Democrat takes Solid GOP House Seat

this is such a wake up call for the progressive side as well --- we have to fight for every seat -- with Hillary acting the way she is -- she is practically handing the election to McCain -- thus keeping congress and nearing 60 senate seats is more critical than ever

The Republican in the race was a failed candidate. He never won a general election, only some primaries. The Democrat has a liberal background. but also has a business and science background. What is interesting is that Hassert held the seat for over a decade, this seat shouldn't have turned blue.

The race could have gone to the Democrats because of -

numbers of converted Republicans voting for Foster
Foster's endorsement by favorite son Obama, which meant more in Illinois than McCain's did of the opposition candidate
,An energized Democratic turnout vs a depressed GOP vote,
Reaction to the 2006 scandal involving Hastert and Rep Foley
Hastert's poor choice of leaving mid-term and of endorsing the weaker candidate

As a Democrat, this is heartening and hopefully a harbinger of what we will see more of in November. I guess this is how Republicans felt when Tom Daschle was kicked out by voters, and the Dems lost the majority in the Senate.

Is this an indication of the coming one party state? Since the Repulblican Party has made itself irrelevant in Illinois, why would anyone other than a nutcase want to run for office as a Republican in Illinois?

Another question is whether Mr. Foster will ever face a competative opponent again? Somehow I doubt that he does. That means when Mr. Foster talks about spending time raising money or campaigning he is not being truthful.

I think the lesson here is the easy one: people are angry at Republicans.

The lesson for Republicans: drive up the negatives on Democrats. And they're already furiously doing so.

The GOP, who got into power to put into place Newt's "Contract with America" lost their focus, and became worse than who and what they ran against. If the party lost a solid Republican seat after they spent $1.25 million to hold onto it, its not good news for them.

Further complicating the situation is the fact that the RNC has raised far less than their Democratic counterparts, and have many more open seats to defend- as at least 2 dozen of their Reps have decided to get out before they are thrown out.

Actually Kim you've got the funding part wrong; RNC has raised a lot more than DNC (the opposite is true of the party's individual presidential candidates, of course.)

But you're right that the GOP has a lot more seats to defend, so it's questionable whether or not their funding advantage will be enough.

CStanley said: "RNC has raised a lot more than DNC (the opposite is true of the party's individual presidential candidates, of course.)"

CStanley,

Yes the RNC HAS raised more than the DNC but:

"Both the DCCC and DSCC (the campaign operations of House and Senate Democrats, respectively) are raising unprecedented amounts of money and far outdistancing their Republican counterparts.

The success of the congressional campaign committees coupled with the enormous fundraising tallies of both Senators Clinton and Obama are significant reasons that the DNC's dollar tally does not yet match the RNC's..."

Jeffersonian1 (1st comment in comment section)

Democrats are not contributing to the DNC because, unlike the Republicans, many won't give a dime to the DNC until the Dems already in Congress start doing their job.

The link to "Jeffersonian1" was to give credit for the quote above.

(sure would like a 'preview' button)

I had earlier begun this with a lecture about the nonsense concerning "science," especially coming from the hypocritical Left, and the misuse of "moderate" and "centrist" once again, but it ended up being forty-plus per cent of this posting originally, and I'll be magnanimious and delete it. I'll prune the rest heavily, too.

* * *

This story is easy to understand, as NPR described it perfectly this morning (I heard it on the way here). This race was being held to replace the seat held by Hastert, in "Hastert territory" considered owned by the GOP. It extends from west of Chicago out toward the Iowa border (farm country), including Ronaldreaganville. The Democrat targeted the exurbs around Chicago, "where demographics are changing." and he also ran ads featuring Obama, which likely helped. The Republican was Oberweis, a name anyone in the Midwest should recognize, a "dairy and ice cream magnate." The Democrat got the votes of even a number of Republican voters because people appear to be dissatisfied with the war and the economy.

This race well illustrates what we're likely to see elsewhere this November.

Those who have read the Pew reports to which I've linked and from which I've quoted recall that from a list of 12 issues, including the economy, the Democrats are favored over the GOP on nine. We know about the war and the economy, George S.; it's not hatred of the GOP, but broader than that. It remains to be seen how pro-Democratic it is but obviously the Dems are favored and certainly Obama must be attractive to many. Numerous Republicans are retiring. (Expect to see more Obama-featured ads in more campaigns.) Dissatisfied with the war and the economy, Dems favored on issues -- add 2+2 and Dems like K. Ritter get to Savor in November, as she's savoring this news, in Illinois, too.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoona...

Oh, and here's a science metaphor for you in this article, Paul. Expect the experiment to be repeated all over this country this year.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/833484,e...

The 14th District can be viewed here.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.htm...

"The GOP, who got into power to put into place Newt's 'Contract with America' lost their focus, and became worse than who and what they ran against. "

Perish the thought. I'd like to say the GOP (which is supposed to be a conservative alternative to the Dems) got almost as bad as the Dems. (DC fixtures, and corruption, too.) This was the secondary theme of 2006, which accompanied the main thumbs down on Iraq and by implication (or is that by open, plain indication?) the Bush administration. This theme is augmented this year, so far, because the Dems are favored over the GOP on several issues. All that's missing is exploiting the concern over the economy even more than with the hype we already see; the general election may see Dem psychological warfare: "1992, 2008: The Economy is a Disaster! Like Father, Like Son? Should the GOP get another chance?" [insert ominous music]

DLS- They are controlled by corporate lobbyists- the Dems are almost as bad, though- but they did try to put forward a lot of progressive legislation on the environment and health care that was blocked by the GOP.

CS- I just read that they were behind, but looked it up in WaPo's online site, and it did say they were ahead of schedule. In any case they outspent Foster by a quarter million and still lost the race.

CS- you know perfectly well that they have been doing their job, but their initiatives were blocked by the GOP. Democrats are angry at their reps, but most don't really understand how legislation gets passed.

I will say that the Dems blocked legislation that the GOP wanted passed prior to the '06 election.

"[The GOP in the White House and Congress] are controlled by corporate lobbyists"

Yes -- Big Business is the #1 GOP special interest. Hence little immigration reform.

Note that the Dems have been obstructionist and often not progressive or taking the initiative in any positive manner. First, the S-CHIP stunts have been plain nonsense. Second, look at when Bush tried for Social Security reform. To object to it is understandable, but the Dems owed everyone reform and rescue of their own, which they never provided. (Social Security is unsustainable. How will they save it? Where is their proposal of tax increases or benefit reductions or both? As soon as the program begins running deficits, the unsustainability is before us; the "bonds" in the "trust fund" are worth nothing; money must be found to pay benefits somehow; new money must be raised to redeem those "bonds." Raising or eliminating the income ceiling on the payroll tax only postpones deficits a few years; it is no solution, and is theft if not accompanied by raising the benefits of those required to pay more taxes. Etc., etc. Keep that first deficit year in mind. It will have to be faced at that time if it is ignored, which is likely, until then.)

You mention a sea change this year (pro-Dem, anti-GOP) comparable to 1980. I don't see this, though it's a Dem year, to be sure. To me "sea change" means a tsunami (seismic sea wave; nothing to do with the tides) and I am unconvinced. But with one election after another that may go the way this district goes, who knows, maybe you can claim a sea change by means of a rising tide, and gloat in November over a Bay of Fundy "achievement."

(see images, think "Dems in November," that is)

http://www.thehopewellrocks.ca/english/fundytid...

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/ocean/fundy_m... [see bottom of page]

http://www.bayoffundytourism.com/tide/

"Is this an indication of the coming one party state?"

I would examine the population distribution in the district. In the part near Chicago, as NPR noted, "demographics are changing." If enough blue numbers can be obtained, some places will turn blue. We'll see more of that in the future because of middle-class entitlement dependence, which will override the tendency of people to become more conservative as they get wiser with age. The GOP should remain alive and may even improve itself in the future (enjoy an additional measure of much-needed vitality) to the extent that taxpayers are going to be more upset then than they've ever been in our own time over excessive taxes once the population ages (Social Security and Medicare are monsters in Washington _already_ and this is without the retirement yet of the Baby Boomers.)

We can be heading toward a Dem-dominant nation, but it's not going to be uniformly that way. Take a look at the following page, from a favorite report I like to read; this shows the red-to-blue scale of the states in the 2004 election. It's far from a future of Dem-ruled fifty states, though Dem domination overall in the nation (due to control of large states) is certainly a sinister threat.

Please see Table 4 on page 38 (marked in document page 37). Also see table 7 (page 47), which shows variance from the national vote. (Admittedly an issue is if the national vote is going Democratic in the years to come, which it may well do.) But then see Table 9 (page 52) and the related paragraphs that describe various groups of states in more detail. I tell you from experience living and traveling all over this nation, it is far from homogeneous.

http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewco...

DLS,

Demographic changes in the U.S. ensure that more districts will turn from red to blue and that marginal district will become very blue. is there any doubt that Texas and Arizona will become safely blue future in just a couple of decades.

In addition, all 20 somethings know about Repubicans is the incompetence of the Bush Administration. There is no issue or campaign strategy that is going to overcome the incompetence of the Bush Administration. Bush, Hasert, and Frist, through their actions, have denied fiscal responsbility as a Republican issue.

In the future, people will stop giving to the Republicans and stop running as Republicans because it will be pointless to put effort into a political party that has no effect on policy.

Also, long term spending is a none issue because blacks and Hispanic voters are not motivated by high taxes. They believe that high taxes are something that only whites pay.

I find it sad that we evaluatie political chances in terms of money raised (re Kritt and CCtanley). What happpens to 'one man, one vote' when one big purse can outweigh thousands of votes?

Not only that, but in an era of competing for being the most fiscally resoonsible, the millions spent on elections seem outright ludicrous. It's more than sad. It's crazy.

The Democratic seat wrested from Hastert is only good until November.
Then, more money will need to be poured into a contest over the same seat.

I'm wondering about what all we can't afford, because all our money is flowing into elections.
There is something seriously worng with this picture, from where I sit.

Domajot,

In November, Rep. Foster can probably not spend a dime and win with a higher margin than the special election. His opponenet is a buffoon who should be involved in politics at all. Rep. Foster will be running with Senator Obama at the top of the ticket in his home state. It will be an easy win for the Democrats.

Doma- Sad or not, Most of the time its a huge factor. The one who raises the most saturates the airwaves, trashing the other. But it doesn't always mean that they win- as in the Foster race. Also, Mike Huckabee and John McCain operated on a shoestring, but were able to survive their better-funded opponents.

SD- Good points.

Doma- I totally agree that its a huge waste of money, but since campaign finance reform hasn't worked that well, I'm wondering what the alternative would be.

Superdestroyer,

"is there any doubt that Texas and Arizona will become safely blue future in just a couple of decades."

In the report I posted a link to elsewhere, that talks about states like Ohio often being in a "pivotal position," there is one table in there that illustrates exactly, and I mean exactly, what you are envisioning. It is a list of various states that are Blue states, with the year in which they became Democratic (they formerly had been competitive -- note). What you envision is a continuation of this incrementalism and more and more states going solidly Blue in the years to come not only as our population ages and becomes more dependent on entitlements but because of the demographic changes (particularly in the Southwest with Hispanic population growth).

"Those states within the Democratic column are far more difficult to separate than those within the Republican column because they became Democratic strongholds on a more gradual basis while Republican strongholds were, more or less, formed by the elections of 1952 and 1964. Instead of breaking the states down into sub-groupings, Table 12 lists each state with the year in which it began to behave as a solidly Democratic state. ..."

Rhode Island 1940
Minnesota 1944
Massachusetts 1960
New York 1960
District of Columbia 1964
Maryland 1976
Hawaii 1980
Vermont 1980
Illinois 1984
Washington 1984
California 1988
Delaware 1992
Maine 1992
New Jersey 1996

http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewco...

I disagree with much in that thesis (much of it is illogical and simply makes statements that are not true, and one or two details in it seem included for no valid reason). The thesis "blames" the Electoral College for various conditions the author apparently finds undesireable, and anyone rational can understand that almost everything true about the Electoral College would also be true about direct election. (Large states will still have an advantage; they always will, even more, it can be argued in the case of direct election.) However the report provides a wealth of valuable information, and you may be reassured to see that there remain many states that are strongly Red and will remain so for the years to come.

This includes the northern Great Plains, which in its desolation and its denuding of population as the young (and middle-aged) leave for better prospects and more natural amenities elsewhere, there's an aging problem as bad as in hard-core very-sick Blue Nation pockets, ethanol is a godsend to some but disastrous to others, and it would be an ideal Red Nation stereotype for critics were it not for a dearth of hard-core Religious Right and far-right militia-style, etc., activity there.

* * *

"In addition, all 20 somethings know about Repubicans is the incompetence of the Bush Administration."

This is similar to what I have written more than once. Young people growing up were born during the Reagan years. They did not experience the widespread strife and disruption in the US when the Left radicalized in this country in the 1960s, and they didn't see the failures, contrasting with the ambitions, dreams, and conceits, of large-scale liberal-welfare-state programs and other public programs in the 1950s and 1960s and the results we experienced here and in the rest of the world with respect to weak foreign policy blunders in the 1970s. You are right about what you say. All the foregoing, after all, is alien to them. They will not truly learn and understand any of such things until they mature, until they reach somewhere between age 25 and 35, are out on their own, and many of them join the higher-taxpaying, i.e., the bill paying, contingent in this country. With Obama they are predictably, laughably, starry-eyed dupishly naive, as well as engaging in a groupie mentality that exceeded Bill Clinton's fans and approaches cult status.