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?)
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Haven’t the Republicans learned anything? If they strike him down, he will become more powerful than they could possibly imagine.
Death is only the beginning…
-XT
That’s cute…and naive. Elections have consequences. This is what happens when you lose these particular ones.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Whether it’s stupid will be determined by the relevant voters. After all, elections have consequences.