They do, actually. More than you'd think.
This weekend has been amazing to watch. The Mark Foley (not necessarily the best term for it, since it's rapidly expanded beyond Mark's behavior to the cover-up thereof, but I'm not coming up with a better one) scandal has suddenly opened up possible political gains in unexpected places. It's not just Foley's Florida seat that is at issue; suddenly, it's not only seats that were previously vulnerable like Tom Reynolds' NY-26 but also John Shimkus' IL-19 and even solidly Republican districts like John Boehner's OH-08 and even the Speaker's home district of IL-14. These guys now have to focus not only on campaigning for others, not only on productive policy (which was probably about 271st on their list of to-dos, right after taking that course in yak hypnosis), but on their own survival.
But imagine if we didn't have opponents in some, or all, of these races. An unopposed member of Congress can ignore reporters, voters...heck, he (or she) could either nap on the couch all fall or, worse, go out campaigning for more vulnerable folks. But now, it's not like Hastert can campaign easily for Reynolds or vice-versa; no matter where they go, they'll get questions, stories about the scandal, sometimes protesters. They can't help the vulnerable ones because, to some extent, they're
all vulnerable.
That's why having a candidate everywhere is really important. Suddenly, candidates like Dan Stover in IL-19, Jack Davis in NY-26, Morton Meier in OH-08, and John Laesch in IL-14 have gotten recognition and notice that they hadn't before, and all because of outside events. (Well, not completely; websites like this have made it much easier to get information about candidates out there, even in "unwinnable" districts. That's due to many, many writers and diarists with different interests and knowledge who, when the door opened, were able to let us know quickly--and, not incidentally, how to help them out.)
I've read some concerns, though, that some of these candidates aren't the ideal ones we would want now that the seat suddenly looks winnable, and that it would be better if someone else with more experience or name recognition were running. It would be nice to have the perfect candidate everywhere; while I'm at it, I'd wish for my student loans to be paid off and to have enough room in my kitchen for a dishwasher (and the dishwasher, too). But that's not how life works; in the words of Molly Ivins, "you dance with those that brung ya."
Think of 1991, right after the first Gulf War, when Bush I's approval ratings were massive and prominent Democrat after prominent Democrat dropped out from running for President. Most probably figured Bush's reelection was a sure thing and opted to wait until 1996. Bill Clinton didn't. And when Bush's popularity imploded in that last year, well...
Okay, these candidates aren't Bill Clinton, not yet anyway. But they're the ones that made the leap against tough odds and deserve our support.
"But they're in really Republican districts!", I can hear you saying. True, in most cases. Other districts are easier and might have more potential for success. But just because we're focused on some districts doesn't mean we can ignore these because of tough odds.
Look at where prominent Republicans are having to campaign and fund-raise. Dick Cheney's campaigning in Wyoming this week. They're concerned about losing that one congressional seat in a state they should be winning in their sleep, from previous experience. Instead, Gary Trauner is forcing them to work hard for this one. Larry Grant is doing the same in ID-01. Idaho, which hasn't gone Democratic since, I think, the Spanish-American War. He was there when the R's nominated a nut and is really forcing Idahoans to choose between the party they've voted for all their lives (but which would send a widely despised nut to Congress) and the one they've never pulled in their lives (but which would send a pretty decent normal guy to Congress), and that leaves the door open. Imagine if no one had filed for that one.
"But what are the odds that Meier or Laesch can win? Not real high." Again, true. But how low are they? 20%? 10%? 5%? As low as 2.2%?
Now, probably higher than 2.2%, for each and every one of them. But with only five weeks left, that's not much.
Yes, but 2.2% is still a chance. I chose that number because, according to Cool Standings, it was the precise odds of the Minnesota Twins winning the American League Central on September 1, with just 31 days left. In fact, their odds never got above 35.3% (on September 19) except on one day.
But that one day was the last of the season, where they won the division in incredible fashion. (Props to the Tigers, by the way; here's hoping you beat the Yanks in the ALDS. Represent the division well, guys!)
Moreover, the Twins didn't have many big names or big salaries. Instead, a lot of roles were filled by near-unknowns like Boof Bonser, Jason Bartlett, and Little Nicky Punto. And if we have a big win in November, it'll be the near-unknowns, the Maiers and Laeschs and Trauners and Grants, who send us to the top. Boof, in fact, started the season in Rochester, got promoted, didn't do so hot, got sent down, and finally found his groove in August and September. He's gone from unknown in the Rochester rotation to our Game 2 starter Wednesday. And, like with our candidates in these districts, he's had bumps along the way, as will they at times. But they're on our roster and giving us a chance, and they may become great players for the Democratic team in Congress.
In fact, I'm thinking of a candidate right now not mentioned before. A funeral director, in fact, known locally for running a good funeral business, but with absolutely zippo in political experience. And running in a Republican district with a long-time incumbent. Sounds like no hope, no cash, no nothing, right?
His name, as it turns out, was James Hanley. The district encompassed Syracuse, NY.
And the year was 1964. Barry Goldwater got demolished in New York, including upstate despite the fact he'd picked a running mate from Lockport. And that was enough for Hanley to sneak by.
Most folks thought he was doomed in 1966. Indeed, he probably wasn't sure what to do next. What he did was get on the two committees that he thought would help the district (Post Office and Veterans), work like hell on casework and local and individual concerns, and try to survive.
Many good Democrats lost in 1966, the result of a backlash against the 1964 landslide. Not Hanley. He also survived in 1968, despite Nixon winning upstate, and 1970 with Rockefeller winning reelection as Governor.
By 1972 Republicans had had enough. So they split Syracuse in half and gave him a district with lots of farm country, deep Republican territory in a great Republican year. He campaigned hard and worked harder. (The link to his name above is from a tribute from current House member James Walsh, who represents the area now, at least until Dan Maffei takes it this November.) And he prevailed. He kept winning until retiring in 1980, and died just a couple of years ago. The federal building in Syracuse is named after him.
Does that mean we'll see a John Laesch Federal Building in Batavia, IL, or a Larry Grant Federal Building in Lewiston, ID somewhere down the road? Probably not.
But there's always the chance of that. These candidates took a chance. It might be worth taking a chance for them.