Grading Dean after 2006 Elections.

After the 2006 election, many were debating if Howard Dean did a bad, good or great job as the DNC Chair.
Some, like James Carville, said that Dean needed to be replaced after losing some close Congressional elections.
Others, like Donna Brazile, said that Dean did a fine job in 2006.
So where do I stand? Well, I think I am in agreement with Donna Brazile, for once.
James Carville is just looking at our election results in a ‘skin deep’ type of way. He is only looking at the Congressional races and not the whole picture.
But, remember, Dean isn’t chair of the DCCC, he is the Chair of the DNC, which means he needs to look at ALL Democratic races, not just the Congressional races. Basically, he needs to look at the whole picture.

But, speaking of the DCCC, lets look at Rham! How did he really do? Well, some of his prize candidates, like Tammy Duckworth, lost. So, why don’t we bad mouth Rham? Oh yeah, because it is the ‘in’ thing to bad mouth Dean.
Ok, so back to Dean. Lets look at what he did overall.
The Senate – Bascically, we picked up all the Senate seats that we possibly could. It would have been nice if we picked up Tennessee, but we didn’t. Still, I feel that we gained the maxium amount of seats possible in the Senate. That number will just grow.
Congress – This is what Carville is whining about! Yeah, winning a 31 seat majority in the House is really shitty! Carville said that we could have picked up more if we wanted to. But lets take a look at it…
1. If we would have put more money into some targeted races, he might have picked up, at the most I feel, six more seats.
2. Many of the seats didn’t become ‘toss-ups’ until the last week or two, therefore, it would have been hard to put resources in a race that quickly.
3. Many of the races that we lost that we should have won, like the New Mexico 1st, were mostly because of candidate mistakes (like losing your breath during a debate) instead of funding.
4. This is the big one. Because of Dean’s plan, we won 5 extra seats that we were more than likely not going to win if he didn’t do a 50 state plan (the Arizona 5th, Iowa 2nd, Kansas 2nd, Texas 23rd, New Hampshire 2nd). Therefore, we really didn’t do bad if you factor in that we won these seats that we shouldn’t have won.
5. And in other states, though we didn’t win, we were really close. Especially out west, like the Nevada 3rd, the Idaho 1st and the Wyoming At-Large. The results of these elections and others were amazing.
Therefore, I think Carville is blowing hot steam out his ass on this one.
Governors – oh yeah, we had a net gain of six governor seats. Did Carville forget that one? The only one that we should have maybe picked up but lost was Minnesota. Still, with the Dean Plan, we were competitive in Idaho. What is with the west?!?! Is it trending? Hopefully so!
State Houses – See, these are the elections that most of the national pundits have totally ignored. Yet winning control of these bodies is the most important factor for Democrats keeping Congress from 2012 to 2022. Going down to the local level was a big part of Dean’s plan. So, how did he fair? Well, take a look at all the state house races and you tell me…
Total: No Change 5, Republican Gain 2, Democratic Gains 40

Alabama – No Change (62 D, 43R)
Alaska – Democrats +3 (23R, 17D)
Arizona – Democrats +5 (33R, 27D)
Arkansas – Democrats +3 (75D, 25R)
California – No Change (48D, 32R)
Colorado – Democrats +4 (39D, 26R)
Connecticut – Democrats +7 (106D, 45R)
Delaware – Democrats +3 (23R, 18D)
Florida – Democrats +6 (78R, 42D)
Georgia – Republicans +2 (106R, 74D)
Hawaii – Democrats +2 (43D, 8R)
Idaho – Democrats +6 (51R, 19D)
Illinois – Democrats +1 (66D, 52R)
Indiana – Democrats +3 (51D, 49R) CONTROL CHANGE TO DEMS
Iowa – Democrats +5 (54D, 46R) CONTROL CHANGE TO DEMS
Kansas – Democrats +5 (78R, 47D)
Kentucky – Democrats +4 (61D, 39R)
Louisiana – Republicans +3 (67D, 37R, 1I)
Maine – Democrats +15 (89D, 60R, 2I)
Maryland – Democrats +8 (106D, 35R)
Massachusetts – Democrats +3 (141D, 19R)
Michigan – Democrats +6 (58D, 52R) CONTROL CHANGE TO DEMS
Minnesota – Democrats +19 (85D, 49R) CONTROL CHANGE TO DEMS
Missouri – Democrats +5 (92R, 71D)
Montana – ???
Nevada – Democrats +1 (27D, 15R)
New Hampshire – Democrats +86 (234D, 156R, 10I) CONTROL CHANGE TO DEMS
New Mexico – No Change (42D, 28D)
New York – Democrats +3 (108D, 42R)
North Carolina – Democrats +5 (68D, 52R)
North Dakota – Democrats +6 (61R, 33D)
Ohio – Democrats +7 (53R, 46D)
Oklahoma – No Change (57R, 44D)
Oregon – Democrats +4 (31D, 29R) CONTROL CHANGE TO DEMS
Pennsylvania – Democrats +9 (102D, 101R) CONTROL CHANGE TO DEMS
Rhode Island – Democrats +1 (61D, 14R)
South Carolina – Democrats +1 (73R, 51D)
South Dakota – Democrats +1 (50R, 20D)
Tennessee – No Change (53D, 46R)
Texas – Democrats +5 (81R, 69D)
Utah – Democrats +2 (54R, 21D)
Vermont – Democrats +10 (93D, 49R, 8O)
Washington – Democrats +5 (61D, 37R)
West Virginia – Democrats +4 (72D, 28R)
Wisconsin – Democrats +7 (53R, 46D)
Wyoming – Democrats +3 (43R, 17D)

Well, I think that pretty much says it! And, also, they took control of the legislatures in some very very important states.

So, before people start bad mouthing Dean, I think they should really look at the record. And what was his record in 2006? Well, he kicked ass!

I am proud to get Dean an A!