Losing the Right Way
by Chris Bowers, Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:26:32 PM EDT
One of the reasons I have long been a vocal proponent of Democrats run candidates in as many districts as possible, even if those districts are longshots, is that such challenges can help build the party nationwide over the long-term. There are other benefits too, such as draining Republican resources from swing races, and helping up-ticket Democrats. In short, there are many different ways to lose, and some are far more beneficial to the party than others. While none of these would be considered true "longshots," here are ten congressional districts where we lost in 2006, but we lost in such a way as to improve our prospects of taking the seat in 2008:
2008 House Targets Seats With Improved Prospects From 2006
In all of these districts, either though increased Democratic name ID, reduced Republican starting cash on hand, or a combination of both, Democrats start the 2007-2008 cycle with a better chance to win the seat than we started in the 2005-2006 cycle. These are ten seats where our broad-based strength in 2006 clearly has long-term effects. The NY-25, the district where I grew up, is particularly striking, as Walsh once again faces Dan Maffei, only with $400,000 less in the bank, and Maffei with a much higher name ID in the district. That is exactly the sort of loss that can be translated into a victory in 2008, especially as the already Democratic district continues to trend blue, and with so many other top targets already captured.
It is important to keep in mind that many of these "good losses" were set up in part by spirited challenges is less competitive districts where we also lost, and those were in turn set up by running candidates in more districts than we have done since the 1970's. Even now that we have the majority, we must continue pushing Republicans in as many districts as possible. If we do it right, many of our losses can translate into wins in other areas of the country by pinning down Republican resources, or can translate into wins in the future by using a campaign as a mechanism for building local activist and message infrastructure. Our long-term success is not just predicated on winning and losing, but on winning and losing the right way. Increasingly, there are hopeful signs we are improving in at least one of these areas.
Update: Add CA-04 to the list, where Republican incumbent Doolittle dropped from $139K in at the start of last cycle, to only $44K in this cycle. Also believe that Democrat Charlie Brown is running again (or at least I keep getting emails from his campaign).
I'm sure there are others, too. The point wasn't to be comprehensive--it was just to say that there were many areas where we benefit from a good 2006 loss in 2008. Everyone needs to calm down around here.
2008 House Targets Seats With Improved Prospects From 2006
| District | Republican | 2006 starting cash | 2004 starting cash | Repeat Challenger? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AZ-01 | Renzi | $14K | $150K | No info yet |
| MI-07 | Walberg | $38K | NA | Probably not |
| MI-09 | Knollenberg | $134K | $439K | Maybe |
| NJ-07 | Ferguson | $72K | $183K | No info |
| NY-25 | Walsh | $73 | $464K | Yes |
| NY-26 | Reynolds | $211K | $1,149K | Hopefully Not |
| NY-29 | Kuhl | $52K | $77K | Yes |
| OH-02 | Schmidt | $9K | NA | Yes |
| OH-15 | Pryce | $70K | $489K | Maybe |
| WA-08 | Reichert | $3K | $9K | Yes |
In all of these districts, either though increased Democratic name ID, reduced Republican starting cash on hand, or a combination of both, Democrats start the 2007-2008 cycle with a better chance to win the seat than we started in the 2005-2006 cycle. These are ten seats where our broad-based strength in 2006 clearly has long-term effects. The NY-25, the district where I grew up, is particularly striking, as Walsh once again faces Dan Maffei, only with $400,000 less in the bank, and Maffei with a much higher name ID in the district. That is exactly the sort of loss that can be translated into a victory in 2008, especially as the already Democratic district continues to trend blue, and with so many other top targets already captured.
It is important to keep in mind that many of these "good losses" were set up in part by spirited challenges is less competitive districts where we also lost, and those were in turn set up by running candidates in more districts than we have done since the 1970's. Even now that we have the majority, we must continue pushing Republicans in as many districts as possible. If we do it right, many of our losses can translate into wins in other areas of the country by pinning down Republican resources, or can translate into wins in the future by using a campaign as a mechanism for building local activist and message infrastructure. Our long-term success is not just predicated on winning and losing, but on winning and losing the right way. Increasingly, there are hopeful signs we are improving in at least one of these areas.
Update: Add CA-04 to the list, where Republican incumbent Doolittle dropped from $139K in at the start of last cycle, to only $44K in this cycle. Also believe that Democrat Charlie Brown is running again (or at least I keep getting emails from his campaign).
I'm sure there are others, too. The point wasn't to be comprehensive--it was just to say that there were many areas where we benefit from a good 2006 loss in 2008. Everyone needs to calm down around here.
Tags: Fundraising, House 2008 (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
25 Comments