Skip to main content

Rep. Ann McLane Kuster
One-time loser, now Congresswoman-elect Ann McLane Kuster (NH-02)
Democrats are aggressively preparing for the 2014 House elections. Not only do they need 17 seats to retake the House, but the party holding the White House in its sixth year has lost seats in every election going back to 1918, and averages a loss of 30 seats.

So it'll be challenging, to say the least. But as Democrats discuss their strategy to defy history—which includes re-recruiting candidates who did well but still lost in 2012—the Republican response is quite bizarre:

Republicans argue that Democrats are going down the wrong path in trying to field candidates like Demings, a former Orlando police chief, and Mullen, an Army veteran and political neophyte, saying they have yet to demonstrate they can win a high-profile congressional race.

“If voters are looking for a reincarnation of something from the past, they’re better off watching the new ‘Dallas,’” said Andrea Bozek, a National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman.

What a weird, odd thing to say. Here's a list of Democrats elected in 2012 who have lost previous Congressional races:

AZ-01, Ann Kirkpatrick. Third race (won in 2008, lost in 2010).
CA-07, Ami Bera. Second race (lost in 2010).
CA-41, Mark Takano. Third race (lost in 1992 & 1994).
FL-09, Alan Grayson. Fourth race (lost primary in 2006, won in 2008, lost in 2010).
FL-26, Joe Garcia. Third race (lost in 2008 & 2010).
IL-08, Tammy Duckworth. Second race (lost in 2006).
IL-11, Bill Foster. Fourth race (won special & general in 2008, lost in 2010).
MN-08, Rick Nolan. Fifth race (lost in 1972, won in 1974, 1976 & 1978).
NV-03, Dina Titus. Third race (won in 2008, lost in 2010).
NH-01, Carol Shea-Porter. Fourth race (won in 2006 & 2008, lost in 2010).
NH-02, Ann McLane Kuster. Second race (lost in 2010).
NY-24, Dan Maffei. Fourth race (lost in 2006, won in 2008, lost in 2010).
WA-10, Denny Heck. Second race (lost in 2010).

Indeed, of the 47 new incoming House Democrats, 13 of them (or 28 percent) have previous experience running for Congress. It makes sense—challengers are at a big disadvantage against incumbent congresscritters. They don't have the name ID, or the fundraising connections, or general experience avoiding campaign mistakes. Practice makes perfect, and there's no better way to get better at running for Congress than running for Congress.

And of course, if losing a Congressional campaign was the end of everyone's political careers, then we wouldn't have a President Barack Obama, who got crushed 2-1 (62-31) in a 2000 primary against Rep. Bobby Rush in the Illinois 1st Congressional District.

1:52 PM PT (David Nir): Chas 981 adds one more: WA-01, Suzan DelBene (lost in 2010).

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:26 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Being battle tested is a great advantage (12+ / 0-)

    For the most part, we had a good lineup of candidates for the House, but gerrymandering stifled us from making many gains. I do think Democrats have improved a lot in candidate recruitment from 2006 on forward. Before that, recruitment wasn't as strong.

    26, Male, CA-24 (new CA-26), DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

    by DrPhillips on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:36:05 AM PST

    •  Recruitment could have been a lot better (5+ / 0-)

      There wasn't a single marquee challenger in OH or PA. Michigan only had McDaniel. Crying "Gerrymandering" is an excuse. We'll see in a few weeks that the Gerrymandering didn't create solid red districts for every PA/OH Repub. and if the 2012 approach is used in 2014, we might as well not plan on a House Majority before 2022

      The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

      by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:43:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody ran against Speaker Boehner. (6+ / 0-)

        I get it, it's a tough race and maybe impossible to win.  But nobody even tried.  No one.  There was a circle for Boehner or a circle for write-in.

        I'm totally with you.  We need to run someone in every race.  I think it also plays into the fifty state strategy.

        •  Its hard to find someone willing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, redrelic17

          to throw away the filing fees for a vanity run where they will get crushed.

          •  The whole point of this article is (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MetroGnome, peregrine kate

            that the Democratic party and specifically candidates better get used to the long-view.

            Run a guaranteed lose in '14 against Boehner... you get lucky or if bone-head makes a big flopping mistake, you knock off the Speaker.

            Assuming the likely case (Boehner's challenger loses), this then sets the stage for '16 - a presidential election, where if we run someone like Warren, Clinton with massive name rec and an Obama-class GOTV campaign, we wash out the Repugs, and Boehner along with them.

            50 state solution.  Full-court press.  All hands on deck.  We need to challenge all seats or liberal ideals and America's future will be turned back.

            --
            Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

            by sacrelicious on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:45:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  not even talking about that (4+ / 0-)

          I'm guessing that when the results by CD come in, we're gonna wonder why a stronger candidate didn't run against any of the SEPA Republicans, or why every Ohio Republican except for Renacci and Johnson basically got a free pass to the general election.

          The approach is essentially one of writing off every district/area where Obama didn't win a majority. And it's a route to a near-permanent minority status. The reality is that Ds can't win a House majority without making a push to win seats where the top of the ticket is competitive but not always victorious.

          Republicans drew the maps in Ohio and Pennsylvania in 2002, and somehow Democrats were able to actually win seats there given enough of an effort.

          The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

          by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:03:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't get your position (8+ / 0-)

            You saying that "crying gerrymandering is an excuse." That's absurdly strident. Yes, I'm sure you'll find a few unconsted districts where the Obama numbers look halfway decent. But gerrymandering was a reason, and a darn good one, that we had a hard time recruiting. You can't stick your head in the sand about that and brush it off as a mere whiny "excuse."

            Political Director, Daily Kos

            by David Nir on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:48:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Uncontested" (sp) (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, vcmvo2

              Political Director, Daily Kos

              by David Nir on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:49:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  how are we going to define halfway decent (0+ / 0-)

              i'm gonna guess there'll be a variety of districts where his percentage was over 45%.. and several will be the "gerrymandered" districts, and there'll be places where the people who turned down a shot in 2012 might reconsider. Guarantee it'll be more than a few.

              But we can't wait to get 218+ districts that go our way in the Presidential election. That won't happen unless the candidate wins big. You have to drop down into districts that are halfway decent to have a chance.

              There certainly was a chance on paper to do far better than 201 in 2012. But the failures of candidate recruiting made it near impossible to have a serious shot at 218.

              Just throwing up your hands and saying "gerrymandering" is an excuse. Did the Republicans throw up their hands and quit in similar situations?

              The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

              by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:46:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, and neither did the Democrats (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2

                You seem to have forgotten that the Republicans were in the minority in the House for decades. There are various things that go into not flipping the House, and gerrymandering was the main factor this time.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:25:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  We'll see where O's percentage is in his 217th and (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  peregrine kate

                  218th best seats. Should be interesting to see how high it is in those seats.

                  2014 is gonna have seats on all levels that get moved up the list because they didn't either see what'd happen to the district under the new lines (the estimates may not be precise in some places) or because they didn't get a strong candidate in the area.

                  So at least candidate recruitment will be a bit more concise since they'll have actual data to show people in some areas.

                  Getting 17 seats over the next few cycles is going to be difficult, but it's more difficult if the candidates don't get found for the winnable races. That's part of how it took 12 years for Dems to take back Congress after 1994. And this situation where the Ds didn't get the House is a lot like 1996 where another popular president couldn't put his party back in control of the House.

                  The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

                  by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:07:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Someone who does not even know (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alswearingen, MichaelNY, IM

                what fine challengers we had in a bunch of gerrymandered Republican districts but thinks we should have squandered resources running someone in Boehner's district is not someone qualified to tell Ohio Democrats what to do.

                Jon Husted is a dick.

                by anastasia p on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:31:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  didn't advocate running putting resources there (0+ / 0-)

                  as for name-on-ballot candidates, not sure how that'd really hurt. Not sure on the requirements of petitioning in Ohio and such.

                  The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

                  by RBH on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:38:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  this is curious (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              The first thing I thought looking at the list is "How many of these Dens were assisted by redistricting this year.  Certainly the IL candidates were and I'm guessing the CA ones were too.

              It was a factor this year - no doubt.

              I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

              by Satya1 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:31:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Incredibly ignorant of this year's Ohio races. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, IM, mightymouse

            Only Renacci and Johnson "basically got a free pass"? I imagine you must have spent the last year on another continent where news of Ohio never reaches. The three highest profile and most vigorous challenges in Ohio were to Bob "Who?" Latta (Angela Zimmann), Mike "Who?" Turner (Sharen Neuhardt) and Teabaggin' Bob Gibbs (Joyce Healy-Abrams). These women raised money, hired staff, appeared at events and met voters every day, did numerous debates and townhalls, and just busted their asses.

            Yes, Republicans drew the Ohio maps in 2002 and somehow, they found a way to make them even WORSE this year. But these candidates, along with Betty Sutton (who ran against Jim Renacci) worked tirelessly. Please don't insult them like this.

            Jon Husted is a dick.

            by anastasia p on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:30:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

              OH5: Obama won 46% there in 2008
              Zimmann won 39%

              OH7: Obama won 47% there in 2008
              Healy-Abrams won 43%

              OH10: Obama won 49% there in 2008
              Neuhardt won 37%

              In districts where the President probably won at least 45%, and districts that should be competitive, the Republicans won by 15%+ in two of the three districts.

              That's essentially a free pass. Nice that the challengers got into 6 digits of spending. But the districts aren't that red and they all ran obviously behind the President in 2012.

              The guy who ran against Chabot and raised no money won 37%.

              The guy who ran against Stivers and spent under $100K won 38%

              What happened in districts like those 5 is a failure of candidate recruitment more than anything else.

              The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

              by RBH on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:48:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bullshit. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                An attitude like this — calling these hardworking women who raised more money and campaigned harder than any challenger these incumbents have had "failures" — pretty much ensures that no one will ever be good enough to run in YOUR book. You take a case like Mike "who?" Turner — a bland incumbent that no one really knows much about and who rarely interfaces with the public, which kind of describes all of these guys – and no one has a reason to vote against them. Meanwhile, their position assures they will always have more money than ANY challenger. There is no magic celebrity who will be able to – on first attempt — outperform a high-profile president who as you note lost all three of those districts. So even if they were able to perform equal to him — an incredibly high bar for two first-time candidate and one second-time candidate running in a mostly new district — they STILL would have lost.

                I think the Democrats did an amazing job of candidate recruitment — just as they did when Justin Coussoule ran against Boehner — but you clearly know little about these districts other than just some numbers you pulled from somewhere. if you can think of some wonderful, amazing, incredible, magical candidates who could have run in these districts and outperformed the president with campaigns more vigorous and well-funded than these great women, i would like to know who they are.

                Jon Husted is a dick.

                by anastasia p on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:28:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  if Mike Turner is so bland (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, jncca

                  why did he run so far ahead of Romney while the strong campaigning great recruit Neuhardt ran so far behind Obama?

                  If you're gonna talk up candidates who didn't break 40% as great recruits who ran strong campaigns, they better be running near or ahead of the top of the ticket, not around 5% to 8% behind (estimated) a Presidential candidate who was in the mid to high 40s.

                  Great recruits who run strong campaigns don't run behind the top of the ticket to such a huge extent.

                  The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

                  by RBH on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:21:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  It's a bit ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

          Republicans ran a candidate in Pelosi's district.  Why the hell didn't we run someone in Boehner's?

          Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

          by Daman09 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:22:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Boehner isn't a good target (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          for limited resources. We had an excellent challenger in 2010 who lost by a larger margin than previous challengers who raised no money and did no campaigning, both of which Justin Coussoule did vigorously. Sometimes you have to look at better deployment of energy and resources. At the other end of the state, my congresswoman had no GOP challenger which also would have been futile.

          Jon Husted is a dick.

          by anastasia p on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:25:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Boehner's district matches his philosophy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

           

          Ohio 8th District
           Most of the 8th District is rural and small town in western Ohio bordering Indiana. Larger cities include: Middletown, Huber Heights, Troy, Piqua, Hamilton, and Fairfield. The district is rural conservative and largely white.
          Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Let’s visit Minority Leader John Boehner’s district | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/...
          The district includes several rural and suburban areas near Cincinnati and Dayton, and a small portion of Dayton itself.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          We (Kossacks and Democrats) need to improve our skills and attitudes if we are going to reach (and convert) conservative voters in Boehner's district.

          Look at OH-8 voting record at bottom of this page and think about how much time and money it will take to defeat Boehner:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          I detest Boehner for his lobbyist connections and would love to see him go down ...if not in an election...than in a scandal of his own making.

          I would happily join any effort to make Boehner's 1% and anti-worker, anti-woman activities known to a wider audience.

      •  McDowell (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, JBraden

        And, as much as I wanted him to win and thought he had it, if he was was considered a marquee challenger by some hear, he was a pretty sh%tty one to put on a marquee.

        For Michigan, I want to see Stupak brought back in the 1st, because it would be a walk, and Byrum brought back in the 8th, because she'd at least make it competitive.  I still have no idea who could run in MI-11 and MI-7, but both of those are highly competitive with a legitimate candidate.

      •  McDowell you mean, in MI-01? (0+ / 0-)

        But yes, I take your point. 50-state, 435-district strategy.

        I'm seeking to organize DKos members in SE Michigan--roughly, from the Ohio line at Lake Erie NE to Port Huron, W to Flint and back S from there. If you'd like to join our new group, Motor City Kossacks (working title), please Kosmail me.

        by peregrine kate on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:00:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I got most of those letters correct (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, peregrine kate

          I typed it on an iPod touch, so I had an excuse for odd messups. But I can't blame autocorrect there.

          But yeah, the wider the playing field, the better. Not guaranteeing wins everywhere. But there's some things in the redder states that can occur that'll increase our vote share in the next few decades. Hispanic populations in Republican states. Etc.

          And next time around, I hope they can find someone else from the upper peninsula to face Benishek. I'd say "find a guy from Traverse City" but then I'd imagine that guy's gains on the hand wouldn't make up for the losses in the Upper Peninsula.

          There might be some people who'll be available in 2014 who'd make for strong contenders in Michigan.

          The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

          by RBH on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:10:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe someone from Alpena to split the diff? (0+ / 0-)

            I'm mostly joking; I have no real knowledge of the political nuances up there.
            However, I do think it's time to start looking for candidates now. Unfortunately, I have little confidence in the MDP's recruiting and developing capacities.

            I'm seeking to organize DKos members in SE Michigan--roughly, from the Ohio line at Lake Erie NE to Port Huron, W to Flint and back S from there. If you'd like to join our new group, Motor City Kossacks (working title), please Kosmail me.

            by peregrine kate on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:44:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  hope there's a good candidate (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, JBraden

              who lives on the bridge, therefore he can please both sides of the district.

              Granted, he might have resource problems if he lives on the bridge. But still.

              The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

              by RBH on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:49:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  COMPLETELY wrong about Ohio (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, mightymouse

        I don't know exactly what you mean by "marquee" challenger, but at very least, Betty Sutton fit the bill. And Democrats recruited excellent candidates in three other districts that appeared to be at least somewhat more marginally winnable than before. Joyce Healy Abrams, Angela Zimmann and Sharen Neuhardt were great recruits who ran strong campaigns. But yes, gerrymandering DID create solid red districts for virtually every Ohio Republican, with one exception: 14. And there the Democrats made a miscalculation that anyone would have made. The district WAS unwinnable by a challenger as long as the inexplicably popular Steve LaTourette was in office. So the Republican mapmakers didn't bother to protect it. No one could have known this would be the year that LaTourette would finally bail and do so very late in the cycle, long after Democrats has decided not to bother to field a real candidate in a hopeless race when they had those other districts to focus on — and their candidate was perennial loser Dale Blanchard.

        But I was at a meeting Thursday here in Cleveland, and there were people there from this district (which abuts Cleveland) talking about potential recruits for 2014. This district could be a pickup opportunity with the right candidate (anyone but Blanchard, who will run again but isn't a problem because when there are other Democratic primary candidates he always loses and usually finishes last).

        Jon Husted is a dick.

        by anastasia p on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:24:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  1998 (10+ / 0-)

    I don't think Democrats lost seats in 1998, in Clinton's 6th year, although they certainly didn't take the house back.

    I would like to see Brendon Mullen run again in Indiana 02.  He was a brand-new poiltical candidate, and came really close to holding a tough seat against a better known opponent.

  •  1998 (12+ / 0-)

    the democrats picked up 5 seats.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:38:20 AM PST

    •  Wasn't that revenge (4+ / 0-)

      for impeachment? (Not that it was much revenge, but the Dems gained.)

      The Spice must Flow!

      by Texdude50 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:43:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought the Dems picked up seats in 1998 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      EthanR, SDorn, norm, FogCityJohn

      My gut feeling is that, before the 2014 midterms, the GOP will do something really stupid, or someone out there will do something really stupid on their behalf, and Nancy Pelosi will end up with the gavel almost literally by default.

      •  That's a lot of seats to flip (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chrismorgan, jncca

        against gerrymanders. I think your prediction is largely wishful thinking.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:38:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We have 17 more seats to flip, yes? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          How many look like a good bet at present?  If even one more House seat goes blue in 2014, so much the better, because if we keep the White House blue in 2016, a lot more of them will flip to blue with the White House still in Dems' hands.

          •  OK, now we're talking the same language (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chrismorgan, jncca

            Attempting to flip the House back in 2016, although difficult, is a reasonable goal. Of course, the DCCC should try their damndest to flip the House in 2014, but we should be sober in assessing the chances of that.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:32:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The descent by the GOP into impeachment mode... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              ...against Clinton is what many people believe turned what might have been a gain into a loss of 5 for them in the House.  Sometimes a move like that does become boneheaded enough to ruin whatever momentum a party has.  George Allen's remarks, a scandal plaguing one Congressman (I think his name was Foley), and a toe-tapping incident in a bathroom, turned what some thought (early on) might have possibly been a very bare GOP majority in Congress into a Dem majority in 2006.

              This is why I brought up my earlier remark, that another stupid move by the GOP could turn the House over to the Dems in 2014.  If early predictions say that the Dems can get to 210, and there are still enough borderline races out there that could possibly turn our way, another descent into madness by the GOP could hold the key for us.

              Again, how many GOP seats look good for the Dems to swipe in 2014?  And will we be able to keep what we have today (201 as of the next Congress)?

              •  Others have addressed that question effectively (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CookyMonzta

                And I may try to find such posts. But you yourself bring up a 5-seat gain for the Democrats in 1998. This is 17 we're talking about. That's a very heavy lift in a midterm election with their party in the White House, and as extreme as the House Republicans are about a lot of things, I don't see them actually impeaching Obama for jaywalking.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 11:04:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  As nutty and hate-filled as this GOP House is... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  ...I would not put it past them to attempt to impeach Obama just for the hell of it.  Of course, they would be wasting their time because they don't have a Senate ultra-majority (2/3) to throw him out, and never will during Obama's 2nd term.  Nevertheless, the House would still do it, just to dominate the news cycle for 2 months...

                  ...And if they do (to Obama or any of his staff), we'll certainly find out how much more damage they bring upon themselves.  I agree with you, more than likely they won't submit the paperwork for impeachment proceedings; but again, with this House being the nuttiest it has ever been, one must consider making an exception the minute someone in there even brings up the real threat of going through with it.  In which case, it would be the ultimate example of political murder-suicide (bad time to bring up this phrase, I know) for themselves and their 2014 or 2016 candidates.

              •  Some things to look at (0+ / 0-)

                I spent a fair amount of time looking through several recent DKE Live Digests, so I hope you find these references valuable.

                First, look at this subthread and this complementary one.

                Then look at this article.

                And in general, I'd encourage you to read the Live Digests at DKE, where we get under the hood, so to speak, of campaigns and elections. I think you'd like them.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 11:56:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Larry Craig was arrested in 2007 (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, CookyMonzta, NMLib

                so it would have been impressive if that somehow translated to Dem gains in 2006.

                Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

                by sapelcovits on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:38:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  In over half of the races you cited (5+ / 0-)

    substantially bluer districts were involved. Pretty much only FL-26, MN-06, NH-1, NH-2, and NY-24 had similar partisanship.

  •  That's why I think the CA-49 race can be winnable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hooper, sacrelicious

    At least if say Jerry Tetalman will be nominated again.  The only reason why Jerry Tetalman lost to Darrell Issa was because he had NO support from any progressive grassroots groups (even though Tetalman is more progressive than pretty much any Democrat who ran for Congress in 2012) and NO support from the DCCC, DNC or any other national Democratic organization.

    Now, according to the CA Secretary of State's office, Tetalman, while losing the race, now has 110,000+ votes as opposed to 100,000 or so votes this past weekend.  Tetalman's voting percentage is still near 42% and Darrell Issa's voting percentage is 58% but the percentage has not changed since the election results were first announced on November 6th.

    Also, Tetalman himself is a non-ideological progressive Democrat.  How's that for interesting?  He answered pretty much every litmus test question I gave him on being progressive without hesitation.  Also, Tetalman can communicate to conservatives and Republicans with humility and being respectful.  That goes a long away to winning voters.

    But the bottom line is:  The 49th Congressional District of California is not Safe Republican, no matter how many people tell you it is.  It's not.  I talked to Jerry Tetalman earlier last month when I interviewed him and he's lived in the 49th district since the 1970's.  He knows the number of Democrats and Independents have increased.  Even Tetalman's campaign manager, Charles Dodson, can confirm this.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  Still, losing by 16 points in a pretty good Dem (7+ / 0-)

      year doesn't look too promising.

      •  What about the grassroots support then? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sacrelicious

        I've literally been on Daily Kos diaries posting comments, making my diaries and even sending e-mails to Democracy for America and other grassroots groups and for those groups, I didn't hear one peep out of them.  For DFA, there were races that were focused on with real strong progressives running, even in red districts that weren't so competitive.  Why is it DFA couldn't even support Jerry Tetalman?  His progressive credentials are 100% and he's even been against prison privatization in California.

        Tetalman had less than $200,000 in his campaign yet he was able to get near 42% of the vote.  Now less than $200,000 is not what Rob Zerban got for his race in trying to unseat Paul Ryan (Zerban got over $800,000 in his campaign funds and he was a master fundraiser) yet Zerban got just about the same percentage as Jerry Tetalman with a larger grassroots group.

        Therefore, it's possible that Darrell Issa's own district is less conservative than Paul Ryan's district in Wisconsin.  Or it's possible that Jerry Tetalman was better at grassroots organization than Rob Zerban.  Or it's possible that Tetalman had better ideas than Zerban (which I believe was the case).

        Either way, the 49th District of California is not to be underestimated and I think we need to push DCCC to make the CA-49 race in 2014 a top target.  I guarantee you if this is the case and Tetalman runs again (which I think he should), he'll continue to be the non-ideological progressive Democrat that he was in this past race.

        •  Zerban lost 55-43 (7+ / 0-)

          slightly different than losing 58-42.

          Not to mention that Ryan had never won re-election with under 60% and Zerban held him to 54.9%, in a year that Ryan was on a national ticket, and Zerban beat Ryan in Ryan's home town of Janesville.

          So, i'm gonna guess that the Ryan district is going to be a bit bluer on the Presidential level than the Issa district.

          The Southern California comparison that fits here is "wanting to be Francine Busby", who went from losing by 20 to almost winning a seat in Congress after Duke resigned. But then again, Francine Busby had been elected to something (a nonpartisan office) before running for Congress. And there'd be a solid argument that if not for the scandal arising with Cunningham, Busby's 2006 candidacy wouldn't have exactly been closely watched on election night.

          Do you really think CA49 is going to be seen as the best D opportunity in California in 2014? I don't think that's gonna be the case when the supplemental book comes out and we know the Presidential numbers by Congressional district.

          The entire thing reads like an activist tunnelvision thing that i've seen over and over. Where the thing happening in your area is far more promising and important than things happening in other areas, and thus the nationals have to target the district before the candidate shows himself as someone who merits that support.

          The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

          by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:22:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You need to read my comment again (0+ / 0-)

            "Tetalman had less than $200,000 in his campaign yet he was able to get near 42% of the vote.  Now less than $200,000 is not what Rob Zerban got for his race in trying to unseat Paul Ryan (Zerban got over $800,000 in his campaign funds and he was a master fundraiser) yet Zerban got just about the same percentage as Jerry Tetalman with a larger grassroots group.

            Therefore, it's possible that Darrell Issa's own district is less conservative than Paul Ryan's district in Wisconsin.  Or it's possible that Jerry Tetalman was better at grassroots organization than Rob Zerban.  Or it's possible that Tetalman had better ideas than Zerban (which I believe was the case)."

            CA-49 is not a safe red district like certain ones in Oklahoma or Texas.   I've spoken to Jerry Tetalman and his campaign manager.  You haven't I gather.  I'm sure you also haven't spoken to Francine Busby, the first real credible candidate who ran against Randy "Duke" Cunningham in 2004, lost, and lost twice in challenging Brian Bilbray, who just lost to Scott Peters in a redistricting race.  Francine Busby, as a matter of fact, is a major Jerry Tetalman supporter.  The CA-49 district is also less conservative now than it used to be because portions of Riverside County (traditionally conservative) are now out of CA-49.  However, President Obama beat Mitt Romney in all of Riverside County so it's only a matter of time before the tidal wave goes into the CA-49 district.  Believe me, I've been living in California my whole life and it's getting bluer ever year.  The toughest race though to win is the race against GOP Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and his district is way more red than Darrell Issa's is.

            In fact, I just got an e-mail from Jerry Tetalman and his campaign on a Dec 9th Holiday Party where Tetalman, his campaign manager and volunteers are getting together and talking about the accomplishments, even if Tetalman wasn't successful.  Believe me, Tetalman and his grassroots network are still active and they aren't giving up in the cause.  You're welcome to attend the holiday party and talk to Jerry Tetalman yourself.  I warn you though, Tetalman is a man of high intellect and extreme intelligence and knowledge but on the other hand, he's a great guy and accepts perspectives for all kinds of people.

            Seriously man, where's the progressive fire in your belly?  I thought we were to stand up for all progressives in the fight for the progressive movement to continue?

            •  did I get drunk and sign a contract? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, TrueBlueDem

              You seem to be acting as if I signed some sort of contract to just support all the progressives or something.

              There's no need to try chopping down Rob Zerban to make your point regarding Jerry Tetalman. For example.

              And I hope you understand why I don't consider people who worked for a campaign to necessarily be the best sources for information about the potential of the candidate involved.

              The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

              by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:47:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  CA-49 may be winnable in the future. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, MichaelNY, Englishlefty

          It's R+5 which is tough to win in CA but not necessarily impossible. However, when you have an entrenched incumbent vs a guy who never held elective office and is probably too liberal for a district it's pretty much not going to happen unless Issa is indicted or smth.

          •  CA-49 has some promising spots (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FG, Englishlefty

            for example, it shares some turf with the current Bilbray district. It goes from Dana Point to UCSD. So it has it's ups and downs.

            California has tons of nonpartisan offices that'd look good on candidate's resumes. That's why RW types ran for some of those spots. But i'm sure someone elected somewhere on that part of North County is a Democrat.

            The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

            by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:33:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  UCSD is in CA52 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Peters defeated Bilbray in that district.

              Issa has a R+12 registration advantage in CA49. The district includes part of south Orange County.

              Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

              by MJB on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:46:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  if I remember correctly (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                UCSD is split between two districts.

                19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                politicohen.com
                Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                by jncca on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:19:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  the line goes down I-5 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                the campus west of I-5 is in 49, the campus east of I-5 is in 52. The Southern line of 49 is La Jolla Village Rd. So Scripps is in 52 as well.

                The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

                by RBH on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:24:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  UCSD is just barely in CD 49. (0+ / 0-)

                The boundary lines goes down I-5 (UCSD eastern border) and then down La Jolla Village Dr (UCSD southern border). I guess there are some UCSD hospitals in CD 52....

                 But overall, what exactly is Issa's core area of support? I know northern SD County leans somewhat R-leaning but Issa is just awful....

                 

                •  Answering own question here... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  Issa won his Orange County portion by 33 points, and his San Diego County portion by 10 points. Orange is 25% of the district (shucks that redistricting couldn't have found a way to put that in CD 48 and exchanged it with San Marcos... but oh well I think the map overall was really good).

                   I agree with most of the other posters on here. CA 49 needs a previously elected business-minded Dem with fiscal conservative leanings who can point to Issa's shenanigans as chairman of the House Oversight committee.

                   I would be shocked if the DCCC threw in a lot of money to compete here, Issa's warchest is too big. And the printed media up there is now far right wing...

                   The ground game here needs to get a lot more dems registered. If I read the precinct maps correctly, Oceanside and Encinitas are the core areas for dem support.

                  •  The S.D. print media is ultra right wing but... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY, bumiputera, rtaylor352

                    ... that's not the big obstacle.  

                    Old warhorse Democrat Bob Filner won the San Diego mayor's race over Carl DeMaio who is a toady of the far-right owners of the San Diego U-T.  The paper's CEO (i.e., the owner's right-hand man) also waged a very public spat with Scott Peters over the CEO's loony dream of shutting down the Port of San Diego and replacing it with a taxpayer-funded NFL stadium, and was rebuked when Peters ousted Bilbray in CA52.

                    The wingnut newspaper can be defeated and was by Filner and Peters.  But Filner was running citywide, with a plurality-Dem electorate, and Peters had a slight edge in CA52.  

                    CA49, in contrast, is a very uphill battle that isn't going to get a lot of attention from the DCCC unless a Dem who is either a self-funder or a prodigious fund-raiser decides to take on Issa.  

                    I think the DCCC would pitch in for a candidate who can bring a lot of money to the table (whether their own or raised), but there is no way the DCCC is going to provide the lion's share of the backing for a sparsely-funded candidate in a R+12 district.

                    Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

                    by MJB on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:26:12 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Again, Jerry Tetalman had little support (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FG

            I mean, it's a bit unfair to assume CA-49 is not winnable just because the CA-49 district is apparently red.  I mean, that's like saying someone who has an art piece and promotes it in Oklahoma can never get attention unless he has loads of money.  On the money factor, what if Tetalman did have more campaign funds.  He had less than Rob Zerban or even Ami Bera.  And we're all of a sudden resorting to labeling the CA-49 a R+5 district instead of planning a campaign?  It's as if we don't have any faith in communicating to conservatives and that none of them ever listen.

            WRONG:  There are conservatives who do listen.  Not all of them are open-minded but a certain few do.   I know this because my mom comes from Ogden, UT which is even more conservative than any part of California (unless we're talking about Barstow).l

            But one point to make:  I have not see an single bit of data or piece of evidence that proves any poll that CA-49 is a Safe Republican district.  Not ONE.  Yet others like Charlie Cook are automatically labeling the CA-49 district as very red.  Where do they get their information from?

            In fact, there were NO polls this entire campaign.  Unless you guys see polls that I don't know about, I think we need to go full steam ahead and start planning on a more robust effort to unseat Darrell Issa.

            Besides, just look at Jerry Tetalman the candidate.  He's promising and knows how to communicate with people.  He's knowledge and fact-based, non-ideological, respectful of others' view points, has fire in his belly, a 100% progressive, he literally could satisfy every issue Kossacks which in a progressive Democrat and he's a straight shooter.  He also doesn't do talking points.

            •  I'm not saying he's a bad candidate. Frankly, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, Daman09, Englishlefty

              after seeing pretty crappy candidates in other districts (e.g. Steve Young in CA-48) he looks pretty good. But fundamentals in the district are tough. CA-7 is R+3 and Bera won only on a second try. There is nothing wrong with getting involved in a campaign but outside groups tend to direct donations to the races most likely to be won. And why there were no polls? Didn't the candidate conduct his own polling?

              •  Fundamentals in the own district are tough, yes (0+ / 0-)

                However, because of Jerry Tetalman's race, the district is slowly but surely growing to be less red.  110,000+ votes since yesterday for Jerry Tetalman ain't bad, especially considering he got ZERO support from outside grassroots groups?  Why?  I have NO idea.  Even Democracy for America didn't have the CA-49 race on its radar yet it had almost non-winnable races on its radar, races that were in redder districts than the CA-49 race, the WI-01 race and the race in Steve King's district.  All such DFA races I'm referring to promoted truly progressive Democratic candidates yet when I contacted DFA for support for Jerry Tetalman, no peep.  NOTHING.  I mean, seriously, what's going on here?

                I'm sensing that the reason why Tetalman's campaign didn't do its own internal polling was that they spent more time on grassroots and less time on polling.  However, outside polling organizations, even those from Huffington Post and Charlie Cook, ALL labeled the CA-49 as Safe Republican territory.  BUT THEY NEVER GAVE ANY PROOF.

                •  You are persistent... And it is a little (8+ / 0-)

                  exhausting. Having a constant whinge about lack of support is a sign of weakness... And very annoying.

                  DKE is all about cold blooded analysis... And you are a cheerleader (not saying that is bad in general but DKE is not the place).

                  If your candidate is any good then I hope he does run again, but stop acting like the world owes him a favour and that Issa can just be beaten if only everyone paid Tetalman some attention.

                  Your very passionate, which is great for volunteering, but enough with the criticism that we are not supportive enough of Tetalman.

                  Town Planner, 30 years Old, Election Junkie, "If you agree with Bush's economic policy, Cheney's foreign policy, and Santorum's social policy, you loved Romney's speech" - James Carville (aka the Ragin Cajun) on the Colbert Report

                  by CF of Aus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:54:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  WI-1 is not redder. IA-4 was a bit of a special (0+ / 0-)

                  case due to a strong Dem candidate.

            •  Whoa (6+ / 0-)

              Dude stop complaining.
              1) IA-04 and WI-01 are a lot less Red than CA-49.
              2) California Democrats and progressive organisations had other targets in California this year. That's why we picked up 4 Districts.
              3) Great candidates don't always get elected (see CA-10)
              4) Progressive organisations spend money where they think they can win. That makes sense.
              5) If Tetelman is as progressive as you say (I believe you) then he is way too progressive for that District.
              6) There is an almost 13% voter reg advantage to the GOP in the 49th. Tetalman and good activists like you need to work on decreasing that gap over the next 2 years (well 23 months).
              7) There will be higher priority targets in California in 2014 (21st & 31st at the least). Bet on it.

              You have motivated me to do a diary about 2014 in California. Thank you.

          •  R+5 in 2012 will get closer with time (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            the underlying trends in the district will bring it into play eventually. CA is a state in motion, electorally speaking.

    •  We need someone who has held elected office to run (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jncca, MichaelNY, sapelcovits

      Not a some dude.  Our best bet would be to recruit someone from the oceanside city council.

      Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-14 (college)

      by Daman09 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:10:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some dude? (0+ / 0-)

        What kind of talk is that?  Would you say someone like Ami Bera is some dude?  Ami Bera isn't even apart of city council and he won election.

        On the other hand, Tetalman has lived in Carlsbad since the 1970's.  He isn't just "some dude."  He's also a fierce anti-war, pro-environment, pro-peace (very active in peace conferences around the world) activist who knows peace from a practical standpoint, not just simply a pipe dream.  He's also very successful in real estate (has his own practice in Carlsbad), a licensed nurse, ran his own mental health facility years ago, is a former Ohioan just like Darrell Issa, is an expert at financial advice and a motivational speaker.  Not the typical kind of Democrat.

        I should also mention Francine Busby is a serious Tetalman supporter.  Know about her?  If so, talk to her.  I'm sure she'll give you some insight.  She has of course lost all times she's ran but her ideas aren't bold like Tetalman's is.  However, Busby does believe in Tetalman  and she also happens to be the Vice Chairwoman of the San Diego County Democratic Party.  Her e-mail is below and you can ask her about Tetalman.

        northvc@sddemocrats.org

        And you didn't read my comment in its entirety.  Jerry Tetalman had LESS campaign funds.  LESS campaign funds.  LESS campaign funds.  Compared to other candidates across the country like Rob Zerban and even Christine Vilsack, who still lost to the same percentage that Tetalman lost, Jerry Tetalman had a considerable grassroots support considering he had LESS campaign funds.  On top of this, Tetalman

        There's an event on Dec 9th that you can attend, a holiday party, where Jerry Tetalman and his campaign and volunteers will be talking about accomplishments.  You're welcome to join although I'm sure you're more concerned with trying to recruit someone beside "some dude."

        •  we need an equivalent of Jim Graves (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CF of Aus, MichaelNY, Daman09, sapelcovits

          not a liberal activist.  Your guy sounds like Sue Thorn.  

          19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
          politicohen.com
          Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
          UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

          by jncca on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:12:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He's more than an activist (0+ / 0-)

            He's actually a strong businessman, more credible and clean than Darrell Issa and he has a load of real estate experience.  Did you read a single thing I read or did you do speed reading?

            Let me put this in simple terms:

            Tetalman - Real estate salesman = Very successful
            Tetalman - Peace Participant in the World = At conferences with other participants in the world = Applies practical reasoning with peace
            Tetalman - Registered nurse and ran his own mental health facility = Man capable of running many things and also an expert with regards to health care issues.
            Tetalman - Clean record with no history like Darrell Issa

            And by the way, all activsts do become city councilman and others working for government.  How do you think Congess is the way it is?  Wasn't John Kerry an activist before he became Lt. Governor?  Oh, sorry, he's from Massachusetts.  However, Kerry's first campaign headquarters was in Lowell, which was at the time conservative in the 1970's but that's a whole different story.

            And if you want someone like Jim Graves, fine, why don't you nominate that person in the CA-49 district?  People on Kos had ample time to do so.  Funny that people on Kos keep getting so frustrated with Darrell Issa yet they don't support Jerry Tetalman in his own race.  I just love this "progressive grassroots network."

            Oh and I forgot...  Jim Graves LOST as well.  I know he almost won and it's possible he'll run again but he still lost.  I was actually surprised because it was such a nail biter of a race against Michelle Bachmann.

            Did I forget to mention that Jerry Tetalman won 110,000+ votes as of yesterday, the largest amount of votes ever for a candidate challenging Darrell Issa?  

            •  Please tell us another 5 or 6 times (5+ / 0-)

              because you only told us 5 or 6 other times.  In this thread.  So you might have forgotten to tell us.  In every message.  It would be a shame if anyone reading it didn't know that.

              Yes, he's a Some Dude.  If nobody national heard of him and he didn't hold elective office before, that's what a Some Dude candidate is.

              Amd did it ever occur to you that if the DCCC threw in some serious cash, that Issa, who is connected up the wazoo, would immediately generate a lot more?  You're acting as if Issa wouldn't react to an influx of cash in his race.  That's not likely.

            •  So now nurses and real estate salesmen (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Are top tier candidates ?

              Shit looks like we could win every seat this cycle if we just get the nurses and real estate crews to train each other.

              Town Planner, 30 years Old, Election Junkie, "If you agree with Bush's economic policy, Cheney's foreign policy, and Santorum's social policy, you loved Romney's speech" - James Carville (aka the Ragin Cajun) on the Colbert Report

              by CF of Aus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Sue Thorn was a good candidate. (0+ / 0-)

            If Steve Israel and the DCCC weren't busy wasting money on Blue Dogs and supported her she could've won. Easily. But she beat their guy in the primary so she got the cold shoulder.

            Uncultivated minds are not full of wild flowers, like uncultivated fields. Villainous weeds grow in them, and they are full of toads.--Logan Pearsall Smith

            by elizabethawilke on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:08:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  you can't have a liberal win a district as (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CF of Aus, jncca, MichaelNY

          Republican as that.

          ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

          by James Allen on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:28:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's a chicken and Egg thing (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          madhaus, peregrine kate, MichaelNY, kurykh

          Did he lose because he didn't have any money?

          or

          did he not have money because he was going to lose?

          Regardless of which one you "feel" is correct, the fact of the matter is he had no money, and lost the election by a large margin.  Even if he did raise a decent sum of money for this congressional race, you fail to realize that Darrell Issa has a HUGE warchest, and likely didn't spend much to defeat your guy.  So, even if Tetalman did have money, I'm fairly confident that he still would have lost.

          And yes, Ami Bera was at one point a some dude, but in 2010, he pulled in just one point under what the some dude running in 2008 received.  Thats a BIG deal in a year that was horrible for democrats.  Not only that, but this some dude actually pulled in quite a bit of money as well.  ALSO, Bera seems like a better fit for CA-07 than Tetalman does for CA-49 looking purely at the ideology of the candidates in comparison to their districts.  It's awesome that Tetalman is a progressive fighter, but he isn't going to win in a district with 14 point republican registration advantage.

          Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

          by Daman09 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:20:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You're talking to the wrong audience (10+ / 0-)

      If you want to convince us that your candidate is viable, talk to the voters of CA-49 instead. Tell them how great Tetalman is. Get them to vote for him. Work the district. Get Tetalman to fundraise. Call their homes, knock on their doors, do all that stuff.

      You're not going to convince us of your candidate's viability simply by proclaiming how progressive he is here on DKE. We'll take that in, but that doesn't override the big picture. On DKE, we look at broader trends, outside involvement, fundraising prowess, ground game, all the analysis and that good stuff. Tetalman didn't have that.

      In 2012, perhaps the only congressional race that slipped under the radar was Nate Shinagawa. Tetalman was no Nate Shinagawa by any stretch of the definition.

      You want us to believe in your candidate? Get a critical mass of voters in the district to believe you first. Have Tetalman get enough donors to believe in his chances. Convince outside organizations to spend their time, money, and effort in this race. Then we'll be more than happy to give Tetalman a boost.

      I understand your enthusiasm, and everyone here wants to beat Darrell Issa as much as you do. We too think Issa is living on borrowed time. We appreciate your outreach to us, and we'll keep him in mind. But after seeing your comments over the past month or two, I think you're not going about this the right way, and it's not doing you or your candidate any favors.

      22, D, CA-12 (old CA-08).

      by kurykh on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:14:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong audience? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you progressive or are you not?

        There's such a thing as called "knowledge."  All you need to do first is go ahead and view Jerry Tetalman's website and You Tube page.  They are as follows:

        http://jerryforcongress2012.com/... (not exactly the greatest website in the world but for the campaign funds that were made available, it's not bad)

        http://www.youtube.com/...

        You're thinking too DCCC my friend.  Start spending some time on the Internet and research.  It only takes you 15-20 minutes of your time.  

        Of course, you are right, grassroots support does need to be prevalent and that's what will happen on a Dec 9th Holiday Party Jerry Tetalman and his campaign manager Charles Dodson will be having with fellow volunteers.  I'm thinking of going myself although being based in the Bay Area (my factual information comes from Tetalman and his campaign, not from myself), I do have a lot on my plate as well that doesn't relate to politics.  However, I and others plan on continuing to build the grassroots support level within the CA-49 district.

        But this is a blogosphere, a BLOGOSPHERE.  I've been using Daily Kos just like I have been using message boards since the early 1990's and never believe the blogosphere is the world.  It's just another tool.  And besides, we're having a discussion, not a grassroots campaign here.  A DISCUSSION.  And I'm working to make my point here.  Isn't that what people do on Daily Kos?

        And just a bit of factual information:  Jerry Tetalman got 33% of the vote in the Democratic primaries earlier this year so it was an easy win then.

        In the meantime, check out this video on You Tube.  Jerry Tetalman and his campaign (and myself) tried very much to get Ed Schultz and MSNBC to air the video and cover it on You Tube but no response.  Weird since Ed Schultz himself has been very adamently anti-privatization of the U.S. Postal Service.

        I should also add that the location of this protest was at Darrell Issa's own office in Vista, CA.  At actual event, roughly a week before the Nov 6th election, Darrell Issa's legislative aide met with union leaders all around the San Diego County right when Jerry Tetalman and others had this rally and it wasn't a highly fierce confrontation.  Tetalman campaign manager Charles Dodson said it was, surprisingly, a very productive talk.  Never know what can happen although knowing Darrell Issa, he'll just be like John Boehner and really not judge.  Who knows?

        One last thing to point out:  Tetalman's campaign really started to come into gear in October, just after I first started posting on Daily Kos.  My diaries ended up really firing up the phone banks and not only that, several people across the country told me they donated to Tetalman's campaign.  This is ACROSS THE COUNTRY, the same process that Rob Zerban got his donations.

        •  You're proving why we think he wasn't viable (8+ / 0-)

          "One last thing to point out:  Tetalman's campaign really started to come into gear in October"

          What credible campaign kicks into gear in October? That's campaign malpractice.

          "my factual information comes from Tetalman and his campaign"

          That sounds eerily like what Mitt Romney's campaign was doing. While a campaign should always be upbeat, one should rely on outside voices and sources too.

          "But this is a blogosphere, a BLOGOSPHERE.  I've been using Daily Kos just like I have been using message boards since the early 1990's and never believe the blogosphere is the world.  It's just another tool.  And besides, we're having a discussion, not a grassroots campaign here.  A DISCUSSION.  And I'm working to make my point here.  Isn't that what people do on Daily Kos?"

          This is Daily Kos Elections, where things work a bit differently by design. Read the DKE mission statement here. Especially,

          We also try hard to separate out our personal preferences from our analysis. DKE is a progressive, Democratic site, and we never hide our partisan leanings. But while we root for Team Blue, we aren't cheerleaders: If the news is bad for us or good for the other side, we won't hesitate to report on it, and we'll give clear-eyed analysis no matter what.
          So yes, we're going to say it like it is: Jerry Tetalman isn't viable unless he gets his shit together. Issa getting 58% doesn't mean jack nowadays; it's happened so many times to GOP candidates in California we're getting jaded to it.

          "You're thinking too DCCC my friend.  Start spending some time on the Internet and research.  It only takes you 15-20 minutes of your time."

          I did do my research, thank you very much for your condescension. That's how I nailed every CA congressional race save one (missing CA-35's Gloria Negrete-McLeod). Remember when I said (to you, and you acknowledged it) that Sukhee Kang and Jerry Tetalman will be in the low 40s? Guess what they got?

          "Are you progressive or are you not?"

          Yes, I am a progressive. Being skeptical about Tetalman's chances does not make me less of one. It's just Jerry Tetalman, one of many well-meaning progressive Democrats that we want to win. But we're being honest here: he has a long, long way to go before he can knock off Darrell Issa.

          Again, I will repeat. The time you spend here trying to convince us of Tetalman's viability is better spent in the field and on the phones, drumming up support and money for a future, more viable bid. That will be far more convincing than simply you coming here calling your skeptics DCCC shills.

          22, D, CA-12 (old CA-08).

          by kurykh on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:15:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ugh, not this again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sacman701

      Liberal Democrats don't knock off Republicans in districts like that. A more moderate Democratic candidate is needed in such cases.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:28:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  honestly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Daman09, MichaelNY, Englishlefty

        it's more of a relevance thing than a views thing. Views will have a big part in the relevance of a candidate. And a guy who could have mentioned the real estate aspect but went with being an anti-war candidate... in 2012... might have some problems on the relevance scale. While there's still wars going on, this isn't 2004 or 2006.

        So if a Liberal Democrat can at least make a good case for himself and against an Issa, he'd have a shot. The district gave Obama a plurality in 2008 (while he won the state by 25 and the nation by 7). So it's a packaging thing more than a content thing.

        The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

        by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:13:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is a great point you made there (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          madhaus, MichaelNY, kurykh

          I live in the district, and every god damn time I talked to someone regarding Tetalman, they pointed out he's a progressive.  GREAT. I LIVE IN ORANGE COUNTY, THAT DOESN'T FLY HERE.  How about you mention that he is involved in real estate, and how the housing market isn't what it should be and that he will fight foreclosures if elected to office OR SOMETHING MORE RELEVANT THAN "HE'S A PROGRESSIVE"!  

          Campaigns test the instincts of these candidates, and it doesn't seem like tetalman has the chops.  Eventually this will become a bluish-swing district, but I don't really see Tetalman in that future unless he can get his messaging correct.

          Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

          by Daman09 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:38:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You make a good point (0+ / 0-)

          But I think it's both packaging and ideology.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:09:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  How (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, MJB

      Can you be both progressive and non ideological? Or for that matter conservative and non ideological?

      The problem in the 49th is the almost 13% voter reg gap and more likely targets elsewhere in CA.

  •  It's a good point, Kos (4+ / 0-)

    Losing in 2010 and still wanting to serve the district was the best possible motivator for a Democratic candidate for Congress. Even if you weren't an incumbent (like Ami Bera) you could still tell the voters your objectives for using your time in Congress to serve your district, and you could trash your opponent for not doing the things you wanted to do.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:53:46 AM PST

  •  If the GOP says we shouldn't run those people... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, sacrelicious, MichaelNY

    ...I say RUN 'EM!!!

    (The last person I will take election/campaign advice from right now is a republican....and joe lieberman).

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. Plus, I get a small royalty, and Jeff Bezos and his employees get the rest. Not a bad deal, as CEO Bezos is not much of a dick, relatively speaking. @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:56:24 AM PST

  •  And Ds should take election advice from Rs...why? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheUnknown285, MichaelNY

    Especially given the especially clueless way their "leader," Rmoney, ran his losing Presidential campaign?

    Good to see Dems aren't falling for this stupid nonsense.

  •  THIS! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    run twice to win once sometimes takes a third or fourth try

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    Four More Years! How sweet it is!!!

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:33:07 AM PST

  •  You missed one (7+ / 0-)

    WA-01, Suzan DelBene elected 2012, second race (lost in WA-08 in 2010).

  •  Politico article linked to by Kos reads like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming

    standard inside the beltway shit we've heard from "insider" democrats for the last few decades.

    But Israel acknowledged that Democrats would also need to contest districts in southern states, where the party has been nearly wiped out in over the past four years. Since 2008, the Blue Dog Coalition, which until recently had been made up of mostly southern conservative Democrats, has declined from more than 50 members to just 15 in the next Congress.
    With all due respect to our friends in the south... why?... frankly, as far as strategy goes... fuck the south. If there are specific winnable seats then sure go after them but as a strategy the south is not... important.

    We don't need the south to win the White House.

    We don't need the south to win the Senate.

    We don't need the south to win the House.

    I'd be happy to be competitive there but... we aren't... so don't waste valuable time, resources and money there. I'm all for the fifty state strategy but that is about party building and laying the groundwork for eventual victories somewhere down the road. So you don't ignore the south but you certainly don't concentrate on it or make it a center piece of your strategy for winning NOW.

    Stupid assed shit.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:20:13 PM PST

    •  Disagree - embrace the south (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheUnknown285

      But let's run liberal candidates there.

      If we have to choose between not running a candidate and running a progressive, liberal, honest-to-goodness southern candidate (they exist!), why not just run some?

      These folks, even in losing, will gain stature, experience, and earned media coverage so that the next time they run, the agenda and stage will be set.

      We gain nothing by not running candidates especially against those Lamar Smiths who are just a single stupid "rape" comment away from a fight for their political lives.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:52:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're not actually in disagreement there (0+ / 0-)

        but the article reads like the south is critical to a Democratic House majority and it just ain't so. This is the same tired old crap we've been hearing for a few decades now and have proven is false.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:16:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  didn't get that "south = critical to majority" (0+ / 0-)

          50 states are critical to the majority.

          The goal is to run challengers for all seats.  Akin and Murdock proved that GOP are only steps away from putting their blatantly anti-woman, anti-progress feet into their mouths.

          Also there are millions of progressive democrats in the southern states who we should properly represent because their corrupt, unchallenged GOP congresscritters do not.

          --
          Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

          by sacrelicious on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:36:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  the number is 201 now (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, jncca, gabjoh, MichaelNY

          so.. there's probably 17 winnable seats not in the South. But it'd take a huge winning percentage to pull that off. So why not have as large a field of possible wins as possible to make 218 easier?

          Not to mention that the 201 includes wins in some competitive districts. 201 could have just as easily been 197ish if the entire area got written off and Gallego, Barrow, Murphy, and Garcia lost to Canseco, Lee Anderson, Allen West and David Rivera.

          The Ds have a lot to offer to the vast majority of people in the country who aren't conservatives. Ds already win a majority of moderate voters for a reason, so why not run that percentage up a few more points and actually make a run at having a Congress that does stuff?

          The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

          by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:40:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  winnable Southern seats (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, CookyMonzta, dkosdan

            holds in competitive races: David Rivera, Joe Garcia, John Barrow, Mike McIntyre, Pete Gallego (I consider the district Southwest but Texas is in the South)

            incumbents to challenge: Scott Rigell, Scott DesJarlais, Andy Barr, Steve Southerland, Dan Webster, Vern Buchanan

            challenge when incumbent retires: Bill Young, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

            I agree, writing off the South is idiocy.

            19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
            politicohen.com
            Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
            UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

            by jncca on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:21:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  incumbent list (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, James Allen, dkosdan

              why not go for Bill Young again before he retires? sometimes retirements can be induced by an actual challenge, and Young did his worst since 1992.

              I'd tilt the list a little towards Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. But add Frank Wolf to the post-retirement list.

              I suspect DesJarlais is kind of a draft and follow where the candidate is hoping DesJarlais makes it through a primary, although DesJarlais has won by double-digits in 2 straight cycles despite scandals in both elections.

              The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

              by RBH on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:00:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Jessica Ehrlich was a decent challenger (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, dkosdan

                And she lost by a decent sized margin.  Young will retire within six years, almost for sure.  He nearly retired this cycle.

                19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                politicohen.com
                Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                by jncca on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:21:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  and I don't consider Frank Wolf (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, dkosdan

                Southern.

                NoVA is the Northeast.

                19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                politicohen.com
                Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                by jncca on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:21:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  wolf has the seat for life (3+ / 0-)

                He is not a total wing nut and even though the district has voted for Obama twice no one will beat him. When he finally retires, a democrat can win the seat no problem.

        •  a decade or so ago it was true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gabjoh, MichaelNY

          because the suburbs and parts of the West where we have districts now we could not have won back then.

          ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

          by James Allen on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:46:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  There are legit good targets in SC-05, SC-07 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8, MichaelNY

      VA-05, VA-02, VA-10, FL-02, FL-13, GA-01, and most of those would require moderate to conservative Democrats, but none are anywhere near as Republican as the districts that Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor once held.

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:40:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am all for competing for legitimate targets (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming

        I am against standard fare inside the beltway bullshit that has us pissing away millions to send Blue Dogs to Washington or fail to send Blue Dogs to Washington when there are better, more competitive seats that could be held by progressive Democrats. That has been the DCCC's M.O. for quite awhile now and it sucks the big whazoo.

        And I don't have a problem with moderate or even conservative democrats getting elected where that is the best we can do.

        It's the fucking strategy of only that and those that has me calling bullshit on these morans.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:51:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then stop slamming the Blue Dogs (6+ / 0-)
          And I don't have a problem with moderate or even conservative democrats getting elected where that is the best we can do.
          It's pretty tiresome. Your "fuck the Blue Dogs" routine is what the DCCC would do if they wanted the Democratic Party to be permanently in the minority. In effect, it's reverse DeMintism - a preference for 30 liberal Democratic senators and 70 Republicans, instead of an impurely leftist bunch of compromising Democrats running the place. Face it: There are not enough liberal voters for liberals to be in the majority in the foreseeable future. Opinion polls bear that out repeatedly and pointedly.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:17:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fuck the blue dogs (5+ / 0-)

            there is a far cry from being a moderate to being someone that actively works to undermine the democratic party from within because they are in reality corporate sell-outs.

            Let me be clear that I understand the clear distinction between actual Blue Dogs and Democrats that are moderate or conservative. There is one. I'm ok with people that are moderate and even conservative even while disagreeing with them. But that is not what the Blue Dogs are. They are corporate sell-outs and that is not ok.

            Fuck the blue dogs. They are absolutely NOT the way to the majority. They are the way to a permanent minority. There is a reason why their number have gone from 50 down to 15 and it is not for lack of support from the DCCC or the rest of the party. They have gone down to 15 because they suck.

            "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

            by Andrew C White on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:24:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (4+ / 0-)

              Their numbers have gone down because they were replaced by Republicans.

              You are just spouting off intemperately without any facts to back your rant with. And the fact is, without the support of Blue Dogs, none of the Democratic legislation that passed the House during the Pelosi Speakership would have passed, and Pelosi would have been defeated by a Republican for Speaker - which is in fact what happened in 2010 after Democrats in lots of marginal districts were defeated.

              I will not engage in further discussion of this with you, since your discussion is purely vituperation, not fact-based analysis.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:43:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oy vey (5+ / 0-)

                Vituperation... good word. :)

                They were replaced by Republicans because they weren't particularly good Democrats and they mostly represented districts Democrats aren't too likely to win.

                Which brings us back to the original point... there are plenty of good districts which solid Democrats can win and hold and those are the districts we should concentrate most of our efforts on. There are 4-5 of them in New York alone. They don't require Blue Dogs. A couple of them do require more moderate Democrats and I'm fine with that.

                The point I was making before I got off on the tangent of saying quite clearly and honestly how much the corporate sell-out Blue Dogs suck donkey diddles is that the Politico article was spouting standard fare inside the beltway nonsense about how Democrats need to play in the south (we don't) primarily and can't win without it... which is utter hogwash.

                As I said before I am all for competing in those districts in the south, or anywhere else for that matter, that we can be competitive in. But I am very much oppossed to the DCCC wasting millions on campaigns unlikely to be won when there are winnable districts elsewhere. The fact is that the Democratic Party doesn't play well in most of the south... and won't for awhile. We should do party and brand building there but there is no reason whatsoever to chase a strategy and an area of the country that won't make us winners when there are strategies and three other quarters of the country that can.

                And oh yeah, by the way, the blue dogs also happen to suck water buffalo toes... but that's really secondary.

                "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

                by Andrew C White on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:17:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I think we all agree that a Blue Dog Dem.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            is better than the typical southern Republican.

             And I think many of us agree that a progressive Dem is better than a Blue Dog Dem.

             The dilemma is allocating finite resources to support campaigns and recruiting the right candidates.

             I agree with the Israel in that we can not blow off the south (leaving the party offices there to languish and lose any ability to compete in the future), and on the same hand not forcing the party into a Tea Party style purity test (like PROGRESSIVE OR BUST!).

             I think we need to look at who are the Democratic candidates in the south that do get voted into to certain offices, like state rep or governor, and recruit like minded candidates to congress. If they have a decent shot at winning, support the campaigns.

             But I think what the OP is trying to say is the Dems have a majority of states in hand that can win them the presidency and senate for decades to come, and don't lose sight of that coalition to focus on the south.

            •  These are all different campaigns (0+ / 0-)

              The DCCC is the Democratic House campaign organization, the DSCC is in charge of Democratic Senate campaigns, and OFA ran the Obama campaign. So which organization are you afraid will be distracted from Senate or Presidential campaigns while concentrating on House campaigns?

              Otherwise, your post is a good one.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:13:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  IMHO, the DCCC is the group that needs to be the.. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                most strategic about it's resources. I never meant to imply that they would have a distracting influence on Senate/Presidential races.

                My last comment was made in support of the current operations of the OFA and DSCC. OFA and the DSCC has done a pretty decent job over the past 4 years, with the 2009 MA Sen race being the only real facepalm moment. Losing races like OH and WI in 2010 was annoying for sure, and I would have preferred much better campaign messaging related to the ACA to get more voters to turn out, but keeping the senate in both of the last elections was pretty cool.

    •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, dkosdan

      The demographics of the Atlantic coastal Southern states for example is changing, and Georgia certainly is seeing a sharp rise in the minority population. Virginia has shifted to purple in the last decade, South Carolina is seeing a surge in the black population as is Georgia.  North Carolina swung hard to team Red this year but it remains a competitive state regardless. Florida is seeing a surge in Puerto Ricans who were instrumental in the defeat of Allen West I might add.  And the under 30 Cuban population swerved so hard to team Blue that the Florida GOP is terrified at the demographic implications.

      But we have to do better at recruiting candidates, especially in states like Arkansas where the Democrats practically gift wrapped all four CDs and gave them to John Beohner on bended knee.  It wasn't too long ago that Arkansas was 3 - 1 Blue in their CDs.

      Mississippi and Alabama are the two states I am most pessimistic about.  Mississippi is still a totally racist state in voting as witnessed by the riots at the University of Mississippi after Obamas victory.

      But the one ultimate truth is - you can't win if you don't try and in my opinion we should be trying in every single district.  

      "My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." --Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

      by walja on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:32:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And in particular... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheUnknown285, wu ming

    fuck the blue dogs.

    They're down from 50 to 15?

    YAY!

    Let's keep them there and go elect some progressive populist Democrats.

    Upgrade the House!

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:21:45 PM PST

    •  We might need some moderate Democrats (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8, peregrine kate

      and a few "New Coalition" Blue Dogs like Sanchez and Cuellar to win light red districts, which we need to control the House. Some of these districts, such as WI-07 and MI-01, will elect populists, but they'd have to be Stupak or Heitkamp style moderate populists, not Warren or Baldwin style progressive populists. And if we've got an opportunity like DesJarlais winning a clown car primary in TN-04 despite his scandal, we should run a Blue Dog since that's the only kind of Democrat the district will elect under any circumstances. That said, we can have progressives in most districts.

      Male, 22, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02. "You're damn right we're making a difference!" - Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)

      by fearlessfred14 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:31:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No we can't have progressives in most districts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2

        Why do you think we can? Is there any opinion poll that shows a majority of the electorate being liberal/progressive (which are synonymous to me)?

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:43:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think he meant that we can in most (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, fearlessfred14

          Democratic-held districts, but need some non-progressives to help us get into the majority.

          ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

          by James Allen on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:37:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If that's what he meant (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fearlessfred14

            He might be right, depending on what standard one uses to define a "progressive."

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:39:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's what I meant (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              and by a "progressive", I mean someone who is liberal on most issues, though they don't have to be a firebrand about it. I realize my statement is an internal contradiction the way I wrote it.

              Male, 22, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02. "You're damn right we're making a difference!" - Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)

              by fearlessfred14 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:30:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is a stupid argument (3+ / 0-)

              Ohio re-elected Sherrod Brown. And everyone thinks Ohio is the epitome of a "centrist" state. Should we have been running a "Blue Dog" for Senate? run a strong, appealing candidate who knows how to talk to voters about issues that matter to them, and stop trying to label people. Voters don't get those labels anyway. They call themselves "moderates" or even "conservatives" and then support progressive positions.

              Jon Husted is a dick.

              by anastasia p on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:34:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You have to allow for extreme talent (0+ / 0-)

                in the case of some politicians. It's rather your argument that's stupid than mine, if you really want to bring this discussion down to the level of a pissing match. Sherrod Brown is an exceptional politician. Look at someone like Shelley Berkley as a counter-example.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:40:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, we need blue dogs in some districts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fearlessfred14, MichaelNY

        But that doesn't mean I will be motivated to contribute to or volunteer for them. I have no problem with the DCCC supporting blue dogs in those districts, but I want my hard-earned money and limited time to go to supporting progressives. That's why I always refuse to give to party committees and prefer to choose my own candidates to donate to.

        A few months ago, I got a pushy call from the DSCC, and I said that I did not want to give to the party committee because they support too many blue dogs, and that I would give to individual candidates I deemed worthy of my very limited funds. The woman pushed back, launching into her standard script about protecting Roe v. Wade. I pointed out that the DSCC has supported anti-choice Democrats who don't support Roe v. Wade. She seemed like she was probably a paid employee of a calling house who was just reading a script and did not really get what I was saying. Eventually I hung up.

        •  Moderates yes; blue frauds no (0+ / 0-)

          .. .

          Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

          by MJB on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:29:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I respect your position (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          democrattotheend

          It makes perfect sense to concentrate on supporting candidates in winnable races who coincide best with your own ideology. There are other ways ones could choose which races to contribute to, but your way is certainly logical.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:42:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If I were running an interest group, I would think (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            differently. When I worked for a labor union, we decided who to support based on a combination of who had the best chance of winning and who we thought would be stronger allies of the labor movement. There were some candidates we spent a lot of money to help who were not that great, but they were the best chance of winning that district.

            I never had a problem with that as an employee of the union, but as an individual, I have to really believe in someone before I am willing to contribute.

            •  This year was the first time I contributed (0+ / 0-)

              to individual campaigns. I was happier that President Obama won than that anti-abortionist Joe Donnelly won, but given the alternatives and the importance of the races, I was fine with contributing to both of them.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:35:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Hope Mark Murphy runs again in NY-11. (0+ / 0-)

    Yes.  If one of the elected had run we probably would've won the seat as Mark ran behind Obama who (as of the last count I heard) actually ran head of Romney in Staten Island. But Mark was very outspent (mostly by outside groups, he was competitive with Grimm in normative campaign fundraising).  Given a full year or two to start a campaign (rather than a period compressed to almost nothing due to redistricting being punted to the courts and the local electeds preening) he could gets his name ID up to a healthy level and raise the necessary bucks to give Grimm a much harder run.

    He also did what is always the one thing I look for in a candidate.  He wasn't one of those Democrats who tried to look good losing.  He ran a tough full throated campaign attacking Grimm vigorously.

    The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

    by Taget on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:45:00 PM PST

    •  I wasn't impressed with him (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      R30A, James Allen

      And I think the only reason he and Obama won in Staten Island is that the South Shore was slammed big-time by Hurricane Sandy.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:45:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's hard to know with the hurricane. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        It affected a lot of diverse and different areas.

        Voter turnout was actually lower in the North Shore (11%) than the South Shore (8%) compared to 2008.  A narrower part of the South Shore flooded than further up the island.  Hylan was roughly the dividing line of what flooded on the east shore of the Island.  And Hylan is closer to the water as you go further south of the Staten Island Expressway.

        The area hardest hit was of course Mid-Island (16%) and one can only assume a lot of that amount was in places like Midland Beach and New Dorp that were the hardest hit areas that you saw on the news.

        Those areas would be lower middle class areas that have traditionally been considered "swing areas" but have trended sharply Republican.

        So far the surprising source of Obama's increased strength is actually areas like the South Shore.  Obama simply was crushed by a lower margin by Romney than he was by McCain.  Defying all expectations to the contrary.

        Again you can see Obama's uptick in Murphy's dropoff.  People voted more straight ticket Democrat the further north you got.  The further South you got the more ticket splitting you got of people voting for Obama and NOT Murphy.

        Why this happened is unclear.  Perhaps it was Romney's weaknesses.  Or perhaps the storm which effectively ended politics on the island made people more inclined to rally around the incumbents.

        Votes have also been very slow to be counted.  Murphy for instance has been picking up votes.  Though of course not nearly enough to win.  As of last week they were entering the home stretch in the ballot counting.  So we should be getting a fuller and complete picture soon.

        The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

        by Taget on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:44:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  does anyone else (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, R30A, HoosierD42, CF of Aus

    absolutely love the irony of Republicans choosing Brendan Mullen to accuse of being a retread?

    Yes, I bet the NRCC hates candidates who run for IN-02, lose narrowly, then run again...;)

    Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

    by sapelcovits on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:26:10 PM PST

    •  I was thinking the same thing... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, R30A

      Besides Wackie Jackie Walorski in IN-02, there's also Barr in KY-06, Cramer in ND-AL, and Rothfus in PA-12 at the very least who have lost a general election for House before, not to mention many retreads who won in 2010 after losing House races in the past (Schweikert in Arizona and Flores in Texas and the notorious Joe Walsh come to mind quickly)

    •  Donnelly didn't even lose all that narrowly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      in 2004, he lost by 10 points. But it was enough to get the DCCC's attention.

      24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

      by HoosierD42 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:07:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Allow me to summarize- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MetroGnome

    Suck it, GOP :-)

    An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

    by rini6 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:04:20 PM PST

  •  And we should listen to Republican concern trolls (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rini6, vcmvo2, MetroGnome

    Because......?

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:05:38 PM PST

  •  Republicans lie. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:08:45 PM PST

  •  What about 1998? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Code Monkey, EthanR, SDorn, MichaelNY

    You said that the party in the White House has lost seats in every 6th year midterm since 1918. Didn't the Democrats gain a few seats in 1998?

  •  Hope the Republicans keep making predictions (2+ / 0-)
    “If voters are looking for a reincarnation of something from the past, they’re better off watching the new ‘Dallas,’” said Andrea Bozek, a National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman.
    Their arrogance and assuredness didn't help them in this presidential election. And it makes their wingybasenuts feel more confident. They love drinking that koolaid, which makes it easier for us to slip reality by them.
  •  We have to get Nancy her gavel back (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rini6, dkosdan, Panbanisha

    Democrats should be debating what kind of climate bill to pass and how to hold the caucus together to get it passed, not debating how to peel off Republicans to vote for this-or-that deficit plan. We won the election but we're still debating their pet issues.

  •  Dems gained seats in Clinton's 6th year (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in AZ, EthanR, dkosdan, MichaelNY

    so it is doable.

  •  Defying History? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkosdan, MetroGnome

    I heard too much about "history" in the run-up to the Obama-Romney race. I heard one strained comparison after another about how the race was just like 1980, or 2004, or whatever. I heard how some mathematical equation of unemployment levels, inflation, and GDP had predicted the winners since the gold rush days.  

    It was all nonsense. I do not wish to see it dredged up now going into 2014. Whatever may have happened in mid-terms going back to 1918 is trivia, not history, not determinative, and not worth thought.

  •  Not only House races, kos (0+ / 0-)

    losing House races is great practice for winning even higher offices.

    A certain someone who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can tell you all about that one.

  •  Um, no the party holding the WH has NOT lost seats (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, EthanR, dkosdan, MichaelNY

    in every election going back to 1918. Far be it for me to correct kos, but sometimes we all make a tiny slip. In 1998, in the 6th year of Bill Clinton residing in the White House Democrats bucked that trend and gained 5 seats in the House and held Republicans to no gains in the Senate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    It was in reaction to extremism of the Republicans - the GOP House impeaching Clinton and many GOP Senators voting to convict him. The loss by the Republicans in the 6th year midterms brought Newt Gingrich down.

    Laughing at the White House's first offer in the fiscal "cliff" negotiations and refusing to even consider higher tax rates for the top 2%  is a good start for Republicans repeating that extremism. Let's return the gavel to Nancy Pelosi January 2015!

    David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

    by Dave in AZ on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:23:55 PM PST

  •  What does this Scoreboard look like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkosdan

    for Republicans?  

    Are we stumbling on something here?  What if Republicans kill off their unsuccessful candidates unilaterally from future runs.  

    Should the DCCC be contesting every race to give candidates experience?

    This is really an angle I have not seen before.

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:26:25 PM PST

    •  The DCCC doesn't have enough money (0+ / 0-)

      to contest every race. So they have to pick defendable incumbents and open seats in close race and winnable open seats and seats with incumbents currently occupied by Republicans. And depending on how much money they have, possibly not all of them.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:44:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's up to President Obama (0+ / 0-)

    The 2010 debacle happened in part because the President focused so much on health insurance reform at the expense of other priorities, and jobs in particular.

    He also gave free rein to the Republican propaganda machine, much as President Clinton did in the two years leading up to the 1994 elections. This time, the President needs to rally his party around him, stand firm for the common man and woman, and refuse to allow Republican attacks to go effectively unanswered. If he instead chooses to respond with more "bipartisanship", then 2014 will be another 2010.

    A significant challenge is that without a 50-state strategy, we can't get Democrats elected from red states, but with such a strategy, we get Blue Dogs that all too often seem to be little better than Republicans themselves. I don't have an answer to that.

  •  Good idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkosdan, MichaelNY

    Many came close.  With an extra push coupled with GOP idiocy we could get there.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:35:12 PM PST

  •  How..the FUCK.. did Scott DeJarlais win in TN?!?!? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    screwed dozens of his patients, knocked some up and tried to get them to have abortions.....

    AND HE STILL WON??????????????

    The Seminole Democrat
    Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

    by SemDem on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:39:11 PM PST

  •  R's do it too. (0+ / 0-)

    Andy Barr won here in KY in my congressional district, after losing 2 years ago to blue dog Ben Chandler.   At least w got rid of Chandler.  There are several good dems looking to 2014 here.

    The struggle of today, is not altogether for today--it is for a vast future also. - Lincoln

    by estamm on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:48:21 PM PST

  •  2014 could be the exception (4+ / 0-)

    Out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan (maybe), economy picking up, housing doing better, deficit going down (not that it matters, but it's a talking point to sell right) ACA up and running, DOMA ruling (gone big points for us; kept energizing issue) all or part of the DREAM Act passed.

  •  What I learned in 2012 campaign (0+ / 0-)

    I did a lot of phonebanking for Democratic candidates.

    I was surprised (if not shocked) at how many voters prefer to see themselves as INDEPENDENT. Many choose to split their votes just to make sure that one party does not have too much power.

    This, in spite of the fact that their needs and wishes and ideals align with the Democratic Party.

    Therefore, I wonder whether it would help to have candidates who don't split the vote but who run as independents and caucus with the Democrats.

    #1 wish = more Bernie Sanders Independents.

    •  That may be one way of approaching it (0+ / 0-)

      Have Dems run as independents

    •  Independents need a high profile (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RF

      Independents need a high profile.  People will vote for 'Some Dude' if his name is followed by the right party.  People will only really vote for an independent who either had a high profile before running or who can spend a lot of money and earn free press, otherwise an independent might as well be named 'Don Quixote'.  I'm not sure where we could consistently find strong independent candidates who wouldn't be better off with a democratic slot on the ballot outside the entertainment industry.

      •  True (0+ / 0-)

        You would be surprised how many folks in Maine voted for Angus King because his name is Angus-

        Huge name recognition beyond being their Governor; being a type of beef, and for...

        This Guy-

        Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

        by RF on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:33:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  OT, I want editors on Daily Kos (0+ / 0-)

    I wish someone more fit and able than I am.....I wish someone would summarize the key points in the diary and thread.

  •  Thank you Kos, not to discount the negative (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MetroGnome

    nellies' concerns.  (That's a lie.)

    I'm disappointed at the defeatist remarks, and mentality.

    Had I lived my life believing nothing was possible;  I would be just a poor woman, without any prospects.  Instead, I'm a poor woman who invested wisely, able to live anywhere in the world that suits my fancy. (That's a studio apartment, without amenities, just to clarify.)

  •  none too soon for 2014, thanks for list (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    We had so much fun with Nate Silver and Sam Wang, let's continue the party!

    Sam's site, Princeton Election Consortium, has been up and down since Sandy (or, so it seems to me), with some interesting analysis of House races, both before and after the election that could help us focus on making our 2014 seat grab more competitive. Right now, the site is up and both articles are there.

    "O you can't scare me, I'm sticking to the union" - Woody Guthrie from Union Maid

    by dkosdan on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:40:54 PM PST

  •  Very Tough Task (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    I'd love to see a Democratic House in 2014.  It is truly a daunting task.  The facts are that the party on the outs has the edge.  There will be "Obama fatigue" in 2014 and picking up 17 seats sounds like a pipe dream.  However, there is a chance (IMHO) because of the opponent.  Republicans are certainly overrepresented in the House, and they face a civil war on how to proceed after Romney's defeat in the presidential last month.  If the civil war grows ugly, with more right wing challenges or elected members, perhaps third-party candidacies, and many sitting out if and when their party turns into an enclave for the far right, then Democrats have a chance.  

    Events will also have much to say about the next election.  Obama won't be on the ballot, but if he remains popular it will help Democrats.  Further, if he is viewed as decisively more popular than House Republicans, he can help the House candidates.  If Obama is not as popular, the hill is even harder to climb.  Also remember that Obama carried fewer than 218 Congressional Districts.

    Great candidates are also essential.  In my home state, two Congressmen are contemplating a run at the Senate.  Either district would be winnable for Democrats with no incumbent and a great candidate.  I'm sure this scenario could be played out more than a dozen times nationally.

    As silly as it sounds, health matters, too.  Congressmen retiring from poor health or dying in office is a fact of life.  Those are opportunities for the Democrats. It is going to take close to a perfect storm for Democrats to win back the Speaker's gavel, but stranger things have happened.  

  •  Thank you, kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    This is the diary I wanted to read.

  •  Thanks for putting a pic of Annie Kuster up there (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    My parents live in her district. The guy she defeated, Charlie Bass, has been a pox on the House for some time now.

    Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

    by Icicle68 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:25:22 PM PST

  •  Add Jerry McNerney (CA-11) to the list (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, cocinero

    McNerney lost in 2004 but beat Richard Pombo, the chairman of the House Resources Committee, in 2006. I remember getting hit up for donations to help retire his campaign debt after he lost in 2004.

    One way to help recruit these candidates to take another run is to help them with their campaign debt. No one will run for Congress if it means possibly selling their house to pay off their campaign debt.


    i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

    by bobinson on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:36:27 PM PST

  •  Please add Mi 1 (0+ / 0-)

    Despite millions of dollars and blanket bombing of northern Michigan ( a very red area) with Koch Brothers ads, McDowell came within a fraction of a percent. This one is do-able.

    McDowell was a bit too nice. He didn't point out the specific Benishek votes that were against the self-interest of Northern Michigan folks. But he really needs to go again.

  •  Conventional Widsom (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero

    Just an observation, but I see a lot of "conventional widsom" still being peddled.  If 2008, 2010, and 2012 didn't turn "conventional wisdom" on its head, I don't know what will.  "The president can't win with unemployment (fill in the blank)", "there is no way Republicans can pick up (fill in blank/high digit) seats", etc...just throw it out the window, already.  

    I don't have a problem with realistic expecations, but I also don't want expectations lording over decision making before we even go to battle.  2014 might be a more daunting task than it should be if we keep calling it "daunting."

  •  I dream of someone defeating Steve King (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walkabout

    Christie Vilsack could try again. As the election progressed, she became a better candidate. She would be an excellent member of congress. It would still be an uphill battle.

    It's hard to imagine, but King could say or do something so outrageous that even his hard core base would abandon him. There's also the possibility that King could decide to run against Tom Harkin for Senate. (King would lose a state-wide contest.)

  •  Dkos shd support ASAP Orange to Blue re-runs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walkabout, BENAWU

    2014 results will be much better if Dkos can persuade (with moral and financial support) most losing Orange to Blue candidates to quickly declare their continuing candidacies.

    Each such candidate would not only benefit from building on all aspects of previous efforts and experience, but also would be well-positioned to publicize and pressure the incumbent’s votes and other conduct throughout the two year term.

    Voters who like the familiar name of the incumbent would gradually become more familiar with the challenger.  

    The challenger will gain points for determination, and for treating Congress as a long-term commitment.  

    For challengers who have not held other elected offices,  a second run will eliminate any suspicions that their first run may have been dilettantism or merely seeking a quick stepping stone to higher office.

    All the above should more than outweigh any calculation that the candidate simply did not have the right personality for the district (note: personalities and public images both evolve), or the right policies for the district (note: districts and national views on policies also evolve).

  •  I have a great deal to learn about elections, (0+ / 0-)

    but I usually follow and support several House and Senate candidates across the country.  Rather than spend a lot of time arguing, I'd like us to return to Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy, and do a careful analysis of where a solid candidate could win even if the DCCC does not support that candidate.  Then organize and fundraise to win the race.  It is disturbing to see Dems not offer candidates where they might win, or to offer decent candidates and have the DCCC support a Blue Dog.  It's for this reason that I no longer contribute to the DCCC, but do look for candidates like Zerban and Graves who got great public attention and did incredibly well.  They both must run again.

    Further, I'd like to see Carmona run again McCain, who is getting senile, and need to find someone to run against Grassley.  The Senate would benefit from a few more Dems.

    •  Zerban did "incredibly well"? (0+ / 0-)

      What are your criteria for "incredibly well"? I'd say he did respectably, considering how much money he was running against, but I find it hard to see a way for him to actually defeat Ryan. I would be happy to see him try again, though.

      I think a more likely scenario in AZ is that McCain retires. If not, he should get serious opposition but, assuming he isn't teabagged, would start out in a strong position. I like Carmona and sent his campaign more money than any other in this cycle ($50, but still). Is there actual evidence that McCain is senile (i.e., has mental deficits attributable to mini-strokes or the like)? What's the evidence, and how is it dissimilar from his behavior earlier in life?

      I seriously doubt Grassley is defeatable in a general election, but if he retires or is teabagged, Iowa is slightly Democratic-leaning. For that reason alone, just as in Delaware in 2010, it's important to run a credible opponent.

      My feeling about the 50-state strategy: First of all, I love Governor Dean and probably would have voted for him in the primaries if he hadn't withdrawn after the media made him look crazy for nothing. But basically my bottom line is: Candidates, even "some dudes," should be run for every position - nothing should be unopposed. And races in any state that might possibly be winnable should be considered, whenever there's enough money.

      But just as OFA didn't try to win Wyoming or even Indiana this time, campaigns have to choose which races are realistic, which are stretches, and which are either well-nigh impossible or too poor a likely return for their limited resources. In the process, mistakes are made. Nate Shinagawa just might have knocked off Reed in his Western New York district if the DCCC had provided support, instead of supporting Crooks, who lost by plenty in Indiana. So you live and learn and try to get more funds next time.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:47:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's Why We Must Focus on Voting Rules (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    This is why it is critical to fix the problems with voting, as I've mentioned before. We need to stop voter suppression and open up the vote to all eligible voters.

  •  Barack Obama, yes, but closer to home for the GOP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    George W Bush was unsuccessful in his one race for congress in 1978 before launching his successful political career in 1994.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site