Shadegg Retires; And Then There Were 29...

Yet more bad news for House Republicans:

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) announced Monday that he would not seek reelection

Shadegg, 58, was first elected to represent Arizona's 3rd congressional district in the Republican wave of 1994. Known for his staunch opposition to earmarks, Shadegg ran for House majority leader in 2006 after Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) resigned from Congress. He lost that race to Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio).

"The bottom line is that this is a personal decision between my family and me, about our dreams, goals, and ambitions, and we have concluded that it is time for me to seek a new challenge in a different venue to advance the cause of freedom," Shadegg said in a statement.

He added that his health is great and that he had raised more than $1 million for his planned 2008 re-election race last year. His expected Democratic opponent, Bob Lord, had raised more than $612,000.

This is, count it, the 29th open seat that the Republicans must defend this cycle, a remarkable total that represents more than one in every seven seats -- over 14 percent -- that the party won in November 2006. And with each additional retirement or resignation, it becomes that much more difficult for the Republicans to limit their losses in the House to single digits (let alone pick up seats or retake the majority). This is particularly the case with seats like that of Shadegg, which could potentially end up in play.

Arizona's third congressional district leans about 6 points more Republican than the nation as a whole in Presidential elections, a number that no doubt makes this a more difficult seat for the Democrats to win. This number might even be larger this fall given that an Arizona, John McCain, will likely top the GOP ticket (though McCain couldn't even crack 50 percent in the Arizona Republican primary earlier this month, so who knows...).

But the Democrats already hold 40 percent of the districts with a 6-point Republican lean across the country. And with now 16 districts left open by Republicans with leans of 6 or less points towards the GOP, there are a whole lot of potentially competitive races in stock.

What's more, the Democrats have in Bob Lords a candidate who has been able to raise some serious cash. I don't know too much about him or his candidacy, but even running against a fairly entrenched incumbent in a redder district Lord has been able to raise more than $600,000. This includes a fundraiser held for Lord in Washington, DC by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen.

This is not to say that winning will come easy for Lord or the Democrats in this district. But every time the Democrats make the Republicans go on the defense, Democrats' chances of extending their majority increase.



Display:


Re: Shadegg Retires (none / 0)

I'm thinking that the Reps would be wise to save their money for supporting these empty seats.  I'm thinking it would be wise for Democrats to quit throwing obscene amounts of money to Obama and Clinton and start donating to local races.


by wasabi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST

a great side benefit of these retirements (none / 0)

is that it lowers the risk of challenging our own disappointing incumbents.

If we were still trying to claw our way back to a majority, I might feel differently about Ed Fallon's challenge of Leonard Boswell in my own district (IA-03). But I feel confident that the GOP is not going to be able to mount any serious challenge in this swing district (D+1), even if Fallon wins the primary.

Currently there is no declared GOP candidate for Boswell's seat.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:35:37 PM EST

Re: a great side benefit of these retirements (none / 0)

Here's my question, though: How can we support someone who backed Ralph Nader. There are some sins that can be forgiven, but it's hard to see supporting Nader as one of them. Am I being too hard on Fallon (even if he has tried hard to repent in recent years)?


My Direct Democracy
by Jonathan Singer on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess it depends on what is most important (none / 0)

to you.

There are no perfect candidates.

We have Fallon, who supported Nader but had a 100 percent voting record in the Iowa legislature on choice and labor issues, as well as a near-perfect record on environmental issues. He has also been a prominent voice for the peace movement in Iowa since the 1980s.

Then we have Boswell, who backed Gore in 2000 and has betrayed progressive values on any number of important votes in Congress: AUMF and Iraq War supplemental funding bills, trade policy, permanent estate tax repeal, warrantless wiretapping, bankruptcy bill, energy bill--I could go on.

My choice is not to remain angry at Fallon for supporting Nader in 2000, particularly since he did urge Nader not to run in 2004 and did GOTV for Kerry during the general election campaign that year.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shadegg Retires; And Then There Were 29... (none / 0)

Bob Lord spoke at the Maricopa County DFA group last Wednesday. Very impressed, excellent sense of humor and would be an excellent Congressman.

Howard Shanker is running for Renzi's old seat in AZ CD -01 who is not the party insider. Well respected by his district. With these two great progressive candidates, we could have some great change here in AZ.


by katymine on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:44:13 PM EST

Re: Shadegg Retires; And Then There Were 29... (none / 0)

     When we read that a district is 6% more Republican than the country as a whole, remember that that's based on the country as it was in 2000 and 2004, when the Republican presidential candidate was getting about 50% of the two-party vote. But if, as I believe is the case, the country as a whole has moved to more like a 55-45 Democratic advantage, with about 10% of Republican voters from 2000 and 2004 no longer supporting the Republicans, then every seat like this should be in play.


by Ron Thompson on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM EST

Re: Shadegg Retires; And Then There Were 29... (none / 0)

Its also important to remember that Governor Napolitano (Dem) won this district with 60%...and she's a big supporter of Bob Lord.  This is definitely a winner in November.  


by SoCalSurfer on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shadegg Retires; And Then There Were 29... (2.00 / 1)

And 12.

Seven of the once mighty class of 1994 have announced their retirements this year (OK, Roger Wicker was appointed to the US Senate and Charlie Norwood died.  The House class of 1994 that really was the "Republican Revolution" will be no more than twelve members by next January.  And several others could retire or be defeated this fall (Phil English, Doc Hastings, Tom Latham, and Steve Chabot come to mind).

Bob Lords now becomes the nineteenth Democrat with more cash on hand than the "leading Republican" for Republican seats.  The only Democrat to show a lowere cash on hand balance who is eeking re-election is Nikki Tsongas.  She raised and spent $2.6 million for the special election.  Jim Ogonowski has a relatively insignificant $43,500 to $10,900 cash edge.

The freshman Democrats elected to Republican seats in 2006 hold a collective $27 million to $5 million edge over their leading pursuers (taking out Mark Foley from the list).


by David Kowalski on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:57:40 PM EST

Re: Shadegg Retires; And Then There Were 29... (none / 0)

But Ogonowski is not running against Tsongas in November, IIRC. He declared for the Senate seat against Kerry, didnt he? So you might have to leave that category blank.


by micha1976 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shadegg Retires; And Then There Were 29... (none / 0)

Talk about over reaching.  The US Senate? Guess that makes it unanmous.  No incumbent Democrats have been outraised.  It does say it on his web site, too.  


by David Kowalski on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:45:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shadegg Retires; And Then There Were 29... (none / 0)

Is anyone else saying, "so what?" about now?  Our Democrats just roll over for Republicans.  With all the retirements there are simply fewer Republicans to roll-over to!


by Sensible on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:10:26 PM EST

Re: Shadegg Retires; And Then There Were 29... (none / 0)

Go Arizona Dems!

Going into 2002, there was only one Democrat in the entire Arizona Congressional delegation.  In 2002, Raul Grijalva won a newly created seat.  In 2006, Gabrielle Giffords won in an open seat and Harry Mitchell defeated J.D. Hayworth.  Now, we have two open seats that have promising Democrats.


by TheUnknown285 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:34:15 PM 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.