Whither Kucinich?

[BrainGlutton]

Dennis Kucinich, the most famous left-liberal in Congress (but not the most leftiest member -- that would be Bernie Sanders), is losing his Ohio seat to post-Census redistricting. So he is thinking of moving to Washington State to run there. (You can do that?! Yeah, yeah, of course you can, remember Hillary Clinton?)

[MOIDALIZE]

I love Dennis, but this is a prime example of why there needs to be term limits. He doesn't need to be in Congress to advance his progressive agenda. What has he concretely accomplished in Congress anyway? I'm sure being in Congress is a cushy job, but that's no reason to run.

[Marley23]

I think he's SOL, and I don't like it when political candidates go shopping for a district whose demographics are favorable to their election. Whether he gets elected or not depends on how whether or not the local Democratic Party and Washington residents cotton to this kind of thing. I don't think it's a term limits issue in particular, but if he does this, how can he make any kind of credible claim to knowing how to best represent that district?

[MOIDALIZE]

Well, that's the thing. He hasn't really represented his district, per se. He's mainly used his position as kind of a bully pulpit to add a progressive voice to the political debate. That's about all he can hope to do, given the political reality of DC. But given his stature, he could accomplish that just as readily outside of Congress as inside.

If we had term limits, this wouldn't be a problem. He could have taken his best shot at representing his district in Congress, then stepped aside for someone else and become an intelligent and respected critic/activist. But he, like everyone else in DC, wants to make a career of being in Congress.

[threeorange]

I think Kucinich should stay in Cleveland and run in whatever congressional district he now finds himself in (is it inconceivable that he could win?). Or take a step down and run for state senator or some other Ohio state office (judging by what's going on now in Columbus, they need some progressive firepower).

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by threeorange

I think Kucinich should stay in Cleveland and run in whatever congressional district he now finds himself in (is it inconceivable that he could win?).

A map of Ohio's Congressional districts. Since Congress is controlled by Republicans and all the districts around Kucinich's are controlled by Democrats, it's likely his district will be combined with that of another Democrat and he doesn't want to run against them.

[gonzomax]

Term limits are a joke. If you think he has stayed to long, vote him out. Instead yo legislate him away. Often you will push out a pol that the people like and think is doing a good job. How does that make sense?

[Chronos]

Well, that's the thing. He hasn't really represented his district, per se. He's mainly used his position as kind of a bully pulpit to add a progressive voice to the political debate. That's about all he can hope to do, given the political reality of DC. But given his stature, he could accomplish that just as readily outside of Congress as inside.

Except that, given how many times he's been re-elected, apparently what the people of his district want is someone bully-pulpiting progressivism. So he has been representing his district.

[littlespeedysuperbike]

He should move to Dayton and try to knock off John Boehner!

Boehner has won that seat by 30 points in the last three elections, but all three elections have been against Democratic opponents who don't even have Wikipedia pages.

Thirty points is a big margin to make up, but the district is only R+14 on the "Partisan Voter Index". A couple missteps as Speaker (which have already happened), a good year for Democrats, some nationalization of the race, and he could be hearing footsteps.

[Smapti]

As a resident of the town Kucinich is considering moving to, I would probably vote for him if he were the Democratic nominee for Congress next year.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Stick it out or start using what clout he has to help with an organization like MoveOn or the DCCC or BoldProgressives. There are plenty of options, but he wants to be a legislator. Would he win if he ran against another Democrat in that district?

[Chronos]

Would he win if he ran against another Democrat in that district?

Probably. He's very popular among Democratically-inclined Clevelanders. I don't know whom he'd be running against, though, and he might be refraining from running against another Democrat out of a sense of professional courtesy.

[Little Nemo]

Haven't the Republicans learned anything? If they strike him down, he will become more powerful than they could possibly imagine.

[XT]

Death is only the beginning....

-XT

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Probably. He's very popular among Democratically-inclined Clevelanders. I don't know whom he'd be running against, though, and he might be refraining from running against another Democrat out of a sense of professional courtesy.

That's cute...and naive. Elections have consequences. This is what happens when you lose these particular ones.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

That's cute...and naive.

Avoiding pissing of your fellow party members might be neither cute nor naive.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Avoiding pissing of your fellow party members might be neither cute nor naive.

Elections have consequences. If he wants to keep his spot, he'll stay right where he is and fight for it. Presumably he's a senior member. If not, then that's different. If he is, then win your seat again and keep on going. That's the political reality of redistricting, especially when you lose.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

Elections have consequences.

I have no idea how this is connected with the claim that Kucinich's decision is cute or naive.

If he wants to keep his spot, he'll stay right where he is and fight for it.

Or he'll find another seat that he thinks he has a good chance of winning. What's the difference?

Presumably he's a senior member. If not, then that's different. If he is, then win your seat again and keep on going.

I don't know what you mean by "senior member," but senior members can lose elections and they can also be pitted against other senior members. Either way the senior member may lose the election. "Elections have consequences," as you say. Furthermore, challenging a fellow party member can -- whether you win or lose -- make it much more difficult for you to advance your goals. And -- even more important -- challenging a fellow party member in the primary may leave you both so weak that whoever wins may be prime for upset by the other party. It's not uncommon. It's how Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) won in an almost solid Republican district in 1992. "Elections have consequences," as you say, and it may be something other than cute or naive to decide not to risk throwing an otherwise safe seat to the opposition.

That's the political reality of redistricting, especially when you lose.

Your post seems like a series of non-sequiturs. Another political reality of redistricting is that you might have to go looking for a different office to run for rather than running for the same office again.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I have no idea how this is connected with the claim that Kucinich's decision is cute or naive.



Or he'll find another seat that he thinks he has a good chance of winning. What's the difference?



I don't know what you mean by "senior member," but senior members can lose elections and they can also be pitted against other senior members. Either way the senior member may lose the election. "Elections have consequences," as you say. Furthermore, challenging a fellow party member can -- whether you win or lose -- make it much more difficult for you to advance your goals. And -- even more important -- challenging a fellow party member in the primary may leave you both so weak that whoever wins may be prime for upset by the other party. It's not uncommon. It's how Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) won in an almost solid Republican district in 1992. "Elections have consequences," as you say, and it may be something other than cute or naive to decide not to risk throwing an otherwise safe seat to the opposition.



Your post seems like a series of non-sequiturs. Another political reality of redistricting is that you might have to go looking for a different office to run for rather than running for the same office again.

Yes, but typically, people don't move to another state to do so. If they lose a seat on Congress, they might run for governor or some other position in their state.

I bring up seniority because if the person running against Kucinich is a senior member, then I can see Kusinich yielding to that person. If not, then I think it's a completely stupid idea.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

Yes, but typically, people don't move to another state to do so. If they lose a seat on Congress, they might run for governor or some other position in their state.

They might do any number of things. Apparently, Kucinich seems to believe that none of these things are feasible options. And he very well might be right about that.

I bring up seniority because if the person running against Kucinich is a senior member, then I can see Kusinich yielding to that person.

"Seniority" might very well be completely irrelevant. First of all, the sitting member might be very popular in her district, regardless of seniority. Challenging a sitting member in a primary of the same party very often leaves whoever wins in a weakened position, and less likely to win in the general election, not least because you might piss off the voters.

If not, then I think it's a completely stupid idea.

Whether it's stupid will be determined by the relevant voters. After all, elections have consequences.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Avoiding pissing of your fellow party members might be neither cute nor naive.

But if both Dems have been elected, why do party members get to choose who stays quiet? My home state (IA) is facing this very issue.

This whole thing is surprising coming from Kucinich, what with Congress supposedly being elected representatives of their home districts and all. You'd think he'd take the position of, "This is not what the Constitution had in mind and it infringes on democratic principles!"

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

This whole thing is surprising coming from Kucinich, what with Congress supposedly being elected representatives of their home districts and all. You'd think he'd take the position of, "This is not what the Constitution had in mind and it infringes on democratic principles!"

Maybe he would say that if it wasn't his ass on the line.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

But if both Dems have been elected, why do party members get to choose who stays quiet?

I don't understand the question. The public generally doesn't get to force any particular individual to compete for any particular office.

This whole thing is surprising coming from Kucinich, what with Congress supposedly being elected representatives of their home districts and all.

Members of Congress are supposed to be "residents" of the jurisdictions from which they are elected. If he's not a resident, then he won't be eligible to run.

You'd think he'd take the position of, "This is not what the Constitution had in mind and it infringes on democratic principles!"

It would be strange for him to take such a position, since it would be wrong on both counts.

The Constitution didn't "have in mind" that elected officials once elected would be required to stay put for the rest of their lives if they wanted to keep competing for office. The United States at its inception was a highly mobile society with many, many people on the move. It was not unheard of for political figures to be elected from more than one jurisdiction.

Second, it doesn't "infringe on democratic principles." Candidates choose to run and elections are decided by voters. Those are democratic principles. Forcing a candidate to run in any particular race is not a commonly accepted democratic principle.

[Farmer Jane]

The purpose of Congress is to represent the state while enacting federal legislation. It is only natural to think the person representing said state would have a link to it.

Re: Democratic principles, it narrows the race down in a primary to pretty much one guy. Party politics can hurt democracy, if you consider someone's ability to run part of democracy. This is significantly bigger than someone just 'being a poor Joe Plumber who has no shot at the Presidency'.

I'm not a fan of the party machine. Maybe you are.

edit: I also see a big difference between moving 10 or 30 miles and moving across the country just to stay in office.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

The purpose of Congress is to represent the state while enacting federal legislation. It is only natural to think the person representing said state would have a link to it.

Being elected by the people of that state would be a pretty strong link in my opinion.

If they choose to elect someone new to their area what's wrong with that? They believe he can best represent them.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Members of Congress are supposed to be "residents" of the jurisdictions from which they are elected. If he's not a resident, then he won't be eligible to run.

How could he be deemed ineligible to run based on something that isn't determined until election day?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

How could he be deemed ineligible to run based on something that isn't determined until election day?

Because it isn't determined on election day. You can't just show up on election day and say you're a resident of your district. You usually have to establish that you have lived in your district or state for a certain period of time to be eligible, and that has to be done before the election. In this case it sounds like Kucinich would just have to be a resident of Washington state by May 2012, which is the deadline for filing his paperwork to become a candidate. As long as he's a resident by then, he would be OK. And maybe that's another reason he likes Washington state: he has almost a year to decide if he wants to go ahead with this plan.

In other places, you might have to be a resident for six months or a year at the time you file. That nearly bit Rahm Emanuel in the ass when he was running for mayor of Chicago. To be eligible there, you have to be a resident for a full year, and Emanuel's opponents said he didn't qualify eligible because he'd been living in Washington. He was briefly taken off the ballot but convinced the courts that he was a resident, kept a home in Chicago, and had always intended to return after he left DC.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Since Congress is controlled by Republicans

This isn't relevant. Congressional Districts are set by the Legislature of the state.

[Marley23]

Right, the state legislature is what's relevant here. The GOP also made big gains in state legislatures last year and that may have been what threw me off. It's still bad for Kucinich since Republicans have big majorities in both houses of the Ohio legislature.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Because it isn't determined on election day.

The only residency requirement in the Constitution is that a member of the House "shall...when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Since U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton in 1995, states can't impose their own stricter requirements.

[gatorslap]

I don't think he'd piss anyone off by staying where he is and running in whatever district his becomes. After all, the "other" Dem in that situation has no particular reason to be favored over Kucinich.