2014 Retirements General Thread

[publicunofficial]

Figured that retirement season is about to get into full swing, and we don't need to start a thread every time someone does.


Starting off:

Rumors are circulating that Jim Moran (D - VA-08) might announce his retirement soon.

Moran's a good rep, but there's plenty of Democrats in NOVA that would like to move up from the bench, and there's sure to be a competitive primary.


Also: Buried in this Roll Call article regarding Democrats who haven't paid their dues to the DCCC is a blurb stating that some Democrats are speculating that Colin Peterson (D - MN-07) may retire if the farm bill is passed. Unlike Matheson and McIntyre, Dems wouldn't be TOTALLY shot in the foot if Peterson retires, but the race would start as Toss-Up/Tilt R in my view.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So between 2006-2010 and the retirements in this cycle? What are we looking at in terms of the turnover rate.

I recall that there was a lot of complaining back in 2005 when I first started following politics, that 90%+ of representatives were being reelected as a consequence of money, partisanship and gerrymandering. What does it look like now?

[Miles]

I think the theory from RRH about Peterson makes sense:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RogueBeaver]

Jim Moran is retiring. Good riddance.

[JerryArkansas]

Here is the Retirement Map as of James Moran




Sorry for the wrong colors.

[NewYorkExpress]

Jim Moran is retiring. Good riddance.

This one's Tossup Tilt/D to Start...

[JerryArkansas]

Jim Moran is retiring. Good riddance.

This one's Tossup Tilt/D to Start...

No, I'd say likely D at the least, say in a Republican wave.

[RogueBeaver]

D+17, that's basically Safe D defined.

[Gass3268]

D+17, that's basically Safe D defined.

Possible minority opprotunity as well.

[Zioneer]

D+17, that's basically Safe D defined.

Possible minority opprotunity as well.

DKE says that State Senator Adam Ebbin (an openly gay man), State Delegates Alfonso Lopez (Hispanic of course), Rob Krupicka, Patrick A. Hope, Charnelie Herring (a black woman), and possibly Brian Moran (Jim Moran's brother) are possibilities for Moran's seat.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This one's Tossup Tilt/D to Start...

Um, no.  It's pretty much as safe as can be.

[RogueBeaver]

Politico confirming what Fleischmann reported yesterday: McKeon's retiring.

[publicunofficial]

Politico confirming what Fleischmann reported yesterday: McKeon's retiring.

It's not really a question of IF Democrats will take CA-25, but WHEN. Lee Rogers, who got 45% in 2012 despite being outspent 3-to-1 against a popular incumbent, is running again. If he doesn't win in 2014, I'd like to see him try again with higher turnout in 2016.

[Niemeyerite]

Jim Moran is retiring. Good riddance.

This one's Tossup Tilt/D to Start...

You could search the district on Wikipedia before making those assumptions, because you're ALWAYS wrong. Or simply deluded.

[NewYorkExpress]

Jim Moran is retiring. Good riddance.

This one's Tossup Tilt/D to Start...

You could search the district on Wikipedia before making those assumptions, because you're ALWAYS wrong. Or simply deluded.

One Day... I probably should...

[Miles]

D+17, that's basically Safe D defined.

Possible minority opprotunity as well.

Aneesh Chopra is being mentioned.

[Zioneer]

D+17, that's basically Safe D defined.

Possible minority opprotunity as well.

Aneesh Chopra is being mentioned.

He'd be the first Indian-American Congressman from Virgina, right? That'd be neat.

[smoltchanov]

Well, may be i don't understand something, but for me there is absolutely no difference whether district elects male or female; "straight" or "gay/lesbian"; Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslin, Jew or Buddhist; White, Black, Hispanics, Asian or Native American. And so on. The only criteria i use is "congressman must reflect views of his/her district as close as possible". That's why a "natural" congressman in liberal district for me is a "progressive", in swing - "moderate", in conservative - "conservative". I don't give a damn if a black-majority district is represented by white Jew, as is the case with Steve Cohen in TN-09 or - heavily Hispanic district by white (who also happened to be Jew) as was in Howard Berman case in California until 2012. Never understood an "identity politics" and, probably, never will...

[publicunofficial]

Well, may be i don't understand something, but for me there is absolutely no difference whether district elects male or female; "straight" or "gay/lesbian"; Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslin, Jew or Buddhist; White, Black, Hispanics, Asian or Native American. And so on. The only criteria i use is "congressman must reflect views of his/her district as close as possible". That's why a "natural" congressman in liberal district for me is a "progressive", in swing - "moderate", in conservative - "conservative". I don't give a damn if a black-majority district is represented by white Jew, as is the case with Steve Cohen in TN-09 or - heavily Hispanic district by white (who also happened to be Jew) as was in Howard Berman case in California until 2012. Never understood an "identity politics" and, probably, never will...

The more gay people in Congress, the more force the gay community has in politics. Same with African-Americans, Hispanics, and all other minority groups. And unfortunately, there's still not a lot of districts that are willing to vote for these minority groups, so when an opportunity arises for a minority to be elected, it's hard not to hope that the seat goes to someone that isn't an old white businessman.

I don't have a problem with Steve Cohen representing a majority-black district, and clearly, neither do the people of Memphis. That's because he in-touch with the people of his district and willing to fight for their concerns, despite not being part of the group. However, he is the exception, not the rule.

[smoltchanov]

Well, may be i don't understand something, but for me there is absolutely no difference whether district elects male or female; "straight" or "gay/lesbian"; Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslin, Jew or Buddhist; White, Black, Hispanics, Asian or Native American. And so on. The only criteria i use is "congressman must reflect views of his/her district as close as possible". That's why a "natural" congressman in liberal district for me is a "progressive", in swing - "moderate", in conservative - "conservative". I don't give a damn if a black-majority district is represented by white Jew, as is the case with Steve Cohen in TN-09 or - heavily Hispanic district by white (who also happened to be Jew) as was in Howard Berman case in California until 2012. Never understood an "identity politics" and, probably, never will...

The more gay people in Congress, the more force the gay community has in politics. Same with African-Americans, Hispanics, and all other minority groups. And unfortunately, there's still not a lot of districts that are willing to vote for these minority groups, so when an opportunity arises for a minority to be elected, it's hard not to hope that the seat goes to someone that isn't an old white businessman.

I don't have a problem with Steve Cohen representing a majority-black district, and clearly, neither do the people of Memphis. That's because he in-touch with the people of his district and willing to fight for their concerns, despite not being part of the group. However, he is the exception, not the rule.

Well, if an "old white businessman" is an adequate representative for his district (ANY district, being it majority-white or, say, majority Hispanic, as, for example, is a case with Gene Green in Texas) - what's the problem? We applauded (rightfully), when white-majority areas elected Black mayors, congressmen and so on, then why so many people (especially - Black) were angry when white businessman was elected mayor of 85% Black Detroit last year?? It really smacks a sort of hypocrisy to me..

[Zioneer]

Well, may be i don't understand something, but for me there is absolutely no difference whether district elects male or female; "straight" or "gay/lesbian"; Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslin, Jew or Buddhist; White, Black, Hispanics, Asian or Native American. And so on. The only criteria i use is "congressman must reflect views of his/her district as close as possible". That's why a "natural" congressman in liberal district for me is a "progressive", in swing - "moderate", in conservative - "conservative". I don't give a damn if a black-majority district is represented by white Jew, as is the case with Steve Cohen in TN-09 or - heavily Hispanic district by white (who also happened to be Jew) as was in Howard Berman case in California until 2012. Never understood an "identity politics" and, probably, never will...

The more gay people in Congress, the more force the gay community has in politics. Same with African-Americans, Hispanics, and all other minority groups. And unfortunately, there's still not a lot of districts that are willing to vote for these minority groups, so when an opportunity arises for a minority to be elected, it's hard not to hope that the seat goes to someone that isn't an old white businessman.

I don't have a problem with Steve Cohen representing a majority-black district, and clearly, neither do the people of Memphis. That's because he in-touch with the people of his district and willing to fight for their concerns, despite not being part of the group. However, he is the exception, not the rule.

Well, if an "old white businessman" is an adequate representative for his district (ANY district, being it majority-white or, say, majority Hispanic, as, for example, is a case with Gene Green in Texas) - what's the problem? We applauded (rightfully), when white-majority areas elected Black mayors, congressmen and so on, then why so many people (especially - Black) were angry when white businessman was elected mayor of 85% Black Detroit last year?? It really smacks a sort of hypocrisy to me..

I suppose that residents of Detroit felt that a black mayor served their interests better than a white mayor would. Whether the new mayor will or not, that seems to be the viewpoint.

As for whether an old white businessman is an adequate representative; sure, if a minority district or if a white district feels comfortable with a white representative, they should be allowed to have a white rep. But if they feel that a non-WASP rep would serve their interests better, if they feel that said hypothetical rep has different life experiences that would help them represent the district, then that should be applauded, especially as the US as a whole is becoming more diverse.

Take into account Mia Love in UT-04 (where I live); personally I'm a liberal Democrat and don't like her, but if UT-04 feels that Love's life experiences and background helps her understand issues in a way a white representative wouldn't, then that's fine, and it'd be nice for the non-white members of the district to see a rep that might look like them.

[Miles]

DKE's House retirement tracker. Despite not having redistricting this cycle, 2014 has outpaced 2012.

[ag]

Well, may be i don't understand something, but for me there is absolutely no difference whether district elects male or female; "straight" or "gay/lesbian"; Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslin, Jew or Buddhist; White, Black, Hispanics, Asian or Native American. And so on. The only criteria i use is "congressman must reflect views of his/her district as close as possible". That's why a "natural" congressman in liberal district for me is a "progressive", in swing - "moderate", in conservative - "conservative". I don't give a damn if a black-majority district is represented by white Jew, as is the case with Steve Cohen in TN-09 or - heavily Hispanic district by white (who also happened to be Jew) as was in Howard Berman case in California until 2012. Never understood an "identity politics" and, probably, never will...

Tribal and communal interests are part of any equation. They may not determine, who wins, but they, obviously, have to have an impact.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Jim Moran is retiring. Good riddance.

Fantastic. With his removal, and the fall of Pete Stark and retirement of Ron Paul, the Congress has fewer and fewer active anti-semites.

[IceSpear]

Jim Moran is retiring. Good riddance.

Fantastic. With his removal, and the fall of Pete Stark and retirement of Ron Paul, the Congress has fewer and fewer active anti-semites.

How is Moran anti-semitic?