It looks like TX-28 wasn't the only thing we lost yesterday. In Pennsylvania, at least according to
the unofficial candidate list from the secretary of state, we didn't file in either PA-09 or PA-15. Overall, this lowers our maximum number of challenged seats to 431. For shame, Pennsylvania, for shame. Any failure to challenge is bad, but PA-15 is particularly pathetic. Unless I am mistaken it received a Tier 1B challenge from the DCCC in 2004, and according to Barry Welsh,
two candidates were trying to file for the seat. I suppose a thousand signatures are not easy to come by, come to not challenge the 50-50 PA-15 is ridiculous and highly damaging to the chances of Democrats running statewide in Pennsylvania in 2006. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party is surely one of the worst Democratic Parties in the country. For crying out loud, I am on the ballot in Pennsylvania, and it only took me two hours (granted, I only needed ten signatures).
My friend Ann Dicker is on the ballot for State Legislator, and she didn't decide to run until after the filing period had already began.
Also,
Charlie Cook looks at the wider view of Democratic recruitment in seats we can win:
For months now, conventional wisdom has dictated that for Democrats to have any shot of taking back control of the House, they need to expand the narrow playing field of obviously vulnerable Republican seats, perhaps putting as many as 50 GOP seats in play. Of the 86 Republican-held districts that we consider to be the most potentially vulnerable, based on the district's Partisan Voting Index, there are 37 where Democrats have a candidate who meets at least a minimum standard of credibility. Still, we consider just 17 to be top-caliber challengers.
First, I'd like to note just how wonderful it is that challenging as many seats as possible has become the conventional wisdom for Democratic strategy. That is clearly a quantum leap forward. Second, it is certainly disappointing that we only meet the minimum standards of changing a seat in 37 districts. This would mean that something around 240 seats would appear to be the upper limit of a Democratic tidal wave in November. I suppose it could be worse, but this situation is clearly not good enough. I also wonder if we can't recruit better now, when Bush and Republicans are in the toilet in most polls, when we will ever be able to do a better job at recruitment. We really better make at least a double-digit pickup of House seats in 2006 if we are going to have any prayer of keeping, or maintaining, control of the House between now and 2012.
I would also like to note that if challenging as many seats as possible has become conventional wisdom, combined with the notion that 86 Republican seats meet the bare minimum standard for vulnerability, then it would appear that the argument between Stuart Rothenberg and myself is over.
And I won:
Blogger Chris Bowers at MyDD perhaps is the best example of how clueless some bloggers really are about politics.
Last summer, he penned a piece, "DCCC Not Aggressive Enough," in which he complained about his party's House campaign committee. Now, in a two-part series called "Taking Back the House," he insists "we need to attack everywhere."
"I want 80 serious challenges to GOP House incumbents every two years and a Democratic name on the ballot in all 435 districts," he demands. "I have had enough of just targeting the twenty or so top races - let's engage in a full-frontal assault. ... The first step is to identify eighty Republicans against who we could mount a serious challenge."
It is undeniably true that you can't defeat an incumbent if you don't run someone against him. So, yes, it's better for a party to field candidates in 435 districts, if possible.(...)
As for Bowers' assertion that he wants "80 serious challenges" to GOP incumbents next year, he might as well ask for 120 or 150. I want vacation houses in Napa Valley and Palm Beach, and I'd like to be 35 years old again. "If wishes were horses, beggars might ride," as the English proverb puts it.
If what I wrote nearly two years ago is now CW, then I think I was ahead of the curve, rather than clueless. If there are 86 Republican held seats that meet the bare-minimum of vulnerability, then my hypothesis of 80 was pretty on-target. If Rothenberg's narrow targeting strategy is out of vogue, well, I think I understand why he holds so much disdain for the netroots and us clueless bloggers. It is at least something of a victory that our general strategic principles of trying to run in every seat, and seriously challenging every even potentially vulnerable Republican incumbent have won the day. That could signal a turning point in the progressive mindset.
