For whatever reason, there is some sort of conventional wisdom that, in 2006, Nancy Boyda "didn't win, the district, Ryun lost the district." That quote comes from Duke University's David Rohde, and here is the Wichita Eagle's comment on Boyda's choice not to accept DCCC support:
This will make 2008 not only a retest of her grassroots campaign style and a referendum on her already controversial record, but also a test of the theory that she didn’t so much win in November as Jim Ryun lost -- because his conservative base stayed home.
The idea that the conservative base just doesn't seem to match reality. My opinion immediately after the election remains solid today. Turnout was quite high for a mid-term election, which means that, if conservatives did indeed stay home, Boyda's underfunded campaign must have done a hell of a job at getting out voters. I don't see how that works. What's more likely is that, as people were suggesting at the watch parties on election eve, Republican GOTV was getting Boyda voters to the polls.
In The Path to Power by Robert A. Caro, Caro describes how Lyndon Johnson won his first seat in Congress. Because his district was so rural, "the only way to obtain the votes Lyndon Johnson needed was the hardest way: one by one." In addition to the traditional speeches to typically sympathetic audiences, Johnson "kept going back to towns, too, visiting repeatedly not just the district's six 'big' towns … but tiny villages which most of the other candidates never visited at all. … If Johnson was to win this election, however, it would not be in towns that he won it. The votes that he needed could not be harvested in groups even as large as nine or eight. … His real campaign was waged outside the towns: in the vast empty spaces of the hills and the plains."
Johnson's own later campaigns changed the face of politics in Texas, as mass media and more money changed politics everywhere. Grassroots campaigns like Johnson's are unheard of any more, so political observers seem not to have recognized what Boyda managed to do.
If you had tried to track Boyda's campaign just by watching TV and checking Google News, you might have been surprised to learn that she was even running. But in towns up and down the district, there she was, chatting at gas stations, knocking on doors and convincing voters, one by one.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I for one will be curious about Boyda's 2008 race. My only observation on your theory is how Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents turned out in higher than average off-year numbers.
From what I heard, Kathleen Sebelius, through her own campaign and the state party, targetted the Second District with turnout efforts (which benefitted her and Boyda) aimed at Democrats (Democrats who were more inclined to be motivated because of the war and their anti-Bush sentiments).
Every exit poll I saw was that Independents who came out and voted Democrat were motivated by the war.
Finally, Republican turnout was surpressed by general disatisfaction with the war, Republican scandal and spending issues. In addition, in Kansas, a weak Republican governor candidate as well as a faltering Attorney General candidate further reduced Republican motivation to get out and vote.
So, I'd submit that Boyda's campaign and Ryun's campaign had less to do with the result than the surrounding environment. That environment will be totally different in 2008, so I return to my curiosity as to whether Boyda can run the same type of campaign and be successful this time around.
I went to see Charlie Cook at the Dole Institute last night and he was ripping her pretty good for not accepting the help the DCCC offered. He said something to the effect of, "some candidates pull off an upset by being a superb candidate and others get swept up in something beyond their control but think they did it all on their own" and that "she would be crazy not to accept help from anyone that had never been indicted."
I tend to agree with him on that point. There are certain advantages to being an incumbent, why not use them?
I think that DCCC support would be a double-edged sword. On one hand, money is money. On the other hand, being overly tied to the Democratic Party could undermine her perceived independence. That is what she seems to see as the tradeoff.
While the DCCC hasn't been indicted, I suspect that it is perceived about as badly among the voters she needs as an indicted felon would be. Hopefully that can be changed, but it hasn't happened yet.
I don't know Ben,
Here in Michigan, Nancy Skinner lost, and I really think part of the problem was that the DCCC came in and 'helped' the campaign.
Nancy's early campaign, directed at the primary, was fairly effective. Once the DCCC advice started coming in, along with the DCCC money, the campaign appeared to stall and hemorrhage money.
As an example, I was amazed when while passing out literature along a parade route during one of the local Labor Day parades, that not only did Nancy's campaign not get the literature to us volunteers in a timely manner, (We were halfway through the route when their lit showed up.) what was given to us to pass out were very expensive 8.5X11, full-color, glossy card stock lit. Considering that, in my experiance, more than 90% of compaign lit handed out at a parade immediately ends up in the trash, this was a real waste of money.
The point is, the DCCC helped Nancy, but more than in just providing funds. The funds provided also required Nancy to take advice from 'specialists' who were not part of Michigan politics, don't understand the local population, and their advice appeared to be to avoid discussing issues. It didn't work. Nancy lost.
It wasn't her campaign that was getting Dems out. It was the Party. If she thinks for a minute they weren't the biggest factor in her win, then she's got another thing coming to her.
My guess is she'll count on them to do it again...while running around talking about being independent.