ShoreShooter
Ultimate Member
- Feb 27, 2013
- 1,042
I am not a politician, but follow it.
Here is how bad MD is. It is easiest to see it in the MD Senate:
http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2010/results/General/StateResults_office_015.html
By my count, 13 of 47 seats had Dems running unopposed by any Rep candidate. Clearly it is the Dem side that is most vulnerable to being arm twisted by the machine. And the Reps cannot even field a candidate in 28% of the districts.
To be fair and clear, 2 Reps ran unopposed.
4 Dems won in tight races. These are weak seats.
http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2010/results/General/StateResults_office_016.html
The House is harder to analyze.
But it appears there are numerous districts where a list of Rep candidates split the Rep vote, where perhaps a single Rep candidate just might have had a shot of being elected.
But that logic may be flawed. There were a few districts where a single Rep lost to a field of 3 Dems.
There were 8 districts with no Rep candidates.
I count 10 seats where Dems won in tight races.
I am no pro at this. But it seems to me in some districts a Rep against a Dem has the best shot, and in others the better chance is to run as a Dem and get the job done in the primary.
In a perfect world, we need a good Dem and a good Rep to make it to the general election race.
These elections are in the off years. Voter turnout is very light. A few votes can make a world of difference. Name recognition is key, and in heavily Dem districts you just have to run as a Dem to have any shot due to the numbers who will just vote party.
State level races have small budgets. $10k - $15k isn't unusual. $50k is big money. Money focused on a handful of races can make a big difference.
More than that, active supporters waving signs at key intersections at rush hour ... troops on the ground ... can do a lot to get the word out.
It can be done.
Here is how bad MD is. It is easiest to see it in the MD Senate:
http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2010/results/General/StateResults_office_015.html
By my count, 13 of 47 seats had Dems running unopposed by any Rep candidate. Clearly it is the Dem side that is most vulnerable to being arm twisted by the machine. And the Reps cannot even field a candidate in 28% of the districts.
To be fair and clear, 2 Reps ran unopposed.
4 Dems won in tight races. These are weak seats.
http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2010/results/General/StateResults_office_016.html
The House is harder to analyze.
But it appears there are numerous districts where a list of Rep candidates split the Rep vote, where perhaps a single Rep candidate just might have had a shot of being elected.
But that logic may be flawed. There were a few districts where a single Rep lost to a field of 3 Dems.
There were 8 districts with no Rep candidates.
I count 10 seats where Dems won in tight races.
I am no pro at this. But it seems to me in some districts a Rep against a Dem has the best shot, and in others the better chance is to run as a Dem and get the job done in the primary.
In a perfect world, we need a good Dem and a good Rep to make it to the general election race.
These elections are in the off years. Voter turnout is very light. A few votes can make a world of difference. Name recognition is key, and in heavily Dem districts you just have to run as a Dem to have any shot due to the numbers who will just vote party.
State level races have small budgets. $10k - $15k isn't unusual. $50k is big money. Money focused on a handful of races can make a big difference.
More than that, active supporters waving signs at key intersections at rush hour ... troops on the ground ... can do a lot to get the word out.
It can be done.
