Why shouldn't we run strong Democrats against moderate Repubs?

[kentuck]

Would not just about any Democrat be better than Chaffee or Shays if it meant the Democrats would have a chance to regain power from the present radicals that have them by the balls? Yes, Chaffee, Shays, and a few other moderates are acceptable, in that they are mostly rational individuals. But their positions give power to the evil right wingers. Isn't that reason enough to try and defeat each and every one of them?

[msongs]

1. the job of an opposition party is to oppose--across the board eom

[autorank]

2. No reason, we should! Chaffee ='s Frist, nuf said.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. This is why I was pissed when Reps Langevin and Kennedy dropped out

against Chaffee. Either of the two would have been a pretty sure thing, based on the polls that are sometimes posted on dailykos.com. Now all we have left is Secretary of State Matt Brown, who isn't exactly a household name, if you know what I mean. I wish him all the luck in the world, but I would still rather have either of the other two back.

[kentuck]

4. Seems to me these would be the easiest Repubs to defeat...

Since when should any Republican seats be off-limits? It seems that is the case with a few Republicans in the NE?

[More Than A Feeling]

8. They didn't drop out because Chaffee is off limits

Langevin, I heard, was chased off because he is pro-life, and Kennedy's mother is in poor health, so he declined to run to take care of her.

[DaveinMD]

10. Kennedy

would have been a poor candidate. There are stronger candidates than him. Too bad Langevin was chased off. He would have won easily.

[Mass]

17. There is another candidate Whitehouse

a former RI General Attorney who is better placed than Brown (at least that is what Langevin said).

Langevin was not going to win that easily in RI. Some Dems had problems with his prolife views and RI is a liberal state.

[Mass]

18. No you forget Whitehouse.

[FightinNewDem]

5. Scratch many a "moderate" Republican...

...and you will find a DeLay disciple just below the surface.

My congressman, Jeb Bradley, likes to portray himself as a thoughtful, environmentally friendly, small town main street Republican. The truth is, he has voted in lockstep with the failed policies of this adminsitration at every opportunity, and has been a willing participant in the DeLay-Hastert regime's reign of corruption and complacency.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I am running against Jeb Bradley.

[kentuck]

6. Hooray !!

Congratulations!

[FightinNewDem]

15. Thank You!

Hot off of the presses, here's the brand-spanking-new campaign blog:

http://sullivanforcongress.blogspot.com

I know, it's still a bit sparse, but heck, I just got the thing up and running about, oh, ten minutes ago...

The main web site is still in the works.

[BamaLefty]

7. THANK YOU!!!!!!

Amen Kentuck!

[safi0]

11. Look at 2006

You have 3 of the worst Repugs up for re-election and 2 of the most moderate also up for re-election. As far as the moderates go a lot of people don't think Olympia Snowe is beatable, I do but I don't know how strong the opposition to her will be. Lincoln Chaffee although Langevin and Kennedy both dropped out is still likely to have a very tough race. Now as far as the conservatives go Santorum is #1 on the hit list and they'll do anything they can to beat him. But the other two Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott as much as we all hate them, if they choose to run again their both virtually unbeatable

[kentuck]

12. Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott....

should still be challenged. It's not that difficult to run for Congress. The Senate is a little tougher. But the Repubs have a bunch of real losers winning elections because they aren't challenged.

[safi0]

13. I agree

But the likelihood of beating Hatch or Lott is very slim and out resources would probably be better spent elsewhere.

What I mean when I say that is that while those 2 should get opponenents if its spending money on those 2 or spending money on the Chaffee and Santorum races, I'd take the latter because we'd have a better chance of winning the latter

[kentuck]

14. It doesn't take a lot of resources to run.....

only to win. But there have been Congressmen that won and never spent any money at all. There was one in Kentucky a few years ago named Natcher, I believe, and he never spent any money. In the final analysis, "free media" is worth much more than paid advertisements anyway. We just have to figure out a way to get "free media" for our candidates. :)

[safi0]

16. I was talking mainly about the Senate

The House in a way is much easier and in another way is much harder. Its easier because it happens every 2 years there's less area to cover and obviously it requires less money. But it is more difficult because its extremely difficult to defeat an incumbent Congressman unless you do the Gerrymandering like Tom Delay

[kentuck]

19. But the point is to challenge them..

whether you win or lose.

[ISUGRADIA]

23. Natcher had been in office for 40 years or so and not spending

money was a good angle he had. Free media ain't going to candidates any more. Check out local news during a campaign season. They're more concerned about covering dog shows and mall openings than campaigns. So the idea of using free media is a non-starter unless you run a controversial ad that gets picked up and it becomes a story. And the fact is something like 95% of winners iotpend their opponents. And the other 5% is normally incumbents.

UT and MS are lost causes for now. Candidates ran against these guys in 2000 and got 30% or so. Same story in 2006.

[ISUGRADIA]

24. DELETE dup

[BamaLefty]

20. Utah And Mississippi

You have no idea. Trent is an exposed racist= 65% of the vote

[DaveinMD]

9. of course we should

We are gong to beat Chaffee this year. We should run for every seat we can win.

[election_2004]

21. Here's why?

There are going to be limited financial resources to go around in the 2006 cycle.

If it was an either/or choice, who would you rather see defeated in '06: Lincoln Chafee or Rick Santorum?

If it was an either/or choice, who would you rather see defeated in '06: Olympia Snowe or Jim Talent?

The fact is, when it comes to voting for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, Chafee and Snowe will take judicial moderation into account. Santorum and Talent won't.

In an ideal world, I'm sure Democrats would like to see Chafee, Snowe, Santorum, and Talent *ALL* defeated. But everyone must remain mindful of how realistic that goal actually is.

If only two of these four can be taken out, for example, then it's much better for the country to take out the more reactionary ones.

[safi0]

22. Election

you also have to take into account who's beatable. Why spend a lot of money in Miss. and Utah because even though there Senators are neanderthals, there virtually unbeatable neanderthals. While guys like Chaffee are beatable

[Mz Pip]

25. I kind of like Chaffee

I'd vote for him if he were a Democrat. But he's not, so screw that thought.

Take back the Senate. Take back the Senate. By any means necessary. Repeat, if necessary.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[wyldwolf]

26. has anyone suggested we shouldn't?

Anyone with an (R) is fair game.

[WMliberal]

27. I agree, as I would agree with trying to challenge pink tutu Dems.

I put them both in the same boat.

Chafeee and Shays may rhetorically challenge the loony RW, but when the chips are down I wouldn't trust them.

[MollyStark]

28. We should and we should challenge right wing democrats

Primaries are fair game. The party may be busy telling us we have to save money by annointing certain candidates, but anyone who falls for that is giving away the democratic process.
Both Joe Liberman and Joe Biden should be challenged.