Would you run for office if there were no chance of winning?

I am being recruited to run for state rep. The incumbent is well liked in this very conservative area. There is not a prayer that he would be defeated, particularly by an unknown. Those who are trying to persuade me argue that if there is a challenger then the incumbent will have to spend money for the first time, also it's not a democracy if candidates run unopposed.

Any thoughts?

Go for it!

and there was no way a ragtag bunch of colonials could beat the British, who were the mightiest army in the world, either...

The first step is getting good ideas said aloud...and you can only do that if you're in the race.

I think it is important to give voters a choice, even if it is unlikely that you will win. By running, you will accomplish a few things:

1. You'll make your opponent spend money, which is a good thing.

2. You'll give Democrats (and other disgruntled citizens) a way to indicate that not everyone thinks the incombent is great.

3. You might increase Democratic turnout in your district, which helps candidates running for statewide office.

4. You'll increase your own name recognition among the voters AND pick up a few brownie points within the party. Maybe next time, when another office opens up where you have a chance of winning, you will be in a position to run and win.

I said pretty much the same thing before reading your more concise version. Mine uses football analogies, but it says pretty much the same thing.

If you truly wish to enter into politics, even if you lose the first time, you will create name recognition for yourself in order to set the stage for a win next time.

It takes more than one battle to win a war. (Or something like that). If you run when you think there is no chance of winning, it would seem to me that you would be very free to say exactly what is on your mind - no wishy-washy non answers to questions and you could ASK a lot of probing questions. You will be a refreshing change to politics as usual. You might be surprised in the positive responses you get from the voters. Evidently they haven't had a choice, because this guy is "well-liked" in a conservative area. But what if the people who like him decide that they don't have to vote because he always wins?

There is always a chance. As long as you don't project a defeatist attitude and honestly speak your convictions, you can be proud of the votes you do get.

Go for it!

you should. There are several reasons.

First, you never know what might happen. He could have a scandal. He could get ill or die. He could quit for some reason. If you are on the ballot you then would be running against a write in candidate and might well win.

Second, you may run a great campaign and get noticed. You could then get tapped for a different, more winnable race.

Third, you will meet lots of interesting people and make wonderful contacts.

A perhaps next time around the end will be different.

Then again, if you use guerilla tactics on the incumbant you may actually win this time.

But regardless of outcome: RUN!!!!

If you ever want to make a serious run for public office in the future, the exposure will help you. It also may look good on your resume depending on your future career choices.

I know a man who ran for the US House of Representatives once in a hopeless election against a strong incumbent. That was almost 20 years ago; to this day all his friends and acquaintences refer to him as "Congressman"!

unless Diebold owns the polling equipment.

Look at what happened to bush*sucks. He lost, but still took over the office.

if my voice could influence the dialog.

By making the party spend money in your district, you deprive other Repukes of RNC money in the closer races.

But as I told my brother this morning, Republican money is like God’s love, abundant and infinite.

Democratic Candidate for Clerk of the District Court, Laramie County, Wymoing. 1986 and 1990.

Took 1/3 of the vote both times. Spent ten dollars both times.

...and run HARD! Prove it to people that it's not impossible to beat the incumbent.

Be strong, be energetic, be unwavering in your efforts.

Go for it. I am!

Every candidate, from President on down to dogcatcher, has a role to play. If we only put ten men on the field, somebody isn't being covered, and the whole team will get clobbered. Your job, if you wish to accept it, will be to run the best race you can, if not win, at least slow the guy on the other side of the line of scrimmage down.

--end of football analogy--

As you can see, I have a REAL problem with letting ANY Republican, even one deemed unbeatable, run unopposed. During the last Dean meetup, it was suggested that yours truly run for Congress against Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY 24th). If this idea goes anywhere, I will gladly and enthusiatically accept the nomination, work my ass off, and at the very least, force Sherry to come visit Central New York and spend money, time, and effort campaigning to keep his job. Win or lose, Central New York wins; either they get a new Congressman who gives a damn, or Sherry gets a wakeup call and becomes a better representative for it.

The district only went * in 2000 by 48%-47% because of the 1990s Democratic trend in NY.

I'm doing the same thing, so join me in obscurity :)

I did it in a local race against very long odds -- and I lost. But I'm glad I ran. Here are some of the reasons I'm glad I did, which you might find worthwhile too:

1) Brought issues to the debate. One one issue, I even forced the incumbent to get off the fence and on to the right side -- hey, a minor victory.

2) Brought new voters into the process. I always had voter registration forms with me as I campaigned. I was personally responsilbe fo registering scores of new voters. It didn't make a difference in my race, but it was a concrete action that advanced democracy.

3) I met a lot of new people. I learned a lot about my city and the issues. I'm a more informed advocate because of it.

4) Learned more about the process. I'm helping another candidate this fall and putting to good use the knowledge I gained on the campaign trail.

You might also consider that nothing is a given. Your opponent could die, be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, or you could simply catch fire with previously unmotivated voters. In other words, anything can happen.

One thing though, if you're going to do it, do run to the best of your abilities. Mount a serious campaign. You'll be proud that you did and you'll avoid the embarassment of being portrayed as a joke.

I ran for state rep in 2002 in the most Republican county in the state. I ran against 4 Republicans - three long term incumbents, including the speaker of the NH House. None had faced an opposing candidate for at least 4 terms.

I am not unknown in my area - but given the political barometer here, I was unlikely to win. NH had pretty much a Republican clean sweep in 2002.

Still - it was good for them to have opposition. They hated it. They were so mad to have anyone running against them (especially a big mouthed liberal female) that they made many mistakes. One of them was terrified. After 30 years in the house - doing nothing but drinking and womanizing, he knew he was the weak link. They tore down my signs every night. They had to actually work a little. They still don't understand that those seats are a privilege and not a right - but there's always 2004.

No ballot should have an empty spot. If you run, it will give others the courage to do the same. We can't give up. Whatever state you live in, 2004 is going to be a good year for Dems to win.

There are a bunch of former candidates, and even a few election winners around the board - and I'm sure we'd all be happy to give you advice along the way. MaineMary was a huge help to me in 2002.

Here's the thing -- when we declare a seat "unwinnable," and refuse to run anyone in it, we're basically annointing the current occupier of it "representative for life."

My husband is running, as an utter unknown, against F. James Sensenbrenner, a well-financed, entrenched Republican in a very conservative district.

In 2002, the Democrats didn't even bother running a candidate.
This year, my husband and at least one other outsider are running. They've had it. They've had it with Sensenbrenner, and they've had it with the local establishment wimping out.

He's not counting on winning, but he is counting on getting Democrats in the district excited about coming to the polls.

Good luck!

May I ask... (State's good enough)

I'd say go for it too, but be careful not to do it too much lest you be labeled the "perennial candidate"...

We have a Democratic governor who won because there were two fascists running against him instead of the usual one. Governor Henry seems very uncomfortable with the label “Democrat,” so unless things change it looks like he won’t be much help to local candidates in the next cycle. Where I live there is about a 2-1 advantage for the Republicans in registration.

Is there anyone out there that thinks it’s a bad idea? In other words is there a reason not to?

The arguments against it are the same as those arguing against Draft campaigns, particularly Draft Gore:

- You'll waste Democratic Resources (bull)
- You'll get your ideas out, but your ideas will be painted as losing ideas (bull)
- If you want to get elected for something, you don't want to be a loser (true to a point, but those who automatically shun a 'loser' usually have their own agenda)
- What's the use (well, if the other side falls into a scandal...)

Pros:

- Increases your name recognition
- Gets your message out
- You can refine your understanding of the political "game"
etc. etc. etc.

I'd go for it.

would fall to scandal. You never know, but he really is a nice guy, horribly misguided, but nice.

http://www.eveningsun.com/Stories/0,1413,140%257E9954%257E1533236,00.html?search=filter

Our GOP county commissioner got caught with his pants down so to speak.

What's better is the replacement candidate says surfing porn won't be a problem with him because he's not "computer literate"

Bet he wishes he had stuck with prescription Valium.

America...no matter which side they are on...you can enjoy creative campaign ideas...your own style of clothing, speeches, put out your ideas to make things better...

even if you loose, your ideas will be discussed and some likely adopted by the opposing candidate...

plus, if you are being recruited by political strategists, they must have a reason....some don't realize how 'splitting the vote' can be subtly done (like Nader, greens, libertarian split the Gore vote...reTHUGlicans were actually donating to those activists in order to defeat Gore)...you'll learn all the 'subtle' tricks of the political trade...you may even get a career out of the whole thing (even if you don't get elected)....

Your message might just resonate with enough people that you'll get a surprise. So do it!

Some things just need to be said.
Run. What's the worst that could happen
You'll win. :scared:

I hate the idea of not having a Dem candidate on the ballot.

Now give me the same advice - I was asked to run for the seat here. I'm scared to death. :(

n/t

She's campaigned before and almost won. We're convincing her to run again. Hopefully she will and I won't need to consider it this time. :)

There are a lot of Democratic voters who will show up for a race where there's even ONE person they want to vote FOR or to vote AGAINST, even if they usually don't bother to vote.

So we want to give them somebody to vote FOR. Maybe it's someone from their neighborhood, their church or school, their civic club, a former local radio/TV personality, an environmental activist, the guy who owns/runs the local _______.

Then, while they're at the polls to vote FOR this person, they'll also vote for other Democrats who are on the ticket.

Think about the math. If every Democratic candidate brings in 1% more voters, then the other Democrats on the ticket may get another 1% of votes for every Democratic candidate on the ticket. That makes a difference!

I've hear Democrats say (here in Republican country) that there's no point in voting since there's no Democrats running that they can vote for. We had only ONE county-wide Democratic candidate running in the 2002 elections out of 6 county-wide positions and 6 out of 10 county commission seats had no Democratic candidate. The one county-wide candidate is a long-time incumbent, excellent at his work, contested by a real incompetent, and he almost lost! I maintain it's because lots of Democrats didn't come out to vote because they thought he'd get re-elected and there was no one else they could vote for.

Iowa: Our liberties we prize, our rights we will maintain. Tennessee: Agriculture and Commerce

so that he does not have time to help out other GOP candidates. you don't want unopposed GOP candidates running around helping other GOP candidates because then they can gang up on Democratic candidates.

Keep the incumbent too busy defending his jposition to have time to help others.

what would have happened if you had taken the chance.

I wish you the best of luck!

I would run a very grass root type of campaign. I would put a limit on campaign contributions not to exceed $100.00. That in itself would be worth some valuable publicity. I would go door to door as much as possible talking to folks. I would write as many op-ed pieces to the letters to the editor of local papers as possible to get my positions out. I would go before as many neigborhood forums as possible talking about issues. I think if you did this you might be surprised at how well you do.

Even if there's no realistic chance of winning, there's always the chance that the incumbent will get caught up in scandal or unexpectedly retire, in which case you become the favorite. Look at the SD House race...I would have said three days ago that it was SAFE GOP, but it clearly isn't anymore.

What state/district? Inquiring minds want to know?

But with that attitude you don't have a chance. Speak your mind and stop worrying about winning.

Maybe you could be the next DK?