So, Maureen, you would be perfectly fine to return control of the Congress to the Republicans? Is this right?

Less than 24 hours after a historic victory for the progressive movement and the Democratic Party, why is it necessary to throw sling and arrows at each other?  Why do we continue to force FALSE CHOICES between the liberals and the moderates in our party?  Why does one "side" need to blame the other in order to receive the credit each so richly deserves?

The blogosphere, the Democratic base, the candidates, the congressional leaders, and the voters (independents and Dems) ALL deserve credit for what happened.

Why would voters who cast a ballot in an open election be "low information" when your candidate loses and "inspired" or "well-informed" when your candidate won in the primary?

Chris - This is an important development.  It's good to read about it, and I hope you will continue to track what is happening at the placest closest to where voters live!  - Donnie Fowler

You may have covered this in an earlier post regarding Harold Ford, but there's a pretty common pattern with voters who face voting for a black Democrat.  From former L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley's race for governor of California in 1982 to former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk's race for US Senate in 2002, many voters will say that they support a black candidate to pollsters.  When it comes to standing behind that curtain and completing that ballot, things change.  Conventional wisdom says a candidate needs to be in the high single digits before election day to finish in a close race on election day.

Let's all hope that this race, like Doug Wilder's 1989 election to the governor's seat in Virginia, will be an exception to this phantom voter phenomenon.  Harold Ford would be a great senator, so anything we can do to increase that 3-point lead in the polls would help get him across the line.

Well, keep your eyes open as Democrats come home to support Angelides.  Things should move closer to Zogby's close number and farther from other public polls' wider margin.  

Congratulations on producing a very illuminating study of the CA-50 special election.  It is a helpful review of ...
  a. the way Republican operatives motivate the Republican base -- strongly conservative rhetoric that often turns off moderates and independents; this is right out of their '02 and '04 Rove playboook and we will see it again in '06 (flag burning, gays, terrorism, stem cells)

 b. the extraordinary anti-Bush energy in the Democratic base -- with motivation more AGAINST the Republicans than FOR our nominee

 c. the way that left-right strident rhetoric doesn't attract the middle to the polls and doesn't necessarily move them to the Dems when Independents do show up to vote

It's illuminating, though not surprising, that "culture of corruption" works in the specific but not the general.  

It's also clear that Dems have trouble attracting swing voters because they are not seen as strong leaders.  However, a desire for strong leadership does not mean that independents want lefty-liberal strong leadership.  They just want somebody who can change Bush's direction and who stands for something.  This can be liberal; it can be moderate; it can be conservative.  The poll summary suggests in some places (wishful thinking?) that it really, really must reflect what the liberal base wants.  It's not about ideology as much as it is about character and strength.  The summary does say that in its big conclusion even though some sub-conclusions suggest the opposite.

Sometimes there are not enough Democrats to win an election.  This is also a big conclusion from the poll.  That is what happened here (and what I wrote about in the Huffington Post on June 8 after the primary).  The election was decided in April's first round with an impressive, highly energized effort that left little room to grow.  Much of the national attention and the money spent was not going to (and did not) make a difference on June 6.  [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fow ler/californias-busby-bilb_b_22590.html]

Great and useful work!

The Drudge story about Dean and the DNC taking sides  is not true.  Remember that Drudge is a partisan conservative, so he looks for the negative and salacious.  I asked Donna Brazile about this the other day -- Gore2000 campaign manager, DNC member, Louisiana native, member of the Louisiana recovery commission, African-American.  Donna says absolutely not true.  Some of the blogs have also refuted the story.   DF / Palo Alto

RedDan: One more thing...  You wrote that I am taking "some potshots at the same groups and people who made sure that your bid for DNC chair got sunk like the Lusitania, and who did so in favor of OUR choice, Dean, who seems to be having some great impact in both shifting the party toward a more populist-liberal stance, AND shifting the center of power and activism away from DC and out into the State chapters."

Truth is, not everyone who leads MyDD supported Governor Dean for DNC Chair.  The Governor deserves our support and applause for what he is accomplishing as Chair.  I have said so many, many times over the last year.  After all, he and I were calling for almost exactly the same changes to be made during the DNC race, starting with relying on those who have done most of their politics outside DC, to move the Party forward.

Matt Stoller: I'd love to catch up with you by phone.  Would you email me at FowlerLink@gmail.com and even consider leaving your phone number?  DF

RedDan: You make some good points for the case that Lieberman is a conservative Democrat.  On some issues, including his position on the war, I cannot argue.  (And, on the war, the Senator's argument for backing the president is simply wrong.)  

You also, though, make the point I was advocating with your own description of McCain and Lieberman.  When a fellow Democrat doesn't follow the orthodoxy to the letter, you call him a "moralizing, backstabbing democrat."  And you're willing to write this despite my point that Senator Lieberman supports the Democratic agenda at the vast majority of turns.  Yet you speak almost glowingly of a Republican "maverick" (you do say "supposed" maverick) who votes and advocates a decidedly conservative agenda almost every chance he gets.  

So why spend time lauding McCain for the few times he stands up on the correct side of the issue and attacking Lieberman who only disagrees with us a few times?

I do not buy the labels "conservative" Democrat or "liberal" Democrat because there are few enough Democrats these days to have the luxury of making that choice.  Besides, if you sat 100 Democrats in a room -- from San Francisco to South Carolina -- they would agree with each other 80% of the time.  

Why create the circular firing squad when our energies can be better spent trying to regain even a tiny bit of power in Washington?

Absolutely, positively wonderful!  

Dean was saying the right thing when he ran for DNC Chair and he's delivering on those promises to this day.

Donnie Fowler

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/5/153738/4426