Better Ideas
Regarding the post below, Nathan over at Save Texas Reps offers another view of the "Challenge Everything" wing of the party:
Running a full slate of serious candidates - even in losing districts - helps other Democratic candidates as well. The on-the-ground campaigning helps expand the Democratic database of supporters and volunteers. It helps get out the message of the Democratic Party - thus expanding the reach of statewide and national candidates. Furthermore, running serious candidates in longshot districts forces Republicans to campaign in their own districts, limiting embattled candidates access to ?safe? Republican war chests.A good example of this was Richard Morrison?s 2004 campaign to oust Tom DeLay. Many said it was a waste of time and money - that Morrison couldn?t win. While Morrison didn?t make it to Washington, he won a huge battle for the Democratic Party - with only $600,000 he forced Tom DeLay to concentrate on District 22 and spend over $3 Million.
Experienced political observers realized that that was $3 Million that DeLay was not able to shift to so-called battleground races. A $600,000 investment by Democrats cost the Republicans $3 Million.
Or, as I'm fond of saying: Richard Morrison helped get Chet Edwards re-elected. But then again, the "Do Nothing" wing would suggest that even good ol Chet shoulda stayed home and not campaigned. What a sucker he was for running. Wonder what he's doing nowadays.
ADD-ON: Bogey McDuff offers a variation on a theme ... recruit candidates from the sports & celebrity crowd. Hey, if Troy Aikman (is he still living in Texas?) announced he was a Democrat, I'd be all over the idea. Sadly, Andre Ware (UH-87/89) is already well represented by a full slate of Democrats. The Reverend Danny Davis (UH-76/78) at least has his church deep in the heart of Dem-land. But make no mistake about it, if Rev. Davis ran for anything, I'd walk through a burning building to get him elected.
Categories
Politics-20061 Comments
There is a PAC devoted to tying down Republican congressional incumbents to their own races - Project 90 (from the Woody Allen saying, 90% of life is showing up). The founder gave a workshop at Demfest. I don't have the notes on me, but one of their races was the Musgrave race in Colorado, which was incredibly successful in making the RCCC spend money and keeping Musgrave in her own "safe" district. (A big part of that though, was not related to Project 90, rather to a very effective negative ad run by a 529 group).
Anyway, the idea was they would get pledges and bundle them, once they had an idea how much money they had they would choose several districts to go for. They provide a model budget ($300K) and some technical support. Also the pledges end up going to the candidates. The idea is to provide support where the DCCC is not - apparently the average spent on this sort of race is around $10K. And, as you say, keep the Republican candidate and his or her resources within that district and out of more competitive ones.
One objection was that the Republicans would just do the same thing, what Luddig ( the presenter) countered was that the way the districts have been gerrymandered, there are very, very few 60/40 D districts. The D districts tend to be 80/20 or 90/10, essentially so lopsided that this strategy would not work for Republicans.
Anyway, I do not find that he has yet his website up, but it's a compelling idea.
The other piece of it is moral, really, as Lorenzo Sadun (who ran a write-in campaign for CD-10) says. He felt that the voters deserve a choice, and that it's incumbent upon Democrats to give them that choice. Spoiled brats don't play if they can't win. Grown-ups put their best foot forward, and try, whether or not they are "electable".