MyDD :: DCCC Not Aggressive Enough

DCCC Not Aggressive Enough

by Chris Bowers, Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:50:13 AM EST

There are at least thirty, and as many as forty, districts where Bush failed to reach a majority but where a Republican holds a seat. Here they are (all info from OurCongress):

District       Bush in 2000
MN-3		49.9%
IL-11		49.5%
NJ-7		49.0%
NY-19		48.9%
NY-23		48.9%
IA-4		48.8%
AZ-8		48.6%
PA-6		48.6%
KY-3		48.1%
PA-15		48.1%
NY-24		48.0%
NV-3		47.8%
FL-10		47.7%
NM-1		47.4%
WA-8		47.3%
IL-10		46.7%
NJ-4		46.6%
PA-8		46.3%
FL-22		45.4%
NY-25		45.3%
IA-1		44.8%
NY-13		44.3%
NY-3		44.2%
NJ-3		43.6%
CO-7		43.4%
CT-4		43.4%
CT-5		43.4%
NJ-2		42.9%
IA-2		42.5%
DE-AL		41.9%

This list does not include any districts from California, Indiana and Missouri, where I was unable to find a breakdown of the 2000 vote according to 2002 congressional districts. In those three states, there may be as many as ten more districts (all in California) where Bush failed to reach a majority but where a Republican currently holds the seat. Further, this list would more than double if it included districts where a Republican currently holds the seat but where Bush failed to reach 55% of the vote. Overall, there are more than 80 districts where the 2000 Bush vote was under 55% but where Republicans hold seats.

Considering this very substantial list of potential Democratic targets, why on Earth are we only talking about a maximum of fifteen pickups for Democrats in 2004? Granted, the DCCC is taking some of these districts very seriously. However, more than half of them are not being significantly contested. How many of them are PA-8's in the making? In at least one of these districts, NY-25 where I grew up (the Syracuse area) there isn't even a Democratic candidate running!

For anyone suggesting that the DCCC should consider finding a "better" candidate than Schrader, I hope that this list serves as a demonstration of just how many winnable districts are out there where only half-hearted attempts are being made to oust GOP incumbents. There will never be a Democratic 1994 unless the DCCC attacks simultaneously on all fronts. Recruiting for every single one of these districts needs to begin on November 3rd.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

More info please... (none / 0)

Can you find out how much the GOP Congressional candidates won by in this district? That is a far more telling number.

Get off the DCCC's back. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 01:14:35 AM EST

Re: DCCC Not Aggressive Enough (none / 0)

This is why Dean and Democracy for America will be such a good thing for the party.

by eRobin on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 01:18:42 AM EST

Re: DCCC Not Aggressive Enough (none / 0)

"In those three states, there may be as many as ten more districts (all in California) where Bush failed to reach a majority but where a Republican currently holds the seat."

Thanks to gerrymandering, there is not a single Dem majority district represented by a Republican in the state of California. Similarly, there is not a single Bush majority district represented by a Democrat.

"Considering this very substantial list of potential Democratic targets, why on Earth are we only talking about a maximum of fifteen pickups for Democrats in 2004?"

Because most of these districts are being held by INCREDIBLY popular incumbents who will hold the seat for life. In many cases, they're incredibly popular moderate incumbents who fit the district perfectly. Chris Smith (NJ-04), for example, mixes pro-union stances with a more culturally conservative stance on abortion that works well with his catholic working class district. Mike Castle (DE-AL) is an incredibly popular and universally respected former Governor who is accustomed to getting 70% of the vote every two years. I could go down the list, but these districts just aren't going to boot their incumbent.

Furthermore, it is incredibly naive to assume that the strength of the Democratic Party in any given district is directly proportional to Gore's percent of the vote there. Battleground districts for State Rep races in New Jersey are typically those that went 20%+ for Gore; battleground districts for State Rep races in Massachusetts can be as much as 30%+ for Gore.

"For anyone suggesting that the DCCC should consider finding a "better" candidate than Schrader, I hope that this list serves as a demonstration of just how many winnable districts are out there where only half-hearted attempts are being made to oust GOP incumbents."

Sadly enough, there really isn't a better candidate for the Greenwood district than Schrader. And it's precisely because the district is GOP downballot. There's not a single Dem State Senator from Bucks County, and the only two State Reps are old enough to qualify for Social Security. Republicans swept the county in 2003, despite Democrats having a great year in the there overall.

Open seat or no, Schrader is still a low tier candidate who will likely get steamrolled by a Republican with much higher name recognition (and more importantly, experience!) in November.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:39:05 AM EST

Re: DCCC Not Aggressive Enough (none / 0)

Bucks county is a rough go I know, and I'm not complaining. However, even though,as you note, there are problems with popular incumbents, these are all districts where serious attempts should at least be made to challenge the incumbent, even if most of them will fail. To give up just lets the GOP off the hook without a fight.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC Not Aggressive Enough (none / 0)

People have better things to do than waste a year of their life in a hopeless and frustrating battle against a incredibly popular incumbent in hopes that a one-in-a-million miracle will occur.

Anyone with half a brain would look at the Greenwood seat and say, "He's old, he'll retire soon, or he'll run for Senate soon, so I'll wait for my opening."

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why blame the DCCC? (none / 0)

I'm not quite sure why candidate recruitment is a DCCC failing. Don't the state and county parties have some responsibility? They're much closer to the districts, they have a better idea of who the viable candidates are and what the fundraising situation will be like, and they know better what will play in their area.

The DCCC is all about fundraising. I'm sure they can help pick a candidate by promising to target a race, but why exactly should they play a more prominent role in recruiting than the locals? That just doesn't make sense to me.

by kuff on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:56:15 AM EST

Ignorance of the districts (none / 0)

You completely disregard any factors beyond the presidential race, and then blame it on the DCCC. The DCCC can only do so much, if no one wants to run, thats not the DCCC's fault, especially when it can't commit money and resources to every race in the country. The rise of amatuers like the Deaniacs has suddenly caused a shift to blame the party establishment for everything.

Let's take NY's 25th, were I also grew up, for example. The Democrats did have a candidate, but he dropped out right after he was nominated. Then someone offered to run, but he/she is infact a crossdresser. Finally two days before petitions were due, someone else volunteered to run, but did not have enough signatures by the filing deadline. Now even so, oh great recruiter and knower of all districts, please tell me who in NY 25th that the Democrats could even have recruited to run a competitive race against Jim Walsh?

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 10:06:11 AM EST

Re: Ignorance of the districts (none / 0)

Right, the failure is greater than just the DCCC, why not spread the blame. The failure here is througout the Democratic Party's infrastructure. We could be on the verge of a realignment and it's having qualified candidates in these CD's would be tipped atop as upsets over the Republican incumbents by a tidal wave.

Things need to change, anyone denying that has their head in the sand.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 10:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ignorance of the districts (none / 0)

How about Carrol or Bragamn? How about the President of the Syracuse Inter Religious Council? How about Dwayne "The Pearl" Washington? How about anyone? There should at least be a name on the ballot.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ignorance of the districts (none / 0)

Bragman dropped out of the County Executive race because a poll showed he had no chance in 03, then he turned around and endorsed a Republican slate of candidates for Town Board. Pearl Washington endorsed and raised money for Pataki's re-election. There's no fault of the DCCC here because there is no legitimate big name politician to take on the Walsh, it will be 2 or 3 more cycles at the least before the Democrats could have someone to take on Walsh. This is just one example, but your attacks on the DCCC are baseless, just because Gore won a district does not make it competitive on the Congressional level, especially considering many of your targets are entrenched incumbents, moderates and legacies.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ignorance of the districts (none / 0)

But there needs to at least be a challenge. The Gore vote is not the end all be all, but it does show that there is potential to bote for a Democrat. There hasn't been a serius challenge to the Walsh since 1996. In 1988, as I am sure you know, Walsh only won by around 40 votes. Its not like he can't be beaten.

"The Walsh." Classic. I'm going to keep using that one from now on, if you don't mind.

Bragman could have beaten Pirro in 2003. A Zogby poll in May 2002 showed him ahead. He had around $1,000,000 in the bank.

And my "attack" on the DCCC was simply saying they were not being aggressive enough in trying to retake the house. If local, state and national attempts to find a candidate to at least put on a ballot in a 650,000 person district fail, then I have no problem standing by my "attack."

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ignorance of the districts (none / 0)

If your so desperate for a candidate, why aren't you running? Exactly, because its a lot of effort, especially to take on almost anyone you named. The only person in Onondaga County who is capable of taking on Walsh is Matt Driscoll and that won't be for another 4 years.

The Walsh was a typo.

I also stand corrected on the poll, someone told me it showed Bragman having no chance, based on who it was I believed them. I looked it up, it was a dead heat. Despite that, if he dropped out of that race, why would he run for congress?

I worked for the DSCC and I can tell you these groups do everything they can to win majorities, but they only have so many staffers, and they only have so many dollars and there are only so many credible candidates.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ignorance of the districts (none / 0)

I would run, but I don't live there anymore.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 04:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blame the DCCC (none / 0)

I do blame the DCCC. All they care about is how much money the challenger can raise, and protecting their incumbents. Some of the republican incumbents may be popular, and some may be moderate, but in this partisan era they can be made out to be extremists.

Also, imagine if, 9 months out from the election, the DCCC gave the top 50 races $100,000. Imagine challengers having instant credibility because of that money, and how much more money they could raise by saying, "I've already raised $100,000, and it's not even April."

The DCCC needs a system that says "This district is X% Democratic", and a system that says "This incumbent is X% Partisan." Then they target extremist republicans in moderate districts. I keep hearing about IL-11, which, according to that list, isn't a Bush district. But Rep. Weller votes with Bush 100% of the time! The DCCC needs to get on that!

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:16:53 PM EST

Re: Blame the DCCC (none / 0)

Yea, the DNC can tell you what issue you are most likely to vote on based on your demographics, so clearly the DCCC hasn't thought of what you just mentioned.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blame the DCCC (none / 0)

The DCCC can contribute $10,000.

So where does the other magical $90,000 come from?

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 02:02:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blame the DCCC (none / 0)

The other $90,000 comes from money best spent elsewhere.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blame the DCCC (none / 0)

"The DCCC needs a system that says "This district is X% Democratic", and a system that says "This incumbent is X% Partisan.""

There's already a system in place that tells us what districts to challenge, and it's more complex than a simple formula like that. It invariably takes into account the strength of the candidate recruited.

In the case of, say, NJ-07, Brozak's military background makes him a more attractive candidate, there's a percieved weakness on behalf of Ferguson, and the district isn't too impossible to win, so money flowed to that race.

In the case of Ginny's district, her resume sucks (and that's something even money can't fix), there was no weakness on behalf of Greenwood, and the district is fairly Republican down ballot despite Gore winning there.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a silly argument (none / 0)

Do the math...

40 seats to have $500,000 for funds = $20,000,000...

If 100,000 people were to give money, they would only need to give $200 each...

So that is $5 per House race!!!!

You mean to tell me that we can't give 100,000 people to kick in some cash?

DFA alone could do it for crying out loud!!!

This needs to be organized and the group to do it is the DCCC...the tools are out there...the blogsphere is ready, it just need direction and a nifty graphic to watch tick off the cash...

It isn't just about winning...you would have to be very uninformed to not know that most of the Republicans in these districts are funneling cash to those 15 districts we are trying to get...

Spending this kind of cash would scare the bejebbus out of them and dry up this source of funds....they would need to spend cash on their own elections...

And that is as important as winning the elections. It would make winning those other 15 easier, at the same time we may actually pick off some of those 40 seats...

Statistically, 1/3rd of candidates who spend $700,000 or more in a race win....

In an election year that is bad for one party...that number goes up to 60%+

Fortune favors the bold for christ sake!!!!!!

That's why the DCCC is falling down on the job....this would take less than two weeks and change the whole landscape of the cash flow for the Repugs up and down the ticket!!!

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:55:42 PM EST

Re: This is a silly argument (none / 0)

I like yer numbers, and if I could only manage to fire them all and put Joe Trippi in charge, it'd be a done deal.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a silly argument (none / 0)

Are you high? How much would it cost to solicit, collect, and disburse $20 million in $200 increments from 100,000 people? Do you think that all happens for free?

Tell you what - the DCCC is in the phone book - (202) 863-1500. Call them and tell them about your fabulous idea. I'm sure they're dying to hear it. Or hey, since they're such a bunch of incompetents, why not set up your own organization and show 'em how it's done? Since you're such an expert and all.

Maybe, just maybe, they do have a clue over there and are doing the best they can with what they've got.

by kuff on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 09:07:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a silly argument (none / 0)

You want to know how much it costs.....since it is clear you have no clue and an agenda to protect the DCCC at all costs...does your Congressperson know you are using office hours and company equipment to post here? Do their constituents?

If the donations are funneled through ActBlue, the cost would be 2% of each donation...

So tell me Einstein....how much is that?

Forget it...you are so stuck in the old way of thinking about raising cash that I'll have to do it for you....

$20,000,000 x .02 = $400,000
$400,000 x .02 = $8,000
$8,000 x .02 = $160
$160 x .02 = $3.20, lets make it $4

So the total is $408,164

So $20,408,164 x .02 = $20,000,000.72

So we would have to raise $20,408,164 and divided by 100,000 (which by the way is a pathetic amount of people...we should easily be able to raise from 1,000,000)...you get

$204.08

Wow..you are right....each person would have to absorb an additional $4.08....insurmountable!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pathetic really.....I believe its all about controlling the money, and the DCCC doesn't want to lose control of doling out the cash....so rather than hit em hard, we have people engaged in a pissing match...

PS: I did contact Peolsi, the DCCC and Kerry....but something tells me they won't see the light....

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:37:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a silly argument (none / 0)

Thanks for the assist, kuff!

Please also feel free to email me (olson@dccc.org) with these ideas, instead of calling the general line.

If you hadn't noticed by our response to this kerfuffle, we are ready and willing to listen and really take it to the GOP.

You think that we (the DCCC + the online community) need to organize people to give $4 to 50 races?

WE ARE ALL FOR IT.

Let's make it happen, and stop calling each other names.

again, that email address is olson@dccc.org .

thanks,

steve
Online Operations
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

(disclosure: I work for Tom Udall for Senate) Join us at http://www.TomUdall.com

by steveolson on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CT-2 (none / 0)

You left CT-2 off the list. We are a Democratic district with an ex-CIA agent Republican congressman who supports the Iraq war (Rob Simmons). Should be easy to get rid of him.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 09:23:10 PM EST

Re: DCCC Not Aggressive Enough (none / 0)

While we naturally focus on lost Democratic congressional opportunities, are there not a fair number of Democratic held seats in Districts where Bush polled 50%+??

While I don't have the excellent data shared by Chris Bowers in this post, I can think of several districts that I believe fit my definition...ME 2, WV 1, WV 3, OH 6, MI 1, GA 2, several TX districts....and so on.

Net is that while I am not a DCCC fan at all, there are seats that should become Republican by the same premise as pointing out those that supposedly should become Democratic.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:03:23 PM EST

Re: DCCC Not Aggressive Enough (none / 0)

This blog sucks! It is nothing more than a cheap propaganda tool of those who have nothing better to do than to belittle anyone who has a different opinion than they.

by Truth Matters on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 12:09:22 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.