Getting To Know Politicians-- Probably Better Than Running Yourself

JFK comes to Kings Highway, 1960

I was 12 when I met Senator John Kennedy at Dubrow's on Kings Highway, a couple of blocks from my house on 17th Street in Brooklyn. He was campaigning for president and I wanted to figure out what I could about the guy who wanted to follow Dwight Eisenhower into the White House. A few tumultuous years later, when I was 16, I was an elevator operator, a volunteer they couldn't figure out what else to do with, at his brother's senate campaign headquarters in Manhattan. I never got to "know" either man but I did get to exchange a few words with each and thought I got a "feel" for what they might be like as national leaders. Since then, I've reached out to try to get to know candidates whenever they seem vaguely interesting. And you could too.

That's right, most of these candidates-- at least on the Democratic side of the aisle-- are dying to talk with people so, at the very least, they can practice their schtick. Now I don't mean Hilary Clinton, of course; she only talks to fellow zombies. But before a politician has been totally hollowed out and dehumanized, they are a lot more accessible that you probably imagine. I was at a house party for Stanley Chang yesterday and he mentioned in his speech that I was the first person from the mainland to reach out to him when rumors began circulating that he might run for Congress-- even before he declared he was running. I've had over a year to get to know him, to see his natural defenses relax and to actually get a real feel for who he is.

I recall, many years ago, once asking a candidate, Chris Carney a series of questions about policy and him responding with the exact answers I had been hoping for. Blue America backed him and substantially helped him defeat a Republican incumbent. He was elected to Congress and immediately joined the Blue Dogs and voted quite the opposite of every answer he gave me, including some very specific ones about particular bills. Years later, a staffer who was with him when I interviewed him, told me he was laughing and making obscene gestures into the phone during the interview, just playing me so he could get the endorsement and the cash. Eventually, Blue America spent nearly $200,000 helping to defeat him. That was painful but we learned a lot about communicating with politicians.

This morning, Gallup introduced new polling that-- at least in theory-- augurs poorly for incumbents in November. Congressional approval (16%) is the lowest for a midterm since Gallup started measuring it in 1974 (when it was 35%). The highest was in 2002 (50%) and before today's findings, the lowest was 21% in 2010, when Republicans swept the Democratic majority out of power, huge numbers of Democrats just refusing to go to the polls to support Blue Dogs, New Dems and the same kinds of corrupt conservative political hacks from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party that DCCC Chair Steve Israel has recruited for 2014. This is going to be another miserable, painful year for House Democrats. Pelosi should have known better before reappointing Israel as DCCC Chair after his disastrous 2012.

Interpreting their own findings, Gallup points out that "in years when congressional job approval is low, there tends to be greater turnover in House membership. The prior low job approval rating in a midterm election year was 21% in 2010, a year in which 15% of House incumbents seeking re-election were defeated. In 1994, when 22% approved of Congress, 10% of incumbents lost. By comparison, just 4% of incumbents lost in 2002, when Congress enjoyed a 50% approval rating. The potential vulnerability of congressional incumbents was clear last week, when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor suffered a stunning defeat in his primary election in Virginia, losing to an underfunded GOP 'outsider.'"

The political environment in which the 2014 elections are being contested promises to be difficult for congressional incumbents, as public attitudes on key indicators that predict election outcomes are comparatively worse than in prior midterm election years. The likelihood of significant improvement in any of these indicators between now and the fall is fairly low; the dominant trend for congressional approval, presidential approval, and satisfaction is that the measures become more negative by the eve of the midterm elections than they were in January of the same year.

Recently, Gallup found 50% of voters saying their own member of Congress deserves re-election, and 22% saying most members deserve re-election, both among the lowest Gallup has measured. Some members have chosen to retire from Congress rather than seek another term, and others are leaving to run for other offices, which means there will already be a significant change in membership in the next Congress regardless of what voters do in the fall. But voters may be poised to send even more incumbents home. Although every House election is based on idiosyncratic local personalities and factors, Cantor's defeat last Tuesday can serve as a pointed reminder for incumbents seeking re-election of just how vulnerable they may be this year.

My recommendation is, of course, to get to know the candidates, including the incumbents who you are being asked to vote for or to contribute to. If you're shy, listen to sources you try like, hopefully, Blue America. Howard Dean just made some good points worth pondering in an OpEd for Politico yesterday, What Democrats Can Learn From Cantor's Loss. "Cantor’s brutal comeuppance," he wrote, "yields five… important lessons for Democrats heading into November’s elections."

First, competing in every state and every district is still vital. You never know when an opportunity will arise to pull off an unexpected victory-- just ask Dave Brat. That’s one of the reasons we launched the 50-state strategy when I was chairman of the Democratic National Committee and why we continue to push for its implementation at Democracy for America. Democrats can win everywhere only when we run everywhere. That requires committing to and developing grass-roots talent in the deepest-red and darkest-blue corners of the electoral map.

Second, Americans are so fed up with Congress that even the tea party wants to kick it out. Eric Cantor was part of a leadership team that has spent four years passing legislation that would increase the wealth gap and desecrate the environment. They have stymied every presidential initiative for the sake of political posturing. House leaders have engaged in very little serious work that would benefit the American people, and voters are sick of it.

Third, organization and shoe leather can beat big money. Cantor spent more on steakhouse dinners with lobbyists than his far-right opponent spent on his entire campaign. In an upcoming election in which Republicans’ secret corporate money could dwarf Democrats’ progressive message on the airwaves, Cantor’s defeat should remind us that phone calls, door knocks and one-on-one conversations with neighbors can beat back a tidal wave of cash.

Fourth, base support wins elections-- unless it drives you outside the mainstream. Cantor’s loss has largely been attributed to his failure to retain the support of a GOP grass-roots base that opposes everything from gun-violence prevention to comprehensive immigration reform. That was bad news for Cantor, but it is even worse news for the GOP nationally. The Republican base is driving the party toward a political agenda that makes its candidates increasingly unelectable for national and statewide offices.

This dynamic stands in stark contrast to the one between Democrats and their progressive grass-roots base, which pushes the party to embrace policy ideas that enjoy broad popular support.

Lastly, and perhaps most important, Democrats need to learn from Cantor’s loss that anything can happen in 2014. Even on the morning of the election, not a single major pundit or politician thought the majority leader would lose. Cantor was considered invincible, and Republicans were expected to win big in November. But voters have minds of their own and the tea party’s right-wing base helped it usher in a truly unexpected result.

The fact is, the Democratic base is much larger than the tea party, and polling shows that most Americans stand with us on issue after issue, from expanding Social Security to raising the minimum wage to getting big money out of politics. If Democrats mobilize our base, stand up for what’s right and force a fight on vote-inspiring issues connected to combating income inequality, we can rack up wins that will stun many in Washington’s pundit class-- and elect Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in November.

I'm fair less sanguine about Democratic chances in November. Steve Israel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have already utterly destroyed them with recruitment (and anti-recruitment). But, in theory, everything Dean says is spot-on-- and hopefully the Democarts tasked with the job of picking up the pieces Israel and Wasserman Schultz leave behind, will take it all to heart when they're cleaning up the mess.