The "Run Everywhere" Caucus' Ohio Contingent
Well, we're still waiting on local naysayer/consultant Marc Campos to inform us batty bloggers why we're nuts for wanting to contest every election under the sun. Marc does offer up a humorous morsel about one of the GOP's SD7 likely candidates - Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis. It's worth knowing that no recent example exists of a Houston City Councilman going on to serve as an elected Republican officeholder (Marc and others have a longer memory than I do, so maybe one exists somewhere in the history of Houston politics). So how is Mark Ellis going to combat that trend? Seems he's discovered immigration and he's now preaching to the right by demanding local cops enforce national immigration law. Marc's advice (this time) is worth echoing:
Let's divert HPD patrol units from the city part of SD 7 and send them to North Shepherd Drive and Gulfton so they can do their roundups. Then when SD 7 city folks start seeing an increase in burglaries, red light running, jaywalking, and other criminal activity, we'll see if the policy shift is a good idea.
Even better, why not have Ellis run against Sheila Jackson-Lee on the issue and ask I.N.S. to enforce their own laws so that local cops can do the job that local cops are paid to do.
But back to this whole SD7 contest that seems to be a point of contention regarding whether or not we should bother fielding a candidate in. I'd like to point out the case of Ohio. Why Ohio? Because Ohio Dems are about one step ahead of us on this whole "Run Everywhere" concept and I don't like taking a backseat to anyone. Heading into the 2004 elections, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur had a bright idea to see a challenge in every Ohio Congressional district. The old battleaxe from Toledo took some heat for it too. But she saw the idea through, putting up 18 Democrats across the state, 12 of them challengers to GOP incumbents.
Of course, all 12 of the challengers lost. Complete and utter failure, right?
Wrong-o:
Democrats fielded congressional challengers in every Ohio district held by a Republican. All 12 lost.Still, the party says there is wisdom behind its strategy.
Having a candidate in every district helped rally voters, could have boosted turnout, and gave presidential candidate John Kerry a team of surrogates to help get out the Democratic message, party spokesman Dan Trevas said.
The challengers also forced longtime members of Congress to return home and campaign for their seat, and helped Democrats build a pool of future candidates.
"They helped everywhere, just by being there," Trevas said.
Political scientists agreed, but cautioned that quantity isn?t the same as quality.
"It is evidence of a party's strength to field challengers," said John Green, director of University of Akron?s Ray C. Bliss Institute for Applied Politics. "Sometimes lightning strikes and an incumbent stumbles. You can't win if you don?t have a candidate."
Followers of elections and whatnot may also recall that Ohio came remarkably close at the Presidential level, which ought to be astonishing once you realize there are no statewide elected Democrats in Ohio. Sound like any state we know of?
Presently, of course, there's another race in Ohio that gets to the point of why we need to challenge everywhere - that of Paul Hackett. He's running in a district that went 28% for the Dem challenger in 2004, with an opponent outspending him to the tune of $600k to $200k and renting private jets to Washington fundraisers to hob-nob with a who's who of the K Street set.
So we Dems should just pack this in, right? Forget about a little Congressional seat in Ohio. Those whacky Ohioans ought to just focus their energies on really really winning the six seats the GOP drew for them and be happy with what they're given.
Fortunately, the efforts of Sherrod Brown's GrowOhio.org is helping to push the statewide effort even further by offering up tools for grassroots organizing. Not to be outdone, the TexasTuesdays.com effort is in the process of getting some testing and tweaking in order to do our own bit here in the Lone Star State. Look for more on this in a few weeks, as we'll be hitting up the Texas blogosphere for help on the project with the hope of covering the entire state thoroughly and offering a one-stop shop for news coverage, organization, communication, and (with a little luck) online donations.
For now, Paul Hackett is hereby granted "Temporary Texan" status from now and election day in the Ohio 2nd (August 2). I'm pretty sure I have no legal standing whatsoever to convey Texan-ship, but who am I to let that stop me? He's got two whole Tuesdays to enjoy for "Texas Tuesdays." So give a little and if you know anyone in southern Ohio, find out who they're voting for.
Martha Wong may not have been a councilman but she was a council member and now serves as a Republican elected official!! Greg you live a lot closer to her district than mine. Are you joking, did you forget or do you not consider Martha Wong and Republican elected official?
If I could chime in on the ongoing argument abt uncontested races I do agree it is very sad and bothers me to no end that 90 percent of our neighbors won't vote in primaries and then run to vote in the general elections when often nothing is competitive. I often argue that uncontested races are not what my grandfather came to this country for or what my father fought in Vietnam for but it also is sad that so many districts are drawn for the sole purpose of discouraging competition.
In the genearl elections if I could do any kind of reform it would be to expel straight tickets aparatus b/c Ron Green once told me at least in his election everyone had to see his name. He and MJ won b/c people did see their individual names which does NOT happen in general elections.
Good call there, Burt. You're right, Martha slipped my mind. Probably due to some early thinking of her as a former State Rep.
Re: straight ticket reform ...
I'm less at odds with allowing straight ticket voting. Even though it hurts us Dems right now, I think the increase in straight ticket voting is a symptom, not a cause, of the problem. The problem being a lack of information about the candidates. Used to be people could say they voted the person not the party. Now, where's the Houston monopoly newspaper coverage of Al Edwards' challengers, Ellen Cohen's candidacy, and so on? Heck, they couldn't even bring themselves to mention David Minceberg, Barbara Radnofsky, or Chris Bell's possible/announced/likely candidacy when the mood should have struck them to do so.
The city candidates can say what they want, but they're ignoring the mathematical fact that a hideously low % of voters vote in City Elections. I'm all in favor of whatever it takes to make voting easier for more voters. Take away the ability to do what some voters are going to do anyway, and all you do is drive up the frustration that some voters get when they go through umpteen pages of ballots. I'll fight that with easier access to information rather than taking away what tools they presently have.