Philadelphia from Rochester--I will have another post on the trip later today. On the train from the airport, I happened upon the city's free daily, The Metro. The top headline was the FBI raid on Curt Weldon. Now, I am back in my apartment, and I notice that the #2 headline nationally is the FBI raid on Curt Weldon's daughter, with 667 articles so far. I have to wonder if there is any way at all that Weldon can survive this.

Even before all of this happened, the situation looked grim for crazy / corrupt Curt. The only two independent polls on the race had both shown leads for Joe Sestak. The most recent poll, conducted by Constituent Dynamics, showed Sestak up 52-44. These numbers are entirely believable when you consider that in 2004, Weldon's opponent, Paul Scholes, came within about 17% of Weldon despite only raising $24K and campaigning for 90 days. Now, in a Democratic year, Weldon is facing Joe Sestak, who has raised $2.3M, and who also has 138% of Weldon's cash on hand.

Here is the kicker: if Sestak wins this seat, he will hold it comfortably at least until redistricting. This seat already had a strong Democratic partisan voting index, and is turning even bluer every year. Perhaps even sweeter, the news on Weldon will have major repercussions for our chances in both PA-06 and PA-08, as Republican corruption dominates local headlines in Philadelphia. If either Murphy wins this year, they will look very good to hold onto their seats for a long time to come. In fact, with this raid becoming such a large nationally story, the PA-07 could have a ripple effect in House races across the nation, as the notion of corrupt Republicans is reinforced yet again.

In 2004, local and national Democrats made very little effort to challenge Curt Weldon and, before Greenwood dropped out, very little effort to try and win the PA-08 too. In 2002, we were actually on the defensive in PA-13, but now Allyson Schwartz is completely safe. The same can happen to PA-06, PA-07, and PA-08 in future cycles. We have a strong chance for a decisive local realignment, where the Philadelphia suburbs vote Democratic up and down the ballot. Both Rendell and Casey will score huge victories in the Philly 'burbs. Recent polls from all three Republican-held congressional districts show all three Democrats ahead. Back in May, a special election for State Senate in the Philadelphia suburbs saw a Democrat win by 13% in a district with a 23% Republican registration advantage. The 2006 elections have the potential to change the nature of politics in the Philadelphia metro area for a long time to come. This will also have national implications. If the Philadelphia suburbs turn solid blue, then Pennsylvania will cease to be a swing state in national elections. If Pennsylvania becomes part of the solid Democratic electoral base, then electoral math becomes extremely complicated for Republicans in Presidential elections.

As with upstate New York, the 2006 elections can deliver a haymaker blow to Republicans in this region. The goal now is not just to take control of the House, but to start the long-term push of trapping Republicans in their extremist base, thereby causing national realignment. We won't have a chance like this again for a long time. The 2006 elections can serve as a means to stay in power for many years after 2006. When people say that you have to act like you are ten points down even when you are ahead in the polls, I say hogwash. Instead, you have to act like you know you can achieve something that will last far beyond this election, and that will change the country for a long time to come. End game in districts like PA-07 is not simply to close out the last three weeks and win, but rather to win in such a way that will send reverberations around the entire nation. If we have enough small, regional realignments as we are starting to see in upstate New York and the Philadelphia metro area, it will eventually add up to a national realignment. In addition to the two areas I am focusing on, this is already happening in places like Colorado, Ohio, Northern Virginia and the Research Triangle. This is the Emerging Democratic Majority right here, right now. Don't act like you are behind when you are winning. Instead, act like you are about to take command, and move with the urgency that comes with the extremely rare opportunity for realignment. You don't get opportunities like this every election cycle, or even every decade. We have to make this chance count.

Help turn my backyard blue for years to come.



Display:


Re: End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment (none / 0)

How do you think the PA state contests influence the national races (and vice versa)? Seems like 'throw the bums out' is riding high. What do you think this will do for turnout/GOTV?


by musicsleuth on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:25:28 PM EST

Re: Rendell SE Pa ops (3.00 / 1)

Ed Rendell has an awesome campaign and turnout machine. They will be turning out Democratic Rendell voters of course, but also suburban Republicans, who IMHO, are just the kind of voter that is fed up with the direction of the country and ripe to vote Democratic.


by phillydem on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:33:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rendell SE Pa ops (3.00 / 1)

And this is allowing more money to be spent on TV and other outreach across the state rather than GOTV.  This should help Casey and other races like PA-04.


by juls on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rendell SE Pa ops looking for GOTV drivers (none / 0)

Got an email looking for volunteers to drive canvassing vans on election day in SE Pa for GOTV.
Even though the contact was from Casey's campaign, it's being run by Rendell's campaign. So if anyone
in SE Pa is looking to do some volunteering on election day, you might want to contact Rendell's
campaign and let them know you're interested in joining their GOTV ops, but you need to act quickly
this week. Maybe I'll see you out there.
by phillydem on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 03:50:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment (none / 0)

Have to disagree with:
When people say that you have to act like you are ten points down even when you are ahead in the polls, I say hogwash. Instead, you have to act like you know you can achieve something that will last far beyond this election, and that will change the country for a long time to come.

It's not that I don't buy it - but I don't think the environment is there (yet) to lay the groundwork for this tectonic shift.

To wit -

I know he's just trying to play it (somewhat) even, but as much TDS and CR happily bash away at Republican corruption, they still play the Democratic ineptitude card.... to say nothing of every other late night talk show, newspaper columnist, and talking head on TV.

Just last weekend - talking politics with a friend who'll certainly be voting democratic, but (despite my best efforts) hasn't jumped into the whole grassroots/netroots bin, lamented about 'wishing she was voting for someone rather than against someone'.   These conversations are commonplace.

The national voice of the democratic party -- for better or worse - is still Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden... it's still the DC club.

Now... both you and I know that the new voice will be folks like Schweitzer, Tester, Sestak, Dean, Murphy(s), etc --- the candidates that have gotten all of us excited to volunteer and donate.  It'll be folks like Louise Slaughter and Tim Ryan - the sitting members that have given us reason to hope.

But the national parlor doesn't seem ready to listen.

I think the nation will welcome the shift if the second class of folks are the ones entrusted with its stewardship (once they start hearing them)... but won't if they perceive the first as its standard bearers.  

We need to get our candidates the microphone and let them start winning over the rest of America before we start talking about seismic shifts.

Right now - we have a chance to win some races that would have been acid dreams 6 months ago - talk of broad scale shifts isn't likely to help us in those districts.... and yes, yes - I understand the difference between winning a seat we can hold for decades and one that'll likely be up for grabs the very next cycle - but right now, I think we're best focused on winning votes.  We'll then have two years to focus on ideological converts, or at least, conservative ideological deserters.


by zonk on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:27:52 PM EST

Act like winner = being winners (none / 0)

When kos posted the long list of constituents Dynamics polls a few days ago, there was a link for party and unaffiliated breakdown and there was a voter intensity scale.  Despite the national generic vote breakdown and analysis, in many of these emerging races, (particularly ones without lots of netroots support) the Republicans not the Democrats had greater voter intensity.

Why was that I wondered. I looked again and it seemed that this was the case in districts that have long been considered to be Republican districts.  The Democratic voters and the potential Democratic voters in those districts, who are probably not total news junkies like us, had no idea that winning was in reach.  So they shrug and say "so? why care...why bother"

But if they felt there was a reason to care, to bother... because a win was in reach I think that that would put a fire in their belly.

People like winners. They like winning.  They'll fight for it if they think it's achievable.

Acting like winners, making that the story nationally and locally will increase Democratic turnout.  That's why I agree with Chris.


by debcoop on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment (none / 0)

Weldon's quickly sinking campaign could well let the DCCC shift money to Pat Murphy in the 8th. Of the three SE candidates, he's the only one with less COH than his opponent.


by phillydem on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:37:15 PM EST

Re: End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment (none / 0)

Not true, if the diary that was FP'ed last night was any indication. Patrick actually has almost 200K more than Fitzpatrick right now.


by PsiFighter37 on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 03:12:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment (none / 0)

Yes, Murphy has more cash-on-hand. See here.

That advantage may be somewhat illusory, though, because Fitzpatrick already reserved $500,000 worth of airtime back in June. Also, the NRCC has been chipping in bigtime against Murphy (at least it sure seemed that way watching the last Eagles game).

Bottom line: Patrick Murphy may very well be in the tightest race in all of Pennsylvania, and still needs money and volunteers to pull this one out.


Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.
by bschak on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 03:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Getting swamped on TV (none / 0)

Murphy is getting killed on TV here. The Hardball interview is running pretty often and it hurts Murphy. The RNCC ads are also running a lot. The DCCC ads are running, too, but not as often. Murphy can use all the financial help he can get and fast.


by phillydem on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 05:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Speaking of urgency (3.00 / 1)

The DNC is requesting funds they'll use as 'matching contributions' to people who haven't yet contributed.

In other words: "You've probably gotten a message from an organization saying that some anonymous, wealthy donor will match your donation. But are those donors real? And if they're able to match so many donations with a single check, why don't they just give anyway? Is it just some gimmick?
     We're going to try something different. We've built a unique tool that gives you the power to match someone's donation.
     This process is simple. First, pledge to contribute using the form below. Once you make a pledge, a Democratic donor who hasn't yet contributed this year will agree to match you. When they do, you'll receive an email with their name and a short message, and a link to fulfill your pledge."

Click the link to find out what the hell I'm talking about. Maybe that extra three grand raised for Stoller might go to matching funds?


by BingoL on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:37:48 PM EST

Screaming Rahm (none / 0)

Its unlikely but maybe now more people in the netroots will understand what Rahm was screaming about. Granted, we can't hold these seats if we don't rebuild state parties, but this cycle is a historic opportunity for Democrats. It is too late to change the DNC's resource allocation but I hope we've got enough to make the difference in these races and secure a Democratic majority.


by souvarine on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:41:39 PM EST

Re: Screaming Rahm (none / 0)

I thought this was an historic opportunityprecisely because of the DNC resource allocation (in addition, of course, to a few other reasons), no?


by BingoL on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screaming Rahm (none / 0)

No, the dispute between the DNC and the congressional committees was over spending more money on 2006 races versus the DNC investing money in the 50 state project and staying largely out of targeted 2006 races. Most of the field and media this cycle is being funded by the congressional committees.

Dean didn't want a focus on 2006 to distract from the 50 state project. In the long run this is a good goal, but it means fewer resources for 2006 races.


by souvarine on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screaming Rahm (3.00 / 1)

But doesn't all that DNC money spent on infrastructure support all our candidates, including those not previously targeted this year? And aren't many of the non-targeted candidates doing so remarkably well that they've now become targeted?

Why hasn't the DNC spending on infrastructure helped this year? Especially with second and third-tier races than are now moving up?

Seems to me that if we lose the races that were targeted months ago, the DNC has sacrificed short-term for long-term. However, if we win races that weren't targeted (as well as those targeted), then the DNC has supported short-term by supporting long-term.


by BingoL on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screaming Rahm (3.00 / 1)

The DCCC is upset because when the DNC spends money in Mississippi (for example), it isn't helping any Dems get elected to Congress.  I don't think Rahm has a problem with building infrastructure per se, his gripe is that the infrastructure should be targeted in districts with competitive races.  He ignores, of course, that the contributions received by the DNC were specifically meant to help build 50-state infrastructure, not to target competitive races.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screaming Rahm (none / 0)

If Rahm had his way, would there be dems on the ballot in TX-22, FL-16 or NY-26?


by scientician on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screaming Rahm (none / 0)

Considering that the DCCC made a major effort to fund Lampson in TX-22 early on and that they recruited Mahoney for FL-16, yes.


by souvarine on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screaming Rahm (3.00 / 1)

I would think so. The flood of candidates into the House races this year was half D-trip making sure that they covered as many competitive House seats with good candidates, and the other half the energized Democratic base from Dean presidental campaign and his later victory as DNC chairman.

I don't think Dean's 50-state strategy had much, if anything, to do with the large number of Republican House seats that have credible challengers. Dean himself and his energizing of the base, yes, that plays a part for sure. But the specific strategy that he's undertaken I don't think has had any chance to make the kind of effect that we are seeing-it's a long term commitment with a long term payoff.

That being said, I think that Rahm and Chuck's complaints against the 50-state strategy are kind of silly, too. The real issue was Dean's terrible DNC early fundraising, it dug them into a huge hole compared to the RNC and they would be outgunned by the RNC moneywise no matter what. Thankfully we got Rahm and Chuck, and they got Liddy Dole and Tom Reynolds, so we've been VERY fortunate to have the cash pairity/advantage on the campaign committes that we've had.

One of the memes if we win big in November will be for validation of Dean's strategy. That's a good thing, but I fear it will be largely incorrect. We won't see the real fruit of that investment for at least another two (more likely four) years.


by routlaw on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screaming Rahm (none / 0)

No matter what happens next month, Emanuel in particular and Schumer more quietly will say that we would have done better if Dean had played ball.  Either we lost because of Dean or we could have won even more if he'd've spent his money the "right" way.  They'll be full of crap, but too many people will listen anyways.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screaming Rahm (3.00 / 1)

Well, it depends where we win.  If the gains are just in the PA suburbs, upstate NY and Connecticut, it won't be because of Dean.

If we win in Wyoming and Idaho, however. . .


by Adam B on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 03:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screaming Rahm (none / 0)

To me, the fact that the WY and ID races are even being discussed is evidence that the strategy works.

My god, I can't wait to move back to Philly next year.  Bowers, whatever it is, count me in!


by RisingSign on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 05:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment (3.00 / 1)

Massachusetts.  I remember MA electing Republicans to the House and Senate.  It's not that long ago.  Of course, I am also aware of Massachusetts electing a Republican Speaker of the House (Joe Martin) but that is well past my time.  

It is certainly in the realm of possibility that most of the Northeast can turn into an area where Republicans can be elected mayor or Governor but have no shot at being elected to federal offices.  Currently, the Northeast enables Republican control of both the House (35 members are NE Republicans) and the Senate (7).  Republicans may be able to control the White House without the Northeast but their chances of controlling the House are extremely minimal.  Seventeen of the seats on Chris's list are in the Northeast.  This is an historic opportunity.  Just like the 1994 switch saw Republicans solidify and expand their gains in the south, it is likely that Democrats would solidify and expand their gains in the Northeast and Great Lakes states.


by David Kowalski on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:02:34 PM EST

Local Realignment (none / 0)

I wonder if there is a chance that Rove pulled his resources out of Ohio because he knows that Ken Blackwell and Diebold have already rigged the game?


by global yokel on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:15:21 PM EST

New Ad on Santorum (none / 0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=145LeBWUw 3o

Also at www.nwa.org


by Wildlife Action on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:37:41 PM EST

Re: End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment (3.00 / 1)

We should not be ignoring the impact in New York and Pennsylvania of extremely strong Governor's races.  Spitzer and Rendell each will win by landslides.  The New York GOP thought it had a Hail Mary pass with Weld, but that blew up in their faces at the GOP convention when Faso took the nod (and immediately disappeared from the scene).  The Pennsylvania GOP cleared the field for Lynn Swann, who has shown that he is not ready for prime time.

Contrast NY and Pennsylvania with Conneticut.  Jody Rell is cruising to a second term.  Shays, Simmons and Johnson are each struggling, but they have more reason for hope than Reynolds et al. in New York or Weldon et al. in Pennsylvania.


by Ephus on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:38:03 PM EST

Re: End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment (none / 0)

If only Spitzer and Rendell would hit the stump a bit more in support of Congressional candidates.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 02:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you mean . . . (3.00 / 1)

. . . like this?

Remmeber: Ed's carrying the GOTV load for all the other PA candidates.  Give him credit.


by Adam B on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 03:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean . . . (none / 0)

I know he is.  He waited quite a while to get active in public though.  Not saying that neither of them are doing anything, but it would be nice to see more.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 03:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: End Game on Weldon: Local Realignment (none / 0)

US House Members who ended up losing due to the nature of their districts
1)Jay Dickey R-AR(2000)
2)Robert Dornan R-CA(1996)
3)Buddy Darden D-GA(1994)
4)Larry LaRocco D-ID (1994)
5)Jill Long D-IN (1994)
6)Martin Lancaster D-NC (1994)
7)Bill Sarpalius D-TX(1994)
8)Peter Blute R-MA (1996)
9)Daniel Frisa R-NY (1996)

These House Members won by a double digit margin prior to their defeat.

Look for
1)Nancy Johnson R-CT
2)Clay Shaw R-FL
3)Mark Steven Kirk R-IL
4)Jim Leach R-IA
5)Anne Northup R-KY
6)Charlie Bass R-NH
7)James Walsh R-NY
8)Curt Weldon R-PA
9)Mike Fitzpatrick R-PA


by CMBurns on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 03:27:56 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.