And what are we to make of Tsongas in MA? Not exactly a glowing testiment for next month.

For more, see here: "...the Republicans lost a district that they won in the 1992 presidential election and the 2002 gubernatorial election, and in which their 2006 gubernatorial nominee ran about a net 18-19 points better than she did statewide and they're calling it a success?"

Yeah she won. With name recognition factor and the history of the district she won getting 51% of the vote Lowell. In this environment someone with that name brand in that district should have performed much better don't you think? We are talking MA in a time when nationally most of the races at least at Congressional level are trending Blue. Frankly, 51% in that district is a poor performance given the current climate.

I think it's tough to tell from down here why such a candidate performed poorly. There are alot of hypotheses about this at various lefty blogs, but I would surmise the following:

It's hard to get excited about machine candidates. In states like Mass, Maryland, Illinois (at least in the Chicago-area), and California, I know I'd have a hard time getting excited about voting in an election where the result is almost fore-ordained by the machine. And I can completely understand why folks up there might be looking for some new blood -- electing the same establishment insider types is hardly what this country needs right now, right? (Well, at least I think so.)

I think that's another reason why we're seeing primary challenges from the left starting to percolate through the system -- why the hell should we keep electing the same Dems to Congress when they forget why they got elected in the first place?

Now, I don't know anything about Niki Tsongas, aside from her last name. Maybe she doesn't deserve this baggage, but there it is. It's looking awfully likely that we're going to have the same two families running this country at least from 1988 - 2012. I think that all plays into the equation.

[Oh, and let's also not forget that the Mass House delegation is 10 - 0 Dem. There have to be a few closer districts, even in a state like Mass.]

With most confident in Mark Warner could we see the same applied to the Virginia Senate race. Seems to me this one is a stacked decked in his favor but will people as you say be turned off by the machine?

Virginia is a state that is trending Democratic right now, thanks especially to Mark Warner, but in no way is VA a state with a decades-long dominance by a Democratic machine.

Look at the Democratic leadership and committee chairs -- they're almost all from states that are longtime Democratic bastions dominated by city and state, old-school political machines. Pelosi (CA), Hoyer (MD), Emanuel (IL), Rangel (NY), Reid, Durbin (IL). I'm sure as hell not impressed by their maneuverings right now. These "leaders" get entrenched for so long, the forget what the fight is about.

The reason the Democratic party is going to be ascendant is three basic reasons: 1) demographics, 2) Republicans are crazy, and 3) the resurgence of the Democratic party from the grassroots level. Mark Warner was a big part of #3, and thus deservedly is as strong a favorite as you're likely to ever see in a Senate open race.

Grassroots Democrats in the mountain west (Montana, w/ Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Sen. Tester; Wyoming, w/ Gov. Freudenthal; Arizona, w/ Gov. Napolitano), midwest/plains (Kansas, w/ Gov. Sebelius; Oklahoma, w/ Gov. Henry; Iowa, w/ Gov. Culver), and south (VA; NC Gov. Easley; TN Gov. Bredesen, etc.) are really changing the game. The other half of that equation are the netroots success stories like our Sen. Webb (obviously), but also Reps Sestak, Shea-Porter, Hodes, Hall,  Walz, McNerney, etc., etc. Compare those breaths of fresh air to old, dynastic, machine candidates like Tsongas, and it's not surprising to me why there wasn't much enthusiasm for this election.

I think VA Dems on the upswing will be super-motivated in '08 to maybe turn VA completely blue/liberal, for the first time ever.

too much into this.  I am not sure if "machine politics" played that big a role one way or the other.  The truth is the GOP fielded a decent candidate (his brother was one of the airline pilots killed on 9/11), it was a special election with low turnout, and the district has some very red areas in it.  That's all she wrote ...

This one is in reaction to Markos's post, which kind of showed he's from California, and doesn't know a lot about that particular district (hey, all politics are local).

http://www.bluemassg...

The myth of the "underperforming" Tsongas campaign

Good grief.  First, 2004 was a presidential election, whereas this was an off-year special; turnout was a tad higher in 04.  Second, 2004 featured a local well-known figure (John Kerry) against an out-of-state well-known figure (George W. Bush).  I'd think that the "local guy" vote is worth at least the swing that kos talks about.

Third, as democraticavenger has helpfully and painstakingly shown, Tsongas did as well or better than Deval Patrick in almost every city and town in the district -- the major exception being Dracut, Ogo's hometown.  Deval won the district 51-40, with Mihos at 7% -- give some of those Mihos voters to the Republican, and you get the spitting image of what happened last night.  Yet most here would agree that Deval Patrick ran an outstanding, grassroots, "people-powered" campaign -- exactly what kos & co. wishes every candidate would run. 

None of which is to say that there aren't important lessons to be learned from this election.  Ryan's posted some interesting thoughts; others no doubt will too over the next few days.  But just looking at how Kerry did in 04 doesn't tell us very much.