John Dennis: Grassroots Ron Paul Supporter Wins CA Primary, will take on PELOSI!

[Aratus]

i feel he's going to win one of there races if he keeps on running in frisco over the next decade.

 

[specsaregood]

Yes, not to mention that recent press release. But are you saying that the media exposure (and endorsements) that Dennis got were not worthwhile? Again, it isn't a zero-sum game. What other good candidates lost a "winnable" race because of Dennis? I'm NOT saying that "winnable" elections in VA, MI, etc should be ignored so that we can pour all resources into Dennis' race. I'm saying that his race IS worthy of attention, and is an exception in that regard, because of the media and endorsements he is able to generate.

I think the most important thing to take from the discussion is that a lot of us would actually like to see Dennis IN congress, not just running for congress. That district is rated is THE MOST PARTISAN district in the entire state at +35:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...ts#Results_in_some_districts_during_the_2000s

There are districts not too far from him that are a good 15pts less rigged for the DNC ticket. And with reps that weren't speaker of the house and don't have 1/4 the money. If he ran for one of those I'd be more excitable.

 

[KingRobbStark]

That bitch is going down

 

[trey4sports]

JD is great! The problem is of course his district. Is it really worth investing time and money in a race with 1/10000000000000 of a chance of winning?

 

[invisible]

I think the most important thing to take from the discussion is that a lot of us would actually like to see Dennis IN congress, not just running for congress. That district is rated is THE MOST PARTISAN district in the entire state at +35:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...ts#Results_in_some_districts_during_the_2000s

There are districts not too far from him that are a good 15pts less rigged for the DNC ticket. And with reps that weren't speaker of the house and don't have 1/4 the money. If he ran for one of those I'd be more excitable.

I agree totally, especially if it is true that you don't have to live in the district you run in in CA. But would he get the media exposure and endorsements that he has, if he was in another district? And if not, then wouldn't be more worthwhile to have candidates run in "safe Republican" districts rather than a d+20 (instead of a d+35) CA district? My point is that Dennis' race is worth more in media exposure, than in actually being able to win. It is one of the few (if not the only one) "unwinnable" races that is worthwhile in that regard, and it is an exception. Yes, it is much better to allocate more resources to the elections of good candidates in "safe Republican" districts in places like MI, VA, etc. But none of those candidates have generated the kind of media (especially positive exposure in left-leaning media) that Dennis has. Even though Dennis' election is virtually impossible to win, the media (both local and beyond) exposure is valuable in calling out the left.

 

[specsaregood]

I agree totally, especially if it is true that you don't have to live in the district you run in in CA. But would he get the media exposure and endorsements that he has, if he was in another district? And if not, then wouldn't be more worthwhile to have candidates run in "safe Republican" districts rather than a d+20 (instead of a d+35) CA district? My point is that Dennis' race is worth more in media exposure, than in actually being able to win. It is one of the few (if not the only one) "unwinnable" races that is worthwhile in that regard, and it is an exception. Yes, it is much better to allocate more resources to the elections of good candidates in "safe Republican" districts in places like MI, VA, etc. But none of those candidates have generated the kind of media (especially positive exposure in left-leaning media) that Dennis has. Even though Dennis' election is virtually impossible to win, the media (both local and beyond) exposure is valuable in calling out the left.

seems like an awfully big waste of a good candidate. but ya know I wouldn't really want to be a congressman either.

 

[invisible]

seems like an awfully big waste of a good candidate. but ya know I wouldn't really want to be a congressman either.

Yes, again I agree totally, and he is one of MANY that fall into the same category of great candidates running "unwinnable" races. However, he is less of a waste than the others because of the media exposure he is able to generate. That media exposure is important, and makes his race the exception in that regard. Even though other candidates may be more worthy of support due to being in more "winnable" districts, I don't feel that him running makes any of those candidates less likely to win, and the media he is able to generate is worth something. My only concern with Dennis running again, is now that pelosi is no longer speaker of the house, will be still be able to generate good media exposure on the same scale as he did back in 2010? Or will the media ignore him this time around? I feel that will be the interesting thing to see, this time around. It'll also be interesting to see if he is able to significantly decrease the amount that he loses by (which I really hate to say, but hey, that's the unfortunate reality here).

 

[Miles Dunn]

John Dennis still holds my favorite political commercial ever.

 

[One Last Battle!]

Yes, again I agree totally, and he is one of MANY that fall into the same category of great candidates running "unwinnable" races. However, he is less of a waste than the others because of the media exposure he is able to generate. That media exposure is important, and makes his race the exception in that regard. Even though other candidates may be more worthy of support due to being in more "winnable" districts, I don't feel that him running makes any of those candidates less likely to win, and the media he is able to generate is worth something. My only concern with Dennis running again, is now that pelosi is no longer speaker of the house, will be still be able to generate good media exposure on the same scale as he did back in 2010? Or will the media ignore him this time around? I feel that will be the interesting thing to see, this time around. It'll also be interesting to see if he is able to significantly decrease the amount that he loses by (which I really hate to say, but hey, that's the unfortunate reality here).

He isn't generating any media interest, though, since he's basically running in an unwinnable district that he lost last time. If Jesus Christ himself arrived to run against Nancy Pelosi and Nancy ate a baby on live television, she'd still probably win the election since the voters in San Francisco are almost as insanely devoted to their party as Republican bible beaters who think birth control is a satanic plot.

How much media interest do the clowns that run against Ron Paul generate? Not very much, because as much as the media likes a good story, it isn't stupid enough to think "Candidate runs against candidate in incredibly safe district and gets destroyed" makes for a good story. Nancy Pelosi is about as likely to lose her congressional seat as Ron Paul is (ignoring redistricting and the fact that he's retiring), and her opponents actually get a little less of the vote than Ron's do. That's how "Safe D" CA-8 is.

 

[sailingaway]

He isn't generating any media interest, though, since he's basically running in an unwinnable district that he lost last time. If Jesus Christ himself arrived to run against Nancy Pelosi and Nancy ate a baby on live television, she'd still probably win the election since the voters in San Francisco are almost as insanely devoted to their party as Republican bible beaters who think birth control is a satanic plot.

How much media interest do the clowns that run against Ron Paul generate? Not very much, because as much as the media likes a good story, it isn't stupid enough to think "Candidate runs against candidate in incredibly safe district and gets destroyed" makes for a good story. Nancy Pelosi is about as likely to lose her congressional seat as Ron Paul is (ignoring redistricting and the fact that he's retiring), and her opponents actually get a little less of the vote than Ron's do. That's how "Safe D" CA-8 is.

Ron didn't have a safe district. This is the SECOND time he was redistricted. He always won with a bigger margin, because he is him.

I still think NDAA gives Dennis a pretty good wedge, but we will see.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

A smarter way to go would be to have run a Ron Paul Democrat against her in the primary, or better yet, once she retired. If the movement concentrated on the 5-10% of races that were open seats, and ran our candidates in PRIMARY races, for the party nomination the district actually leaned towards, we'd win seats much more quickly. Ron and Rand Paul ran as Republicans in Republican leaning areas. Why do Paul candidates think it can be all done running only GOP candidates in strongly Democratic districts with entrenched incumbents? That's a waste of energy and resources, as the incumbents (upon winning the primary) have the inside track, resources and demographics to prevail without a problem.

Amen to that!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

JD is great! The problem is of course his district. Is it really worth investing time and money in a race with 1/10000000000000 of a chance of winning?

Apparently it's worth John's time. If he didn't do it, there would probably be a neo-conservative running.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I think the most important thing to take from the discussion is that a lot of us would actually like to see Dennis IN congress, not just running for congress. That district is rated is THE MOST PARTISAN district in the entire state at +35:

Yep, there is a visceral hatred of the GOP in that District. Pelosi herself would lose if she changed the D to an R behind her name. Issues don't matter at all.

 

[Aratus]

very seriously put, senator teddy kennedy would smuck the GOP guys by 70% to 30%
each election, and that mitt did rather well to get the 41% when he did that tyme!!!!!
when we take into account that even if rep. nancy pelosi holds onto the seat until she
is in her mid-80s we all here might see a senator scott brown moment happen again!!!!

 

[flynn]

throw some heavy bunches and grab ONE single important issue of the district. Seems like the only way.

 

[wetroof]

he should change his party to democrat. or independent. only two candidates are allowed on the ballot this time (him and Pelosi). If he ran as an independent or democrat he still probably gets most of the 14% republican vote, because they voted for him last time. but I don't know if it would be legal to change parties.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Even running as a Democrat in a Democratic primary and district is not enough 95% of the time, if there is an entrenched incumbent. Wait for an open seat, or an incumbent caught up in a Weiner-like sex scandal.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

And the wars. Fact is, she owns the district and nothing can be done about it. If you want an educational campaign, by all means go for it. But lets not be delusional.

An educational campaign is still worth doing IMO. Expose her horrible record.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

A smarter way to go would be to have run a Ron Paul Democrat against her in the primary, or better yet, once she retired. If the movement concentrated on the 5-10% of races that were open seats, and ran our candidates in PRIMARY races, for the party nomination the district actually leaned towards, we'd win seats much more quickly. Ron and Rand Paul ran as Republicans in Republican leaning areas. Why do Paul candidates think it can be all done running only GOP candidates in strongly Democratic districts with entrenched incumbents? That's a waste of energy and resources, as the incumbents (upon winning the primary) have the inside track, resources and demographics to prevail without a problem.

The LP has always been willing to run educational campaigns to be represented on the ballot, but the Paul 2008/2012, post Tea Party example has shown the path to WINNING or having more impact on the election is to run a principled third party or grassroots campaign in a major party primary. Going forward, that means running Ron Paul Republicans in Republican districts, and Ron Paul Democrats in Democratic districts, preferably in a primary when there is an open seat. If we want to use a different methodology than that of symbolic third party-like campaigns, we should be 'primarying' the Dems and GOP first and foremost, to be in position to then win the elections.

I concur with this strategy. I'd love to see her get double-teamed, by running a democrat liberty candidate in the primary and then a republican liberty candidate in the general. Double pronged attack.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I agree entirely! We need Blue Republicans up and down coastal CA running as democrats... infiltrating it in the same way that Ron Paul republicans have been infiltrating the GOP elsewhere.

Precisely this! If we have any pro-choice people in the liberty movement (where are my libertarians), I would encourage them to primary democrats in strong democratic districts on west coast and north east.