Home › Blogs › Sean Oxendine's blog ›

Fifteen More-Or-Less Unforgivable Omissions

Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 14:15

As we work on developing our RightRoots, one thing to decide is what aspects of the NetRoots' model are worth adapting, and which are worth jettisoning.  Personally I am skeptical of the 50-state strategy, especially at the Presidential level, and believe that if the stock market hadn't collapsed in September we would be hearing all manner of recriminations about Obama's spending in North Dakota and Montana right now.

But one thing the Netroots have been absolutely 100% spot-on about is the need to put someone on the ballot in all 435 districts.  This isn't to say that it is important to send money to these candidates or strongly support them, but it is to say that Congressmen shouldn't be given a pass, because you can't beat something with nothing.  If there's no one on the ballot, if the incumbent pulls a DeLay, or a Foley, or a Sherwod, or a . . . well, you get the idea, you don't win.

That said, I'm not terribly upset that we didn't have a candidate on the ballot in districts like AL-07 or for that matter in most of the 41 districts the GOP didn't contest (see table below).  But what is unforgiveable is that there were fifteen districts with PVI's of D+10 or less where the GOP didn't put up a candidate.  There were eleven districts with PVI's of D+5 or less where the GOP didn't put up a candidate.

What makes this worse is that many of these districts were in states like Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia, where the Democratic ticket performed horribly this year.  If there was ever a place where an upset of a sleeping Democratic incumbent could occur, these were the places.  Places where Republicans performed reasonably well in 2006 (under the circumstances) (note to self:  your off-the-top-of-your-head memory of margins of victory is not nearly as good as you think) like WV-01 were left empty.

Tom Cole had a tough task recruiting this year because a smart challenger would look at the playing field, look at history, and conclude that 2010 was a much better year to run.  But as we move toward 2010 there are no excuses, and we should make sure someone is on the ballot in all of these races.

Chart  below the fold.

 

     
AL-07 Davis D+17
AR-01 Berry D+1
AR-02 Snyder R+0
AR-04 Ross D+0
CA-18 Cardoza D+3
CA-28 Berman D+25
CA-30 Waxman D+20
CA-31 Becerra D+30
CA-32 Solis D+17
CA-37 Richardson D+27
CA-38 Napolitano D+20
FL-03 Brown D+16
FL-17 Meek D+35
FL-20 Wasserman-Schultz D+18
GA-04 Johnson D+22
GA-05 Lewis D+25
IL-17 Hare D+5
LA-03 Melacon R+5
MA-02 Neal D+11
MA-03 McGovern D+11
MA-05 Tsongas D+9
MA-08 Capuano D+31
MA-09 Lynch D+15
MA-10 Delahunt D+8
MI-14 Conyers D+33
MO-01 Clay D+26
NJ-10 Payne D+34
NY-06 Meeks D+38
NY-9 Weiner D+14
OR-01 Wu D+6
OR-04 DeFazio D+0
PA-14 Doyle D+22
TN-06 Gordon R+4
TN-08 Tanner D+0
TN-09 Cohen D+18
TX-09 Green D+21
TX-16 Reyes D+9
VA-03 Scott D+18
VA-09 Boucher R+7
WV-01 Mollohan R+6
WI-04 Moore D+20

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Better to lose than never to have run at all? Indeed.

Submitted by Tiger4Truth on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 16:20.

So many candidates run losing races before succeeding that one could liken it to an apprenticeship that gets the kinks out and produces a more polished candidate for future elections. Wouldn't it be better to run for the PR value and experience despite the expectation of a bad year, than to wait for a good year? Even a campaign with limited funding makes the candidate's name better recognized for the next run.

As you point out, there is always the possible benefit from unexpected events as well as the potential fluke win courtesy of an opposition meltdown. In other words long-odds gambles can pay handsome rewards.

WV 01

Submitted by Daniel Byler on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 16:40.

I am personally very aware of the political situation in WV-01. The absolute hammering that Chris Wakim got last time really scared off many people from running. Additionally, there are simply few Republicans who are viable candidates in WV. This comes from the Democratic dominance in the state house.

Don't get me wrong, there is a warm body (and possibly a competent one) that could have filled the seat. The problem is that if 1-3 people decide to sit it out, it gets very hard to attract a candidate with past legislative experience who is a credible challenger. This is a GREAT example of how you need to have state house seats to build the bench for upper level seats.

West (By Gawd) Virginia!

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 17:25.

Unfortunately it is currently where my home state of Kentucky was about 50 years ago and is only now starting to change.  But by now the state is so ass-backwards that I don't know if it really can change for the better.  Right now it will (like Arkansas) be a red state at the presidential level, but blue everywhere else.

PA-14

Submitted by Chris Palko on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 17:16.

is the city of Pittsburgh and the Mon Valley.  It is an incredibly Democratic seat.  Nothing short of scandal would cause Doyle to lose (or an intra-party squabble).  I agree that it would be good to get someone on the ballot, but lets first focus on surrounding districts like PA-3 and PA-4, which voted for McCain, but have Dem reps.

hart ran like hell, if you count road signs as an indication

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 17:20.

Doyle's seat was Santorum's seat, if I recall correctly

Sort of

Submitted by Chris Palko on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 12:16.

Santorum was elected in 1990, two redistricting cycles ago in a seat that was concentrated on the Mon Valley.  It was a Democratic leaning seat, but not to the extent that the current 14th is.  Santorum never was the Congressman for the City of Pittsburgh, Bill Coyne was at that time.

didn't ya'll run tinker in cohen's district?

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 17:37.

that's what a little birdie told me, anyway.

if it quaks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

her campaign looked a lot like corker's, didn't it?

Even warm bodies

Submitted by MikeWas on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 21:57.

In 1996, I worked for a congressman named Michael Patrick Flanagan. Don't remember the name? He's the one who ran in 1994 as a Republican. In Chicago. Against the sitting chairman of the Ways & Means Committee.

Flanagan had *no* chance of winning.

And then came 14 federal indictments.

And Flanagan was elected to Congress. (He lost in '96 to current IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich, but that's a different story.)

Flanagan ran because he took a trip to DC and decided the federal government was just too damned big. It's a shame he's not still there. But he ran even though he had no chance of winning. And he won.

We need guys like Flanagan running even where they have no business winning. If we can't get that, there's no excuse to have at least a warm body in every district.

Because you never know who's going to the next Postman.

Flanagan

Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 11:47.

I was on the Hill from 95-97, so of COURSE I remember Flanagan.  As I recall his name was an answer on a Chicago radio show just prior to the election.  And yes, he is Exhibit "A" on why it is important to have *someone* on the ballot.

The thing is, Flanagan's win wasn't entirely a fluke (though it was largely a fluke).  Rostenkowski's district had flirted with Republicans in the late 80s and early 90s.  A symbol of how far we've fallen.

We ought to run a guy against Waxman every time

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 06:56.

His district is Malibu and Beverly Hills. The message sent by leaving him unchallenged is  the GOP is not a factor to be considered for these voters, who have influence far beyind their numbers.

 

Waxgnat

Submitted by Punchenko on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 18:40.

We should get Kelsey Grammer to run against Waxgnat.