Markos on the Noriega Campaign

I agree with Kos (0.00 / 0)

Noriega did run a lousy campaign.  A perfect example of that was the staffer he sent to Dallas.  The guy tried to start a riot at Fretz Park during a Republican rally during Early Vote. He was off the campaign within a few days.  Not sure he could have won running a great campaign, but he underperformed all of the other state wide candidates including JR Molina who was only a place holder.

---

by: tamsterbath @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:34:46 AM UTC

Underperformance ... (0.00 / 0)

Using your line of reasoning you would have to say that Obama also ran a lousy campaign too. His campaign underperformed every statewide candidate other than Noriega. However, Noriega in 2008 outperformed every Democratic statewide candidate in 2004 and 2006 except Bill Moody and Molina in 2006. In reality, Noriega ran a good campaign but was fighting an uphill battle all the way.

---

by: matthew_lt @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:51:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama wasn't running a campaign in Texas in the general election (0.00 / 0)

Noriega was.  In what way did Noriega run a good campaign?  

---

by: tamsterbath @ Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:10:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A couple days later but ... (0.00 / 0)

Noriega ran an uphill battle the whole way but ...

His fund raising was above the national average for other Senate races, especially when compared to the average for other challengers.

He had a nice web presence and used web 2.0 fairly effectively.

I think he had a good understanding of his unique qualities as a candidate. For example he touted the fact he was experienced in disaster management and his military credentials. This isn't a given either, many challengers try to beat the incumbent at their own game, Rick tried to change the game and make it suit him.

Did he run a successful campaign? No. But he ran a good campaign in a hostile environment where he could have much more easily gone back to his mostly safe state senate seat.  

---

by: matthew_lt @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In terms of the number of votes (0.00 / 0)

Noriega wasn't that much different from the remainder of the statewide candidates

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:29:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rick Noriega (0.00 / 0)

deserved better than the voters awarded him.
John Cornyn, however, remains the junior Senator from Texas, and with Hutchison's governor's bid coming, Perry isn't apt to put a Dem in the seat.

We really do need to find a way to impeach, recall or otherwise pull Cornyn out of the Senate. He does nothing for Texas as a GOP placeholder.

Was Noriega's campaign bad?

I dunno.

I do think having a KOS endorsement is the kiss of death, based on what I've seen -- the more they frontpage and fight for a candidate (obama excepted) over there, the more apt said candidate is to get shellacked at the polls.

Jim Martin, Darcy Burner are recent examples.

Kos' comments could also be put down to the obvious: a Kos staffer was passed over for the Noriega campaign.  

---

by: BlackSheep1 @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:19:42 AM UTC

Misunderstood... (0.00 / 0)

Of course Daily Kos's favorite candidates tend to lose.  Daily Kos fights hardest for progressive candidates that no one else is fighting for.  Their candidates are often long-shot progressives who run at pronounced disadvantages but are judged to have a decent chance of pulling off an upset or nearly doing so.  Even when they lose, its only after a mighty battle that the Republican has to spend heavily to prevail in.

From my recollection, both Martin and Noriega received about equal mention on Daily Kos up until the last month of the campaign, when polls showed Martin closing and Noriega treading water.  You may be pissed that Daily Kos focused more energy on Martin, but in the last month he certainly had a shot at winning, while Noriega's chances had pretty much flatlined.

Please note that Martin outperformed Obama by about 2% on November 4th.

Now, I don't know any of the netroots backstories, but I don't think its fair blaming Kos's comments on sour grapes.  I certainly never saw any indication that Noriega did run an effective campaign.  Such accusations against Kos seem rather petty on BOR's part.

---

by: El Yoss @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:08:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you misunderstand (0.00 / 0)

I worked with the campaign and communicated with kos frequently so I actually do know the backstories. That's why I made the update.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:21:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

a lot of us would be interested... (0.00 / 0)

...to hear it from the proverbial horse's mouth. Any chance you could get Markos to elaborate on what he felt was particularly shitty about Noriega's campaign?

---

by: tuckerma @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:34:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I doubt it (0.00 / 0)

And I don't think it would benefit anyone really.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:47:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually it would (0.00 / 0)

I disagree KT. You don't drop a rude comment like "lost running a shitty campaign" and not be expected to back the comment. If he truly does have a desire to advance the cause he should explain his perspective on why it was good or bad. Otherwise it just means he didn't like it or was in a bad mood and felt like making a rude comment (one of his tactics that gets him a lot of press - see "Taking on the System").

Kos is supposed to be respected in the political blogosphere. That respect should come with some responsibility such as helping grow the environment. Personally I can't stand people that just drop turds and don't back them up with some reason. Kos apparently feels he's above having to do that. Did I miss something there?

---

by: RBearSAT @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:49:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Doesn't matter (0.00 / 0)

...what the "inside story" is, Noriega DID run a terrible campaign. Confused, lacking an identity, lacking in energy. It never had a personality. Sorry if I'm hurting any feelings, but folks that's the truth. The guy was not ready for Prime Time.  

---

by: stacksucker @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:52:19 AM UTC

puhlease... (0.00 / 0)

you guys just as shamefully promote whomever you are working for... also, rick noriega is an awesome guy and i was really hopeful that we would stand a chance when he first announced. but the more the campaign unfolded, i realized we wouldnt get off the ground. support was given because it had to be given but this campaign was not taken seriously.

---

by: imapatsy @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 15:03:09 PM UTC

right right (0.00 / 0)

It certainly isn't breaking news that the Noriega campaign was poorly managed from rooter to tooter.

The travesty is the strength of Noriega's credentials were abandoned and he was convinced to run a champagne campaign on a beer budget.

I disagree with moulitsas that Rick can't put together a good team. I think Rick got in over his head and entrusted people with tasks that were far beyond their capabilities.

I think he will do well in an administration role.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 18:54:12 PM UTC

At least some reasons (5.00 / 1)

Thanks colin for interjecting some reasons on this. It's hard for me to comment on Rick's campaign.  I was only able to help fund but couldn't invest more as I was busy with the Term Limits Extension campaign here in San Antonio.

I agree that Rick will be better served in an administration role. It will continue to boost his credentials and also provide some needed exposure to his capabilities. Maybe in several years we can relook at him against Cornyn in 2014 or for the KBH replacement seat.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 20:47:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Barbara was the problem (0.00 / 0)

What did Radnovsky do? 36%. Rick was sunk before he started. Nobody wanted to put their money on those lousy odds. Rick could've run a perfect campaign and lost. The money just wasn't there. Give him credit for trying. A good man lost against a well-funded Bush robot. At least he tried, which is more than most know it all anonymous
bloggers can say.

---

by: Bluefish @ Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:38:17 AM UTC

Rick Noriega ran the best campaign $3 million could buy (3.00 / 1)

against a Republican incumbent who outspent Noriega 10 to 1 in a lean-Republican state.

It shouldn't really surprise anyone that Linda Yanez, Sam Houston, and Susan Strawn got more votes than Noriega -- Yanez, Houston, Strawn, and Noriega were all good guys, and their better-funded opponents all sucked, but the margin by which Cornyn outspent Noriega was extraordinary.

Every shortcoming in the Noriega can be summed up in one keystroke: $

From an ideological perspective, Noriega was the best candidate we could have offered.  If we wanted a better chance at winning, we would have needed either a self-funded candidate or a candidate who was better at raising funds, but such candidates are not generally going to be as strong ideologically.

We must decide: Do we want David Van Os candidates of ideological purity or do we want John Sharp candidates who haunt an ideological middle-ground but raise funds well and campaign with a more realistic eye toward winning in November?

Frankly, I prefer winning those races we can win and promoting ideological purity in those races where we probably won't win anyway (as a "farm league" for developing the best candidates for the future who gain experience at blending ideological purity with fund-raising prowess and campaign savvy).  In every winnable race, I want that candidate who is the furthest to the left but who also can actually win, and in every underdog race, I want the true heroes of the left making the fiery stump speeches to energize and expand the base.  What I am least interested in promoting is ideologically wishy-washy candidates who don't have any real chance of winning anyway, but even Barbara Radnofsky type candidates are better than leaving a race uncontested.

Noriega lost but he ran a good race -- the best race that could have been run on a $3 million dollar budget against a Republican incumbent with $30 million to blow.

---

by: StopCornyn @ Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 17:28:39 PM UTC

not really (0.00 / 0)

Money is critically important...but you have to be smart with what you have.

Sufficient funds were not raised and those funds that were raised were not spent effectively.

Noriega has a great profile but wasn't focused enough on the strategic operation of his campaign. With his deep rolodex of friends he should have literally forced a coordinated campaign into place so that money raised above the caps could still be used to finance his ground game.  And he should have worked with the DSCC to hire experienced, winners for the day-to-day management.

As in sports, political campaigns are all about match-ups.  Before his kamikaze act this year, van os would probably make a good candidate for some office...but not any longer. Sharp matches up with hutchison and White matches up with Perry.

We need to support candidates that are thoughtful about how to work together as a ticket and not selfish about who wants to run for what office.

And, from my perspective, the best way to build the base is to win. We lost the big statewides by 1 million votes this time...that is a lot to make up.

We should focus on down ballot statewides that re-establish Dems as statewide officeholders and builds their profile for future statewide races at higher levels.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 23:12:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Houston lost by 400,000 votes, Strawn by less than 500,000, and (0.00 / 0)

Yanez by less than 600,000 votes.

Houston was the first Texas statewide Democrat who ever got over 3.5 million votes. To put that in perspective, that's more votes than Rick Perry has ever won.

Noriega and Obama were the only statewide candidates who lost by anything close to a million votes, and the results in those races were never in doubt from the moment we selected our nominees. Could Bill Richardson have carried Texas?  Maybe (but probably not).  Could Noriega have won with $15,000,000?  Maybe (depending on how it was spent and how Cornyn responded to that challenge).

You overestimate the size of Noriega's rolodex and underestimate the cost of a statewide coordinated campaign if you think Noriega could have "literally forced a coordinated campaign into place" by somehow making better use of "his deep rolodex of friends."  Noriega was virtually unknown outside of Houston, and there was a very successful coordinated campaign in Houston (which is pert of the reason why Noriega easily carried Harris County).

In addition to Harris County, Noriega carried Bexar, Cameron, Dallas, El Paso, Hidalgo, Jefferson, Nueces, Travis, and Webb Counties.  If you think Noriega's rolodex could have been utilized to swing a coordinated campaign that would have delivered a majority of the vote from the amalgamated region represented by the 244 other counties in Texas, then you are do not understand how coordinated campaigns work or how much cost and effort they require.

---

by: StopCornyn @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 15:02:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

calmate (0.00 / 0)

settle down, beavis.

your tone indicates that you didn't understand my post, so i'll explain.

big statewides are president and us senate. i wouldn't consider a supreme court race a "big" race...but to each his own. if you read my post you'll note that i recommend focusing on down ballot statewides.

Noriega has a VERY deep rolodex of every Democratic state rep and state senator in the state (and most Dem congressmen).  Not bad, right?  Wouldn't evey statewide candidate die to have a personal relationship with that group?

Furthermore, the VAST majority of these folks didn't have serious opposition.  Therefore, had money and no need to spend it.

I've worked on some coordinated campaigns and i know what they cost, but thanks anyway.  Since you want to talk about which one of us understand what about statewide campaigns, we'll talk about that.

You apparently don't understand that you don't have to campaign in every county...only about 27-30 depending.

Let's consider Bexar County:
Castro, Menendez, Villarreal, McClendon, Gutierrez are unopposed. Farias, Leibowitz, Martinez Fischer, Van de Putte and Zaffirini have opponents but are not seriously threatened. Charlie Gonzalez and Cuellar are similarly positioned.

That's a pretty good starting line-up if you've got to take the field.  Noriega and/or his folks should have pressed those assets into service. Maybe he could have done better than 51.6% AND gotten more votes.

What you also apparently don't understand is that it ain't enough to say "we did the best we could and fought the good fight". We've got to find a way to win.  And my point that you skipped still stands:

"We should focus on down ballot statewides that re-establish Dems as statewide officeholders and builds their profile for future statewide races at higher levels."

i hope that clarifies my original post. i'll be more lucid next time.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 17:41:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obviously, you were involved in neither the last two coordinated (0.00 / 0)

campaigns in Dallas nor the most recent Harris County coordinated campaign (and probably not the current groundwork going on in Bexar County for 2010, either).

Coordinated campaigns are not funded by incumbents (who generally have their own individual campaigns and are not overly enthusiastic to use their incumbency-based fund-raising advantage to haul in cash for other candidates' benefit).

We agree that it is not enough to say "we did the best we could and fought the good fight," but some races cannot be won without an eight-figure budget, and some candidates simply cannot realistically be expected to raise eight-figure campaign funds. With that understood, we should not abandon those races, but we should not be shocked when we lose races where we were outspent 10 to 1.

Noriega's loss was not a symptom of a poorly run campaign -- it was the inevitable result of Cornyn spending $25,000,000 more than Noriega.  Noriega's only fault was not having $25,000,000 in the bank to match Cornyn's funds.

Finally, if we are talking about funds, I agree that we should "focus on down ballot statewides that re-establish Dems as statewide officeholders and builds their profile for future statewide races at higher levels."  However, if we get a chance to win a Senate or gubernatorial seat (because it becomes an open seat, for example), we should commit funds there, and if our downballot statewide races are unwinnable for one reason or another, we should make sure our groundwork efforts include those underdog candidates while we focus more of our scarce funds on those races which can be won with a little more financial support.

---

by: StopCornyn @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:57:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]