( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

The California Courage Campaign is organizing a protest of Disney over ABC's planned airing of the false and misleading Path To 9/11 crock-u-drama. It will take place at the Disney Studios in Burbank TODAY at 4pm.

UPDATE:
Here’s video:

Details follow over the flip:

UPDATE:

We probably had around 30 people there at its peak, waving great colorful signs that said things like "Pull The Show", "Facts Not Fantasia" and "I'm Not Going To Disney Land." Hey, and even CNN showed up!

The best part for me was all the support we got from the passersby. Most cars that passed either honked or shouted support or gestured peace signs out their windows.

One woman stopped at the light, opened her window and yelled out to us "I support what you're doing. I'm a film producer so I have to be careful but I support you. I suport the truth!" Then later, this guy just pulled up next to us and asked if he could join. We were like "Yeah!" so he parked and we gave him a sign. That was cool. You never know what you're gonna get when someone pulls up at one of these things. One guy who did, rolled down his window and yelled "ever hear of freedom of the press!" Umm, clearly you haven't, buddy. And then this other guy pulled up, got out and dropped off a box of flyers with Mohammed Atta's face with Mickey Mouse ears and then just drove away.

For now, you can see some pics and the huge response it got over at DailyKos, thanks to dday who swung by. I'll have some more pics up and hopefully some video tomorrow.

Thanks to everyone who was able to come by but also to those who were there in spirit from all over the country!

Protest at the Disney Lot TODAY in Burbank at 4pm

The pressure against Disney and ABC to pull the plug on their fictitious docu-drama, “The Path To 9/11” is mounting. President Clinton, through his attorney, has condemned Disney as "despicable" for "airing a fictional version of what is a serious and emotional event for our country. No reputable organization," he said, "should dramatize 911 for a profit at the expense of the truth."

The families of September 11 victims have weighed in on the controversy, telling "entertainers" not to "promote misleading or incorrect information as fact to the public." As residents of Los Angeles County, we have the ability to take this fight to the gates of the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank. We will do so TODAY, Friday at 4pm.

Join Courage Campaign and your fellow activists at the Disney Studios in Burbank in front of the West Alameda Gate, between S. Buena Vista and Keystone Streets.

Let’s make it clear to the executives at ABC that the events of September 11th cannot be re-written by right wing conservatives to suit their political agenda.

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(cross-posted at The California Courage Campaign)

On Friday, dday argued that the extremely productive (but ultimately 1-sided) legislative session that just ended portends The End of the Califonia Republican Party. But who knew it had gotten this bad. The LA Times reports that the Orange County Republican Party has taken to shaking down its incumbent candidates.

For the first time, the county's GOP is requiring incumbent candidates to join a special party association and pay a $200 membership fee if they want to receive the party's "early endorsement."

The designation would give the candidates an early edge against Republican challengers in local races, offering them official GOP bragging rights during the campaign and for fundraising. In local elections, where voters are often unfamiliar with the candidates and media coverage is scarce, a party endorsement is a powerful signal to voters.

The cool kids' club is called the Local Elected Officials Association and it's rubbing some local officals the wrong way.

"I understand the intention behind it in trying to get folks more involved," said Tim Whitacre, an elected member of the county party's central committee.

"However, it's not very well thought out because it comes across as more of a shakedown."

And…

"My problem is, it looks like extortion," said Alexandria Coronado, president of the county Board of Education .

"You have to pay, and you're not even guaranteed the endorsement. I find it reprehensible."

And…

Shelia J. Henness, an incumbent trustee in the Capistrano Unified School District , learned of the organization after she asked for the county party's endorsement this summer…

The arrangement appeared to be that "if you didn't join the committee, you wouldn't be able to get an endorsement," she said. "I was very surprised. I did join. I felt like I was pushed to join."

Despite the criticisms, party officials defend the practice.

[They] say the plan is intended to familiarize city council members, school board trustees and other candidates with the Republican Party's political ideals early in their careers and foster a GOP farm system of sorts to groom people for higher office…

"Number one, you don't have to pay any money to be considered for endorsement. Number two, the money that is collected for the association is unrelated to the campaigns in the fall. So if somebody is paying money just for the purpose of getting an early endorsement, they're missing out on 100% of the benefits the club brings."

Benefits you say? Do tell.

• Local Elected Officials Gatherings. Complimentary invitation to official County Party events, including a Local Elected Officials Breakfast, a ticket to the VIP reception at the Party’s annual “Flag Day Salute Dinner” and a briefing from Republican Leaders.
• Automatic membership in the Party's prestigious `400 Club.
• A Political Campaign Training Seminar designed to give you the tools you need to run more effective campaigns.
• Eligibility for Endorsement by the Endorsements Committee

Worst. Club. Ever.

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(cross-posted at The California Courage Campaign)

Military Families Speak Out’s Operation House Call came to California last week to pay a visit to Republican CA-46 Congressman Dana “Warbacker” Rohrabacher. The last thing they expected was to get into a shouting match with him, but that’s exactly what happened on Saturday outside his home in Huntington Beach.

First a little background.

MFSO, which describes itself as “an organization of people opposed to the war in Iraq who have relatives or loved ones in the military,” launched the summer-long action on June 22 to protest Congress’s June 15 vote to “stay the course” in Iraq. June 15th was also the day that saw the 2500th US soldier die in Iraq. Their goal? To demand that Congress “End the occupation, bring our troops home now and take care of them when they get here.”

More over the flip.

The D.C.-based protest ran through August 7, when Congress left on recess, and consisted of daily vigils, speaking events and a display of combat boots representing US soldiers slain since the “stay the course” vote.

On June 22, the display reflected 11 pairs of combat boots and shoes representing the deaths of 141 Iraqis. As of August 1st, the display has grown to include 78 pairs of combat boots and shoes representing the deaths of 1,594 Iraqi children, women and men.

But that was just phase one of the protest. When members of Congress dispersed to their respective districts in August, MFSO took Operation House Call on the road.

The second phase of Operation House Call follows members of Congress and Senators to their home states, as MFSO's 26 local chapters and over 3,000 military families prepare to meet their Senators and Members of Congress and demand an answer to the question: "Whose names are you willing to add to the growing list of casualties?"

Having gotten nowhere with Rohrabacher in Washington, MFSO decided to protest outside his home district office in hopes of getting a meeting. Pat Alviso, proud mother of a Marine and one of the leaders of the protest, told me that about 50 of them, including several with sons in Iraq, gathered outside Rohrabacher’s office to read the names, ages and hometowns of local soldiers (from Orange County and Long Beach) who’ve died in Iraq. As with the DC protest, they displayed combat boots representing the soldiers whose names they read off and as people passed by, the protesters would hand them daisies to place inside the boots as they sang Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

While there was some media present, the protest drew no reaction from the Congressman’s office, so they decided to head up to his office to make sure they knew they were there. A receptionist informed them that she had indeed been watching (“you’re doing a great job!” ) but that Rep. Rohrabacher was busy at speaking engagements. Where? “I can’t give out that information.” Will he meet with us? “I’m afraid he’s booked until he heads back to Washington on Tuesday.” The group then asked if someone would call them if he could spare just a half hour to meet. The clueless wonder proceeded to take the names and numbers of all of Rohrabacher’s constituents in the group and they left.

Having not heard from his office throughout the remainder of the week (shock!), Alviso and the rest of her MFSO crew, decided to gather at a park near Rohrabacher’s home and pay a more literal house call to the Congressman. Leaving a few folks behind to watch the boots, about 35 of them walked the block and a half to the Congressman’s home and gathered on the sidewalk outside it, some carrying signs saying “No More War For Oil!”

Rohrabacher’s front door and garage were open but no one answered when they knocked. At one point, they could see a shadow of someone they figured was Rohrabacher just inside the house. They decided to knock again but once again got no response. They retreated back to the park to get the combat boots and returned with reinforcements: a Tammy Faye Bakker look-alike and Monopoly’s money man there to hand the Congressman a gigantic replica of a blank check representing the blank check he’s given Bush for a war without end.

They knocked again, and again got no response so they left the check on his front porch, gathered just off his property, arranged the combat boots on the ground and began to chant

“Bring Them Home Now!”

“Bring Them Home Now!”

“Bring Them Home Now!”

It was at this point that Rohrabacher bolted out of his house…barefoot and started yelling at the protesters.

From The Orange County Register:

"You just woke my damn babies!" Rohrabacher said.

He and his wife, Rhonda, have 2-year-old triplets. Rohrabacher said he was on his back porch when he heard crying over a baby monitor.

"I am going to get all of you arrested if you don't leave right now."

"My son is in Iraq!" responded Tim Kahlor, 48, whose son is on his second tour of duty in Iraq until January 2007. "And he does not get much sleep!"

"Did he volunteer?" Rohrabacher yelled back.

Alviso told me that he yelled this at them several times, displaying not only great insensitivity but also a lack of imagination. “Is that all he has to say to us?”

Rohrabacher continued yelling.

"Wait a minute, man, you are standing on my property. You are violating my rights… And you are violating my family's rights!"

Pat Alviso, a teacher whose 30-year-old Marine son will deploy in Iraq for his second tour of duty next week, said the activists tried to visit the congressman in his office last Wednesday, but were told that his calendar was full.

"Did somebody call my office ahead of time?" Rohrabacher asked. "I met with people all last week, I talked to them about the war…. But unlike you, they were courteous, they were not arrogant."

So this is what they mean by compassionate conservatism. Alviso informed me that they left shortly after he’d retreated back toward his house threatening to call the cops. When they got back to the park, they were approached by a policeman who told them that as far as he was concerned, they had acted fully within the bounds of the law. “He must be a Democrat,” she laughed.

As for the protest, Alviso hopes that it makes Rohrabacher think twice next time there's a vote on the war. "He should remember what happened to Lieberman in Connecticut," she said.

The activists said they felt their 50-minute protest was a success.

"We came here out of desperation. Now, we hope, the congressman has something to take back with him to Washington," said Alviso, who organized the "house call" with her husband, Jeff Merrick, 59, an Air Force retiree who served in Vietnam…

"We are protesting because our sons in the military cannot. We are doing it for them."

(Part 2 of the MyDD/Courage Campaign Survey – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Today The Courage Campaign and MyDD have released their candidate memo laying out recommendations to progressive challengers this fall based on the results of the two polls we conducted in CA-50 studying the reasons for Francine Busby’s loss on June 6.

Our results from those polls can be found below:
Why Francine Busby Lost
Republicans Divided On Iraq, Accountability.

What we’ve discovered is that the lessons learned in CA-50 should be able to travel from district to district throughout the nation.
In a nutshell:

– Promise to hold Bush accountable
– Pick fights, do not shirk from them, to demonstrate toughness and credibility on the accountability issue
– Do not run from the war, run TOWARD it, but make it about oversight, not withdrawal.
The candidate memo can be found in its entirety over the fold.

(cross-posted at The Courage Campaign and MyDD)

by Chris Bowers, Rick Jacobs, Matt Stoller and Joel Wright

To: Democratic Congressional Challengers

Re: CA-50 Post-Special Election (Busby-Bilbray) Polling Memo

Fall Election Environment Overview:

This fall, you will face a grotesque political environment, one that requires strategic knowledge, great courage and fortitude to successfully navigate. Facing low approval ratings, Republicans will introduce you to the voters as a flip-flopping, gay-loving, liberal terrorist coddler who wants to cut and run from Iraq, all at the behest of self-absorbed Hollywood moguls and liberal elites.

The establishment Democrats have proven ineffective at combating this positioning, introducing empty slogans like `Together we can do better' that no one repeats or remembers, and policy proposals that few voters believe Democrats are capable of enacting. Most of the polling and advice you'll get from DC insiders and journalists will largely rehash bad information, false choices and irrelevant answers to poorly framed questions. If you take their advice, you will not make significant headway in convincing voters you are best to represent them. And when you lose, it'll be you who ran a bad campaign, not "them." Just ask Francine Busby how that works.

Perhaps worst of all, you will probably face some form of October surprise from the Republicans and your opponent: a game-changing event or message stream. And you will be blind-sided because establishment Democrats will be caught off-guard. Again. And you and your campaign will pay the price of their failure.

Realistically, when it comes to developing a winning position and messaging, you are on your own. Or rather, you are on your own, except that the voters – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike – agree with the outrage that you feel towards the political system and agree that Republican leadership is the problem. Yet, voters will only vote for change if they know you can deliver on that change once elected.

So far, few believe that will happen, as our data in CA-50 show.

Why CA-50 matters to you and your campaign:

Francine Busby and the DCCC spent more than $5 million on a nationalized Congressional race in California's 50th District. As the Democratic contender in the only partisan federal race so far this year, she was the Petri dish for testing Beltway techniques and messages. She ran on the national party's first semester message of "the culture of corruption" against a former Congressman turned lobbyist in a district where her predecessor is in jail for taking millions of dollars in bribes from defense contractors. A conservative, heavily military district where Dianne Feinstein won in 2000 and where Barbara Boxer lost by less than one percentage point in 2004, she ran as a "bi-partisan Democrat who would go to Washington to clean house and accomplish a seven point policy plan." She dodged the Iraq war as if it were a bullet aimed directly at her. In short, she played by the national insider rules.

And Francine Busby lost. The national committees and insiders have moved on. Her campaign team has simply moved out, taking the blame for doing what they were told by the `experienced' Beltway consultants.

Focus on this: Francine Busby lost a race to Brian Bilbray, a Republican lobbyist and former member of Congress, someone about as "inside" as it gets. Even though Busby ran on the culture of corruption line and Cunningham sits in jail with a mere 6% favorability in the CA-50, and, further, even though few voters believed that Bilbray had credibility on standing up to Bush on immigration, she lost. We know this because we polled extensively in the district this summer to find out why an extremely well funded national campaign utterly failed. Given that this was the only Congressional election so far this year between a Republican and a Democrat, we wanted to learn some lessons. This is the only data set on the only Federal partisan election that has happened in 2006 so far. It is very much worth understanding.

What happened in California's 50th?

California 50th is a right-leaning district, though not overwhelmingly so (John Kerry got 44% of the vote in 2004). The seat was open because Duke Cunningham resigned and ultimately went to jail in the midst of a bribery scandal. Democrat Francine Busby's messaging was therefore focused on the then national message of "the culture of corruption." She ran a policy-heavy campaign, proposing what she asserted was the `toughest' ethics legislation out there, while at the same time attacking Bilbray for his lobbying work. Republican Brian Bilbray focused his campaign on a hard-right message of cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Surprisingly, neither message worked. In an open-ended question, less than 4% of voters cited Republican corruption as a reason for voting for Busby. Similarly, Bilbray voters did not believe that Bilbray had the ability to divert from the Bush agenda and crack down on illegal immigrants. In fact, both candidates were largely undefined to the electorate, despite a highly agitated voter pool seeking change. While there was high Democratic turnout, Busby lost because independent voters did not believe that she could deliver on her policy promises and did not believe she was substantially more ethical than Bilbray. So, in large numbers, they either stayed home or voted for third party candidates.

Busby's lack of definition as a candidate and lack of message credibility allowed Bilbray to solidify his voter base, even though that base evidenced a substantial amount of dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and President Bush.

Lessons for Candidates Around the Country

The obvious problem with Busby's messaging was that she dodged Iraq as though it were a bullet aimed at her head. According to all available polling information, Iraq is consistently the number one issue on voters' minds. The absence of Iraq as an issue in the campaign is one likely reason why turnout was so low in CA-50. This in contrast to record breaking turnout in the Connecticut primary, in which messaging strategy did focus on the war. To the extent Busby discussed the situation in Iraq, it was in the context of a vague withdrawal plan rather than as a challenge to Bush and Republican war strategy.

In our research, we asked respondents in California's 50th a series of questions about Iraq and the political impact of the war situation. The findings were stunning, and reveal a deep split in the Republican base vote.

– 63% of Republican voters believe that Bush has made some or a lot of mistakes in Iraq.

– 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush has definitely or probably not told the truth about the situation in Iraq.

– 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush should probably or definitely be held accountable for the situation in Iraq.

– 40% of Republican voters believe that the Democratic Party is more likely to hold Bush accountable for mistakes in Iraq.

While the country is open to the idea of partial or total troop withdrawal, according to our data in CA-50 existing withdrawal messaging loses badly to Republican `cut and run' counter-attack messaging. This suggests that voters are seeking a set of actors in Congress who will tell the truth about the war and hold Bush accountable for mistakes. This is in contrast to an immediate end to the conflict and /or yet another withdrawal plan that Congress cannot enact. Voters intuitively understand that Congress doesn't run the military, and that regardless of the outcome of the 2006 election, Bush will be in charge of the military until 2009. As such, framing the election as a choice between rival Congressional military plans sacrifices the credibility of Democratic candidates who can only legitimately promise to hold hearings, restore congressional oversight of military matters, locate and identify blame, and serve as a check on a widely disliked and distrusted President.

Recommendations

Candidates should run aggressively on accountability and the war in Iraq. Here are six specific `rules of thumb' we recommend you use for planning purposes.

Iraq must be central in your campaign and you must blame Republicans for it Ignoring Iraq, downplaying its significance, or accepting Bush's framework by not blaming leaders is a sign to voters that you are weak, unlikely to bring change, and not addressing the main issue of the day. Regardless of how you approach the policy going forward in Iraq, the key trait that voters seek is a willingness to hold failed leaders accountable for the debacle. Be willing to uncover the truth, place blame, and demand consequences.

1. The debate on whether Bush is a competent, trustworthy President is over. He is considered among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents a leader who makes mistakes and then won't tell the truth about those mistakes. This is not about competence. This is about massive failure of leadership with no end in sight.

2. Republicans cannot run against Bush and Iraq. Voters do not think that Republicans are willing to hold Bush or other administration figures accountable for those mistakes, so Republican Congressional dissent on the war is unlikely to help Republicans. But dissent will, in fact, work to Democratic candidates' advantage. It shows strength and, most importantly, principle and personal values.

3. `Terrorism' scares only work in the absence of strong accountability messaging, since Republicans are no longer trustworthy on issues of war and peace. Voters know Republicans will let mistakes slide and they want accountability in the face of that.

4. Oversight beats withdrawal. Journalists or other messengers who frame politics in terms of a need to have an alternative plan in contrast to Bush are insulting voters, and should be taken to task aggressively for framing false choices and misrepresenting the role of Congress. Congress primarily serves as military oversight, not military policy. Voters know that.

5. Pick a fight, any fight. Voters need to be convinced that Democrats can credibly challenge Bush. Whether the fight is over de-funding Cheney's personal staff, attacking John Bolton's confirmation, impeachment hearings, or stopping war profiteering with a new `Truman Commission', Democratic candidates must demonstrate strength through aggressive confrontation where the term "accountability" is more than just an abstraction or corporate lingo. It must be made real through a fight you plan to pick.

6. When presented with squeals from journalists and Republicans over your fight, a resolute willingness to not back off in the face of criticism is key. Your willingness to hold Bush accountable must be made real. For example, demand that the president and the party in power come to account for having squandered lives, security and treasure while enriching CEOs of major corporations such as Halliburton.

Here's a real-world example of this dynamic from US history: Harry Truman became vice president because as a US Senator, he had the backbone to demand that major figures in the American economy either give back money stolen in the provision of shoddy materiel for World War II, or go to jail for treason. In sum, whatever fights you pick, whether specific local issues or national ones, our poll shows that accountability regarding Bush, Congressional Republicans and your opponent is crucial to building the credibility you need in order to break through with a majority vote in November. Democrats, Independents and even many Republicans want this to occur. Do it.

cross-posted at The Courage Campaign

Yesterday it was revealed that state senator and Republican candidate for Lietenant Governor, Tom McClintock, had distributed a fundraising letter penned by Mel Gibson on four occasions to raise money for his campaign.

In the letter, Gibson wrote:

”When I find that rare politician who will stand his ground for what is right — no matter what the pressure or consequences — I take notice.”

And that…

the senator stood solidly for principles that might not be politically correct — but that were right and true.

Yikes.

He continued…

“I don’t often support political candidates,” Gibson wrote, “But I love this state, and I believe it is worth fighting for.”

Finally, the actor promised, McClintock will make the office of lieutenant governor into the kind of “bully pulpit that will be essential to produce the longterm political change that is so deperately needed in California.”

As you can imagine, Gibson’s damage control soon gave way to McClintock’s, who yesterday vowed to not use the letter again.

When the whole thing came down with Gibson recently, “Tom was disillusioned by it,” said Devereux. “He said basically stop using the letter, and make sure it doesn’t go out anymore.”

But the senator’s woes just won’t seem to go away. Today, the AP is reporting that McClintock is distancing himself from Mel even further. About Gibson’s anti-Semitic tirade:

”I deplore them and I disassociate myself completely from them,” McClintock said.

McClintock said Gibson’s remarks did a disservice to the image of Christian conservatives…” I think he did a great deal of damage,” said McClintock.

Well, those words are fine, but we at The Courage Campaign think Senator McClintock should go even further. We’re calling for him to take a stronger stance against intolerance and give all the money that was raised as a result of Mel Gibson’s letter away to the Museum of Tolerance.

Sign our petition HERE and tell Tom McClintock give the money away today.

There is no room for intolerance in Sacramento.

(There are plenty of lessons to be learned from CA-50. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Many expected a perfect storm of discontent would put a Democrat over the top in the June 6th special election to replace convicted felon Randy “Duke” Cunningham, even in the notoriously red 50th Congressional district. So why then did squeaky clean soccer-mom and school board member, Francine Busby lose to Brian Bilbray, a carpet-bagging, former Republican-Congressman-turned-lobbyist, by 4 points, 49% to 45%, especially given the central issue of corruption?

We wanted to find out. So we at The Courage Campaign joined forces with Matt and Chris at MyDD and raised the money and hired Wright consulting to conduct a post-mortem poll of the district. Over 21 days, we spoke to 503 special election voters as well as 188 who voted in 2003/4 but sat this one out. The full results can be found HERE.

Follow me over the flip for a stroll through a summary of our results and analysis.

Remember all the theories that were offered up as explanations for Busby’s loss? We polled them and what we found was that conventional wisdom was just wrong.

Take immigration. Conventional wisdom held that in this Southern California district, Bilbray’s harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric riled up the base and turned them out for the Republican. In actuality, our data shows that Republican turnout was not impressive and, in fact, voters were evenly split between Bilbray’s anti-immigrant rhetoric (44% felt it was closer to their personal view) and Busby’s more progressive immigration message (42%.)

contrary to many pundits, both moderates and Independents were far more drawn to progressive immigration messaging of the sort Busby gave rather than the harsh, punitive rhetoric from conservatives in the district (Q17b and Q17c). It is possible that such harsh rhetoric kept the Republican base together, but it should also be noted that no one, not even conservatives, believe that Republicans in Congress will be able to thwart Bush and enact harsh immigration legislation.

And what about Francine Busby’s eleventh hour gaffe in which she said “you don’t need papers for voting…you don’t need to be a registered voter to help…” to an immigrant crowd?  Some thought that comment single-handedly lost her the election. On the contrary, our results show that the voters who thought less of Busby as a result of her comments were mostly pre-disposed to voting for Bilbray already; in addition, most voters had already made up their minds or had voted by the time this statement was repeated in the media. There is no evidence to suggest that this was the key swing issue in the election.

This “gaffe” was widely publicized in local and conservative media. While the “gaffe” was widely known (61% of voters had heard about it, Q11), and while it hurt her image among many voters (41% of those who heard about it said it gave them a less favorable opinion of her, Q11a), those voters were overwhelmingly within Bilbray’s conservative and Republican base (Q11).

And then, of course, there was the theory that Busby’s base did not turn out. According to our data Democrats were motivated and showed up in huge numbers relative to their registration in the 50th.

Voter registration in the district is 29.7% Democratic, 44.5% Republican, and 25.8% Independent / Other (source here). The partisan breakdown of the MyDD / Courage Campaign poll, which has the final vote results within one-tenth of one-percent for all candidates, was 39% registered Democrats, 43% registered Republicans, and 18% Independents / Others (see Q5). In other words, Democrats turned out in force, Republicans were slightly below par, and Independents barely showed up at all.

After all the theories, after all the armchair quarterbacking, it turns out that it was this very basic fact, that Independents did not turn out for Francine Busby, that cost her the election.

While Francine Busby won a plurality of the Independent / Other vote (she received 40% to 34% for Bilbray) (Q5), given low Independent turnout (18%) and the heavily Republican nature of the district, this margin was insufficient to win the election. One major problem for Busby was that third-party candidates received a surprising 26% of the Independent vote (Q5).

As Chris Bowers has said:

In a district this Republican, in order for Democrats to win, they need a large Independent turnout and a large margin among Independents. Francine Busby got neither.

So then we asked ourselves why this was. Clearly, there was an opportunity here for Busby. While the district is “red,” voter discontent at the federal level runs high.

58% of voters surveyed (60% of all independents) said the country is on the wrong track.  Compare that with just 37% of voters (38% of Independents) who feel California is on the wrong track.

Similarly, Bush approval mirrors that of the nation. Only 36% of respondents approve of the job the president is doing (just 24% of Independents.) By contrast, Arnold Schwarzenegger enjoys a 66% approval rating (63% among Independents.)

In a district where a decisive majority thinks both that the country is headed in the wrong direction and that the President is not doing a good job, how could Busby lose?

Mistake number one: she ran on the “culture of corruption.” This message simply didn’t play. While Cunningham may have been corrupt, since there was no evidence that Bilbray was, Busby could not effectively convince voters that she would be any different.

In an open-ended question where poll participants gave reasons for their vote, less than 2% cited Republican corruption as a reason for voting for Busby (Q9). Further, while people in the district viewed Bilbray as more corrupt than Busby (Q18b), Independents in particular still view Democrats as being corrupt, and as such do not believe Democrats can solve the corruption problem in Washington (Q20a.)

Mistake number two: Francine Busby failed to define herself. While she had positions that distinguished her from her opponent, a cohesive identity did not emerge among voters on either candidate.

When poll participants were given a battery of character and candidate quality phrases, in all but two cases the combination of “neither” and “don’t know” was the most common response…Never once did a majority of participants in the poll ascribe a characteristic to one candidate. (Q18a through Q18h.)

In fact, we found that neither candidate succeeded in making a credible case that they would make a bit of difference in D.C., whether it was Busby’s promise to “clean up Washington” and her defiance of Bush’s war plan, or Bilbray’s stance on immigration, which was well to the right of Bush. In other words:

Voters did not believe either candidate’s vow to change President Bush’s policies…Thus, while Independents hold an outlook very similar to Democrats on a range of people and issues, including the Bush administration, the direction of the country, and public policy, they are not turning to Democrats (or even bothering to vote).

Which leads us to the following hypothesis and strategy for November:

Swing voters want politicians who will stand up to George Bush, stop his agenda, and hold him accountable for problems that have occurred under his watch both at home and abroad.

That’s right, no more “culture of corruption,” and no more laundry lists of things we’ll do if in power. WE WILL STAND UP TO GEORGE BUSH period. Hell, it’s working for Ned Lamont among Connecticut Democrats and we think it can work against Republicans nationwide. To see if we’re right, we’re back in the field doing some follow-up polling, the results of which we’ll be releasing soon. Like the first poll, we’re relying on the netroots to help fund it, so if you’re so inclined, we’re taking donations HERE.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to your thoughts in comments here or over at The Courage Campaign.