Are we Closing the Primary Door too soon in the 8th?
Noemie Maxwell, Washblog, 4/30/07

Recently, I've been talking with other Democratic activists in the 8th Congressional District who are concerned that Darcy Burner may be in the process of successfully positioning herself in the public eye as the only viable Democratic candidate to challenge Dave Reichert for US Senate in 2008.  

I am not alone in believing that a premature primary choice for this race has the potential to diminish opportunities for other candidates who may have a better chance to beat Reichert this time around.  During a conversation that I participated in last week, several Democratic activists, myself included, agreed that we would like to convey a message that we think it's advisable that the 8th Congressional District primary still be considered an open race.  

Some current media reporting assumes a Burner v Reichert re-match in 08.  For example, in this April 25, 2007 article in the Seattle Weekly, support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the environmental community, including Greenpeace, are cited without context or question.  

The idea of the inevitability of a Burner-Reichert rematch seems strong enough in Washington's progressive blogosphere that it would be understandable for regular blog readers to conclude that there is a Netroots consensus in favor of Burner.  Because public perception affects public behavior and choices, I see this growing perception as a relevant political reality that merits a response, given the assessment I share with others that we should not yet shut the door on this primary.  

In addition, as a resident of the 8th CD who was active in the 06 campaigns, I feel I have a responsibility to share information that belongs in the public realm in relation to this important race.  In this post I quote emails that were sent to me by Darcy Burner.  I consider the content of these emails to belong to the public, as they were sent by a national candidate, addressed to me in my role as a blogger, and sent without request for confidentiality.  I have not taken the additional step, which I always do before sharing emails that are sent to me, of notifying Burner of their publication because I believe the information they convey about this candidate in this important race is of critical public interest and not likely to be available to the public through other means.

Most of the concerns relating to an assumed Burner-Reichert rematch that I have discussed with others have to do with Burner's electability in relation to other potential candidates who may enter the field.  I don't yet know whether I would support Representative Ross Hunter in this race, for example.  But if he decides later this year that he is going to run (I understand that he is waiting to undergo a medical procedure before deciding), I would like the people in the 8th CD, including me, to have the opportunity to consider his candidacy.  And I think it's fair that he -- and other potential candidates -- are given a chance to make their case.

Burner lost to Reichert in 2006 by a relatively small but significant margin, 7,341 votes, in a year when many believed this was our best shot to beat Reichert.  One of the main contentions of this post is that Burner's chances are not likely to be better for the next race.  A 2-term incumbent like Reichert will be tough for anyone to beat.  But we should not support Burner before we have even thought about other candidates whose chances could be better.   Below is a summary of some of the considerations I have joined in discussing with other activists who also believe that the public interest would be served by allowing this primary race to stay competetive at this point:

• Prospects for overcoming Reichert's incumbency advantage
  Incumbents are always difficult to beat, but they are considered to be the most vulnerable during their first re-election campaign.  Nationally, re-election in Congressional races has averaged about 95%.  See, for example commentary by Jeffery Bernstein, a political scientist at Eastern Michigan University, in What High School Government Teachers Should Know about Congressional Elections.  Or see A Certain Uncertainty, from the Center for Politics and Public Affairs, June, 2005.

  A different candidate in this race will not erase the incumbency advantage.  However, a person who has won an election or who has significant political experience or other favorable attributes in relation to this race, may have more of a chance to overcome this handicap.  We should not close this door.

  I have recently looked at the results for every race in every congressional district for Washington state from 1996 - 2006. I show that data in a table that appears below. I am able to find in Washington only a few cases when a Congressional challenger tried a second time. In every second challenge to an imcumbent that I saw, including Heidi Behrens-Benedict's in the very same CD, the challenger did worse or essentially the same on subsequent runs.

• Prospects for Overcoming Funding and Volunteer Fatigue
  The Burner campaign, with Netroots help, was a stellar fundraiser.  Burner made a critical contribution by forcing the Republicans to spend very heavily on the 8th CD race.  This was a boost to other candidates around the country.  The excitement over her race increased turnout among voters who then also made other election choices that were good for the environment, for education, and for the Democratic cause in general.  In her reflections on the 06 race, Burner has stated that politics is a team sport.  She is correct in citing her achievement last year as a contribution toward turning the national tide to a Democratic majority and favorable election outcomes in Washington.    
  

  But all this does not change the Burner prospects in 08.  This race belongs in the public trust and should not be considered to belong to any one person.  

  Despite Burner's newness to politics, her campaign had an extraordinary advantage in 06 because it was the most heavily-supported campaign in our district at a time of intense public desire for a change in the balance of power in the US Congress and few other center-stage races in our district.  These conditions have changed in 08 and no longer offer such an extraordinary advantage to a political newcomer like Burner.  

  In 2008, attention and resources will flow toward a momentous presidential election and a gubernatorial race -- already underway -- that will be fiercely challenged.   Any candidate in the 8th CD, including Burner, will gain indirect benefits from the higher turnout and attention.   However, he or she will also be likely to share a smaller portion of the total pool of available funding, volunteers, and public attention.   Burner's $3 million fundraising in 06 could not get her elected.  It is likely there will be comparatively less funding -- less media attention -- and fewer volunteer feet on the ground available for Burner 08.   Although this would be true for any candidate in the race, there may be more reluctance among donors to invest in a Burner-Reichert rematch than there would be to invest in a candidate who might be perceived as more electable.  We won't know if this is the case if we close the door to this primary now.



• Public Perception
  Burner has achieved much in her professional career and she is right to be proud of it.  However, it is a light record of achievements relative to what voters expect from congressional candidates in terms of political, professional, and community service experience and accomplishments.  Burner's spotty voting record, which the Seattle Times factually misrpresented in a way I thought was shameful was, nevertheless, still spotty.  

  Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rahm Emmanuel noted at a fundraiser for Burner near the election that Burner and Reichert were at a dead heat in the polls.  This indicated to him that the public was willing to fire Reichert.  What the public hadn't decided yet, he said, and what we needed to help convince them to do, was to decide to hire Burner.   The Burner camapign, the Netroots and the grassroots worked very hard to do just this -- as did the Democratic establishment and the big funders.   Despite $3 million and a tremendous outpouring of volunteer work, however, we did not prevail.  

  Burner can't change her resume or history between now and 2008.  Before deciding that public perception on these issues can be overcome, or that this election is not important enough to buck grassroots sentiment over, the DCCC should at least do some focus group research to understand public opinion on Burner.

• Riding the Blue Wave
  The "blue wave" of 2006, in which 22 House seats switched from Republican to Democratic hands -- and none switched to Republican -- was a mandate for Democratic oversight of the Bush administration and for an end to the Iraq occupation.  Now that both chambers of the national legislature are in Democratic hands -- and now that we have a chance to elect a Democratic president, we are unlikely to see this intensity of public sentiment focused on the congressional race in the 8th in 2008.  In fact, the advantage of outsider's passion is now likely to be with the Republicans.  
  

  Burner rode the 06 blue wave right to the crest but she didn't make it over.  This is a tough reality to face, but a natural event in a political cycle.  Many of us who volunteered with for the Burner campaign are grateful to her for her strong try that accomplished so much.  This gratitude should not close our eyes to the fact, however, that little has changed to make Burner a more viable candidate this time around -- but that much has changed which could, potentially, make this race more difficult to win for a candidate with her history and attributes.   We should take this into account when considering whether we want to annoint Burner as the 08 candidate and close the door to this primary.

• Responsibility to the Larger Community
  This race belongs to the larger community, not to activists or individual candidates.  One of the valuable services that the Democratic party provides to the public is helping to encourage potential candidates to step forward.  We have more to do, I believe, in order to rise to our due diligence responsibility in this case.
• The "Gender Card" and Public Sentiment for Unity
  Burner stated numerous times during the primary that we should choose her as a candidate because her 'profile' -- including her gender -- made her more electable.  I struggled with this aspect of her candidacy, as can be seen in this January 2006 Washblog interview with Burner.  

  After the election, Burner seemed to turn her own wisdom on its head by stating that her loss was in part attributable to voter reluctance to elect Democratic women during time of war.  She wrote to Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times: "There has been a lot of talk about this year's Democratic wave, but it was clearly a wave that helped men more than women.  A reasonable hypothesis would be that the wave was related to voter feeling about the war, and that voters responded by preferring Democratic male challengers to Republican incumbents (of either gender), but did not apply that same preference to Democratic female challengers."  

  Which should we take more to heart, Burner's pre-campaign or post-campaign gender analysis?   I believe that Burner was correct in both gender assessments.  Being a woman in this race both helped and hurt her chances.   Burner's willingness, however, to look to voter bias rather than to her own choices and campaign when explaining her loss to the media will be used against her if she reaches the general election.   And, at a time when a powerful national longing for unity is becoming an influential force in elections, her emphasis on gender may be seen as divisive and counter to positive emerging trends.  I believe that Burner is going in the wrong direction on this issue.

• Relationships in the 8th CD
  Burner's campaign had flaws, as all campaigns do.   That is no slight on her dedication and talent.  It is, however, legitimate to examine those shortcomings -- and ask if it is likely that she can adequately learn from these mistakes -- both in order to run a better campaign and also in order to govern well.   I feel that some of the mistakes she made are serious enough to bring out for public discussion and that most serious flaw as a candidate and potential national leader is revealed in an exchange that she and I had recently.

  At a fundraiser for Burner during the 06 season, Burner's campaign consultant, Blair Butterworth chided Bryan Kesterson, the Chair of my legislative district, for having expected Butterworth to play by "Marquess of Queensbury rules" -- in other words, to play fair, in another race in our district.  Butterworth closed this dressing down with a comment directed at Bryan in his role as Chair of the 47th LD: "You are irrelevant."  Both Bryan and I contacted the Burner campaign about this incident.  I stopped doorbelling for the Burner campaign because it dispirited me.  If I had received an apology from Burner and Butterworth, I would have resumed doorbelling.  I did not receive a response.   At the time I assumed the message did not get through to Burner.

  But in early March of this year, Burner sent me an unsolicited personal email responding to my comments on Washblog, which were cited in this front-page Daily Kos article.   In her email to me, Burner stated that I had misrpresented the context of Butterworth "irrelevant" remark.    In this campaign that Butterworth was referring to, Burner said, the state senate campaign committee had recruited a primary candidate to run against another -- on the basis of racial and gender profiling.  That's what Butterworth was referring to, the 47th LD's involvement in supporting this racial profiling.   "Blair believed (and still believes)," Darcy wrote, "that their problem with (the candidate) was simply that she was a Native woman."  Burner went on to describe Butterworth as "the most principled person in that exchange" who "refused to give into the prejudices that pervade our society".  

  Burner and Butterworth have presented no evidence that there was racial profiling in this campaign.  The candidate Burner refers to took no part in this allegation of racism and did not benefit from it.  I don't know if she was aware of it, except perhaps for an article that appeared in Nation Magazine that charged that the Democrats in the race preferred a "white cop" to a Native American woman.  Butterworth was quoted in this Nation Magazine article.  The language, referring to the choice of a "white cop" over a Native America woman is very close to the language that he used in at least one email sent out to a broad Democratic audience.  An email that Butterworth sent to all King County Democratic Central Committee Representatives starts with the line:  "I am emailing you to see if you would help me restore some sanity to the 47th."  He goes on to say the following:

  It would clearly be odd for King County D 's in 2006 to endorse a white policeman who is a recent D and has never been active over a well-known Native American woman when the latter has been a life long D, raised more money, has an active campaign and will probably win the primary. She is campaigning hard. I'm not sure what was behind the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee going out and recruiting (candidate's name). I've heard that they weren't sure a woman and a Native woman at that could win the 47th.

  I explained in my March 11 response to Burner that contested primary races happen and people shift their support to different candidates for many reasons -- and that support for a white person over a person of color is not the same as racism.  Racism was not a factor in decisions that we made in this race, I explained, and I felt her charge was hurtful.  

  She responded with the message reproduced below, which I have not answered.  

  I did not accuse you of being a racist.

  I did accuse you of drastically misrepresenting what Blair said, what he meant, and the circumstances in which he said it.  I stand by those accusations.

  Blair did the honorable thing with respect to (name of candidate).  I have tremendous respect for him for doing it, and for standing up to the powers aligned against her, including the 47th LD.  Blair does have tremendous respect for the grassroots, which is broader than one LD organization. In light of what actually happened, I am genuinely disappointed in your deliberate misrepresentations.

  Noemie, I have viewed you up until now as a truthseeker.  While I haven't always agreed with you, I have had a great deal of respect for you.  However, I am shocked, quite frankly, that you would deliberately try to destroy the reputation of someone you disagreed with through blatant dishonesty.  It seems very out of character.

  What is the underlying issue that is so upsetting to you that you would consider this acceptable behavior?

  In a an article I posted on Washblog in February I quote Senator Russ Feingold's statement that he believes the "inside Washington crowd" -- including consultants -- has set the parameters of the debate in the Iraq conflict.  I suspect that this indeed is a central fact of our current poltical reality -- that consultants have tremendous -- and nearly invisible -- power over which candidates get to run in elections and how public policy decisions are made by those candidates once they are elected.  I would like to Reichert to be replaced with a Democratic Congressperson whom I trust to think independently of consultant advice.  I question Burner's ability to do this based on my feeling that she displayed, in her response to this issue, an uncritical confidence in Blair Butterworth's criticism of people in the state Democratic party and in her own congressional district.

• Getting Votes Outside the Seattle Area
  During the primary race, Burner came to several meetings of the 47th District Democrats to tell us that the 47th was a key district for winning the race.  The 47th, she said, had a very high proportion (she may have said the highest in the CD) of precincts where both Patty Murray and George Bush gained significant percentages of the majority.  She termed these high-gap precincts.  With this awareness on her part of the "swing" nature of the 47th, I was surprised to read the email quoted above which indicates that she sees the support of the 47th grassroots democratic organization as strategically so unimportant that she judged it acceptable for her consultant to insult its Chair and for her to insult one of its most active volunteers, me.  

  During the race, I did expect to Burner at more festivals and parades and community events in the 47th and I remarks from others that they felt this, as well.  Recently, I spoke with Jean Bouffard, a prominent attorney in the 47th, who told me that she arranged with the Burner campaign to throw a house party for her and put a great deal of time and effort into organizing it and inviting guests.  On the evening of the event, shortly before it began, she received a phone call that Burner would not be able to make the event.  These kinds of snafus can happen, but are politically "expensive" in a key district like the 47th.  Given the overall pattern of Burner's approach, I think it is legitimate to question to what degree her committment to the grassroots extends throughout the congressional district.  If she is elected as our Congresswoman, how will she feel about her constituents in the 47th then?

  Here in the 47th in 2006 we elected, for the first time, three Democrats to the state legislature.   Darcy did not ride this wave either.  According to data from the King County Canvass Project available on the Fred Morris Consulting site, she received 15,910 votes to Reichert's 18,922.  (It is interesting to note that this same source indicates that Burner lost by 7,692 to 8,207 in the 45th LD where she lives.)

Burner Makes the Case that "Second Time is the Charm"
While I was in the process of thinking this article through, I received a mailing from the Burner campaign with the theme that second-time challengers are able to build on name ID, infrastructure, and goodwill earned in the first campaign to win the second time around.  

Burner cites several factors that mke the 8th "structurally more promising in 2008", including the following:

• Voter turnout will increase substantially in the 8th in 2008, from 257,000 votes (64% turnout) cast in 2006 to a projected 340,000 votes (83%) for the 2008 presidential election year.
• These 85,000 new presidential-year voters are young (75% are under 50, 60% are 44 and younger, and 52% are age 40 and younger) and trending Democratic.

I think that the factors she cites would indeed work in her favor in 08.  But I don't think they overcome the concerns outlined above.  And I believe they would benefit any Democratic candidate and so do not constitute a persuasive argument in favor of closing this primary door.   More importantly, I take issue with her choice and characterization of data in a persuasive table included in this letter, as outlined below:

Dem. Challengers	Year Lost	$ Raised	% Vote		Year Won	$ Raised	% Vote
Brian Baird (WA-03 Note, NM: Baird was not a challenger in 1998.	1996	$0.7 mil	49%		1998	$1.7 mil	55%
Stephanie Herseth (SD)	2002	$1.5 mil	46%		2004	$4 mil	53%
Melissa Bean (IL 08)	2002	$0.3 mil	43%		2004	$4.3 mil	51%
Joe Courtney (CN)	2004	$1.2 mil	43%		2006	$2.5 mil	50%
Jerry McNerney (CA)	2004	$0.2 mil	39%		2006	$2.5 mil	53%
Joe Donnelly (IN)	2004	$0.7 mil	45%		2006	$1.6	54%
Paul Hodes (NH)	2004	$0.6 mil	38%		2006	$1.6 mil	53%
Nancy Boyda (KS)	2004	$1.1 mil	41%		2006	$0.8 mil	51%
Darcy Burner	2006	$3.1 mil	49%		2008	$	%

The table above excludes the only case in Washington within the past ten years (1996-2006) of a Democrat who ran against a Republican incumbent two or more consecutive times.  That excluded case is much more relevant than the case that Burner uses to bolster her argument. It is sited in the very district, the 8th, in which Burner is running.  And it directly contradicts Burner's central point.  This is the series of 3 campaigns that Heidi Behrens-Benedict ran against Jennifer Dunn.   Behrens-Benedict did best in her first challenge to Dunn, garnering 40%.  In her following two races, she garnered 35% and 37%, respectively, never exceeding the percentage of her first race.

The case that Burner chooses from Washington State, misstates Brian Baird's status as a candidate in the race that he won.  Baird was not a challenger in this race.   In his first, 1997, bid for this office,  Baird faced Linda Smith, an incumbent.   However,  Smith resigned after that term and, in 1998, Baird faced Don Benton.  

Another inaccuracy in this table is that Darcy Burner received 48%, not 49% of the vote in 2006.  She is apparently rounding up from 48.53%.  And this would be ok to do.  However, she did not round up Brian Baird's 1996 vote of 49.82% - which is much closer to 50% than 48.53 is to 49%.  I assume that this was inadvertent but I also think it leaves an unfortunate impression.  

It is also quite iffy to say that the 3rd district was at the time "shifting toward Democrats".   From 1960 through the present, the 3rd has been represented by Democrats in US Congress - except for Linda Smith's two-terms.   Smith was swept into office in the Republican Revolution of 1994.  

It is also worth noting, in order to understand the meaning of this data, that Burner lost in 06 by over 7,000 votes - about 2.9 percent of the total votes cast - a statistically significant number.   Baird, however, lost by only 887 votes in 1996.  This is barely over one third of one percent of the total voters in that election - quite close to the margin of statistical error for an election with that number of voters.   This fact also makes the races quite different.  

In order to understand the total data picture for the case that Burner was pulling in the Baird case to make, I looked at the results for every race in every congressional district for Washington state from 1996 - 2006.   As per the table below, I saw only a few cases when a Congressional challenger in Washington state tried a second time.   In of the cases I see, excluding Baird's because he was not running against an incumbent the second time around, the challenger did worse or the same on subsequent runs.  Perhaps someone can find errors in my data.  But it seems clear to me that, based on Washington's experience in the past decade, second-time challengers do worse, not better, in their second runs.  Here is the list of every case I saw in the table below of challengers who returned a second time in efforts to beat an incumbent:

• Lawrence (R) challenges Norm Dicks in 1998, 2000, and 2002 in the 6th CD and gets 31.63, 31.10, and 31.35, respectively, never exceeding the percentage of her first loss.
• Carol Cassady challenges McDermott in the 7th in 2002 and 2004 and gets 21% and 19%, respectively.
• Heidi Behrens-Benedict (D) challenges Jennifer Dunn (R) in the 8th   -- This is the same district in which Burner is running.  Behrens-Benedict received 40%, 35%, and 37%, respectively, in 1998, 2000, and 2002, never exceeding the percentage of her first loss.
• Cloud challenges Dicks in the 2004 and 2006 races in the 6th CD and garners 31% and 29% of the vote, respectively.

	1996		1998		2000
	D	R	D	R	D	R
1st CD	Cooper- smith	White	Inslee	White	Inslee	Mc- Donald
	46%	53%	49%	44%	54%	43%
2nd CD	Quigley	Metcalf	Camme- meyer	Met- calf	Larsen	Koster
	47%	48%	44%	55%	50%	45%
3rd CD	Baird	Smith	Baird	Benton	Baird	Matson
	49.82% Lost by 887 votes	50.18%	54%	45%	56%	40%
4th CD	Locke	Hastings	No Dem?	Hastings/ Pross	Davis	Hastings
	47%	52%	N/A?	69%/ 24%	37%	60%
5th CD	Olsen	Nether- cutt	Lyons	Nether- cutt	Keefe	Nether- cutt
	44%	55%	38%	56%	38%	57%
6th CD	Dicks	Tinsley	Dicks	Lawrence	Dicks	Lawrence
	65%	30%	68%	31.63%	64%	31.10%
7th CD	Mc- Dermott	Kleschen	Mc- Dermott	Lipmen (L)	Mc- Dermott	Szjawa (Green)
	80%	19%	88%	9%	72%	19%
8th CD	Little	Dunn	Behrens- Benedict	Dunn	Behrens- Benedict	Dunn
	34%	65%	40%	60%	35%	62%
9th CD	Smith	Tate	Smith	Taber	Smith	Vance
	50%	47%	54%	35%	65%	34%

	2002		2004		2006
	D	R	D	R	D	R
1st CD	Inslee	Marine	Inslee	East- wood	Inslee	Ishmael
	55%	41%	62%	35%	62%	37%
2nd CD	Larsen	Smith	Larsen	Sinclair	Larsen	Roul- stone
	50%	45%	63%	33%	64%	35%
3rd CD	Baird	Zarelli	Baird	Crowson	Baird	Messmore
	61%	38%	61%	38%	63%	36
4th CD	Mason	Hastings	Matheson	Hastings	Wright	Hastings
	33%	66%	37%	62%	40%	59%
5th CD	Haggin	Nether- cutt	Barbieri	McMorris	Goldmark	McMorris
	32%	62%	40%	59%	43%	56%
6th CD	Dicks	Lawrence	Dicks	Cloud	Dicks	Cloud
	64%	31.35%	68%	31%	70%	29%
7th CD	Mc- Dermott	Cassady	Mc- Dermott	Cassady	Mc- Dermott	Beren
	74%	21%	80%	19%	79%	15%
8th CD	Behrens- Benedict	Dunn	Ross	Reichert	Burner	Reichert
	37%	59%	46.7% Lost by 13,000	51.5%	48.539% Lost by 7,341	51.46%
9th CD	Smith	Casada	Smith	Lord	Smith	Cofchin
	58%	38%	63%	34%	65%	34%

Politics is a gravely serious business that shapes this world into which the innocent can't help but be born.  It's too often played as a game.  On a personal level it takes some doing to rise above gamesmanship.  I hope I have done it here, although I acknowledge that personal bias can't ever be erased.  This is the tragedy of politics -- tragedy in the classic sense -- the remorseless working of things that operates outside of our direct control. Regardless of our intentions and interpretations, reality takes its course.  And the social reality in which elections are set is unknowably more vast than any partisan analysis can account for.  For me, the central fact of this social reality is that the happiness and wellbeing of each child who is born into this world rests largely on the political decisions made by adults.  How accountable, thoughtful, and compassionate can we be in these decisions that may seem, moment-by-moment to be part of a game or to impact primarily our own lives and reputations?   By speaking up in a matter like this, I open up avenues for unintentional harm to others, reveal my own bias and flaws, and put myself on a kind of hot seat.  At the heart of my decision to post this article is my belief that, although campaigns can be -- and often are -- won through the use of a marketing approach that uncritically prioritizes short-term electoral results over the long-term political needs of the society -- this approach is not effective in the long run.  Our challenges are too great -- and our societal margin for error is ever too thin -- to keep on in our old ways.  We must find new ones.  As Kurt Vonnegut said at critical moments in Slaughterhouse Five, moments of great pain that, nevertheless, called for stepping back with some ironic detachment, "So it Goes."