Skip to main content

Q: What is the purpose of partybuilding in areas that probably won't support the party in the near future?

A: It has a trickle-down effect on neighboring districts; it presents a stronger vision of the party as a national force; and if you abandon a district in 2014, it's that much more unlikely that it's going to flip sides at some point before, say, 2034.

Here at DKE (and formerly at SSP), we tend to focus on swingier districts (PVIs of +/- 2, say) when discussing the topic of congressional elections.  As an approach, this makes sense: the path to Speaker Pelosi (v2.0) more likely runs through David Valadao's CA-21 (D+1.3) than it does through, say, Kevin Brady's TX-08 (a laughably red R+28.1).  On the other hand, the last time the Democrats held the House--and in every time before that--it was through a diverse national coalition of northern liberals, southern conservatives, and everything in between.  Sure, 218 blue seats can probably be figured out without needing to spend resources in any non-swing districts; however, that's not a good way to build a longstanding majority coalition.  Plus, it's just not as much fun.

In this diary, I want to look at where we may be able to pick off some less-obvious seats, or at least lay seeds for the future.  Team Blue currently only holds four seats with a PVI redder than R+8.0 (Barrow, McIntyre, Rahall, Matheson); by my count, that number was at least quadrupled as recently as 2009, though I can't seem to find an exact dataset.  My point is this: it's both fascinating and potentially useful to look at the less obvious targets for 2014.  Howard Dean may not be leading the DNC anymore, but that shouldn't mean the death of something resembling a fifty state strategy.

This list is constrained to seats with a PVI greater than R+8.0.  My methodology is pretty opaque--I looked at the available data to try and come up with a good list of some seats that, given the right conditions, could switch from R to D in 2014.  Also note that % and "points" are interchangeable here; that is, "Romney got 55% more than Obama" = "Romney got 55 more points than Obama" = O+55=R.

As mentioned in the title, this is part one of a series (mainly because this is a lot of prose to digest at once).  Please feel free to argue about any districts you think would fall under this category but aren't mentioned here; even if I plan to write about them in the future, the community's thoughts on this sort of a project are always productive!  For now, though, I present to you my thoughts...

District Incumbent PVI Romney margin Cong. margin ('12) Fun fact
AR-02 Tim Griffin, retiring R+8.4 11.8 15.7 Gov. Mike Beebe (D) got 66% here in 2010
GA-01 Jack Kingston, retiring R+8.3 12.9 26.0 Kingston overperformed Romney by 7.1% in 2012
IN-08 Larry Bucshon R+8.1 18.8 10.3 Obama's performance decreased by 16.3 points from '08 to '12
ND-AL Kevin Cramer R+10.2 19.8 13.2 In 2012, now-Sen. Heidi Heitkamp ran ahead of Obama by 11.3%
WV-02 Shelley M. Capito, retiring R+11.0 22.0 39.6 Capito's '12 performance beat McCain's 08 spread by 15.1%, third most among all Republican representatives
On the next episode of "Expanding the Map": KS-02, KY-06, OH-02, SC-05... and much more!


Before the infamous Arkansas dummymander, this seat was held by the impressively progressive Vic Snyder (D).  Since he retired in 2010, though, it's been held by the odious Griffin, a notable player in the US Attorneys firing scandal.  He won election in the 2010 wave with 58%, and was reelected last year with just over 55%.  Now, though, Griffin is choosing to retire for unknown reasons, leaving this Little Rock-centered district open.

Although Griffin's victory in 2012 was fairly sizable, there are a number of caveats attached to that campaign.  For one, the Democratic candidate was the underfunded and underwhelming Herb Rule, who ran a bare bones campaign that didn't pick up until the waning months of the cycle.  Griffin, with over six times the cash that Rule had, won reelection by 15.7% during a year in which Democratic enthusiasm in Arkansas was, shall we say, non-existent.  (Note: I have never been to Arkansas, but considering that Romney trounced Obama here and Rule's campaign never really showed signs of life, I'll make this somewhat safe assumption.)  In any case, we already have a somewhat solid candidate lined up for next year, so we're at least saved from a lackluster campaign in the mold of Rule's.

In a non-presidential year, when the state's hatred/distaste/whatever for Obama won't be as strong, this seat should make for a fairly tantalizing target.  Okay, that's true about most of the seats on this list, but come on: we're talking about Arkansas here!  The state maintains its ancestral ability to elect Democrats statewide, which means that getting the local levels back to blue shouldn't be that hard, right?  What's more, the current AR-02 gave Governor Mike Beebe (D) a whopping 66% in his 2010 reelection!  Even Blanche Lincoln managed to only lose AR-02 by 11.6% in the general election that same year.  And Obama, well on his way to getting creamed in Arkansas in 2008, still got 44.3% in this district.  We lost this seat in the middle of a particularly bad wave, which was unfortunate, but that doesn't mean it's lost forever.  The Republicans won't have the advantage of incumbency here next November, and we could see a landscape closer to 2010, when Griffin--again, in the middle of a scorching Republican wave--only won with 57.9% of the vote.  The Democratic Party is weakened in the south, but it should be at an advantage in an off-year, especially with competitive gubernatorial and senatorial races driving typically depressed Democratic turnout from the top of the ticket.


Kingston's been about as entrenched as a GOP incumbent in the South can be: he's been in office since 1992 and has never won by fewer than fifteen points (and that was in his first campaign).  Good thing, then, that he's retiring this year to run for Senate!  While a Kingston nomination at the statewide level could portend certain doom for Democrats in this very red district, there's no reason to think that he's more favored than any of the other eight hundred candidates in the senatorial primary; therefore, let's proceed as if turnout here will be fairly normal, for a midterm.

Although Kingston won this district with a whopping 63% in 2012, that number betrays the true lean of this district.  He overperformed the same-party presidential vote in his district by 7.1%, 48th highest among all contested seats (the national average was 1.8%).  You don't need that figure to tell you that Kingston's dominant victories owed more to his popularity than to the tilt of the district, but I think that it's a handy stat to have around anyway.  Now, I'm not saying that he's like Jim Matheson--that is, if Matheson retired the Democrats would almost certainly lose UT-04, where he overperformed Obama by 18.6%.  On the other hand, Obama only fell off by 2.3% from 2008 to 2012 in this district, a bit better than the national average and somewhat in line with Georgia's statewide presidential preferences.

What all this means is that, despite GA-01's fierce Republicanism at the congressional level over the past two decades, it's pretty unspectacular in the context of Georgia politics.  Its PVI is slightly more Republican than the state as a whole (R+8.3, as opposed to R+6), and is thus easily the bluest R-held district in Georgia.  If we are going to compete in Georgia over the next generation, we will need a number of things to go our way: minority turnout needs to go up; Georgia needs strong Democratic statewide elected officials to increase turnout among all Democrats (paging Michelle Nunn...); and there need to be prominent elected officials that don't just come from the Atlanta area.  All of these plans are in progress, but a next step needs to be taken.  The Republican gerrymander won't make matters easy, but if we can hold John Barrow's GA-12, which is the same PVI as GA-01, then we can certainly at least compete in GA-01.  It won't be easy--but, then again, that's the point of this list!


Of all the congressional districts in the country, non-Utah division, IN-08 had the fourth largest tumble from 2008 to 2012 when it came to presidential performance.  Obama got 48.1% of the vote here in 2008; in 2012, only 39.6%.  That sort of distaste for the president is hard to overcome, but as Jim Matheson and Nick Rahall--whose districts score higher in this metric--can attest to, it's not always fatal.  Plus, there's a good argument to be made that IN-08's status as a Republican stronghold can be short-lived.  Sure, Bucshon's had an easy go of it during the historically bad environments of 2010 and 2012; but what if local trends can be finagled to match better times such as 2008, when Brad Ellsworth was reelected with over 64% of the vote (while the district gave John McCain about 50% of the vote)?  The new IN-08 contains 88% of the old IN-08, so the partisan composition of the district is more or less the same.

Clearly--and bear with me for this sentence, please--the good people of IN-08 are willing to give their votes to whoever does a better job convincing them that they are the best representative for the district at that point in time.  Okay, so Obama's agenda wasn't for them.  We had the bad fortune of an open seat here in 2010, when Brad Ellsworth ran for Senate, so the red wave wiped out local Democratic fortunes without Team Blue having put up much of a fight.  Obama got 48.1% here in 2008!  That's really good!  Sure, that wasn't sustained, but it means that the true lean of the district is probably somewhere in the middle.  Do you think those same voters are going to thank Bucshon for his vote to prolong the shutdown?

There aren't many Dem-held districts where Obama got less than 47% of the vote in 2012 (only the normal five, actually), but one of the points of this article is to argue that we shouldn't just accept this as the new status quo.  There is enough Democratic support buried in IN-08 for a Democratic representative.  Bucshon isn't particularly popular and he hasn't been around long enough to turn himself into an established local brand.  We want here what we want everywhere else: a moderate candidate with a bang-up turnout operation.  In IN-08, however, turning that formula into success won't be as hard as in other similar districts.


The path to victory in North Dakota is a relatively simple one: look at what Heidi Heitkamp did last year and copy it!  But seriously, while Heitkamp's campaign was historically good and unlikely to be replicated in its awesomeness any time that soon, its ultimate success does show us that there's still a way for Democrats to win statewide (as, obviously, both the Senate and House races are) in North Dakota.  One big difference between the 2014 congressional race and the 2012 senatorial race is that the latter was an open seat, while Kevin Cramer, who was just elected to succeed the odious Rick Berg last year, is expected to run for reelection.

A few things working for the Democrats in North Dakota in 2014: I'm not sure Obama has a negative downballot effect in the Peace Garden (huh?) State, but he certainly doesn't have much of a positive effect.  Sure, Heitkamp won amid the increased turnout atmosphere of a presidential election, but Obama's statewide performance fell from 44.6% in 2008 to 38.9% in 2012 so whatever Heitkamp did right, it didn't include turning out more Democrats.  In fact, most of Heitkamp's victory almost certainly came from independents and Republicans, two groups (if I'm not mistaken) that will be more likely than Democrats to turn out next November.  A hypothetical challenger to Cramer will need all the Democrats he or she can get, of course, but we shouldn't expect a Democratic re-taking of this seat to come without some significant crossover support.  Cramer voted in favor of the bill to reopen the government, so attacking him from this angle won't work, but there's still plenty that a Democrat could take issue with.

It's hard, in many of these cases, to argue that the Democrats should retake a seat that was theirs just a few years ago.  In the case of North Dakota, though, it really does just feel like an issue of refocusing the debate.  Earl Pomeroy was elected (and reelected) to the House during every presidential election from 1992-2008, and the Democratic presidential candidate won the state exactly none of those times.  Romney's 19.8% victory in 2012 was greater than McCain's 8.7% victory in 2008, but even Romney's margin pales in comparison to both of George W. Bush's performances in 2000 and 2004 (in which he won the state by 28% and 27%, respectively).  A poor presidential result is clearly not fatal here.  Ticket splitting is increasingly a thing of the past, but we can't blame gerrymandering or anything close to that in this case.  Instead, the main issue seems to be the fact that the Democratic Party--here as well as in other Republican-inclined districts--is ceding the seat based on its poor presidential result.  That, my friends, is a self-fulfilling prophecy; it will do nothing to help our quest to retake the House.  If the Democratic Party is serious about building a lasting foundation in the House, it will look to this seat as one in which the stats don't quite line up, but can and should be seriously contested nonetheless.


O, West Virginia!  Did you know that Gore lost the Mountain State by only 6.32%, less than Virginia (8.04%) or Colorado (8.36%)?  And that it was the only state south of the Mason Dixon Line to vote for Dukakis in 1988?  And that it is one of six states that voted for Clinton/Gore in both 1992 and 1996 but hasn't given its electoral votes to Democrat since?  Not to dwell on the past too much, but it's incredible that that same state is now one of the most GOP-friendly out there on the presidential level--Romney won the state with 62% of the vote, his fifth largest margin in the country.  This Republican dominance extended to the congressional level as well in 2012: Capito won a seventh term with 70% of the vote while Romney carried WV-02 with 60%.  Capito's ten point overperformance shouldn't surprise us too much--and, what's more, WV-02 was actually Obama's best district in West Virginia.

On the other hand, Romney's best district in West Virginia was WV-03, where Nick Rahall (D) won reelection with 54% of the vote.  Furthermore, West Virginia has a remarkable history of continuing to elect Democrats to statewide office: the governor, both senators, the secretary of state, the state treasurer, the state auditor, and the commissioner of agriculture are all Democrats who were elected in 2012.  Incredible, really.  I don't have numbers on how WV-02 voted in all these races, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was pretty solidly blue, especially after two cycles of being the most Democratic congressional seat at the presidential level.

As has been mentioned--because it's really important!--Capito, because she's fairly moderate and quite popular, has always overperformed the top of the ticket.  The problem with this in 2014 is that WV-02 is open because Capito is running for Senate.  If she wins the nomination, as seems likely, she'll probably have good down-ballot Republican coattails in her old district.  Still, though, fighting a hard losing battle in this seat next year is of the utmost importance, for two reasons: it's unlikely that Capito's successor will be as popular as she has been; and the presidential downballot effect in 2016 won't be as negative as it has been during Obama's two elections, especially if Clinton is the nominee.  Although this diary isn't meant to focus on candidates, it bears noting that we already have a really solid Democrat running for this seat next year.  The best case scenario here is that Casey runs hard next year, comes close and shows that this seat is winnable, and then is able to win under possibly more favorable conditions in 2016.  That may seem like small consolation for 2014, but this type of strategy is essential if we want to build the party in soem tougher areas going forward.


Which of these PVI > R+8 seats do you think is most flippable?

49%60 votes
4%5 votes
9%12 votes
11%14 votes
13%16 votes
11%14 votes

| 121 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  In your next chapter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen

    KY-06 is much easier than KY -02. I definitely think we can pick the 6th back up in '14 w/ the right candidate, especially if Alison Lundergan Grimes is doing well against Yertle the Turtle at the top of the KY ticket. We'd need a Democratic wave to get KY-02, however.

    "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

    by SouthernLeveller on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:07:36 AM PST

    •  even then I doubt we could. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If ALG hadn't run for senate I think she'd have easily trounced Barr, though. None of our candidates are impressing me much yet there in KY-06 but we'll see.

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:54:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kansas-02, not Kentucky (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, MichaelNY

      KS-02 was held by Nancy Boyda from 2006-08 and, while it won't be easy by any stretch, is definitely more in reach than KY-02, haha.  KY-06 won't be easy to retake either, but it and KS-02 seem like they would be fun to compare.

  •  ND-AL (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hlsmlane, MichaelNY, TheOtherJimM

    No one should be given a free pass for voting to reopen the govt. if they voted to shut it down in the first place. THAT can be the line of attack. Also, in all rural America, no farm bill was done before govt. shutdown and the farm  bill we look to get does more for millionaires than family farms. THAT's a line of attack.

    If we are to take and keep the House, we have to do better among rural voters. So we need issues that play to our strengths. The farm bill does.

    "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

    by SouthernLeveller on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:31:34 AM PST

  •  Would like to see your take on TX-32, (0+ / 0-)

    my district, and home of Pete "Taliban" Sessions, formerly GOP Chair of the CCC, now Chair of the House Rules Committee.  Y'know, member of the Tea Party Caucus, enabler of the government shutdown, "friend of Ted", etc.

    It would be double-good if we could get a candidate to take down Pete.

    I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

    by tom 47 on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:00:57 AM PST

    •  does that district have enough swing voters? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:15:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the last Dem. challenger from 2012: (0+ / 0-)

        US House election, 2012: Texas District 32
        Party           Candidate                             Votes     %        ±%
        Republican  Pete Sessions                       146,129 58.29 -4.31
        Democratic  Katherine Savers McGovern    98,867 39.44 +4.54
         Libertarian  Seth Hollist                             5,664     2.25 -0.25

        Not sure of the Obama-Romney split, but likely similar.

        There are generally, and true in my precinct (I am Dem. Pct. chair), more Independents than either Dems. or GOP in Texas.  YMMV.

        A handy graph:

        Shows about split, with 12-15% Independent.

        This chapter's feature on Party Identification in Texas shows significant change from 1978 to 1990 in the percentage of Texans that identify with one party or another. The percentage of those who identified themselves as Democratic declined from 48 to 34 percent, while those who identified themselves as Republican rose dramatically from 19 to 33 percent. The number of independents, meanwhile, stayed consistent at about 33 percent. This data confirms one simple reason Republicans have made dramatic electoral gains during this period: a larger percentage of citizens consider themselves Republican than at earlier times.

        Polling conducted in October, 2012 by the University of Texas at Austin in conjunction with the Texas Tribune revealed a roughly evenly divided electorate in terms of party identification. The numbers of self-identified registered voters who identified as either Republican or Democratic were nearly even, though somewhat more independents said they leaned Republican (15%) than said they leaned Democrat (10%). The overall number of independents was 12% -- returning us to the neighborhood of independent number in the historical data from recent years.

        I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

        by tom 47 on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:53:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Should have said, until recently, there were more (0+ / 0-)

          Independents than either Ds or Rs.  Now closer to 36% R, 35% D, 29% I.  But fairly even split, still.  More Is are really Rs who won't say so.

          My own Dalas Co. precinct is 30% D, 40% R, 30% I, but votes 60 R-40 D.

          I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

          by tom 47 on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:57:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  TX-32 presidential results (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, MichaelNY

          Romney won the district 57-41.5 in 2012, down from McCain's 55-44 victory in 2008.  Sessions outperformed Romney's margin by 1.3%.  The district's PVI is R+9.2.

          Basically, there's nothing obvious to suggest that this could be in play short of an intense wave election happening around it.  Never hurts to compete hard though--even if it can't elect somebody to Congress, it could help our state and local Democrats immensely!

        •  Independents are not necessarily swing voters (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          so I don't care how many there are. As yorkvillian said, there's nothing here that suggests it could be competitive. Are there any election results that show Democrats doing better there than Obama or those house results?

          ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

          by James Allen on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:49:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  John Gregg running for IN-08 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    would make it competitive.

    And Democrats have a phenomenal candidate for WV-01, which may become an open seat as well.

    "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

    by ArkDem14 on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:01:06 AM PST

    •  He has never shown any interest in running in IN08 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArkDem14, MichaelNY

      despite him being the House Speaker in 2001 when the district was drawn to include Terre Haute. The district got more Democratic in redistricting, even though it might not show up in the PVI that much. It gained Perry, Spencer, and Dubios Counties, and lost Warren, Putnam, and Fountain Counties. It seemed to me all along that Todd Young had allies in the legislature that helped him at the expense of Buschon, who many people thought would gain heavily Republican Morgan County, but did not.

      I would keep an eye on 2016 to see if former Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Evansville) could be talked into running. He has a good job now that he does not want to give up at this time. Also, one factor in the steepness of the Obama decline in IN-08 is the issue of coal. This district has a few coal areas and the area is one of the most dependent on coal fired power plants. The area is also rather socially conservative, and that may be a factor, including in traditionally Democratic Dubios County, which is heavily Catholic.

      "So there's a time for silence, and there's a time for waiting your turn. But if you know how you feel, and you so clearly know what you need to say, you'll know it. I don't think you should wait. I think you should speak now." -Taylor Swift

      by SouthernINDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:54:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would like to see your take on UT-02 (0+ / 0-)

    As I think that could be a sleeper win if everything goes right for us there.

    Leftist Mormon in Utah, Born in Washington State, live in UT-04 (Matheson).

    by Gygaxian on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 06:54:06 AM PST

  •  Only Dukakis state south of the Mason Dixon Line? (0+ / 0-)

    Is Hawaii, our southernmost state, south of the Mason Dixon Line?

  •  Excellent diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yorkvillian, MichaelNY

    this is just the sort of stuff we need to take back (and keep) the house.

    •  Thanks! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      plf515, MichaelNY

      It's so much fun to think about and write this sort of thing.  Now if only the DCCC would go back to the ways of '06 and '08...

      •  How is their current behavior different? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 04:57:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I may just be a misguided outsider (0+ / 0-)

          But I feel like we're playing a lot more defense than offense.  Granted, that's been the nature of these cycles, but I saw no need to abandon the halfway decent "50 state strategy" we had working for us in 2006 and 2008 once the going got rough in 2010.  In 2006 there were four uncontested GOP-held seats; in 2008, there were five; in 2010 and 2012, there were nine in each.  This is a small difference, but it shows the wider party apparatus's lack of real attention paid to tough seats.

          Now, this may very well be a question of the best use of the DCCC and DNC's somewhat limited resources, but we have made barely any effort in two recent notable special elections in GOP-friendly territory (SC-01 would have been just another uncontested Republican seat had Colbert Busch not had the name recognition and had Sanford not been such a faulty nominee).  Furthermore, the party has shown little interest in trying to make inroads in seats and areas that we only just started losing over the past four or so years.

          Maybe next year will be different, but I feel like the DCCC has already resigned itself to abandoning the Deep South and similarly challenging territories for the next generation of congressional elections.  We may not win these elections anyway, but this sort of attitude sure doesn't help.

          •  I think it may be a wise use of resources (0+ / 0-)

            It really depends how much money there is to go around. But look by how much Colbert Busch lost, in spite of doing, I believe, about 7 points better than President Obama did in that district.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 10:50:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, you're right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I hate the job the DCCC is doing.  I think they're very skilled a lot of things, from recruitment to fundraising; however, when it comes to competing in tougher districts during a normal general election (the SC-01 special was the only thing going on, so they had no choice but to spend resources, considering that Sanford would have made it a little bit competitive) I think they come up a bit short.

              Sometimes this is a good use of resources that works out in the end, sometimes it leaves the party flat-footed when unexpected opportunities arise (see: MI-11).  I guess we had the benefit of already holding some R+a lot seats in the south, but the 2008-era DNC/DCCC also smartly invested in picking up some seats as well (AL-02, ID-01), something that the current DNC/DCCC have not shown any inclination to do outside of the SC-01 special.  I guess we'll see what the strategy is for next year, but I wouldn't get too excited.

              •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

                There were seats left on the table in 2006, but they were fought for by the DCCC in 2008.

                So far, Steve Israel's recruitment this year has seemed pretty aggressive.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 12:57:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site