During each of the past two election cycles, at around this time, I recall discussions of the desirability of getting Democrats to run in each of the 435 Congressional races taking place in 2012. My recollection is that we broke the existing record for candidates during one or both of those years, but we did not get beyond something like 425 candidates. This is an application of the "50-state strategy": have a standard-bearer in each district so that people know that it's OK to be a Democrat.
The two websites that (rightly or wrongly) I associate with this effort are Swing State Project and MyDD, although as the name I most associate with it is that of Chris Bowers, I suppose that it may be better to reference Open Left. All three sites are on my "occasional read" list, so I could easily have missed something. And so I ask:
Are we trying to round up 435 candidates for Congress or not?
If we are, then we had better hurry, because deadlines are fast approaching.
The best site I know of for information on upcoming races is Swing State Project, and the best place to start looking for such information is this page, which presents the dates of the primaries for all 50 states as well as the filing dates. It's a sortable calendar, so you'll see that one filing date -- for Illinois, which according to the calendar has its primary on February 2 -- already passed, back on November 2. Texas's deadline is fast approaching: filing deadline on January 4, primary on March 2. Kentucky and West Virginia are not far behind.
I want to stress that the idea here is not to have people run in primaries where they will have to campaign. The idea here is to have a candidate in every slot, insofar as is possible, so that voters don't stare at their Congressional race on the November ballot and get the impression that they live in a district without dissent, one in which Republicans rule without challenge. This is a psychological battle, and simply allowing people to express, on Election Day, that they stand with the Democrat means something. If the candidate has signs, gives speeches, so much the better. But the main thing is just showing up.
I've noticed in the last two cycles -- one in which I was managing the early parts of a Congressional campaign -- that my home state of California has been one of the laggards when it has come to filling all of its spots. (Partly this is because we have so many spots, but that's really not an excuse, because anyone from any part of a state can run in any district in that state, so we also have more potential candidates. Remember, Tom McClintock beat Charlie Brown in CA-04 last year carpetbagging from maybe half the length of the state away.) I'll give you the example of California's filing requirements and invite people from other states to do the research to post their own.
Our excellent and brilliant Secretary of State Debra Bowen has posted a page clearly explaining what one has to do to run for Congress:
Signatures-in-lieu of filing fees -- Jan 1-Feb 25
Nomination papers -- Mar 12
Declaration of candidacy extension (if incumbent does not file for re-election) -- Mar 17
Randomized alphabet drawing -- Mar 18
Notice to partisan candidates -- Mar 27
Certified list of candidates -- Apr 1
Primary Election Day -- June 8, 2010
Another page links to the various information that prospective candidates need, in terms of filing requirements, gathering petition signatures, and so on. So, most of the information you need is right there.
Markos, Meteor Blades, SusanG, and Steve Singiser can run for Congress, in any district within California, if they wish. So could any other Californian reading this. Kosters from there -- and there would be plenty -- can collect petitions for them. The same is true of other states. This would not necessarily require a lot of money or effort, if one is just a placeholder on the ballot -- we just have to decide that it's worth doing. We have the social network needed to get people on the ballot, if we want to do so.
The 50-state strategy doesn't get discussed much here anymore, but I still believe that it's analytically compelling. So, I put the question to you: is this worth doing?
And I put a second question to you: if it is worth doing, how are we going to do it? It's not going to happen on its own.