| With one of us being a resident of the fifth district and having to be represented by the odious Scott Garrett, we had hopes that this may be the year that he would be sent home for good. However, even with polls indicating that the race was closing and closing fast over the last few weeks, as well as a pretty unfavorable view of the incumbent Garrett, major endorsements for challenger Dennis Shulman (a candidate with one of the best backgrounds, personalities and personal stories of this entire cycle) and events with prominent and popular Democratic Congressmen and Senators, three debates where Garrett looked the damn fool and a final week influx of $85,000 by the DCCC, the final results ended up being closer to 2004 than continuing to close the gap that 2006 challenger Paul Aronsohn was able to cut to near single digits.
And with this, we started to wonder how a race that, by many accounts, was potentially a tossup, ended up a 14% rout.
While trying to analyze the results, the campaigns that both Shulman and Garrett ran - including the late-in-the-game influx of disgraceful ads paid for by the NRCC and the results of past races, we came up with more questions than answers. The biggest and first question is whether this district is even remotely winnable by a Democrat. We say this not as fatalists, but as people who have realized the value that building up a sustainable infrastructure can bring, as people who know how very different each county is within the district and as people who can sense some very basic flaws in what little infrastructure has been built up in the district. On a more fundamental level, we wonder if the Fifth has earned the respect to receive an earlier endorsement as a "Red to Blue" district or earlier financial support from the DCCC - both of which could have certainly helped, but the distinction and funds may have also been better served in more winnable races earlier in the cycle.
Before looking at the vote breakdown, and trying to see where things could have changed in this cycle, it is fairly evident that the district will be extremely tough to win in one cycle - especially if we don't start to build up critical infrastructure now. In Bergen County, the BCDO is a mess, to say the least, with Ferriero in, shall we say, "hot water," and no indication as to if or when he will step down from his Chairmanship. With this matter still in limbo, it would be very difficult for a Democrat to run on a "clean government" platform and be taken seriously enough to flip a 53/47 deficit to a 52/48 win in the county. It isn't an accident that there was such a disappointment that even the top Democratic Freeholders saw a near 20% dropoff in her votes from Obama, as noted today in the Bergen Record. |
| Another thing to note is how some of the more politically active grassroots have acted in the district. In the last 2 cycles, Camille Abate ran and lost badly in the primary. In 2006, she and her supporters were bordering on hostile towards the Aronsohn campaign and the lack of a unified grassroots effort no doubt cost Aronsohn some votes (although not likely enough, even in an off cycle where less votes could have a bigger impact). In 2008, Abate's supporters acted more in the role of "purity trolls" - willing to sacrifice the seat to an extremist like Garrett at the expense of a Democrat who was not ideological enough for them. After the primary, many of Abate's supporters were nowhere to be found - except when leaving snide comments in blog posts about Shulman. This is the height of counterproductivity. If all 5th district Democrats can't agree to support the party nominee against someone like Garrett, then one wonders if those supporters are really Democratic supporters and progressives, or if they are more of a hindrance to the bigger picture and creation of true progressive infrastructure in the district.
It is also important to chip away at the very large margins that Garrett maintained in the other 3 counties - mainly Sussex and Warren - where Garrett is able to hide behind a false claim of independence and spending restraint in order to fool the residents from seeing his right wing voting record for what it is and recognizing the hypocrisy of his $40,000+ "shrub farm" tax credit. A continuous effort in these outer counties may not come close to flipping the vote to a more even split, but a 20,000 vote disadvantage in Sussex and Warren must be narrowed. This cannot be done without people on the ground calling attention to Garrett's votes and actions, as well as some level of overall organization of local progressives and grassroots activists.
Now, onto the voting patterns that show just how tough this district currently is for a Democrat to win. From 2004 - 2008, if you look at the vote breakdown by county, you will see a pretty similar pattern. Whether it is 2004 (when close to 10,000 more voters came out than this year), 2006 (when turnout was down 33% in a non-Presidential year) or 2008, or if there are 2 candidates like 2008, 3 candidates like 2006 or 5 candidates like 2004, the results by county are very close.
In fact, in each of the three elections, Garrett pulled down 61% of the vote in Warren County, was never below 64% in Sussex County, was between 56.9% and 58.1% in Passaic County and got 53.9%, 51.4% and 53.3% in Bergen County.
This makes us look at two things - how Garrett has been able to stay below the radar when even his own party officials think he is a nut, and what a Democrat must do to win against Garrett (and by extension, what Dennis possibly could have done differently to maximize the chance to beat him).
The first is easier than the second, since Shulman ran a pretty damn good campaign. He was a "netroots darling" and got plenty of exposure from the netroots community. He came onto the campaign scene with a splash - raising a lot of money early on and raising more than any of Garrett's prior challengers. He obtained high level endorsements, he beat a well-known (but possibly not quite very popular in the District) primary opponent. He had Garrett on the run - even getting three debates where he was both on the attack and explaining his positions. And he had some Garrett scandals that the campaign uncovered and publicized. The only big fault we can potentially find is that the ground game may not have been as strong as it needed to be, but that is at least just as much of a testament to the bigger issues noted above that the Shulman campaign had little control over.
There are two things that must be done in a district such as this, where any Democrat has a roughly 30,000 vote disadvantage outside of Bergen County in a Presidential election year, and close to a 20,000 disadvantage in an off-cycle year. Garrett must be defined early as an extremist with an extremist with an abysmal voting record. And a successful Democratic campaign must hit back hard against Garrett's vicious but obviously effective ads.
For a race that was supposed to be close, the final weeks saw the airwaves and mailboxes blanketed with "Dennis Shulman is an extremist who will negotiate with terrorists" and "Shulman hates the troops". And while this is patently ridiculous, we fear that the choice to not hit back with something along the lines of the following was akin to Kerry not immediately hitting hard and fast against the Swift Boaters: "Scott Garrett wants to accuse a rabbi of coddling terrorists and not supporting the troops, yet even his own party calls him a "nut". He only engages in these lies and smears because he is running from his votes against the GI Bill, the Voting Rights Act, children's healthcare for lower income families and shockingly against a ban on the viciously cruel so-called 'sport' of dogfighting. Garrett is too extreme for this district. He is too extreme even for the most right wing of republicans."
Now, we have heard Shulman give his stump speech. He mentions all of the above - frequently. But this is a low information district with an inherent Republican advantage, where a large majority of people never hear a stump speech or listen to debates. And that is especially true in the rural areas that count for roughly one-third of the votes. So it's clear that very heavy handed, yet accurate, tactics must be used - and used consistently in a way that will not only reach these voters, but close the gap in Sussex and Warren Counties by 1/3 to 1/2 of the roughly 25,000 deficits of 2008 and 2004. Here is where Garrett's votes against healthcare for children in lower income families, against middle class tax cuts and his own stimulus package proposal that consisted solely of corporate tax cuts, his votes against the GI Bill and other votes that would surely piss off residents, were they aware of them.
The message about Garrett's voting record is one that could potentially accomplish the other piece of the puzzle - flipping Bergen from a 53/47 deficit to a 53/47 win. Here is where some of Garrett's economic votes may not resonate as much as some of the others. However, there certainly is a large number of Bergen residents that don't know nearly enough about the scumbag that is representing them in Washington - certainly not how Garrett is viewed as a nut by the extremists in his own party.
So this brings us back to the first question - how does he stay below the radar? Well, to counter that, a sustained campaign that starts (or rather continues) now to define Garrett as the nut that his own party already know him to be is imperative. Letters to the editor, publicizing his votes and positions and making sure that people of this district know just what is being done in their names are just a few examples of what needs to be done over the next two years.
This is, obviously, the hard part. Without money, it is tough to do much other than shine a light on his activities and votes via editorials, LTEs and blogging. However, if Dennis is considering another run in 2010, surely there is some thought of laying the foundation to keep hitting Garrett throughout the next couple of years. If there is anyone else that may be considering a run, we would suggest that the run start sooner than later with its negative branding of Garrett as a nut and a sustained campaign that highlights each and every one of his actions.
The fifth is a very tough district for a Democrat to win. And while it may be winnable by 2012 (pending a redistricting, of course), Shulman's campaign made us think that this could have been the year. Taking away what we did from this race, in order to unseat Garrett here, a campaign - even one that looks like it is doing many things right - can't be a one-year, or even one-cycle campaign. It must start with the tearing down of Garrett in the way that he deserves to be torn down.
And it must start now for anyone to have a strong shot in 2010. |
.gif)
