NE SEN 2018: Which Democrats will run?

[Greedo punched first]

Which Democrats will challenge Deb Fischer?

[Coraxion]

He isn't gonna run, but I do wonder if Nelson would make it competitive at all. Probably not.

[MarkD]

I think Fischer beating Bob Kerrey by over 15.5% points was enough to scare the bejeesus out of all sane Nebraska Democrats, so don't count on there being any sane candidate running next year.

[Greedo punched first]

Some Democrat will likely challenge Fischer, though the race won't be competitive.

[Former President tack50]

Some Democrat will likely challenge Fischer, though the race won't be competitive.

I still wonder why there are uncontested races. Can't Democrats just take a random member from the state, put him in the ballot, give them 0$ for campaigning and call it a day on safe red districts? Probably costs next to nothing since they won't pay for ads or anything, just for a spot on the ballot which probably isn't expensive.

Granted, they won't win, but still seems better than not running at all.

[Greedo punched first]

Some Democrat will likely challenge Fischer, though the race won't be competitive.

I still wonder why there are uncontested races. Can't Democrats just take a random member from the state, put him in the ballot, give them 0$ for campaigning and call it a day on safe red districts? Probably costs next to nothing since they won't pay for ads or anything, just for a spot on the ballot which probably isn't expensive.

Granted, they won't win, but still seems better than not running at all.

Yes. In California, even in the safest D districts, at least one Republican generally runs for some token opposition. I don't see why the same can't be done in Nebraska. Judy Chu and Eric Swalwell always face token GOP opposition (including Jack Orswell and Danny Turner) Does Adrian Smith ever run unopposed, or does he always face some random Democrat?

[MarkD]

Some Democrat will likely challenge Fischer, though the race won't be competitive.

I still wonder why there are uncontested races. Can't Democrats just take a random member from the state, put him in the ballot, give them 0$ for campaigning and call it a day on safe red districts? Probably costs next to nothing since they won't pay for ads or anything, just for a spot on the ballot which probably isn't expensive.

Granted, they won't win, but still seems better than not running at all.

Yes. In California, even in the safest D districts, at least one Republican generally runs for some token opposition. I don't see why the same can't be done in Nebraska. Judy Chu and Eric Swalwell always face token GOP opposition (including Jack Orswell and Danny Turner) Does Adrian Smith ever run unopposed, or does he always face some random Democrat?

Adrian Smith always had an opponent until last year. Of course he has usually beaten his opponents with 70% or more every time he runs for re-election.
The best example of "why-does-anybody-(from-the-opposition-party)-ever-bother-to-run-in-that-district" is NY-15, encompassing the southern half of the Bronx. The incumbent, Jose Serrano, almost always does have a Republican opponent, but Serrano has never gotten less than 92% of the votes cast in the general elections.

[Greedo punched first]

Some Democrat will likely challenge Fischer, though the race won't be competitive.

I still wonder why there are uncontested races. Can't Democrats just take a random member from the state, put him in the ballot, give them 0$ for campaigning and call it a day on safe red districts? Probably costs next to nothing since they won't pay for ads or anything, just for a spot on the ballot which probably isn't expensive.

Granted, they won't win, but still seems better than not running at all.

Yes. In California, even in the safest D districts, at least one Republican generally runs for some token opposition. I don't see why the same can't be done in Nebraska. Judy Chu and Eric Swalwell always face token GOP opposition (including Jack Orswell and Danny Turner) Does Adrian Smith ever run unopposed, or does he always face some random Democrat?

Adrian Smith always had an opponent until last year. Of course he has usually beaten his opponents with 70% or more every time he runs for re-election.
The best example of "why-does-anybody-(from-the-opposition-party)-ever-bother-to-run-in-that-district" is NY-15, encompassing the southern half of the Bronx. The incumbent, Jose Serrano, almost always does have a Republican opponent, but Serrano has never gotten less than 92% of the votes cast in the general election.

I find it depressing when candidates run unopposed. I wish there was always token opposition so voters can have a choice. Serrano got 85% in 2016.

[MarkD]

Adrian Smith always had an opponent until last year. Of course he has usually beaten his opponents with 70% or more every time he runs for re-election.
The best example of "why-does-anybody-(from-the-opposition-party)-ever-bother-to-run-in-that-district" is NY-15, encompassing the southern half of the Bronx. The incumbent, Jose Serrano, almost always does have a Republican opponent, but Serrano has never gotten less than 92% of the votes cast in the general election.

I find it depressing when candidates run unopposed. I wish there was always token opposition so voters can have a choice. Serrano got 85% in 2016.

It appears that way because of the way some jerk edited the Wikipedia page! The vote totals in 2016 were:
D - Jose E. Serrano - 165,688
R - Alejandro Vega - 6,129
C - Eduardo Ramirez - 2,104
Total votes cast - 173,921
Serrano's share of the vote was 95.3%, Vega's was 3.5%.
But the jerk who edited the Wikipedia page added 19,782 "blank/void/scattering" ballots to the total, and claimed that there were 193,703 votes cast. The votes in elections prior to 2016 were never tabulated that way.

[Greedo punched first]

Adrian Smith always had an opponent until last year. Of course he has usually beaten his opponents with 70% or more every time he runs for re-election.
The best example of "why-does-anybody-(from-the-opposition-party)-ever-bother-to-run-in-that-district" is NY-15, encompassing the southern half of the Bronx. The incumbent, Jose Serrano, almost always does have a Republican opponent, but Serrano has never gotten less than 92% of the votes cast in the general election.

I find it depressing when candidates run unopposed. I wish there was always token opposition so voters can have a choice. Serrano got 85% in 2016.

That's odd.

It appears that way because of the way some jerk edited the Wikipedia page! The vote totals in 2016 were:
D - Jose E. Serrano - 165,688
R - Alejandro Vega - 6,129
C - Eduardo Ramirez - 2,104
Total votes cast - 173,921
Serrano's share of the vote was 95.3%, Vega's was 3.5%.
But the jerk who edited the Wikipedia page added 19,782 "blank/void/scattering" ballots to the total, and claiming that there were 193,703 votes cast. The votes in elections prior to 2016 were never tabulated that way.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Some Democrat will likely challenge Fischer, though the race won't be competitive.

I still wonder why there are uncontested races. Can't Democrats just take a random member from the state, put him in the ballot, give them 0$ for campaigning and call it a day on safe red districts? Probably costs next to nothing since they won't pay for ads or anything, just for a spot on the ballot which probably isn't expensive.

Granted, they won't win, but still seems better than not running at all.

Agreed. After the primaries, I was so upset that no democrat was running against pete sessions with no one in the primaries, and then suddenly Clinton won the district. Not saying a dem would win, but at least put forth a darn candidate for christ sakes! If no democrat was going to oppose pete sessions in 2018, I promised that I would literally pay the filing fee and put my mom on the ballot, luckily there are a ton of candidates now after seeing clinton win here, but point being is that the absolute minimum the party should do is to leave no republican unopposed, and always file a candidate, no matter how red the race looks, there are thousands and thousands of these races up and down the ballot nationwide, odds of picking at least a few off are pretty good, plus it helps build infrastructure and enthusiasm should the positions get more blue in the future.

[Greedo punched first]

Some Democrat will likely challenge Fischer, though the race won't be competitive.

I still wonder why there are uncontested races. Can't Democrats just take a random member from the state, put him in the ballot, give them 0$ for campaigning and call it a day on safe red districts? Probably costs next to nothing since they won't pay for ads or anything, just for a spot on the ballot which probably isn't expensive.

Granted, they won't win, but still seems better than not running at all.

Agreed. After the primaries, I was so upset that no democrat was running against pete sessions with no one in the primaries, and then suddenly Clinton won the district. Not saying a dem would win, but at least put forth a darn candidate for christ sakes! If no democrat was going to oppose pete sessions in 2018, I promised that I would literally pay the filing fee and put my mom on the ballot, luckily there are a ton of candidates now after seeing clinton win here, but point being is that the absolute minimum the party should do is to leave no republican unopposed, and always file a candidate, no matter how red the race looks, there are thousands and thousands of these races up and down the ballot nationwide, odds of picking at least a few off are pretty good, plus it helps build infrastructure and enthusiasm should the positions get more blue in the future.

Just leaving a district unopposed is a bad idea. Jose Serrano usually has an opponent, even though he gets 90+%. Will Adrian Smith in NE-03 or Roger Marshall in KS-01 have an opponent in 2018?

[Kamala]

For NE-02 prospects, it's important that Dems field a candidate for Senate.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Some Democrat will likely challenge Fischer, though the race won't be competitive.

I still wonder why there are uncontested races. Can't Democrats just take a random member from the state, put him in the ballot, give them 0$ for campaigning and call it a day on safe red districts? Probably costs next to nothing since they won't pay for ads or anything, just for a spot on the ballot which probably isn't expensive.

Granted, they won't win, but still seems better than not running at all.

Agreed. After the primaries, I was so upset that no democrat was running against pete sessions with no one in the primaries, and then suddenly Clinton won the district. Not saying a dem would win, but at least put forth a darn candidate for christ sakes! If no democrat was going to oppose pete sessions in 2018, I promised that I would literally pay the filing fee and put my mom on the ballot, luckily there are a ton of candidates now after seeing clinton win here, but point being is that the absolute minimum the party should do is to leave no republican unopposed, and always file a candidate, no matter how red the race looks, there are thousands and thousands of these races up and down the ballot nationwide, odds of picking at least a few off are pretty good, plus it helps build infrastructure and enthusiasm should the positions get more blue in the future.

Just leaving a district unopposed is a bad idea. Jose Serrano usually has an opponent, even though he gets 90+%. Will Adrian Smith in NE-03 or Roger Marshall in KS-01 have an opponent in 2018?

Agreed. I doubt they will, considering there is not even buzz around it, and no one has announced from dems, and about now is when people start waking up and announcing 2018 intentions. I would not rule it out either though.