Senator Johnson Will Run for Reelection
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
ABC News' Bob Woodruff Reports: Senator Tim Johnson, the South Dakota Democrat who suffered a near fatal brain hemorrhage last December, will seek reelection in 2008.
Johnson greeted South Dakota voters Tuesday, in his first public appearance since falling ill.
We continue to wish Johnson well, but now that Johnson decided to seek reelection it's time for the gloves to come off. Johnson won reelection in 2002 by just 524 votes and was a tempting target even before he became ill.
Two Republicans, State Representative Joel Dykstra and business man Sam Kephart, are running for Johnson's seat.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | "Fidel Castro": Clinton and Obama are INVINCIBLE! — Comments (6) »
Senator Johnson Will Run for Reelection 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Personally, I'd be happy to beat Daschle again.
But Johnson will get some sympathy for his condition. Luckily, he'll return to the Senate after the recess so he'll start feeding his opponents ammunition for the campaign. I'm sure he'll be having fits over many of his upcoming votes as Harry "the Body" starts laying into him to support the Leftists.
What the GOP certainly needs to do is hit on issues. A campaign that spends too much time questioning the Senator's fitness to serve is going to go nowhere. Let campaign outsiders raise those questions (e.g. newspaper columnists) and keep the candidate's hands clean.
He's perfectly healthy.
Aside from being a threadjack, you're time on the site will last more than a day or two if you contribute.
I suspect that one of the editors will be along soon to give you an official warning.
No threadjacking, bub. This isn't a suggestion. Cool?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
D'Amato hit Javits hard in 1980 over his fitness for office, and it was effective (although a three way race with Liz Holtzman was more important in the outcome).
Today, a direct focus like that would be self-destructive. This time it will be the unmentioned issue. Some slice of the electorate (how big I have no idea) will want to determine for themselves that Johnson will still have the capacity to be an active, effective legislator. It will be a negative in his campaign. How big is unclear. If the top of the Democratic ticket runs poorly, however, the combination will make Johnson's re-election a real challenge.
This may be an excellent pickup opportunity for the Republicans, as the next Presidential election in South Dakota will be EXTREMELY lopsided if Hillary is the nominee. The Republican Presidential nominee will probably win by nearly 30 points, helping all Republicans down the ticket.
If the Republican candidate can paint Johnson as a clone of Hillary, comparing the two's voting record and how often they vote alike, I think he'll have an excellent chance.
This is also a state where money goes a long way, South Dakota is a very inexpensive media market. The Republican Party should take advantage of having a deep red state and cheap media, it's the perfect storm to knock off a Democrat.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I would think Johnson is invincible in his current state. You guys think he is vulnerable?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I'm from South Dakota and I can tell you that a run against Johnson is probably just going to be a repeat of Herseth vs. Whalen.
I hope that I don't get banned for using a soccer analogy, but I think we can take a lesson from the sport. When teams are heavily outmanned, they typically play eleven men behind the ball (each team plays eleven at a time) and just tries to keep the other team from scoring. If a great opportunity presents itself, one or two players will attack and go back on defense quickly once the opportunity is no longer there. The outmanned team is playing for a draw at best, and more likely not to get slaughtered.
This cycle we should be doing the same thing. Louisiana, not South Dakota, is our one opportunity. If Senator Johnson can complete a sentence, he'll get reelected. We need Mike Rounds if we're going to have a chance here, and all indications are that he won't run. Nothing against the candidates we have, but they just don't have the names or the resources to compete. Maybe this race will springboard them into a strong position to run in the future, but now is not their time. It's not about issues. It's about seniority and pity. More power to them if they somehow manage to run effective campaigns, but quite frankly we need to focus on defending our own seats and picking off some House Democrats rather than aiming at what I would consider a pipe dream of retaking this seat.
If this was CA or NJ, sure that's a decent argument. But if the argument is about cost-effectiveness, adding SD to LA as aggressive efforts is a very cheap concept. There are about 750,000 people in SD and to win a statewide race in a Presidential year you need around 200,000 votes. That is a VERY CHEAP Senate seat.
Rs have two good candidates in a state where candidates can actually meet most voters. Thune lost to Johnson by less than 1,000 votes in a non-Presidential year. This is a contestable seat in a state that will go R for President by 20 points. If Rs are competitive here, the party is in trouble.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
We're getting clobbered in fundraising in the NRSC/DSCC battle and these candidates will be outspent by a 5:1 margin if they're extremely lucky. In the last cycle, we spent money in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania instead of Virginia and Montana. Had that money gone to Virginia or Montana, we'd still be in the majority. Let's learn from the mistake.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I have been saying for the past year your one shot is LA. It isn't just about the people it is about the MONEY. NRSC has very little money right now and can't expect help from the RNC during a Presidential Year.
Right now Republicans are in deep deep trouble in...
1) New Hamp.
2) Colorado
3) Virginia (if Warner retires and Warner runs which looks likely)
Republicans are in trouble in
4) Nebraska (if Hagel retires and Kerrey runs which looks likely)
5) Minn.
6) Maine
7) Oregon
Republicans face potential competition in...
8) Texas
9) New Mexico
10) Idaho - thanks to Craig if he doesn't retire
11) NC
The reasons these are on the list is there low approval numbers or scandals hurting them.
I don't care what anyone says that is going to be a damn hard thing to stop. Republicans can't play to much offense in 2008 period. Johnson has a good sympathy factor going for him right now. Rounds basically said he would only run if there was an open seat and that isn't happening.
I never said that this election world be easy. I just do not think that ANY seat should just be ceded to a leftist candidate. There are proven ways to run offensive (R) campaigns in even the "bluest" district.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
With no money and little independent support thanks to Bush. Normally I would agree 100% with ya, but I think 2008 will have some of the same conditions as 2006 because Bush and Republicans aren't trying to change their image at all.
I think that a certain emphasis should be placed on recruiting candidates that already have a degree of positive name recognition and/or is able/willing to largely self-finance their campaigns (hereafter "self-financers"). Such candidates are ideal offensive candidates for "bluish" areas in the present environment. Strategically such candidates will force the d's to commit resources to the defense of d favored, and d safe seats. This will decrease the resources that the d's have for offensive campaigns, while conversely costing very little in terms of national R resources. Additionally a national strategy of recruiting and running "self-financers" against nearly every safe d seat will also yield at least a handful of pick ups in the short run.
I see no reason to just give up. Besides new candidates can do a lot of towards changing the R image.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
This is the class that got us our big majority in the Senate last time. We're going to have to work hard just to keep as many of those seats as we can.
We did great 6 years ago, I don't think it's defeatist to say that now we have to work hard to defend all those gains.
All the Republican candidate need to do is go out there and run and talk about the issues and they should win.
Johnson rnnning keeps Daschle out of the picture.
Oz
www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com