Speaker Joyce Beatty?
Submitted by modernesquire on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 11:29am.
I admit it.
It's All In The Effort
Submitted by Paul (not verified) on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 12:22pm.
I will repeat what I've said before ... it's all about taking these races seriously, something which very few people do even on this site.
I would argue that people in control of our party structure don't seem to take then very seriously either.
Please re-read what I wrote a couple of weeks ago about how important these races really are.
When November 8th hits, we will have our work cut out for us.
Several scenarios will happen in the state legislature come the 2008 cycle. Either we will have "overachived" and we will have a number of marginal seats to hang on to, or we will have "underachieved" and we will have to work even harder to win races in 2008.
The environment will be somewhat different in 2008. The five statewide races will be off the table (Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Attorney General) and there will be no US Senate seat up.
We will, of course, have that little thing known as the US Presidential race, but other than that (!) there will be 18 congressional seats, 16 state senate seats and 99 state house seats on the agenda.
It looks like we will make "gains" (either some or a lot, we'll see) but the real effort will be to continue the momentum in the state legislature as well as in the Congressional arena.
Like I said ... re-read the post and see what the 50 state / 88 county / 99 district strategy means for all of us.
Paul...
Submitted by modernesquire on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 2:49pm.
It's not that I don't take these races seriously, but I can't ignore the structural advantages that Republicans have. That's why the top of the ticket are more important for the ability for Democrats to take over the General Assembly. We need to control redistricting in 2010. The smaller the geographic district, the more impact gerrymandering has. Therefore, the Ohio House races are the least competitive races for the Democrats on the ballot. The demographics in Ohio hasn't changed so substantially that the district that Republicans drew to advantage them in 2000 are no longer heavily Republican.
Will Democrats gain seats? Undoubtedly, but the biggest reason that people aren't talking about a Democratic takeover is because the districts have been drawn to favor Republicans so strongly that it creates a defendable firewall to keep them ahead. The Republicans got their majority, not by the 88 county strategy, but by winning the Apportionment Board and drawing the districts to be more competitive for them. That seems to be the Democratic strategy, and I can't fault them for it given the success it had for Republicans.
Until then, we have to make these races as competitive as we can. But we have to realize that the Republicans have built themselves an advantage by fundraising and gerrymandering. That's why nationally Democrats are looking at smaller gains than the 50 seat tidal wave in 1994. Republican state governments created strong Republican gerrymandered districts nationwide, and greatly limited the number of competitive district.
I'd add to this
Submitted by staff on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 4:36pm.
When i did the turnout analysis I cam to the same conclusion. once you get beyond the top 10 most competitive districts you need a coat tail so absurdly large for it not to be reasonable. Of course this doesn't count for local factors and candidate quality - but you get past the top 10 and the money, or lack of it a serious problem to take advantage of local issues etc.
This is where apportionment board is so crucial.
Yes, But
Submitted by Paul (not verified) on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 4:55pm.
In your list of things to tell me which I already knew, you forgot the disparity of money.
Of course these districts are gerrymandered ... I've walked many a precinct which look like a pretzel on crack.
The point isn't that we need to spend 50% of our time and money on statewides and 50% on other races ... didn't advocate that.
The point is that we don't win where we don't play (trademark Chris Baker, June 2005).
If we can't walk and chew gum at the same time as a party then we don't deserve to win anywhere.
Paying attention
Submitted by Village Green on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 12:28pm.
to local and state politicians will be top of my list of things to do after the election. I have realized that the closer politics gets to home, the less I know about the people making the decisions. I started blogging to record my responses to volunteering on a campaign (Sherrod Brown) for the first time in my life. Post-election, I've decided to start attending council meetings as well as designated "meet with your representative" nights whenever possible. I want to see what goes on and how responsive these people are to the citizens they represent.
http://longlivethevillagegreen.blogspot.com/
power
Submitted by bryan on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 4:41pm.
power comes from sustained organizing, good years and bad. if we ever hope to become a majority, we must approach politics from the long-term -- not the election to election bullshit that dominates so much the democratic party.
we will win when we play in every district, no matter how marginal, gradually changing the face of the electorate in the process.
it is not enough to throw everything at the top and win by 36pts, while even "non-targets" congressional candidates beg for scraps. the great thing about ted strickland is his willingness to help folks wherever he campaigns, but he is truly a unique figure in that respect.
Damit - some of this pisses me off.
Submitted by calebfaux on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 2:11am.
I've spent the last six months managing the campaign of a Dem challenger (Connie Pillich) running against a two term Republican incumbent. I've spent six months trying to convince the conventional wisdom types that this is a race that can be won, and on Tuesday we'll know. But stay with me for a moment and consider.
Our district went to Bush in 04 by only 51.7 to 48.3. A Dem COunty Commisioner in the same year took 56%.
Our opponent has now done 14 direct mail pieces, gone up on radio and cable TV, run robo-calls, engaged in poorly done negative attack mail pieces, he's clearly running scared. So what, you may say.
But consider this.
In the neighboring Senate District, the Republican incumbent who has hardly lifted a finger to gain re-election both in the House and now in the Senate is also now up on cable TV, doing direct mail and posting yard signs. That in a district that went for Bush 67-33.
You tell me - does he waste money doing that unless he's seen polls that make him nervous? No. So if a 67-33 guy is nervous where does that leave a 52-48 guy? Running scared is where.
Republican have a lot more money to do polls and they know where we are better than we do.
Too many people have written off taking the House and may have turned a deaf ear to opportunity knocking. Thankfully, the grass roots folks in my district didn't.
If Joyce becomes speaker it will be due at least in part to the very hard work of a lot of grass roots people, as much as it will be due to the vision of the people at the top.
Not that I'm complaining about lack of support, though support from the top has been hard to come by. My two cents worth.
We'll see what Tuesday brings.
SNAP