There were several senators who the media pegged as toast because they voted against the Iraq war - Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, and Russ Feingold. Russ was supposed to be especially vulnerable because he voted against the Patriot Act. All 3 survived, by bigger margins than most pundits would have predicted. All 3 had somewhat weak opponents, but still, Russ' win is just astonishing.
If you look at the pre-election polls (which had Russ with a 20-25% lead) you might think that the race tightened, or that Russ did something wrong. But in reality, he was never going to get
that big of a win, and he knew it. He won by only 2% in 1998, and 6% in 1992. This year, he won by ELEVEN PERCENT of the vote. In spite of the fact that:
- Kerry won the state by 10,000 votes or less
- WI has become far more right-wing over the past decade
- Russ was running against a well-financed opponent in a year where generic fundie Republicans swept Senate races
What lessons should we take from Russ' victory? From the fact that according to some on the ground in WI, he got at least one out of every six Bush votes? The most hard-right, unhinged Republican President ever attracting the same voters as one of the most outspokenly left-wing senators in America?
I think the most important lesson is that being "moderate" in terms of pandering to holy rollers does not guarantee success. The Democrats in Southern states showed that. Russ has one of the most progressive records in the US Senate. He voted against NAFTA, GATT, DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the Hate Amendment, the partial birth abortion act, the Medicare bill, and so on. Some of this is just common sense. Some is pretty damn liberal. Yet, the "extreme liberal" tag didn't stick to Russ. Maybe that's because Michels ran a shoddy campaign at the outset. Maybe it's because of the late primary, or because it was a Presidential election year. But if this was the only reason Russ squeaked through, he would have won by 4-5%, not 11%. Clearly people voted for Russ because they knew him and respected him. He has more of a mandate than Dubya does.
Russ isn't in Alabama, or Oklahoma, and would have to tailor his voting record somewhat if he were. But the fact that he always focused on the people of Wisconsin, on jobs, on health care, on a record of results, suggests that you do not need to run on who you are told to hate, or on what you are told to oppose. You can't be a "family values" candidate when people with a brain in their head can tell that you are just pandering to get their vote. They will go with the true believer every time. But they will support you if you do stand firm on the real issues, which is what Russ has always done.
You can and should vote your conscience, vote what is best for all the people in your state. Listen to them. Care about them. Don't say what pollsters and focus groups tell you is important to "mainsteam" voters. Say what YOU feel in your gut is important, is worthwhile. Don't hide behind a brick wall that cuts you off from the public, as Kerry did more often than not.
A record of consistency and integrity. I really don't think it can be denied that Kerry's back and forth, confusing stances on Iraq caused him severe damage, as much or more as all this "moral values" nonsense. He voted for the war, and then against funding the troops. He explained his position too many different ways in a manner that most voters could not or would not decipher, in large part thanks to media spin. Russ had one position all along. He voted against the war but for the troops. Russ has had a consistent position on everything throughout his career, from gay rights to free trade to terrorism to taxes to our troops. People feel like they know him. They feel like he's telling them what is in his heart, not what he thinks they want to hear. Most reasonable people feel that they can trust someone with a strong, firm opinion, even if they do not agree with all their positions. Russ' listening sessions reinforced to people that he truly does respect and cherish the differences in each and every Wisconsin citizen, and his opponents' foolish attacks on those listening sessions (Michels sneered that "not one good thing has ever come out of listening sessions") backfired.
Most important was in not letting outside events define you. Russ did a brilliant job of staying on message. He took every single hit against him and immediately defused it. Patty Murray did the same thing. I can't really compare this to the Swift Boat stuff because I can understand why Kerry was hesitant to directly address that controversy, but I think it really helped Russ that HE was the one who started the dialogue (all the way back in the primaries) about the Patriot Act vote. About his fiscal record. About veterans. About Wisconsin. He didn't run and hide from issues, hoping to drown them out, hoping they'd go away, as Kerry too often did.
I know that I'm overgeneralizing, but I think Russ really did run an excellent campaign and he confounded predictions about his chances this year, and about the chances of true progressives in purple/reddish states.
What did you think about Russ' campaign? And do you think there's any chance we will see him getting more leadership in the Senate or running for national office? I didn't believe it before, but after this year, after the campaign he ran, I really long to see him running for President or Vice-President. Honestly, it's one of my only hopes for the party, or for America. He is a hero.