| Much space on the Guru's blog has been dedicated to tracking the recruitment efforts, fundraising, and other activities of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, so I figured that it might offer valuable insight to simply go to the source. To that end, the DSCC's Executive Director, J.B. Poersch, was kind enough to agree to this exclusive, on-the-record interview with the Guru and to share his thoughts on a wide range of topics, from the candidate recruitment process, to the outlook in so-called red states, to the Kentucky Democratic Senate primary, to expectations for 2008 and the possibility of the filibuster-proof 60-seat Democratic majority, as he waxes philosophical Bill Belichick-style. Below is the transcript of our conversation.
SENATE GURU: J.B., if you could begin by giving our readers who might not be very familiar with the DSCC an overview of what the DSCC does and a sense of its relationships with state Democratic Parties and Democratic Senate candidates around the country.
J.B. POERSCH: Sure, an overview of what the DSCC does. I haven't been asked that question in a while. We are a clearinghouse for Democratic Senate races all over the country. Our aim is to help both incumbents and challengers have strong campaigns. We try and help wth the structure of the campaigns. We encourage the best candidates we can find to run. We raise money and do our best to get resources in to candidates. The goal here is to pick up more seats. We're not going to have real change unless we're able to add to the majority that exists in the Senate. The majority's important but we're going to need greater numbers to have greater success.
SG: You mentioned finding the best candidates out there. It seems like some candidates for Senate, like Missouri's Claire McCaskill in the last cycle, and New Mexico's Tom Udall and New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen this cycle, are reluctant to run at first, even flat-out rejecting entreaties to run, only to eventually come around and mount strong and potentially victorious campaigns. Can you offer us a little insight into the process of recruiting candidates and persuading potential candidates to run, especially those who may be reluctant at first?
JBP: I think the neat thing about recruiting is that we're one Party to it. This isn't something that we get done on our own. We get great candidates when activists at the state and local level, as well as folks here at the DSCC, and sometimes that includes the Senators themselves, pick up the phone and say, "We care about the Senate and we need the very best and we need you to run." I think, in all of those cases, certainly folks like Udall - both Udalls - and Jeanne Shaheen heard from not only activists, but the netroots played roles in much of the recruiting last cycle and this cycle. And, frankly, if we're not all doing it, then we're not going to have the same level of success. Some parts worked out well. We have a very good cadre of candidates running this cycle.
[Much more below the fold.] |
SG: Along those lines, I would imagine that it would be difficult to persuade a potential candidate to run in a fairly red state. But then, this time around, we see Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich step forward in Alaska, and former Governor Ronnie Musgrove jump into the special election in Mississippi, and former Congressmen Larry LaRocco and Jim Slattery step forward in Idaho and Kansas, respectively. Do the political demographics of a state impact the approach when recruiting and make it harder or, at least, change how you go about getting someone to run?
JBP: I think that, a lot of times, we all fight past races and the expectation of the Presidentials. We're coming off a recent history where Democrats haven't been successful in lots of federal races and weren't successful in the last couple of Presidentials. Part of this is reminding ourselves that we can win and that we stand for things that are important. The mindset is that, even in so-called red states, we can succeed.
Last cycle, we picked up six seats in the United State Senate - four of them were in so-called red states and that included places like Montana and Virginia and Missouri, which are, arguably, demographically tough terrain. I think we showed we can succeed in those places; and, I think we're going to show that we can succeed in so-called Republican states again this cycle.
SG: I'm actually going to mention Virginia and Montana in just a minute. But, first, let me ask you, while there are a number of recruiting successes to highlight this cycle, there are also races that have seen potentially strong candidates take a pass, looking at Governors in North Carolina, Wyoming, and Tennessee, who've decided, for whatever reason, that they didn't want to make a Senate run. Is there a sense of frustration when you see somebody who could make a top-tier race out of a Republican-held seat take a pass?
JBP: When you look at the number of quality candidates that are running, some of which you mentioned already, and it includes folks like Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen and Tom Allen and Tom & Mark Udall, it's hard to be frustrated. We've got a great group. You don't get everybody, but the point is that you keep pressing. In North Carolina, sure, Governor Easley, who's not running again, certainly cares about electing a Democrat. I think you're going to see that we're very competitive in North Carolina this cycle.
SG: Two races that you mentioned from the '06 cycle that were both races that Republicans thought they could take for granted and were races that saw a significant outpouring of support and involvement from the netroots were Jim Webb's victory over George Allen and Jon Tester's win over Conrad Burns. Are there any races you can point to in this cycle that you feel could fit that mold - races that Republicans hope won't require much in the way of already-limited resources from the NRSC but could become higher profile battles with support from the netroots?
JBP: I think there are a whole range of races that, arguably, the number of competitive races where we're trying to pick up seats could approach double-digits. I think that if you look at places like North Carolina and Kentucky and Alaska, those are places where people, again, have said in the past that we can't win. I think we can prove otherwise. I think we have very good candidates in places like Oklahoma and in Texas and in Nebraska, states where you hear people over and over say that Democrats aren't supposed to be successful. But I think you're going to see very good candidates. Some of them have farther to climb than others, but there is a lot of energy that's out there right now at the state and local levels.
What's happened over the course of time is that the netroots have empowered activists at the local level and are more inclined to get involved with campaigns early and are more inclined to get around candidates and help them through the early steps. Campaigns are never harder than right now. This is the hardest part for campaigns, going through the learning curve and raising the money and building the structure that they're going to need. This is hard and this is when activists can play a big role.
SG: You mentioned one of those races, Kentucky - a lot of people are pointing to it as sort of a "revenge" race against Republicans for Tom Daschle in '04. Polls are showing Mitch McConnell with approvals under 50%, and a majority of Kentuckians disagree with him on Iraq. And it seems like his large campaign bankroll, if it's not his singular political strength, it's certainly his most prominent one. How do you see the Kentucky race shaping up?
JBP: Let's start with the obvious. Senator McConnell is the Republican leader in the Senate. The filibuster starts and ends with Mitch McConnell. The strategy of gridlock to prevent legislation from moving on the floor starts and ends with Mitch McConnell. This strategy that they've been aggressive with in this cycle starts directly with McConnell. Nobody in the Senate has worked more aggressively for special interests and, often, against the wants and needs of working Americans. We're going to need to make a change in Kentucky, and we can do it. There's a primary of candidates running. We encouraged Bruce Lunsford to get in this race. We think Lunsford is running a forceful campaign, and I have a lot of confidence that Bruce Lunsford could win in November.
SG: Also regarding the Kentucky race, one candidate, who has since withdrawn - Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Horne - he piqued the interest of a lot of bloggers. While many people in the blogosphere have been very pleased with a lot of the success of the DSCC, there was some discontent over Horne's withdrawal. A lot of people saw it as Horne, to a degree, being muscled out after Lunsford received tacit, if not explicit, encouragement from Democratic leaders in Kentucky and Washington DC. How would you respond to those in the blogosphere that might be displeased over Horne's withdrawal from the race, and might have some animosity toward the DSCC over it.
JBP: We were one of several parties, both nationally and there were lots of activists in-state in Kentucky that thought Bruce Lunsford would be a credible candidate, and we encouraged him to run. That's not to take anything away from Andrew Horne, who's a fine man. Lunsford's run a couple of times; and, he seemed ready for the race, and made the choice to enter the primary.
SG: Shifting gears a little bit, looking at the Presidential race, we have seen record turnouts at Democratic Presidential primaries and caucuses; and, at the same time, we have seen a Republican base at times only begrudgingly accepting of John McCain as their nominee. Further, McCain's anti-earmark, anti-porkbarrel rhetoric seems to be at odds with the more earmark-addicted Republican members of the Senate, especially those up for re-election in '08 like Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran. How do you see the Presidential race impacting the Senate races in 2008 for both Parties?
JBP: I think it's going to have a big impact. I think the definition of the agenda is set by these Presidential candidates. I think there is a lot of initial concern nationally about John McCain's candidacy. His insistence that we remain in Iraq concerns voters around the country. I think a lot of his stances are going to impact candidates.
Having said that, Senate races, like last cycle, this cycle are going to stand on their own. Republican incumbents are going to have to defend their records. They're going to have to defend a long history of standing by George Bush, which, often cases, have not proven to be successful. Republican incumbents in this cycle are going to have to stand by their records.
SG: If I can put you on the hot seat for a second, looking across the aisle for a moment at Republicans' ability to fundraise and recruit for Senate races, do you think John Ensign will prove to be a more effective or less effective NRSC Chair than Elizabeth Dole was, once the dust settles after Election Day?
JBP: I gotta get all Bill Belichick on you on that question, in that we have to focus on the job we have to do. There is a lot of election left. It's a long way to November. We're obviously pleased with the recruiting. We're obviously pleased that our Democratic incumbents have been able to ward off, in many cases, significant challenges. We're obviously pleased that, not only have we had fundraising success, but our incumbents and many of our candidates are meeting that success, too. They have to figure out their mission. We know, for us, we have a long way to go.
SG: Along that line, you look at the only freshman Democrat up for re-election in '08, Mark Pryor, has no Republican opponent, and you look at deadlines having passed in South Dakota, Iowa, and Montana and Democratic incumbents don't face any high-profile Republican opposition. What do you attribute that to?
JBP: Some of the things we've already talked about. I think Republicans are judging this to be a difficult environment. I think that a lot of their potential candidates have backed down because they don't want to spend the next year defending the preceeding eight years of the Bush administration. I think they're feeling that, to come out and run now, is to start from behind - and that's not a place where they want to be. For our part, we want to be able to concentrate on picking up seats.
SG: Chairman Ensign has, over the last couple months, called out his fellow Republican Senators in a number of interviews for not doing enough to help their own electoral cause by contributing more of their own campaign funds to the NRSC. What is the standing expectation of Democratic Senators for supporting the DSCC's efforts, and how would you grade Democratic Senators in that regard for the 2008 cycle so far?
JBP: Right at the top, I said to you that success hinges on involvement of folks all over the country, and that includes Senators. In 2006, Democratic Senators were significant contributors, financially and otherwise, to what we were doing here at the DSCC, contributing from their own campaigns several million dollars. Already, we've had Senators helping, and I'm more than confident that we're going to get the same level of financial support from Democratic Senators that we did last cycle. They want to win, too.
SG: Looking ahead to the 2010 cycle, there are, like 2008, more Republican-held seats up for re-election than Democratic seats; and, there are a number of potential retirements on the Republican side. A lot of media outlets have begun discussing more and more the prospect of Democrats, if not in '08 then possibly in 2010, reaching the filibuster-proof sixty-seat majority. The "expectations game" notwithstanding, how reasonable a goal in your mind is achieving a 60-seat majority by the 2010 cycle?
JBP: Our mindset is to pick up every seat we can, compete in as many states as we can. I don't see sixty as the goal for 2008. Here I go, I'm getting Bill Belichick on you. It's hard to look past 2008 into 2010. I think that the more we elect Democrats around the country, the greater success we're going to have in making change. It's possible to get there. When that happens, if that happens, we can't predict that.
SG: At the very least, most observers agree that it is incredibly unlikely that Democrats will face a net loss of Senate seats on Election Day. Predictions typically range between a net pick-up of anywhere between two and seven seats. What do you think is a reasonable worst-case scenario and a reasonable best-case scenario for how many Senate seats Democrats can expect to pick up in November?
JBP: I think that given the environment, and given the number of quality candidates, we have a very good chance of retaining the majority that we earned here. You heard me say several times that we have to pick up seats. I don't have a set number of what we're going to pick up. Being honest about it, if you and I were having this same conversation two years ago, I didn't necessarily think we were going to get to the majority last time. The way we have success is one brick at a time. If we fight these races every day, day by day, we can pick up several seats. How's that for dull?
SG: Well, that is Bill Belichick.
JBP: And I'm a Giants fan, too.
SG: Then you're very old school Bill Belichick.
JBP: Yeah, exactly. I remember him when he wasn't saying anything in New York.
SG: Thank you very much for your time, J.B. |
