kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 12:58 AM
Original message |
To run for the Senate, one needs a lot of money, organization, and... |
|
the Party structure behind him/her. It is much more difficult to win a Senate seat than a House seat. Most Senators are established politicians.
There is no rule that says you must be in the House before you are in the Senate. However, it is easier to win by going that route. One should not look at a run for Congress as a lesser job. The Party is looking for men with experience and a proven track record.
|
Mythsaje
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:02 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Career politicians with close ties to the lobbyists in Washington? |
|
Yep, that's EXACTLY what we need.
|
ISUGRADIA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:06 AM
Response to Original message |
2. "The Party is looking for men" |
|
I think they are looking for women too....
|
mikehiggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:07 AM
Response to Original message |
3. And no need for any of those pesky primaries, right? Just let the guys |
|
at the top decide who will run for what job. They've been doing such a great job of it, right?
WAKE UP!
|
mslawstudent
(119 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:07 AM
Response to Original message |
4. I was thinking of running for congress. |
|
Its the 1st district of MS, so its a guaranteed loss. But I think getting candidates out there is important. Letting Republicans run unopposed looks bad. Sometimes Wicker is opposed by a nursing home aide who shows up to one event. I am a licensed attorney so at least I'd look semi-serious and I can speak.
|
mikehiggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. There are no "guaranteed" losses, just probabilities. |
|
The problem we face is that the "leadership" wants to concentrate on the races the pollsters say are doable, when we really should be running hard against every GOPuke, everywhere (and some dinos as well).
What do you have to lose?
And how long do you think we have if things continue the way they are?
The GOPukes are fighting a new civil war and we ain't winning.
|
mb7588a
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
11. anybody is beatable... |
|
but it takes a special kind of candidate.
|
Nashyra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Don't let a race go unopposed if you are qualified.
|
pstans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:08 AM
Response to Original message |
5. The party doesn't elect the Senators |
|
The people elect their leaders to go to the Senate.
|
Rex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:10 AM
Response to Original message |
6. JFK went from House to Senate |
|
to POTUS. Hackett should try the House again (all available funding by the Dems) with the promise that he is their man for future Senate runs.
|
mikehiggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. And what is that promise worth, exactly? And do you really want to |
|
compare JFK or RFK or Teddy to Paul Hackett? I'm not sure but I don't think Paul's dad was Ambassador to the Court of St. James, or any of that stuff, know what I mean?
|
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. but he could probably beat the crap out of Mean Jean this time |
ISUGRADIA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-14-06 01:22 AM
Response to Original message |
10. "easier to win by going that route" |
|
I think I counted 5 Democrats that were elected directly from the House to the Senate in the last 10 years so it may not be as common anymore for Democrats as you think. We've had much better success with candidates from other offices and non politicians.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:35 PM
Response to Original message |