We talked briefly last week about a fascinating congressional special election in Chicago -- the race to fill the vacancy left by former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D) -- which has taken on unexpected national implications. That it's the first congressional race since the 2012 election, and the first since the massacre in Newtown, lent it additional weight.
And as it turns out, it's also been the first race in recent memory in which support from the National Rifle Association proved to be a real problem for certain candidates. By some measures, the issue drove the election, and catapulted Democrat Robin Kelly to victory.
The outcome of the contest, which had been unexpectedly cast into the center of the national gun debate, was welcome news for Michael R. Bloomberg, the mayor of New York and a staunch gun-control advocate. He poured more than $2.2 million into attacking Ms. Kelly's chief opponent, Debbie Halvorson, this month. [...]
The advertising campaign, a huge amount for a single House race, set up Ms. Halvorson's defeat on Tuesday as a shot across the bow to other Democrats supporting gun rights, a sign of what could await future candidates who do not align with Mr. Bloomberg's quest to change firearm laws across the country.
In the end, it wasn't even close -- despite an enormous field of candidates, Kelly won the primary with over 50% of the vote, and is the overwhelming favorite to win the general election on April 9.
Stepping back, the larger question is whether this is a sign of things to come.
To be sure, this is a heavily Democratic district, and messages that resonated in Illinois' 2nd district may not be equally as effective elsewhere. But that doesn't negate the fact that this was the first race in recent memory in which a major party's candidates felt the need to distance themselves from the NRA. The far-right lobbying group's "A" ratings for some of the candidates practically became "a scarlet letter," forcing some Democrats who'd previously bragged about NRA support to scramble in the other direction.
Even in reliably "blue" districts, that just hasn't happened in recent years. Democrats, at nearly every level, had been led to believe that supporting gun control was a recipe for electoral failure, so they reflexively avoided the issue. This race set out to challenge those assumptions, and the results were unambiguous.
Indeed, Kelly was only too pleased to tout her "F" rating from the organization, which in turn led to support from Bloomberg and progressive groups like the CREDO super PAC. It helped separate her from the pack and positioned her to become a member of Congress in April.
Don't be surprised if we see this dynamic unfold again in other districts in the not too distant future.
Leave a Comment:
One of the strictiest gun control (if not THE) cities in one of strictiest gun control (if not THE) states elects the candidate with more strict gun control positions...and this is news? Wow. Here's how the NY Times describes Chicago:
To be against any type of gun control in this city as a politician is a real uphill battle.
then go back to fox news and their issues with Big Bird , troll
Thanks for the advice, Patango. So you think it is unusual for a politician with a strong view of gun control to win this election in Chicago.
Oh, and I thought the Left welcomed debate and opposing views?
Rob: Halvorson already was in Congress, this is a new district. She served in the State Senate prior to that. By your logic she never should have won a single election because of her A NRA rating. Once again, you are simply wrong. This is astounding that a pro-gun candidate lost because of exactly that, regardless of the geography...
My logic said a pro gun stance is an uphill battle in Chicago and Illinois. Do you dispute that?
Halvorson's former district voted FOR Bush in 2000 and 2004. The current district she was running for voted FOR Gore and Kerry by OVER 80%. (Source: Wiki 2nd and 11th District - not the most reputable but I think adequate for this) Do you still find it astounding that she lost?
While the Right will take the stance of the above comment, I sincerely hope this is at least a crack in the NRA armor.
Where was OFA? It seems to me I should send money to Mayor Bloomberg if I want to see effective political action taken against the NRA, and getting pro gun control people into congress. This is the huge anomaly about this tectonic shift not just on this issue but on the tactics of activist organisations and it bears some examination. I tip my hat very reluctantly to Bloomberg, but what incenses me is my extreme disappointment with OFA. Where were they? Do I add them to the Occupy movement on the list of politically irrelevant entities?
My understanding is that Organizing for Action
So why was it a Centrist republican who organized this tectonic shift and not OFA?
.
What I got from OFA was how they wanted me to communicate to my already pro-gun control members of congress about my pro gun control views, and of course they wanted me to send them money, and organize a neighborhood group to watch the state of the Union address...
I'd be happy to send them money and do the quaint watch party if someone could draw the lines between the dots about how this was going to be part of a decisive campaign. Was the OFA inaction due to a problem of internal governance or decision making? If so, how will we ever know?- its not like members want to talk to the press about organization internal discussions. So how can I as a citizen decide to join up with them? What it that Bloomberg was effective because he could take uninhibited action with his own money, whereas OFA was possibly hampered by reluctance to "take sides" in a DEM party primary? How will I ever become educated about why? I just have conjecture to go on.
.
Is OFA taking the position that they will not dirty their hands with the campaigns of particular candidates in elections? Given the success of Bloomberg's action, will OFA adopt it? How about nascent groups- will activists congealing around Climate change adopt it as a blueprint for action? Will establishment groups like Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and MoveOn attempt to "primary" candidates using the same tactics, or will they ignore success and remain satisfied with their moribund progress?
This is a cheap shot. Bloomberg put his money where his mouth is. Kinda like ANY lobbyist does ANYWHERE. To decide you don't like OFA and they 'did nothing' is really low. Don't like them? Don't send them your money. Right now they are working on several fronts in many states.
John: You constantly concern troll over OFA. They are just beginning what will hopefully be ground breaking activism, and you jump on everything they do as if it's Custers Last Stand. This is a victory, an NRA shill was defeated.
Defeated by Bloomberg. I asked a fair question. Where is OFA challenging candidates? Was it that they:
Which is it?
.
Does OFA intend to take these sorts of actions in congressional campaigns? Based on what statements? Messina is not saying that. The site is not saying that. If there is evidence to the contrary, kindly point me to it. I see very very few stories on OFA except from the right wing fear mongering over them.
John is right. I have yet to see a single message from OFA that gives the slightest indication they are anything but Democratic astroturf. These people are supposed to be such political geniuses, with all these resources, and yet they can't do one-tenth of one percent of what Bloomberg did with that ad.
@2.4 &2.5 But isn't Bloomberg's PAC a single interest operation? And that interest plays particularly well to the IL-2 demo group. OFA is going to have to cover multiple issues over many years/election cycles in 50 states. My husband who has been active in IL politics over decades has taught me that if it's really important and you have limited funds, you only get into primaries where you have a high percentage of return on your investment. Democratic party organizations in IL rarely get involved in primaries. It's not cost effective, especially if there's another organization that can/will handle the 'incoming fire'. After Bloomberg got into the act, Kelly had little chance of losing given the demographics of the congressional district, so my question is why waste money?
Maybe the President regards these sorts of tactics as inherently undesirable due to their potential for corruption? I have a half dozen other conjectures about the reason for the inaction.
It surely was not ignorance. Bloomberg made it clear what he was doing- the head of his Pac was on Chris Hayes's show and described the strategy. Meg is right they are doing many things right now, but it is hard to understand why there was no phone banking operation to get out the vote in that race. Surely they understood in that congressional district who the Pro Gun Control voters were.
Mego- it is a fair question to ask why they were no show in that race. I can think of a few good explanations, but after what happened to Organizing for Obama in 2008, the burden of proof is on OFA to show me they are going to be aggressive. In the absence of any explanation it is not fair to expect activists to assume thing will be different this time.
What it boils down to is that OFA missed an excellent opportunity to prove this is not a repeat of the 2008 disarmament of a great constellation of activists willing to put their heart and soul into a cause.
Missed opportunity Messina. All you had to do was a low cost simple phone bank for GOTV.
Dumb.
But like a lot of folks hanging back. We are listening. Demonstrate OFA power. Somewhere. Anywhere.
Knitter-
1) what is the wasted money for phone banking to GOTV? You draw on a national pool of callers who call on their own money. The script walks them through a set of questions on gun control, and if they are pro control you remind them Kelly is to, and give them instructions to their polling location, urging them to vote. Otherwise, you thank them for their time and don't tell them anything about the vote.
2) Even if it did cost money, they reason to do it is credibility. You fight a winnable battle at the beginning to establish your street cred about doing stuff to support Obama's initiatives, not just getting him elected.
Does that mean most Democrats in Chicago don't even miss their guns? What an unpatriotic bunch they are!
A gun is a tool, designed to kill. Why are we surprised when it is used that way?
I never believed the voters of Jackson's old district, once they were fully informed, would elect an NRA-approved candidate. Knowledge is power!
Liability laws are the way to go next! Current safety proposals need to be enacted, and then owners of guns, just as owners of cars, should be lawfully forced to carry liability insurance for the potential death and destruction their hardware could cause should it be lost, stolen or somehow strayed in the family into the hands of another family member who will use it to commit extreme prejudice upon innocent Americans!
Yes, I agree with the right to bare arms, and I also know the bravest in a democracy carry no guns! -Kevo
Bingo! Add to liability insurance, semi automatics must be registered and if stolen or lost, reported. If you fail to report and your registered gun is used in a crime, you assume partial liability and either fined or jailed. I, too, support the right to bear arms, but responsibly.
This can also be looked at as a glaring issue were dems rolled over for the gop way to much through the years , I mean obama was from Chicago and could not even mention the subject of guns the last 5 years ?
In the name of PARTISANSHIP , and getting along with the gop , we must allow gun shows in Indiana to arm criminals in Illinois ? Thankfully the tide has turned , but could it have been turned sooner if our dem reps would have just pressed the issue sooner?
For me this circles back around to our dysfunctional press , when the NRA are allowed to issue propaganda talking points , and no one is there to smack the lies down , we get failed legislation
But that is where the dem party could have made a difference also , instead they just shut up about it completely ......An example ? Look at how people minds changed when Obama started supporting gay marriage , it did not seem like such a foreign issue to support aster he spoke up about it
Steve,
From your fingers to God's ears.
Or, more importantly (especially since I don't believe in G*d) from your fingers to the voter's fingers everywhere.
"Stepping back, the larger question is whether this is a sign of things to come."
I hope so. Nice to see Bloomberg put his money where his mouth is.
Note: turn-out was light -- around 15%.
Meanwhile on the GOPer side:
At least he's an admitted Republican felon.
In my opinion, people and organizations from out of state should keep their money and influence Out of other state's elections. States should decide issues based on what their own citizens want and demand. Not what people like Bloomberg want and demand. He is a leftist fanatic. I do not want him telling me if I can or can't carry a gun or how many ounces of a soft drink I may drink. He is a total nut job that peddles his influence because he is mega rich.
Jes: Those Republicans certainly irk you with those Super Pacs, right... Sheldon Adelson is enemy #1, right...
Time to make the NRA as socially acceptable in polite society as the KKK.