Pushing For 434

The elections are over ten months away, but it is already a guarantee that we will not have 435 Democrats running for Congress in 2006. We did not field a challenger against Mike Conaway in the TX-11th, so the most we can hope for now is 434. That is not to say that our efforts in Texas and Illinois were total failures. In 2004, there were three seats in Texas that were not challenged by Democrats: TX-03, TX-10, and TX-13. Thus, so far we thus have an improvement of two seats over the 2003-204 cycle.

Over the next ten weeks, we have 27 more seats to fill:

January 31, Kentucky
KY-04: Geoff Davis**
KY-05: Hal Rogers*

February ??, Indiana
IN-05: Dan Burton

February 14, New Mexico
NM-02: Steve Pierce** and ***

February 16: Ohio
OH-08: John Boehner

March ??: South Carolina
SC-01: Henry Brown*
SC-02 Joe Wilson
SC-04: Bob Inglis

March 1: Mississippi and Nebraska
MS-01: Roger Wicker*
MS-03: Charles Pickering*
NE-01: Jeff Fortenberry**

March 7, Oregon and Pennsylvania
OR-02: Gregory Walden

PA-05: John Peterson^
PA-09: Bill Shuster
PA-15: Charles Dent** and ***

March 10th: California
CA-02: Wally Herger
CA-03: Dan Lundgren
CA-04: John Doolittle
CA-19: George Radanobich
CA-21: Denis Nunes
CA-22: Bill Thomas*
CA-25: Buck McKeon
CA-41: Jerry Lewis

March 17th: Iowa and Utah
IA-04: Tom Latham** and ***
UT-01: Rob Bishop
UT-03: Chris Cannon

* = Unopposed in 2004
** = Democratic candidate 39% or more in 2004

*** = Bush under 55% in district

Overall, there are still 79 Republican incumbents who do not face a Democratic challenger. In 2004, there were 36 Republican incumbents who did not face a Democratic challenger, which means that even though we were a minority party heading into the 2004 elections, we actually ran more incumbents than we ran challengers. That is pretty pathetic.

As you can see from the list above, most Democratic challengers in these districts would probably be unable to make the campaign competitive. However, a handful of them actually could: IA-04, KY-04, NM-02, NE-01 and PA-15. Strong challengers in all of these districts would literally drain millions, possible ore than ten million, from Republican coffers in higher profile races. Just like the theory that a Senate landslide is built by stretching Republican defenses as thin as possible, a House landslide is built largely by creating as many challenges to Republican held seats as possible.

We need to find challenger to these races ASAP. If you live in any of these districts, you should consider filing to run yourself.



Display:


Notes (none / 0)

First of all, the CA-03 incumbent is named Dan Lungren, not Lundgren. No "D". I remember him well as AG in California...

Second, rumor is former Rep. Ken Lucas (D) will be taking on Geoff Davis. At least, that's what Southern Political Report said yesterday. Not only will that give Davis a challenger, but it will propel KY-04 to top-tier. Of course, it's not official yet, just a rumor.

Most of the people on this list are totally unbeatable anyway, other than a few (Dent, Latham, and of course Davis if Lucas runs).

by raginillinoian on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 02:58:20 PM EST

Re: Notes (none / 0)

FWIW Politics 1 shows Gabe Castillo as a Democratic challenger in CA-03.  Barry Welsh already had the total down to 75 and this would drop it to 74.  

If the scandals swirling around Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff grow much bigger, Jery Lewis, the complacent chair of military appropriations (am I right?) might be worth a challenge.  He's not the guy who paired with Dean Martin and he's no ball of fire (sorry, Jerry Lee).

Time to check a few more states.

by David Kowalski on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 04:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Notes (none / 0)

Two more.  Bob Dodge in PA-15 and Kevin Jackson in AZ-6 are listed as active candidates.  Down to 72.  

Another one bites the dust.  At least another vacancy.  And another one.  (Better music.  One more reason Democrats are better.  Or, perhaps I should use the title of another congressional candidate, why we are "still the one."

by David Kowalski on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 04:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerry Lewis (none / 0)

I grew up in that area and live just 60 miles away. That is one very red area now. Even with the scandal he'd be formidable. He still should have an opponent for all the reasons mentioned before and in the post referencing the absentee ballot campaigns.
just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 08:42:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Notes (none / 0)

additionally, ret. lt. col. charles brown is running against doolittle in CA-04.
by wu ming on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Chris...in California you've pointed out (3.00 / 0)

some of the Reddest districts of all that make CA-48 look like a cakewalk.

Very difficult to recruit good solid candidates that know they are going to get their asses kicked.

That is why, as you know probably better than anyone, I created The Insurgent Campaign. With the link below Grassrooters can get some information that can help create a campaign that won't get a lick of Party support but still have substantial impact on '08....and '06 while still recogizing that a victory, barring a miracle is out of reach.

How? By focusing on increasing Absentee Ballot registration and new Dem registration...by concentrating on creating better communication with existing and new donors...by working with volunteers to have fully trained teams and fully detailed districts before the next General Elections where every vote will count towards the Electoral College total.

Imagine a two year process of increasing registration and absentee ballot registration!

Do you know that Oregon only has mail-in ballots now? No precinct voting whatsoever.

And what do you think was the voter turnout in the last General Election? 45%, 50%?  60% in CA-48 in 2004 was considered remarkable!

In Oregon is 90% or better!

So is organizing a campaign for the purpose of making sure we can turn our vote in '08, not to mention '06, valuable? Yes!

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 03:25:23 PM EST

Re: Chris...in California you've pointed out (3.00 / 0)

Curious -- I remember hearing that when Switzerland went to absentee voting, turnout dropped massively. So Oregon went the other way?
by sdedeo on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 03:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absentee Turnout (none / 0)

MASSIVELY is the word. And this from a political operative friend of mine who is running a campaign up there. He may be a guest on a teleconference call I do about Absentee Ballot Registrations and how important they are to our Party.

Statistically, an Absentee Ballot registered voter is an almost guaranteed vote AND the GOTV is a single phone call:

"Hi! Did you remember to vote for us and drop your ballot in the mail? Yes? GREAT! Thanks so much. "

It was ONLY the Republican Absentee turnout that elected John Campbell in the CA-48 Special Election. And I was on staff for that one. There were other factors but when you boil down the vote he was elected by the Absentee Voters. In the precinct votes he, the winner, finished dead last.

If we, as members of the Grassroots, did NOTHING other than get members of our immediate area registered for Absentee Ballots we would be boosting our turnout dramatically for '06 AND overwhelmingly, assuming the effort continued, for '08!

That's why I'm lining up a teleconference call, for free, on the topic of Absentee Ballot Campaigns. Right now I'm trying to get the best professionals I can to participate. But Jan is the busiest month for all Campaign Pro's. So if they are too busy I'll still have the conference call. It's just too important a topic. More info within days....

(The Beauty of the thing is that anyone can do it! An individual in front of the supermarket, a club, a county Party or ?)

If you already know you are interested in attending the teleconference call email me here.

Attendance will be limited to 90 people to keep the call free for everyone.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 08:41:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pa 15th needs someone to displace Dent (none / 0)

Dent is a republican lacky. And for someone who, supposedly, is so well liked in the Lehigh Valley area, I find it amazing that (per opensecrets.org) 69% of the funds he has raised comes from out of state and 66% are from mostly "right" leaning PACs. Don Cunningham would probably be a great candidate, but he just became the first Democrat ever elected to the Lehigh County Executive position, so I can't picture him wanting to "jump" into another race this quickly. Somebody has got to step forward. I, for one, would be happy to support them in anyway possible.    
Memo to neocons: I respect your right to have an opinion, but I just don't want to hear it anymore.
by blogus on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 03:29:30 PM EST

Re: Pa 15th needs someone to displace Dent (none / 0)

I agree PA-15 should be a top target we need a strong challenger here in this 50-50 district.
Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 04:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pa 15th needs someone to displace Dent (none / 0)

Politics 1 shows an active Democratic challenger for Dent, Bob Dodge.
by David Kowalski on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 04:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CA-04 (none / 0)

has Charles Brown Lt. Colonel, USAF Retired, a member of Majority Report Radio's Fighting Dems.
by Intellectually Curious on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 03:33:22 PM EST

Re: CA-04 (none / 0)

you beat me to it.
by wu ming on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:59:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NM-02: All Wrong (none / 0)

It's Steve Pearce. And Bush got 58%, not under 55%.
by marksist on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 03:38:33 PM EST

losing isn't really losing (none / 0)

We talk about "losing" these challenges.
First of all, we don't know what sort of skeleton might come out of the closet, and there is less of a chance without the scrutiny of a campaign. Also, even if something scandalous were to surface, entering the race afterwards would diminish a candidates ability to use the issue be it family values, corruption, or whatever. One or two incumbents may have career ending problems and we need challengers to be there when it happens.

Secondly, even if nothing new comes up, and the challenger is defeated, we don't "lose". Having a candidate with more name recognition and experience is a "win" even thought they aren't in office...yet.
when the incumbent retires and the seat is open we have a much better shot. Even if there is no retirement, than we have a better shot in two years.
434 a great goal!

by MrT on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 04:37:36 PM EST

LET'S GO FOR QUALITY NOT QUANTITY!!!!!!! (3.00 / 2)

Since the Republicans always outraise the Democrats, why waste money and time and internet blog attention by obsessing about the total number of challengers. Focus on 1) the open seats, where new  faces and energy and enthusiasm and lack of incumbency offers the chance for a pickups 2) close losses in 2004 that with a non-presidential turnout year offer the opportunity to pull off an upset and 3) special situations, such as scandals or powerhouse challengers that can give us a chance. Just going after numbers and not zeroing on real opportunities will insure the Republicans keep their majority. Gingrich in 1994 led an aggressive GOP Contact with America Strategy that targeted races successfully and the House has been Republican hands ever since. I would LOVE it if Republicans wasted money and time in my state of Mass where 5 of 10 Dems in 2004 had no opposition and the Republican opponents who ran against the 5 Reps got anywhere from 22 to 34 percent of the vote. And does anyone recall the presidential candidate who promised to run the first "Fifty State Campaign" and wasted valuable time flying off to places like Alaska while his opponent concentrated on the swing states and won one of the closest elections in history? Yes, Richard Nixon was the one, and his run everywhere strategy in 1960 helped elect John F. Kennedy. The Republican have more money, so let's not drain the Democratic more limited funds by running everywhere. Quality candidates in targeted races, not the quantity running, will make the difference.
by Robert Spurrier on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 04:54:01 PM EST

Re: LET'S GO FOR QUALITY NOT QUANTITY!!!!!!! (none / 0)

you haven't been here long, have you?
Invest in nature
by NCDem on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 05:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's build Our Districts (a response) (none / 0)

Trust me. The Party will not waste funds on marginal races. They will not spend a dime. It's up to the Candidate, his campaign and the People to fund these campaigns to the extent that they can have a positive impact on their districts.

As a person who has seen a lot of campaigns from the inside, the good that can be done in a district from an effort that doesn't result in a win far outweights the effort of putting that campaign into place.

If you look at my other responses you'll see good solid reasons to have what I call "The Insurgent Political Campaign". There is also a website by the same name with 5 hours of audio on the same topic below.

If we don't begin the long process of rebuilding districts we will not take back the Districts that today look unwinnable.

A good example in recent experience was CA-48's Special Election where the Democrat was Steve Young, who is running again in '06. One of his peak experiences in that race was being invited to more than one high school to talk to class and assemblies of students. What a great opportunity to show off our Party and The Big Tent.

It is through supporting high school clubs, college Young Dems, voter registration, Absentee Ballot campaigns, better communication with the voter via websites, blogs & emails and better communication with the Donors (not to mention cultivating new Donors) that we can change a District.

It is a long process and takes dedicated people. In that process they can build successive leadership and train teams for specific duties.

And the Candidates? Give them a good reason to run, something more than just another entry on their resume, and they will show up.

That's the next entry at The Insurgent Political Campaign 'Finding a Candidate, Part 3.

This is a very long range view. Our goals must be to be effective. But make no mistake...the party isn't going to squander any resources on the Red District Campaign. Those folks are on their own.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 09:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Four uncontested GOPers in TX in 2004, not three (none / 0)

Ron Paul in TX-14 was also unopposed in 2004. Keep an eye on Shane Sklar, the guy running against him this time.
by kuff on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 05:38:53 PM EST

Filling In Some Blanks (none / 0)

South Carolina filing deadline:  Mar. 30, 2006

Indiana filing deadling:  Feb. 17, 2006

by curiousgeorge on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 06:54:13 PM EST

FYI NC (none / 0)

Virginia Foxx will probably have a challenger, there are two candidates discussing running.  I don't have their info handy, but one is Winston-Salem Mayor Joines.
BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 08:10:29 PM EST

IA-04 (none / 0)

Not that I disagree with your strategy, but IA-04 would be a real longshot. Latham is a total Republican clone (in 2004, when asked by the Des Moines Register, he couldn't name a single issue on which he had voted differently from the House GOP leadership), but that district is a VERY uphill battle for Dems.

I agree that we need strong challengers everywhere to build the Democratic brand, etc., but let's not get carried away by thinking IA-04 could become competitive.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 09:20:47 PM EST

Three more candidates (none / 0)

The DCCC site is reporting candidates for each of Washington's "vacancies": Richard Wright in the 4th CD (also listed on Acy Blue) and Peter Goldmark in the 5th CD.

Act Blue also has Norman "Bill" Williams running in Arkansas' 3rd CD.  One of the Republican candidates in Arkansas has the unfortunate name of Andy Mayberry,  He must have had to put up with jokes his whole life but will be the butt of a lot more this year.

Many more candidates are shown as possible or at least considering a run.

by David Kowalski on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 10:56:09 PM EST

NE-01 (none / 0)

Maxine Moul, former Lt. Gov. of Nebraska, will file very soon to run in NE-01 against Jeff Fortenberry.  That race is indeed very winnable, as Fortenberry is too far-right for the District and has not exactly distinguished himself in his first term.  Maxine is well-known in both Lincoln and the more rural parts of NE-01 and will be able to mount a very strong challenge.  I expect her to beat him.
by BobinDC on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 12:48:52 AM EST

Re: NE-01 (none / 0)

Yes, Maxine Moul will be announcing soon.

I think your analysis of this race is spot on. Fortenberry is more vulnerable now than he was in 2004.

I was going to post pretty much exactly what you posted, but didn't have to.

Are you from Nebraska?

phat

by phatass on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:00:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

CA-19 (none / 0)

uhem... Please read this fresno bee article....

Radanovich may finally feel a threat coming on
   John Ellis THE FRESNO BEE

Is the underlying theme of a fundraising letter from Rep. George Radanovich to his supporters that of a politician saying he's scared for his job?

Or is the three-page missive intentionally filled with scary language to help shore up the Mariposa Republican's campaign coffers?
Maybe it's a little bit of both.

Radanovich was swept into office during the 1994 Republican revolution. Since then, he's never had a serious challenger -- and never won less than 65% of the vote -- while serving a safe Republican district.

Now, the six-term incumbent suddenly seems panicked over a Democratic Party challenger who hasn't even officially announced that he's running.

Radanovich is around more, his profile is higher and his fundraising efforts are increasing, even as his district -- which stretches from north-central Fresno County, along the San Joaquin Valley's east side, to near Stockton -- maintains the same solid Republican registration advantage.

The aforementioned challenger is T.J. Cox, a chemical engineer and business owner who lives in Fresno. The rumor mill has him spending $1 million of his own money, which is hundreds of thousands more than all Radanovich's past opponents combined.

Carlos Rodriguez, Radanovich's political consultant, sees the letter as nothing more than prudent planning.

"This letter is just the first step in what we expect to be a spirited campaign," he says. "We take any and all candidates seriously. To not do that would be irresponsible of me as the candidate's campaign consultant."

The letter -- sent a whole year before any election that would pit the two against each other -- is straight out of Republican Politics 101.

In 25 paragraphs, it uses the word "liberal" 11 times. Three of those uses are "ultra-liberal." It brings up House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

It says Pelosi "supported taxpayers paying for needles for drug-addicts and expanded welfare benefits for immigrants." It mentions that Cox was involved in Dean's failed presidential campaign.

It ties Cox to John Hutson, making multiple references to Hutson as a "union boss."

Hutson laughed at the characterization. "I don't boss anybody," he says.

Hutson has union ties. He's financial secretary of the Fresno, Madera, Kings and Tulare Counties Building and Construction Trades Council.

But his primary job is as a management negotiator for the National Electrical Contractors Association.

As for Cox, he hasn't decided whether he'll run -- let alone spend $1 million -- but if he does, supporters plan to use this letter to push Cox's legitimacy as a Radanovich challenger.

Radanovich has much higher name identification and incumbency on his side, but also just $252,000 in the bank, as of Sept. 30.

"I must show a big increase in my campaign war chest in the next 30-60 days, to make Mr. Cox and his liberal friends think twice about taking us on before they run a campaign against me," the letter reads.

Radanovich's letter serves a dual purpose: It kicks off his campaign to defeat Cox, and it attempts to raise cash.

That's not the news.

The news is that Radanovich even felt the letter was necessary. In the past, he's simply ignored his challengers.

The columnist can be reached at jellis@fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6320.

by dem4life on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 02:37:35 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.