The Schatz campaign prepared a strategy memo detailing why they predict he'll win his Hawai'i Senate seat in the face of Colleen Hanabusa's challenge.
Holy Moly - Hanabusa and her new campaign manager, Peter Boylan, went ballistic!
Veteran Hawai'i political observer Bart Dame (who was a neutral observer) wrote an insightful commentary on this which he has given us permission to reprint:
"When I got this email from the Hanabusa campaign, I was alarmed to see how much they are trying to milk this leaked memo and try to turn it into a "scandal." So where
IS the "scandal"?
I see now they are trying to say Schatz only cares about the haole votes. Here is the text meant to convey that message without making it explicit:
[The Schatz campaign is ]"...arguing that the ideology of a single group of voters will trump the broad coalition of interests that has made Hawaii the warm, inclusive place we all love."
The "ideology" alluded to here is "progressive" ideology. It might be helpful if Hanabusa would say she has given up on progressive voters.
I HAD been arguing both candidates have arguments they can make to win progressive voters and neither yet has a lock on this group.
But if Peter Boylan wants to fan hostility towards progressives as people outside of the "coalition of interests" which are part of the Hawaii we love, he can say so directly. It would make the election easier for a lot of us.
But the Hanabusa campaign is deliberately misreading the original Schatz campaign memo. The reference to progressives in the memo was in the context of a demographic analysis of who votes in the Democratic primary. Everyone knows Hawaii's voters are overwhelmingly Democratic in outlook. Almost everyone also knows the "Democratic Revolution" of 1954 was animated by a very PROGRESSIVE social vision and agenda.
But, as the Democrats became the Party of Governance, a kind of corruption and bureaucratization of that social vision occurred. We can read about some of the processes responsible in the well-known book, "Land and Power.."
Prominent Democrats, their family members and cronies began to take advantage of their insider connections to enrich themselves and their allies. In part, this explains the rift between the Burns and Gill factions which expressed themselves in the 1960s and early 70s.
The rise of the environmental, sovereignty and community anti-eviction struggles in the 1970s, the Protect Kaho'olawe movement, were a struggle AGAINST the crony, establishment wing of the Democratic "Machine." Bishop Estate trustees, appointed because of their political connections, were given a license to enrich themselves with over-the-top lucrative salaries and TOO MANY Democrats were fine with that.
Senator Inouye tried to keep the peace between these factions. Some might say he tried to co-opt community rebels. Others, would say he was seeking compromise, through concessions. But he was unashamed about his role in bringing pork to Hawaii, much of which went to well-connected contractors. And those who benefited became his supporters.
With the death of Inouye, a group of people who gained power as part of his inner circle faced a serious loss of power. They had backed Mufi Hanneman, first for Mayor and then for Governor, but his defeat and political ruination weakened their prospects.
They glommed on to Colleen Hanabusa and ran her for Congress. And successfully transitioned from Hanneman to Caldwell, who they supported for Mayor as his replacement, against Ben Cayetano. Neil Abercrombie, for all his faults--and we can make a list--is not controlled by the dark side remnants of Team Inouye.
Let me make clear, I think Inouye himself was a balancing act between a liberal social vision and a kind of "realpolitic" which engaged in special interest politics.
With the passing of Inouye, the remaining network is mostly an expression of cronyism and special interest politics, stripped of Inouye's social vision.
It was leading members of this group, Walter Dods and Jeff Watanabe, who hand-carried and apparently leaked Inouye's PRIVATE letter to Governor Abercrombie in an effort by them to embarrass Abercrombie if he failed to "honor" the Senator's dying wish.
I think the Senator had every right to make his preferences known about his possible replacement. I also think the Governor, having listened to the Senator's views, had every right to apply his own judgment in making the decision.
The only ones who acted offensively, in my view, were those who leaked the private letter and those who have overplayed its significance to create the impression we should all vote for Hanabusa, not based upon our assessment of her, but based upon a "respect" for the Senator's dying wishes. To me, that is a crude and insulting appeal, unworthy of those presuming to represent the Senator's best interests. I have never considered him to be "an Emperor" nor a "political boss," which is how Dods and Watanabe would have us treat him.
The Schatz memo is based upon an analysis which recognizes the dual nature of the Inouye legacy and the replacement of idealism by cronyism and special interest realpolitic in Democratic circles. It recognizes the Democratic base is pulled in different directions and that the tensions between these poles are often expressed within the Democratic primary.
The political effect of an increased number of mainlanders settling in Hawaii has been a puzzle confronting political analysts for a long time. In the 1990s, for a period, it was assumed by most observers, as well as strategists for both parties, that most of these newcomers would tend to vote Republican. And, as if to show proof of this, for a brief period, the mayors of Hawaii County, Maui, Honolulu and Kauai were ALL Republicans.
Meanwhile, the traditional base of the Democratic Party, those with ties to the plantation economy and the struggle against the Big Five oligarchy, were getting older and dying off. Particularly the solidly Democratic older AJA [Americans of Japanese Ancestry] voters. The GOP was seen as the beneficiary of a shifting demographic tide. Lingle was elected Governor. What could go wrong?
A close observation of actual voting patterns revealed some interesting things. The areas settled by these newcomers tended to vote Democratic in national elections. While many of them were able to move to Hawaii because they were more affluent, many of hem had fairly liberal views, especially on social issues and matters of foreign policy. They were NOT voting Republican as the conventional "wisdom" had predicted. And if they were tending Democratic on national issues, perhaps they could also be won over to Democrats on local issues, on the basis of the right issues.
These are the people referred to in the Schatz campaign memo as the ""influx of progressive leaning voters who migrated to Hawaii in the 1990s." Nowhere in the memo does the Schatz campaign declare ONLY these newcomers are progressive. The argument is that these newcomers are helping tip the scale in Democratic primaries by adding even more progressive votes to those which existed here before their arrival.
To its credit, the memo says the "ideological" dimension appears to carry more weight that the sort of ethnic voting bloc analysis favored by some "political analysts" in predicting elections.
The Hanabusa campaign is stuck in a bind, as they WANT ethnic considerations to be strong within the AJA community, so she can hold onto that bloc of voters who had come through for Senator Inouye.
But she does not want to send too crude a message, as that would be counter-productive. Hence the message that Schatz only cares about the votes of newcomer haole progressives and not about our multi-ethnic "coalition of interests" which defines us as local people. Not as crude as Mufi's "I look like you" remarks.
Contrary to the Hanabusa campaign's caricature of the memo, it does NOT suggest a strategy which is only concerned about "progressive newcomers."
The memo also points out the overwhelming support by organized labor for the Schatz campaign. This is a sore point for the Team Hanabusa. She had counted on the support of many of these unions. Just as she feels entitled to being Inouye's replacement, so too does she feel entitled to the support of unions, many of whom HAD supported her in the past, but now prefer Schatz for the Senate race. (Some of these unions had apparently explicitly told Hanabusa they would have supported her for re-election to the House, but not for the Senate).
Ironically, this effort by Peter Boylan and the Hanabusa campaign to turn the leaked Schatz campaign memo into a mini-scandal, reinforces a key point of the memo: the Hanabusa campaign has had difficulty articulating a positive message explaining why people should vote for her for the Senate seat rather than re-elect her to Congress.
As a result, they have overplayed the "Inouye wanted me" card by leaking the Senator's private letter and using his widow as a surrogate, and are now trying to use this inartfully drafted internal memo, again LEAKED, to try to misrepresent the views of the Schatz campaign.
If this is the example of Hanabusa's vaunted "leadership skills," I suggest most Hawaii voters are looking for a move away from negative, resentment and innuendo-based politics and will see the reform, "progressive" views and style of Brian Schatz as a refreshing change from the Old Boy cronyism at the heart of the Hanabusa campaign."
The Schatz Memo (saying that progressive leanings will override ethnic politics)
Memo
To: Interested Parties
From: Schatz for Senate
Re: State of the Hawaii Senate Race
Date: October 14, 2013
I. OVERVIEW
Since taking office on December 27, 2012, Senator Brian Schatz has assembled an impressive team running an effective, modern, and winning campaign. Because of the circumstances related to his appointment, Schatz now stands as the 85th ranked Senator in terms of seniority, and he is one of only four freshmen with a subcommittee chairmanship. Historically, Hawaii has never voted an incumbent Senator or any Democratic member of Congress out of office.
Conversely, Congresswoman Hanabusa has struggled since day one to establish a winning campaign or a coherent rationale for her candidacy. Hanabusa badly trails Schatz in fundraising and endorsements, and she has had a series of missteps evidencing that her campaign is not up to the rigors of a Senate race.
II. SCHATZ IS RUNNING A WINNING CAMPAIGN
A. FUNDRAISING
In the first three quarters of 2013, Schatz raised an impressive $2.7 million, and he has over $2 million cash on hand. Conversely, Hanabusa has barely raised over $1 million in this cycle including nearly $230,000 that she transferred from her House campaign account.
Schatz’s successful fundraising has drawn national attention. National Journal recognized Schatz as one of its campaign fundraising winners,[1] while Roll Call noted that Schatz had sent a strong message to any potential primary foe.[2] On the other hand, The Hill identified Hanabusa as a “Fundraising Loser” noting that Schatz “again hammered” his Democratic challenger in the second quarter of fundraising.[3]
In the third quarter of 2013, Schatz continued his fundraising dominance by raising close to $700,000. As reported by the Honolulu Star Advertiser, however, Hanabusa “struggled through a subpar quarter” raising an “underwhelming” $440,000.[4] Furthemore, during the third quarter, Hanabusa spent approximately $323,000 of the $440,000 she raised, meaning that her campaign had a staggering 73% burn rate.[5]
B. ENDORSEMENTS
In a Hawaii Democratic primary, endorsements from labor unions, environmental groups, and progressive organizations matter, and Schatz continues to dominate this aspect of the campaign. Hawaii has one of the highest percentages of unionized workers in the country, and Schatz has already received early endorsements from 28 unions. Schatz’s labor endorsers include Hawaii’s largest union, HGEA (AFSCME) as well as the Hawaii Building & Trades Council, the Teamsters, the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers, the Hawaii Fire Fighters Association, the Hawaii Nurses Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the Seafarers, and the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly.
In addition to labor endorsements, Schatz received key endorsements from the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, and MoveOn.org (which has nearly 40,000 members in Hawaii). To date, Schatz has received endorsements from 34 groups and Hanabusa has only received 7 endorsements.
Most significantly, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has publicly endorsed Schatz, and Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Bennet as well as 26 other Senate Democrats have made campaign contributions.
C. A WINNING TEAM
Schatz has assembled an all-star consulting and campaign team with a history of winning races in Hawaii. Mark Mellman served as the pollster for Senator Akaka’s winning primary campaign in 2006 as well as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s successful primary campaign for Congress in 2012. Rich Davis of Dixon Davis Media Group led the media team for Senator Mazie Hirono’s successful primary and general election campaigns in 2012. Ed Peavy of Mission Control served as the mail vendor for the successful Honolulu mayor’s race in 2012.
Honolulu native Clay Schroers has returned to Hawaii where he is serving as the campaign manager for Schatz. Schroers successfully managed hard fought Congressional campaigns for Rep. Bill Owens in 2010 and Rep. Dan Maffei in 2012.
In 2007-2008, Schatz, together with his Chief of Staff Andy Winer, initiated and ran President Obama’s successful caucus and general election campaigns. In the process, Schatz and Winer added over 30,000 new Democrats to the Democratic Party of Hawaii. President Obama continues to have favorability ratings well in excess of 70% in Hawaii, and his in-state supporters closely identify Schatz with the Obama campaign. Conversely, Schatz’s principal primary opponent served as the lead spokesperson for the Clinton campaign.
Schatz’s ability to tap into the Hawaii Obama campaign structure continues to the present. Earlier this year, the Schatz campaign attracted over 500 people to an organizing meeting, and these supporters are poised to serve as the backbone of the campaign’s field operations.
III. HANABUSA’S CAMPAIGN IS UNDER PERFORMING
Colleen Hanabusa’s campaign has failed to meet nearly every expectation and benchmark it initially set, and it is badly foundering as we enter the fourth quarter of 2013.
From its inception, the Hanabusa campaign was propped up by outdated conventional wisdom and a handful of shifting self-created arguments why it would succeed. First, Hanabusa contended she would have the backing of labor,[6] but that support has not materialized.[7]
In fact, Senator Schatz, as noted above, has garnered support from 28 of the 33 labor unions that have made endorsements –including influential endorsements from HGEA, the Hawaii Building Trades Council, SHOPO, and the Hawaii Fire Fighters Association. In sum, the unions endorsing Senator Schatz represent in excess of 75,000 Hawaii members, while the unions endorsing Hanabusa have fewer than 22,000 Hawaii members.
Furthermore, 24 of the 28 unions that have endorsed Senator Schatz either endorsed or contributed to Representative Hanabusa’s previous campaigns, demonstrating that labor knows both candidates and have decisively chosen to stand with Senator Schatz.
Second, the Hanabusa campaign believed it would inherit the lion’s share of Hawaii’s Democratic campaign infrastructure, mostly in terms of local and national fundraising operations as well as a campaign team. However, Senator Schatz has clearly demonstrated he is a superior and more sophisticated fundraiser[8] both in Hawaii and on the mainland.[9]
Some have attempted to brush off Senator Schatz’s fundraising success as merely a consequence of his incumbency,[10] while others have convinced themselves that Senator Reid and the DSCC are responsible,[11] but, while neither excuse accounts for Senator Schatz’s diligent, disciplined and modern approach to fundraising, it’s inarguable that the Hanabusa campaign has utterly failed to meet even her modest expectations. To date, Senator Schatz is closing in on $3 million raised, while Hanabusa will have raised barely $1 million.
Third, the Hanabusa campaign brazenly premised her candidacy on her claim to be the most “experienced” candidate; but recent events have demonstrated that it is Representative Hanabusa, not Senator Schatz, who lacks the modern political and communications infrastructure to wage a successful Senate campaign.[12] From a “low-key” campaign roll out[13] to the resignation of Representative Hanabusa’s deputy chief of staff[14] after a Washington Post story exposed plans for improper coordination of an independent-expenditure,[15] the clear indication is that Representative Hanabusa has failed to establish a campaign structure capable of running a successful Senate race.
Fourth, from the outset, the Hanabusa campaign portrayed itself as the front-runner with an insurmountable lead. In February, the Hanabusa campaign began touting a dubious internal poll claiming a 20%+ lead on Senator Schatz.[16] By June, however, independent polling by Civil Beat showed Senator Schatz with a close lead,[17] while internal polling conducted by the respected Mark Mellman found Senator Schatz with a 1 point lead and a 13 point lead among voters who knew both candidates.[18]
The downward trajectory of the Hanabusa campaign will likely continue as Senator Schatz continues to amass a larger war chest as well as additional endorsements from labor unions. The Hanabusa campaign faces an uphill battle with fewer resources and a lack of institutional support.
IV. PROGRESSIVES WIN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES IN HAWAII
A. 2002-2012 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES
Since 2002, Hawaii’s electorate has become more progressive and more Democratic-leaning as a result of: (1) an influx of progressive leaning voters who migrated to Hawaii in the 1990s and; (2) the impact of President Obama.
In 2002, Democrats had a 31-20 majority among members of the State House, and in 2003, Democrats had a 20-5 majority among members of the State Senate. Now, Democrats hold an overwhelming majority of 24-1 in the State Senate and a 44-7 majority among members of the State House.
As Hawaii’s electorate has moved to the left, progressive candidates, regardless of ethnicity, have won every major contested Democratic primary race since 2002. Although some pundits have theorized that ethnicity determines Democratic primaries, recent history clearly demonstrates that progressive ideology is the more dominant factor.
Major Democratic Primary Races Since 2002
2002 Mazie Hirono defeats Ed Case in the Democratic primary for governor.
2004 Dennis Kucinich wins Maui County in Hawaii’s Presidential Caucus
2006 Senator Akaka defeats Ed Case in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate
Mazie Hirono defeats Colleen Hanabusa in the Democratic primary for the Second Congressional District
2010 Neil Abercrombie defeats Mufi Hannemann in the Democratic primary for governor
Brian Schatz defeats Norman Sakamoto and Bobby Bunda in the Democratic Primary for lieutenant governor
2012 Mazie Hirono defeats Ed Case in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate
Tulsi Gabbard defeats Mufi Hannemann in the Democratic primary for the Second Congressional District
B. SENATOR SCHATZ IS THE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE IN THIS RACE
Although some pundits have posited that there are few, if any, ideological differences between Schatz and Hanabusa, that viewpoint is simply untrue. Some of the key ideological distinctions between the two candidates are set forth in the following table:
Where They Stand
Brian Schatz
Co-sponsored the Medicare Drug Savings Act to make drug companies pay a rebate to the federal government (supported by AARP, NCPSSM)
Colleen Hanabusa
Opposed rebate to federal government
Brian Schatz
Has pledged not to raise the retirement age or cut benefits for Social Security or Medicare. Co-Sponsored Harkin-Schatz Social Security Enhancement Act
Colleen Hanabusa
Voted in support of the Simpson Bowles Commission’s recommendations that raised the retirement age and cut benefits for Social Security
Brian Schatz
Supported the public option
Colleen Hanabusa
Had “concerns” about the public option in the 2009 proposed House version of healthcare reform
Brian Schatz
Voted against the FISA extension (Dec. 2012); called for an investigation into domestic wiretapping (June 2013)
Colleen Hanabusa
Voted for the FISA extension (Sept. 2012)
Brian Schatz
Said he would not support CISPA due to its “insufficient privacy protections”
Colleen Hanabusa
Voted for CISPA, calling it an “effective compromise” and had “strong use limitations for any shared data”
Brian Schatz
In 100% agreement with the League of Conservation Voters’ issues and received its endorsement; Supported Gina McCarthy as head of the EPA; Signed a letter urging Obama to choose a strong nominee willing to “craft bold solutions”
Colleen Hanabusa
Opposed the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, and voted with the Republican Caucus to delay implementation of new boiler rules
Colleen Hanabusa
Voted to allow clear-cutting of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska
Brian Schatz
Unequivocally supported Honolulu’s mass transit rail project
Colleen Hanabusa
Said she personally did not support Honolulu’s steel on steel mass transit rail project
Brian Schatz
Consistently supported marriage equality calling it “a constitutional right for all Americans”
Colleen Hanabusa
Voted for two amendments that were meant to derail state civil unions legislation in 2009; Defined marriage as between one man and one woman until applying for Senate appointment in December 2012.
V. CONCLUSION
With decisive advantages in money, endorsements, organization, and manpower as well as an ideology more in tune with primary voters, Schatz is well-positioned to win the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate on August 9, 2014. Schatz is the only candidate in this race to win statewide office, and the Abercrombie-Schatz gubernatorial ticket significantly outpolled Hanabusa in 2010, when she was a candidate for Congress. At 40 years old, Schatz has the promise of serving many years in the U.S. Senate and accumulating all important seniority for the constituents of Hawaii.
Email sent to out to voters by Hanabusa:
"Our opponent, Brian Schatz, just sent around an insulting memo, attacking our campaign and arguing that his support from Washington D.C. insiders makes this race a done deal.
He also offered divisive theories about Hawaii voters, arguing that the ideology of a single group of voters will trump the broad coalition of interests that has made Hawaii the warm, inclusive place we all love.
We need to respond by demonstrating that our supporters are committed to taking on Schatz and his Washington D.C. political backers.
Please contribute $5 to show Brian Schatz’s campaign that arrogance and divisiveness won’t work in Hawaii. …"
4:42 PM PT: From Bart Dame (after we admitted we had added a rather sensationalist title on his sober reflections)
'I think the title IS a little sensationalist.I am trying to argue they are expressing more outrage than appropriate, so a sensationalist title kinda works against the calm discussion of issues I am asking for."
"But thanks for posting this to a larger audience. If people want to post comments disagreeing or developing the discussion further, that would be great! Let's have a debate!"