Democrat wins special election

is this a one-time shot or just one in a line of several House seat pick-ups

This is good news indeed, and the start of some big changes going on in '04 I think.

The article says: So there's only one more until November.

An election very similar to this happened in 1991 when a dem booted out a repug and then George the First was on his way out the door. Hopefully, this is foretelling of good things to come.

[ February 18, 2004, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Is this generally considered to be a swing district? Has it tended Democrat or Republican in the past? We can't really know if this is an isolated case or a foretelling of things to come, because it appears that name-recognition was a big factor in this victory. Most congressional districts are so gerrymandered to protect incumbents of both parties that it has become almost impossible for a single election cycle to change significantly the makeup of the House of Representatives. So I'm still slightly pessimistic about the Democrats' chances to retake the House. Conventional wisdom seems to say that the Texas redistricting alone will result in a net loss for the Dems. But I hope I'm wrong.

This is the first special election for a federal office that a Democrat has won since 1991. It is significant for that reason alone.

The district in question has been in Republican hands for quite some time. The vacancy was created by last year's gubernatorial election, in which the incumbent Congreeman from the district beat Chandler.

In the special election, the Republican candidate ran on a platform of supporting the Bush agenda. The President made a commercial for her; Speaker Hastert appeared with her; key Republican Congressional leaders lent her their staffers to run her campaign -- and she was trounced by a man who himself was soundly beaten for the governorship.

The Dems aren't likely to retake the House in the fall, as BillyBones points out. They still have a 22 seat gap to close (21 if, as expected, they pick up the South Dakota seated vacated by drunk driving menace Bill Janklow), and the Texas delegation is now set to go solidly Republican following their aggressive redistricting, making it more like a 35 seat gap -- nearly 8% of the House.

But this special election does bode well for the Dems in the Presidential election. Running on a platform of "I love Bush" the Republican was trounced.

Democrats hold a majority in this district--60-40 or something close to that but this seat had been in Republican hands

In fact, it was held by the guy who beat Chandler for the governorship in November

since this election took place just down the street from my house, let me answer some of y'alls questions.

Yes. this district (just like the rest of Kentucky) is very heavily democratic registered.

Yes. however, this district has voted republican in national elections for the US congress and president for a long long time.
as I have told you guys before, here in Kentucky, there is very little difference between what the democrats say and what the national republican party says when it comes to gay rights. That's why I tell you dems in NYC, Cali and DC that in most places the dems are no different in their attitude about gays.

Yes. Chandler beat a republican who was running on her support of Bush. However, she was:

1) a woman... not good in a state like Kentucky

2) a complete novice and new comer to politics whose only connection is that her brother once was a congressman. Besides that no one knew who she was or what her positions were.

3) Chandler is the grandson of one of the legends of Kentucky politics. Happy Chandler was a former governor famous for singing "My Old Kentucky Home" at U of Kentucky basketball games until his death a few years ago. and he is the most recent Atty Gen of Kentucky who had his name in the press plenty running for Gov just 3 months ago.

So to sum it up.... does this mean anything at all with regards to nat'l politics?
Maybe.... but not too much.