In 2014, NO Seat Should Run Unopposed!

[Le Taz Hot]

Voter suppression and gerrymandering will, indeed, be HUGE obstacles in the upcoming elections and both will have to be dealt with; however, one area that seems to get no attention is the lack of Democratic candidates in too many elections.

After Dean, the Party Intelligencia decided to go back to the 6-state strategy. The result is that there is no party support, in any way, for the vast majority of elections. That means it's up to the locals to find, recruit and support challengers in EVERY race. I can't tell you how often the Republican Congresscritters from my area run unopposed. Either that or the Democrats throw in a "sacrifice candidate" who is, basically, a placeholder and does no campaigning, no debates, nothing. The thing is, I know this situation isn't unique to my area. I would think that this is a part of our Democratic process in which all DUers can engage. If you're looking for something to do in the 2014, maybe consider candidate recruitment. Or . . . run yourself.

[gopiscrap]

1. agreed

[MineralMan]

2. I agree completely.

Democrats should always field a candidate for every election. Support should come from the national party organization, but should also come from local Democrats. The local and state Democratic Party organization should be ready to assist candidates for every seat, even if it seems like there's no chance. Strategic targeting of negative aspects of the incumbent's record will work best, but the candidate has to be willing to get out there and campaign. Showing up for every possible opportunity to make his or her case is just the beginning.

It can be a frustrating thing, such a seemingly doomed campaign, but that's how it has to start.

And, as you say, if no candidate steps forward, anyone can run. In most jurisdictions, it's not that difficult or expensive to put one's name in the hat.

GOTV 2014! Even it if seems hopeless.

[Laelth]

3. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Have you run for office, or personally known...

anyone who has?

First is the money. My Congressman, a pretty good guy, started fundraising for 2014 the day after the election last year. You need a serious organization to collect and spend the money. Even for my small run for local office I was told I have to come up with at least $1,000 and a Congressman needs closer to half a million now. Mine needs a lot more than that to keep his seat, and may become the most expensive race in history next year.

Campaigning is a 24 hour 7-day job. You have to eat a ton of rubber chicken and shake a zillion hands just to get to the nomination stage. Then you have to fight that other asshole, which means more rubber chicken and talking to every Rotary chapter, Ethnic-group-of-the-day, Chamber of Commerce, and any other group that has two or more votes and demands your attention. You hang out on street corners in the rare time you have between the two or three meetings you have every day. Locally, we hang out on the sidewalk front of Post Offices and the IGA supermarket or phone bank, or knock on doors if we have nothing else to do.

And, umm..., do you have a job or business that requires your attention during this run to glory? Will you be able to quit if you win? Go back to it if you lose?

Do you have a tough enough skin to handle the abuse? In one debate, the audience feedback I got was that I did great. The paper that sponsored it, though, wrote me off as lightweight barely worth a mention. Might have been because I called two of the questions stupid and the paper has a thinner skin than I do. Anyway, I have to deal with that now. A big lesson learned-- I was smoother with the Chamber of Commerce shindig we all had to go to. But, the two Greek Orthodox churches in the area that invited us all to speak were, to my surprise, actually almost fun. (And the food was great.)

And who are the voters? Gerrymandering or not, they are the ones who actually, ummm... vote, and you have to appeal to them more than the other guy does. How does that fit into your personal view of the issues, life, and everything? They already elected the asshole you are running against, so how do you get them on your side? How would, say, a liberal environmentalist win in a district of conservative farmers? (Hint-- by not being a liberal environmentalist)

This is not to say we shouldn't give it a shot, but going up the line to county, state and national, your Democratic organizations take a close look at their limited resources and your chances at winning and will support you accordingly.

My point isn't defeatist (would I be doing this if I were defeatist...) or that we shouldn't try to go out and get good candidates to run against the assholes, but understand why it is so difficult. It's not just national strategy, but your local county and state Democratic organizations are often in a mess and more often have limited resources for a Congressional campaign in teabag strong areas.

[FarCenter]

6. Given restictions on donations, the party orgs are going to use the money where it counts

And the SuperPACs and other independent organizations are also going to back candidates with a good chance.

Gratitude from a loser is worth nothing.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Well, I've been in politics since 1968 so, yeah.

But carry on because what we need are more lists and reasons why it can't possibly be done. Personally, I prefer not allowing myself to be defeated before I even start. But you go ahead.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. You missed the part where I said I wasn't being defeatist...

just realistic. Running for office is incredibly hard work, even with a strong organization behind you, and don't try to fool anyone into thinking it's a romp in the park. There are serious reasons why some of the worst congresscritters have no serious opposition and talking won't make them go away.

You may also have missed the part where I am actually doing it, although for a lowlier office than Congressman.

But, I'll go ahead and be defeatist while you go chase dragons with a magic sword.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. No, I didn't miss it.

It's just that you stuck it in the end of a 3-or-so paragraph long defeatist diatribe. And nowhere in my post did I say, "romp in the park" or that it would be easy. It's not easy. It's hard work. So what? The Democrats need to have a presence in every single election and I think that's an important goal.

And if I'm chasing dragons with a magic sword at least I'm out in the field doing battle instead of moaning, "It's too hard."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. What about unopposed Dems? JK nt

[Le Taz Hot]

8. I can see you're going to be my problem child.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. Your reply is pretty funny too. I think you raise an excellent point

Guess in many cases, it may be hard to imagine how you could compete with the republican and have an
iota's chance in hell. But, to me, these races are all about name recognition. If you can afford
to plaster campaign signs everywhere it means everything. Even if you lose, you can gain recognition for
the next attempt.

I am totally convinced in Texas - that the only reason Cruz won was because he had a catchy name.
My husband actually voted in the Republican primary to hopefully help the lesser of evils win. He read
that Cruz was a Harvard and Princeton graduate and thought - how bad could he be? Love to rub this
mistake in every chance I get.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. I just think that the Democrats should have a presence in every race.

Not everyone in even the most conservative districts is a batshit crazy wingnut. There are liberals, there are independents, even moderate Republicans that are sick of the TeaKlanners. People SHOULD have someone to vote for. One name on a ballot with a place to fill in a write-in candidate is not Democracy. I also maintain that you don't have to have bazilions of dollars to run a campaign. You need LOTS of dedicated volunteers. It's feet on the ground that converts voters -- much more so than TV spots that most people get sick of anyway.

[Mass]

9. I am just fine with my congressman running unopposed (Neal - MA) but anyway he will have no problem

defeating a token Republican if he needs.

[brooklynite]

10. Guessing you don't actually know what the 50 State strategy was...

It had to do with building up State Party structures for general voter turnout. It had nothing to do with finding or funding House and Senate candidates. Conversely, DSCC and DCCC has never had a "Six State Strategy". They work with candidates (progressive and moderate) who have the resources to be competetive in competetive districts around the Country. The stress between Dean and Emmanuel was in fact Rahm's desire to focus money on House pickup opportunities, primarily in Red states where moderate Democratic candidates could be competetive.

As one of their deep pockets funders, I can tell you that DCCC and DSCC don't have the resources to back up every House and Senate seat; nor should they. I have no problem running candidates everywhere if we can find them, but Republican gerrymandering is a reality, and the many "Safe Republican" seats are largely not worth investing in financially. It may feel good to take a slap at Boehner, Cantor and Ryan, but those Dollars could be better spent in more competetive districts.

BTW - noting your tagline: are you prepared to accept a moderate or (gasp!) a Blue Dog running in a Red State districts, if that makes the district competetive? Or are you going to insist on acceptably progressive candidates everywhere?

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Here is what the DCCC could do to gain my respect for their predictive abilities:

stop losing the elections to insane right wingers. Hold the House. If you know who is 'competitive' in advance, prove this by winning. The last two rounds indicate that the leadership channels are clogged in a cycle of redundant errors leaving us with Republicans of the worst sort owning the House. Whatever they have been doing, they need to do something that wins instead. Bluster is so worthless. Results matter.

[brooklynite]

19. Let's assume they don't know...

...you have 438 House seats; you don't have funds for all of them. Which seats do YOU pick?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

13. Not just unopposed but "under-opposed," too.

In my congressional district in 2010-- two years after Duckworth first ran and nearly won, I believe, the Democrats (eventually) put up some kid with no political experience to run against Peter Roskam. He got creamed.

We at least need to make these thugs spend some money-- no 'gimme's'.

[brooklynite]

18. Who've you got?

Seriously, do you think candidates get produced somewhere? Not every talented person wants to run for office. If you know someone, make the effort yourself, rather than sit back and wait to omplain when the final choice is unacceptable.

[hfojvt]

17. it should always be up to the locals

I kinda hate it when party bigshots pick a candidate. The person they pick often seems to need one quality - he/she needs to be a bigshot - rich and/or famous.

But I also do not mind if the national party does a triage. That is, there are three types of races.
Races where the D is gonna win and doesn't need money.
Races where the D is likely gonna lose no matter how much money is poured into the race.
and finally
races where some money from the national party might make a difference.

The national party should put their resources in places where they will do the most good.

Our political system is a funny thing though, concentrating so much on money.

I, myself, actually ran for Congress. I was not considered a "serious" candidate (not even by myself (meaning, I knew darned well I was not gonna win against an incumbent - my goals in running were two-fold, to get 40% of the vote and to build the local county parties))

But otherwise though, why shouldn't a guy with an MA be at least as serious a candidate as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Al Franken, or idiots like Christine O'Donnell and what's her name who ran against Harry Reid?

Because, unlike the first two, I am not rich and famous, do not have rich and famous friends, and unlike the second two, do not have a lot of big money backing my campaign.

But why should money be so important? Why doesn't the media - do its job? I mean, don't people read newspapers and watch the TV news in order to stay informed? The news media SHOULD be providing voters with enough information to make an informed decision. Thus, it should not take so much money to "get your name out there". Not if the media was doing its job.

[bvar22]

20. You know, we did that in the Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010,

....and were stunned at the amount of attention we got from the DNC and the Oval Office.
After Dean was exiled, Arkansas dropped off the map as far as the national Democratic Party was concerned,
but LORD we got some attention in 2010.

The entire Party Establishment turned out to rescue Blanche Lincoln's failing Primary Campaign...Oval Office Endorsements, Massive TV time buys for Lincoln, Posters, MONEY, poll shenanigans,...and even a campaign tour from the Big Dog himself!
We couldn't believe that the national Democratic Party establishment would spend THAT kind of money down here in backwater Arkansas!

Unfortunately, that money was spent to save DINO Blanche Lincoln,
and stomp down the grass roots and Organized LABOR who were trying to replace her with a Democrat who supported health care and UNIONS.

After they saved Lincoln's failing campaign, they quickly left town,
and left the Wicked Witch who Ruined Health Care dangling in the wind.
She lost badly to the Republican in the General Election.


The Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3971264