If you have "no place to go," come here!

38 House seats: Targets for the 12-word platform? (Or however many words?)

This idea comes from a conversation that danps and I had. His thought was there were IIRC 45 House seats that were vulnerable, and to target those seats for propagation of the X-word platform -- I'd add, by posting and persuading local bloggers. 45 seems like a very do-able number, even for a community the size of Corrente. Certainly worth thinking about, and maybe taking a shot.

So I went looking for the 45 seats -- I thought the number was for Nate Silver, but couldn't find a post from him. I did find these charts from Larry Sabato:

2014 House Ratings

Updated Aug. 14, 2013

Competitive House seats

Members in italics hold seats that the other party’s presidential candidate won in 2012; nine Democrats hold seats won by Mitt Romney, and 17 Republicans hold seats won by Barack Obama. All nine Democrats are listed here; 13 of the 17 Republicans also make this list. The Republicans not listed are Reps. Peter King (NY), Erik Paulsen (MN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) and Dave Reichert (WA). *Signifies possible retirements or candidacies for other offices; **signals candidates vulnerable to primary challenge.

If we combine the toss-ups and the leaners of both parties those would seem to be districts to target for propagation. If we could get a useful feedback loop going, we might do our little bit to affect the course of politics in a good way (where the operational definition of "good" is heading toward the planks of the 12-word platform. 36 is not a big number....

Readers, thoughts? Lots of you are much more expert in the nuts and bolts than I am.

NOTE I'd personally recommend following the example of the gay bundlers and the Hispanics in 2012: The only way to get something out of the Democrats is to threaten them, before the election. So, since the margins in these districts are small, we'd have some leverage, if we weren't seduced by legacy party blandishments.

Average: 5 (1 vote)


tom allen's picture
Submitted by tom allen on

Collin Peterson (MN-7) is one of the original Blue Dogs: anti-abortion, climate change denying, pro-NRA, pro-NSA, etc. He's in the most conservative district in Minnesota and usually wins by comfortable margins. Probably going to run again; probably only reachable by running a candidate to his left to threaten to split his vote, IMHO.

Rick Nolan (MN-8) returned to Congress this term after serving for six years back in the Mondale Era of the late '70s. (Worked for Mondale, later endorsed Kennedy over Carter.) Pretty standard Obama Democrat in his positions, I think, though I'm not as familiar with him.

Submitted by lambert on

... in those districts. Then we can see if we can get them on board.

I can do this... At some point... But does anybody want to step up? Please, can we avoid Kos?????

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

While nominally a "swing" district, this one is very socially conservative, the most recent D Rep being Stupak. The last race in 2012 was very close, with less than 2,000 votes determining the winner, the D candidate (Gary McDowell) was presenting himself as "fiscally conservative" while pandering to the mass of people who depend on SS in the district, and yet he lost to a Tea Party candidate. It is a huge district, encompassing the entire UP and part of the northern lower peninsula, the UP being very economically depressed, mostly rural and remote, with a very high (upwards of 13% official) unemployment rate. I'm not sure how the 12 word platform would play as a positive for the D voters there (and I'm not sure the D party is all that strong in that district, it appears to illustrate the "all politics is local" mantra by being very insular. I'll try and investigate a little more, but the state Ds are worse than useless, as evidenced by the absolute control of our state by Rs.

Submitted by lambert on

Since they're not going to win, they have nothing to lose!