Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2017, 01:57:12 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Virginia)
| | |-+  The Top 10 Best-Funded House Challengers
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The Top 10 Best-Funded House Challengers  (Read 1745 times)
Adlai Stevenson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3419
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« on: November 02, 2007, 10:40:17 am »
Ignore

Best-funded House challengers for 2008

1) Jim Ryun, R, Kansas’ 2nd, $880,000 ( Nancy Boyda , D)

2) Sandy Treadwell, R, New York’s 20th, $822,000 ( Kirsten Gillibrand , D)

3) Francisco “Quico” Canseco, R, Texas’ 23rd, $819,000 ( Ciro D. Rodriguez , D)

4) Andrew Saul, R, New York’s 19th, $782,000 ( John Hall , D)

5) Deborah Honeycutt, R, Georgia’s 13th, $708,000 ( David Scott , D)

6) Kay Barnes, D, Missouri’s 6th, $656,000 ( Sam Graves , R)

7) Jim Hines, D, Connecticut’s 4th, $618,000 ( Christopher Shays , R)

Cool Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, R, Texas’ 22nd, $607,000 ( Nick Lampson , D)

9) Christine Jennings, D, Florida’s 13th, $592,000 ( Vern Buchanan , R)

10) Dan Seals, D, Illinois’ 10th, $567,000 ( Mark Steven Kirk , R)

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002620063
Logged

[img/http://blog.pennlive.com/thrive/2007/08/WINEHOUSE1.jpgimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpJQq8MoR-g
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13581
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2007, 02:39:34 pm »
Ignore

I keep forgetting that the GOP actually lost TX-23 last year.

Interesting to see the GOP has two very well financed challengers in New York.  A big money challenge against Hall doesn't surprise me, but a well-financed challenge against Gillibrand does, to an extent.
Logged

Mr Moderate at 54/10 is a total joke, he is a horror.

I think it is very possible that Vladimir Putin could be the Antichrist.  That is nothing more than an educated guess on my part.
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14636


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2007, 02:47:52 pm »

I keep forgetting that the GOP actually lost TX-23 last year.

Interesting to see the GOP has two very well financed challengers in New York.  A big money challenge against Hall doesn't surprise me, but a well-financed challenge against Gillibrand does, to an extent.

Treadwell is extremely wealthy. I expect much of his fundraising was made from one checkbook, and may be a loan.

Is Snelly Gibbr actually still getting donations from people after her first term in Congress?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27868


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2007, 03:38:27 pm »
Ignore

I keep forgetting that the GOP actually lost TX-23 last year.

Interesting to see the GOP has two very well financed challengers in New York.  A big money challenge against Hall doesn't surprise me, but a well-financed challenge against Gillibrand does, to an extent.

Why?  Gillibrand is obviously the weaker of the two and Treadwell has strong money connections.

People are underrating TX-23, imho, because high-turnout elections in this area of the world nearly always benefit the GOP.  The numbers of voters turning out in the GOP strongholds in northwest Bexar almost always increase to a much greater extent than the numbers of voters turning out in the Dem Hispanic stronghold of south-central Bexar in high-turnout elections.  Having a Hispanic-surnamed GOPer will also help, if he is smart enough to understand how to connect with the border areas.

In TX-22, Sekula-Gibbs has a good chunk of cash, but I can tell you right now that the Texas GOP establishment is going to be backing Pete Olson (former aide to Senator Cornyn + military guy) in the primary.  As memory serves me, he raised nearly $250,000 last quarter, showing that he is getting the money to compete.  There are a lot of GOP candidates in that race (8 last time I checked), so I doubt any one of them gets enough % to avoid a runoff.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6412
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2007, 03:39:57 pm »
Ignore

Gibbs is a mean evil witch.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14636


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2007, 04:48:21 pm »


Why?  Gillibrand is obviously the weaker of the two and Treadwell has strong money connections.


Why do you consider Gillibrand the weaker one? Her district is marginally more Republican (they're both Republican leans) but by all accounts she's an extremely gifted politician, tireless with both constituent services and fundraising. I know this makes me sound like one of her staffers, but she has more money on hand than the entire NRCC and Stu Rothenberg called her "impossible not to like."

This is a district where local relationships and supporting the community counts for far more than ideology.  Hall's district, by comparison, has more affluent suburbanites who may be more loyal to the Republican party in a presidential year.

Canseco's biggest challenge will be getting past any potential Anglo opponents in the Republican primary.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 04:52:57 pm by brittain33 »Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5435


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2007, 06:57:43 pm »
Ignore


Why?  Gillibrand is obviously the weaker of the two and Treadwell has strong money connections.


Why do you consider Gillibrand the weaker one? Her district is marginally more Republican (they're both Republican leans) but by all accounts she's an extremely gifted politician, tireless with both constituent services and fundraising. I know this makes me sound like one of her staffers, but she has more money on hand than the entire NRCC and Stu Rothenberg called her "impossible not to like."

This is a district where local relationships and supporting the community counts for far more than ideology.  Hall's district, by comparison, has more affluent suburbanites who may be more loyal to the Republican party in a presidential year.

Canseco's biggest challenge will be getting past any potential Anglo opponents in the Republican primary.

Hillary would likely pull Gillibrand and Hall over the top if is the Democratic nominee.  As for TX-23, that district was held by Hispanic Democrats since it was created in the 1960's until a Hispanic Democratic incumbent was convicted in 1992 and Bonilla won.  Democrats for some reason conceeded the seat to him.  The district is also one that Hillary will likely carry since Bush only carried it because of his strength with Texas Hispanics.  Even Ron Kirk and Tony Sanchez carried the district in their landslide 2002 losses.  This one will be very hard for Republicans to win back. 
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27868


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2007, 09:16:11 pm »
Ignore


Why?  Gillibrand is obviously the weaker of the two and Treadwell has strong money connections.


Why do you consider Gillibrand the weaker one? Her district is marginally more Republican (they're both Republican leans) but by all accounts she's an extremely gifted politician, tireless with both constituent services and fundraising. I know this makes me sound like one of her staffers, but she has more money on hand than the entire NRCC and Stu Rothenberg called her "impossible not to like."

This is a district where local relationships and supporting the community counts for far more than ideology.  Hall's district, by comparison, has more affluent suburbanites who may be more loyal to the Republican party in a presidential year.

Canseco's biggest challenge will be getting past any potential Anglo opponents in the Republican primary.

Hillary would likely pull Gillibrand and Hall over the top if is the Democratic nominee.  As for TX-23, that district was held by Hispanic Democrats since it was created in the 1960's until a Hispanic Democratic incumbent was convicted in 1992 and Bonilla won.  Democrats for some reason conceeded the seat to him.  The district is also one that Hillary will likely carry since Bush only carried it because of his strength with Texas Hispanics.  Even Ron Kirk and Tony Sanchez carried the district in their landslide 2002 losses.  This one will be very hard for Republicans to win back. 

Well, as I'm sure you're aware of, TX-23 in 2002 in nothing like TX-23 in 2008 because of the massive redistrictings.  The additional problem with using 2002 numbers for Texas and for a CD like TX-23 especially (regardless of whether you're using the 2002 district or the 2008 district) is that Sanchez engineered such massive turnout in the border counties for Democrats that it skews the numbers horribly beyond recognition.  Compare 2002 with 2006 for a second.

Also, I happen to know that most of the present-day TX-23 (the border areas especially) was held from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s by Chick Kazen, a classic old conservative Democrat.  I'm sure some of the present-day TX-23 was probably held by Albert Gonzalez, but whatever.  Bustamante knocked Kazen off in 1984 primary as I recall.  Also, as I recall, Bustamante was not convicted of fraud and racketeering until after the election in 1992.  Besides, the TX-23 that he got in 1992 was ripe for the taking by Republicans because the redistricting that year really hurt him (as I remember, his favorable San Antonio part got knocked off).  Bonilla did kill him that year, like 60-40.

I should also point out that I already examined generic white Republican in TX-23 for 2006 (using Jerry Patterson, who got 55% statewide and 48% in Bexar County, which I think is a good baseline - see other 2006 numbers).  His numbers in TX-23 were 49.2%, the Democrat's numbers were 46.7%, and the Libertarian's were 4.1%.  If the L votes were not counted, it would be 51.2% to 48.8%.  I seem to remember saying that the Bush vote here in 2004 was 57% not a long time ago.

Classic swing seat, made even more swingable by the fact that the only voters that like to change preferences are along the border (or rural parts of San Antonio).  So, it'll probably come down to turnout.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5435


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2007, 09:44:52 pm »
Ignore


Why?  Gillibrand is obviously the weaker of the two and Treadwell has strong money connections.


Why do you consider Gillibrand the weaker one? Her district is marginally more Republican (they're both Republican leans) but by all accounts she's an extremely gifted politician, tireless with both constituent services and fundraising. I know this makes me sound like one of her staffers, but she has more money on hand than the entire NRCC and Stu Rothenberg called her "impossible not to like."

This is a district where local relationships and supporting the community counts for far more than ideology.  Hall's district, by comparison, has more affluent suburbanites who may be more loyal to the Republican party in a presidential year.

Canseco's biggest challenge will be getting past any potential Anglo opponents in the Republican primary.

Hillary would likely pull Gillibrand and Hall over the top if is the Democratic nominee.  As for TX-23, that district was held by Hispanic Democrats since it was created in the 1960's until a Hispanic Democratic incumbent was convicted in 1992 and Bonilla won.  Democrats for some reason conceeded the seat to him.  The district is also one that Hillary will likely carry since Bush only carried it because of his strength with Texas Hispanics.  Even Ron Kirk and Tony Sanchez carried the district in their landslide 2002 losses.  This one will be very hard for Republicans to win back. 

Well, as I'm sure you're aware of, TX-23 in 2002 in nothing like TX-23 in 2008 because of the massive redistrictings.  The additional problem with using 2002 numbers for Texas and for a CD like TX-23 especially (regardless of whether you're using the 2002 district or the 2008 district) is that Sanchez engineered such massive turnout in the border counties for Democrats that it skews the numbers horribly beyond recognition.  Compare 2002 with 2006 for a second.

Also, I happen to know that most of the present-day TX-23 (the border areas especially) was held from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s by Chick Kazen, a classic old conservative Democrat.  I'm sure some of the present-day TX-23 was probably held by Albert Gonzalez, but whatever.  Bustamante knocked Kazen off in 1984 primary as I recall.  Also, as I recall, Bustamante was not convicted of fraud and racketeering until after the election in 1992.  Besides, the TX-23 that he got in 1992 was ripe for the taking by Republicans because the redistricting that year really hurt him (as I remember, his favorable San Antonio part got knocked off).  Bonilla did kill him that year, like 60-40.

I should also point out that I already examined generic white Republican in TX-23 for 2006 (using Jerry Patterson, who got 55% statewide and 48% in Bexar County, which I think is a good baseline - see other 2006 numbers).  His numbers in TX-23 were 49.2%, the Democrat's numbers were 46.7%, and the Libertarian's were 4.1%.  If the L votes were not counted, it would be 51.2% to 48.8%.  I seem to remember saying that the Bush vote here in 2004 was 57% not a long time ago.

Classic swing seat, made even more swingable by the fact that the only voters that like to change preferences are along the border (or rural parts of San Antonio).  So, it'll probably come down to turnout.

The 2006 redistricting actually made the district more Democratic than it was in 2002.  Bush beat Gore 59%-41% in the 2002 redistricting, but only beat him 53%-47% under the new lines.  Cueller would have clearly beat Bonilla if the 2002 race was held under the current lines. 

This district would not have voted for Bonilla or any Republican in 1992 absent the problems of the Democratic incumbent.  The district even voted for Michael Dukakis by 51%-49% in 1988. 

Also, the Republicans seem to be running a rabid anti-immigrant campaign in the district.  It almost seems like they don't even realize that almost 70% of the districts population are immigrants. 

I should also mention that Victor Morales even carried the district over Phil Gramm in 1996 by 53%-46% and went for Ann Richards over George W. Bush in 1994, albeit by just 43 votes. 
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 11:01:02 pm by Mr.Phips »Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5435


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2007, 10:43:55 pm »
Ignore


Why?  Gillibrand is obviously the weaker of the two and Treadwell has strong money connections.


Why do you consider Gillibrand the weaker one? Her district is marginally more Republican (they're both Republican leans) but by all accounts she's an extremely gifted politician, tireless with both constituent services and fundraising. I know this makes me sound like one of her staffers, but she has more money on hand than the entire NRCC and Stu Rothenberg called her "impossible not to like."

This is a district where local relationships and supporting the community counts for far more than ideology.  Hall's district, by comparison, has more affluent suburbanites who may be more loyal to the Republican party in a presidential year.

Canseco's biggest challenge will be getting past any potential Anglo opponents in the Republican primary.

Hillary would likely pull Gillibrand and Hall over the top if is the Democratic nominee.  As for TX-23, that district was held by Hispanic Democrats since it was created in the 1960's until a Hispanic Democratic incumbent was convicted in 1992 and Bonilla won.  Democrats for some reason conceeded the seat to him.  The district is also one that Hillary will likely carry since Bush only carried it because of his strength with Texas Hispanics.  Even Ron Kirk and Tony Sanchez carried the district in their landslide 2002 losses.  This one will be very hard for Republicans to win back. 

Well, as I'm sure you're aware of, TX-23 in 2002 in nothing like TX-23 in 2008 because of the massive redistrictings.  The additional problem with using 2002 numbers for Texas and for a CD like TX-23 especially (regardless of whether you're using the 2002 district or the 2008 district) is that Sanchez engineered such massive turnout in the border counties for Democrats that it skews the numbers horribly beyond recognition.  Compare 2002 with 2006 for a second.

Also, I happen to know that most of the present-day TX-23 (the border areas especially) was held from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s by Chick Kazen, a classic old conservative Democrat.  I'm sure some of the present-day TX-23 was probably held by Albert Gonzalez, but whatever.  Bustamante knocked Kazen off in 1984 primary as I recall.  Also, as I recall, Bustamante was not convicted of fraud and racketeering until after the election in 1992.  Besides, the TX-23 that he got in 1992 was ripe for the taking by Republicans because the redistricting that year really hurt him (as I remember, his favorable San Antonio part got knocked off).  Bonilla did kill him that year, like 60-40.

I should also point out that I already examined generic white Republican in TX-23 for 2006 (using Jerry Patterson, who got 55% statewide and 48% in Bexar County, which I think is a good baseline - see other 2006 numbers).  His numbers in TX-23 were 49.2%, the Democrat's numbers were 46.7%, and the Libertarian's were 4.1%.  If the L votes were not counted, it would be 51.2% to 48.8%.  I seem to remember saying that the Bush vote here in 2004 was 57% not a long time ago.

Classic swing seat, made even more swingable by the fact that the only voters that like to change preferences are along the border (or rural parts of San Antonio).  So, it'll probably come down to turnout.

The 2006 redistricting actually made the district more Democratic than it was in 2002.  Bush beat Gore 59%-41% in the 2002 redistricting, but only beat him 53%-47% under the new lines.  Cueller would have clearly beat Bonilla if the 2002 race was held under the current lines. 

This district would not have voted for Bonilla or any Republican in 1992 absent the problems of the Democratic incumbent.  The district even voted for Michael Dukakis by 51%-49% in 1988. 

Also, the Republicans seem to be running a rabid anti-immigrant campaign in the district.  It almost seems like they don't even realize that almost 70% of the districts population are immigrants. 

Another interesting note is that the district did not only vote for Sanchez and Kirk in 2002, but went for Victor Morales against Phil Gramm in 1996. 
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13581
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2007, 10:51:04 pm »
Ignore

Hillary would likely pull Gillibrand and Hall over the top if is the Democratic nominee.

I don't have super high hopes for a Republican pick-up in New York, but honestly, in Hall's district, a Rudy v. Hillary race is a wash so far as Presidential coattails go.
Logged

Mr Moderate at 54/10 is a total joke, he is a horror.

I think it is very possible that Vladimir Putin could be the Antichrist.  That is nothing more than an educated guess on my part.
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5435


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2007, 11:02:16 pm »
Ignore

Hillary would likely pull Gillibrand and Hall over the top if is the Democratic nominee.

I don't have super high hopes for a Republican pick-up in New York, but honestly, in Hall's district, a Rudy v. Hillary race is a wash so far as Presidential coattails go.

You could be right.  Much more so than in NY-20 where Rudy's whole New York City image plays very poorly. 
Logged
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5752
Slovenia


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2007, 09:05:18 pm »
Ignore

Although I'm glad to see a well-funded serious challenge to John Hall (I hate the guy, for a number of reasons), he's still the odds-on favorite and I will be extremely surprised if he loses his seat.  Gillibrand is still in a lot more danger, even though she's not likely to go down, either.
Logged

Proud Mugwump.
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14636


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2007, 10:25:50 pm »

Although I'm glad to see a well-funded serious challenge to John Hall (I hate the guy, for a number of reasons), he's still the odds-on favorite and I will be extremely surprised if he loses his seat.  Gillibrand is still in a lot more danger, even though she's not likely to go down, either.

Again, why do people think Hall is safer than Gillibrand?
Logged
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5752
Slovenia


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2007, 10:55:07 pm »
Ignore

As you can tell, I avoided answering that question directly...a lot of my opinion is just gut feeling, but there's some grounding in reality:

Hall runs a very slick campaign.  Not that Gillibrand's shabby herself, but Hall takes the cake--as evidenced by his upset victory in a more solidly Republican district.  Some of this was  attributable to luck, but definitely not all--he's got a great staff, lots of connections, lots of fundraising potential, to name a few. 

I'd also say (and feel free to dispute this) that the far-out suburban regions that Hall represents are swinging harder to Democrats than NY-20 is.  Some of this may be canceled out if Giuliani runs, though (I get the sense he's still popular in upper Westchester).
Logged

Proud Mugwump.
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28502
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2007, 03:59:54 am »
Ignore

Gibbs is a mean evil witch.

You of course mean Shelly DraculaCunt Gibbs.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5435


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2007, 05:23:12 pm »
Ignore

Although I'm glad to see a well-funded serious challenge to John Hall (I hate the guy, for a number of reasons), he's still the odds-on favorite and I will be extremely surprised if he loses his seat.  Gillibrand is still in a lot more danger, even though she's not likely to go down, either.

I heard a rumor that if Sandy Treadwell gets the Republican nomination to run against Gillibrand, one of the other Republicans will run on the Conservative and Right To Life lines due to Treadwell's support for abortion rights. 
Logged
the 2018- The People v. The Pepe
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17281
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2007, 01:26:57 pm »
Ignore

That's one less worry then.
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines