Speaker Joyce Beatty?

I admit it.
It's All In The Effort
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...
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
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
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.





SNAP