National Democrats include Peters on list of their most vulnerable members
SAN DIEGO, California (March 58, 2013) – Citing the Democrats’ national campaign committee’s decision to include freshman Rep. Scott Peters(D-San Diego) on a list of their 19 most vulnerable members of Congress, the Republican Party of San Diego County today announced it will heavily target Peters in 2014.
“The Democrats today admitted that Scott Peters is one of their weakest incumbents in the entire House of Representatives,” said Chairman Tony Krvaric. “Targeting Peters’ district for a Republican comeback is an easy decision, particularly after the Democrats’ admission today.”
“Lightning will not strike twice for Mr. Peters.”
Peters defeated incumbent Republican Brian Bilbray by just 2% in a heavily Democratic year when the top of the Democratic ticket carried the state by 23%.
“Peters’ high water mark was in 2012. In 2014 he doesn’t have Barack Obama at the top of the ticket, Democratic turnout will be much lower, and he’ll have a record as a member of the Nancy Pelosi team,” said Vice Chairman Ron Nehring, a former Chairman of the California Republican Party.
“I hope Mr. Peters chose to rent instead of buy.”
The San Diego political environment is also being impacted by the erratic behavior of San Diego’s new Democrat Mayor, Bob Filner, whose offensive comments and style continue to make the news daily.
Bob Filner is doing a great job building coalitions – for Republicans. Every time he opens his mouth, someone joins the Republican team,” added Chairman Krvaric.
Republicans see history about to repeat itself. In 1992, Democrat Congresswoman Lynn Schenk was elected to the same district Peters now holds. Two years later, without Bill Clinton at the top of the ticket in the mid-term election, Schenk was defeated by Republican Bilbray.
Reference: Democrats Launching Plan for 2014 At-Risk Members
Comments 19
Don’t underestimate the GOTV the progressives have set up. They are willing to go door to door for votes, presidential campaign or not. Until the right figures that out, it may be a long time before they will recover.
It’s too bad Krvaric and the Party decided not to “heavily target” this district for an incumbent hold in 2012.
Holding on to it in the first place, instead of throwing all of its eggs into the DeMaio basket, would have been better.
“Krvaric and the Party”?
That implies it is the local party’s sole responsibility, or even decision, to do what the NRCC has the significant bulk of the funds for, doesn’t it?
This “let’s blame everything on the local party mentality” is pretty unsophisticated.
“This “let’s blame everything on the local party mentality” is pretty unsophisticated.”
It’s convenient, though. “Krvaric and the Party” are to blame for Romney’s’ 47% comment, Hurricane Sandy, the Ohio, Florida, and Virginia elections, and the media bias towards the sitting President.
While it might be convenient, and does leave out a lot, it is not inexcusable and it is a legitimate question to ask. While not necessary referring to the SDGOP, in the last 12-20 years throughout California, I have heard every excuse for us losing, but the one I have rarely heard, is blaming the local, state, and national GOP and the individuals in charge.
If we are to every get out of our quagmire in California, we have to be honest and look at everything that we are doing and have done wrong and fix it.
Folks on the committee, and therefore on here, are quick to take credit for every R victory that happens in the County. Yet there is always some external factor to blame losses on – swing years, lack of national party support, too much national party meddling, bad top of the ticket. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
Bilbray had every resource necessary to win, all he needed was for his local party not to do anything that would hurt him. Unfortunately, a by-product of the early DeMaio endorsement was to erode the Republican voting coalition in Bilbray’s district. You can blame Fletcher all you want for not acting as many Republicans think he should have, but it is the ultimate responsibility of the Party to keep its voting coalition together. Any 2012 R candidate in the City, who lost by a close margin, should be pissed at the Party for that – as I would postulate that Bilbray and many on his congressional staff are.
Old political trueism says: “ya’ can’t beat somebody with nobody”.
Who’s going to challenge Mr. Peters? 2014 will be here quickly, and this will be an expensive campaign!
D. Morton, you too cannot have it both ways.
I know a number of people who were really happy that the Republican Party endorsed DeMaio and did it early. And yes, a number of them are from that district. Some were happy because they saw DeMaio actually doing something to fix the city which won over Fletcher’s self-serving ambition. Some liked the idea that the GOP is winning over the small, but loud voice of homophobes. Some liked the idea that they went for the candidate that was clearly qualified for the job (DeMaio) over someone who had little in his background that would qualify him to be mayor of a large California city. Many liked DeMaio’s honesty over Fletcher’s say-anything-to-get-elected campaign.
And then Fletcher’s hissy fit compared with DeMaio’s professional demeanor and DeMaio’s laser focus on the city’s problems after the endorsement proved that the Central Committee made a great choice. I can just as easily say the DeMaio endorsement was a net benefit to Bilbray. He would have lost by even more without the local leadership. And I can make a far more convincing case. After all…Fletcher couldn’t even make it through the primary despite his faux showmanship.
You don’t have any evidence that any race was affected by the GOPs endorsement of DeMaio and are just on the usual Tony Krvaric slam fest.
“Unfortunately, a by-product of the early DeMaio endorsement was to erode the Republican voting coalition in Bilbray’s district”
Sure. DeMaio hurt Bilbray badly…in Ocean Beach:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/nov/08/map-shows-north-south-split-mayor/
…and Bilbray just OWNED Ocean Beach!
Straw Man Fallacy D Morton. Try again
I would think powers that be would be taking surveys to find out exactly why Peters beat Bilbray. Why did people vote for Peters and against Bilbray? After all Dems will be working hard to hold their winning coalition and add as much as they can to it. They know what worked last time. Do Reps. know what lost?
Bob Filner may annoy his opponents but his base loves him. The old Democratic Socialist pol is acting like a “Strong Mayor” not like the limp wristed(oops, not pc) empty suit Republican Jerry Sanders. Filner told his supporters that he was with them and would fight for them. They believe him.
The Mayor kept his people focused and they won. gopmomofthree is correct, until the right figures out that the left consistently gives its’ people something to believe in and vigorously fight for the left will continue to laugh under their breath and whisper,” Ha, Republicans won’t fight.” And no Mr. Schwartz, the voters are not shouting out,” Give me sodomy or give me death!”
“the usual Tony Krvaric slam fest”
These would become difficult if the Party started winning stuff. Particularly in the City.
“Straw Man Fallacy”
The current model is and has failed. See your election results map. I’m suggesting the introduction of the most simple coalition-building principle: minimize the number of your own party voters that you piss off in a given election cycle. Other ideas and theories are constructive. Blind followership of the SDGOP leadership on the same continued path that tanked the state party, while touting that everything is great, is not helpful.
Let’s get all the registered Republicans together, who supported Fletcher, and ask this: “How many of you refused to participate in an election to: deny Barack Obama a second term, defeat Prop 30, support Prop 32, and send Bilbray to Congress, because the local county party endorsed Fletcher in an election, 6 months before that election?”
Hands will be raised but you and I could take those people to dinner and sit at the same table with them.
You scored a straw man fallacy and the fallacy of composition so far. I can’t vwait to see what’s next.
You jest, condescendingly, but I guarantee you that a form of those questions that are not meant to bias the results will be a part of the research polling for anyone considering a run against Peters.
Or have you now sided with the theory that the local GOP is inconsequential in elections…because that would be ripe!
A non sequitur? Hooray for the logical fallacy trifecta!
Peters won because the Democrats, especially the students at UCSD, were more motivated to vote as they usually are in a Presidential election. If the Democrats can keep their voters motivated without President Obama at the top of the ticket, Peters will win again. If they can’t and the Republicans nominate a reasonable alternative, then Peters won’t win re-election. This is not rocket science.
If you’re going to play the commenting section police, Mr. Brady, then I will remind you that a non sequitur does not necessarily imply that the logic is false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic).
Love this discourse back and forth. Ok, let’s all get together now and get a dose of Bill Whittle when he talks about the qualities a Republican candidate should have if they want to win.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+whittle+winning+the+presidency&mid=6EFB6E94046A6825971C6EFB6E94046A6825971C&view=detail&FORM=VIRE2
But whatever we do – To win in 2014 the R candidate would need to be vetted and endorsed by iCaucus not the Republican party.
America can no longer afford Republican candidates who are selected by a party that still thinks Pres Bush Sr was a great president even though he pledged our sovereignty to the UN in 1992 when signing Agenda 21 into a soft law and kept talking about The New World Order. Give me a break.
“But whatever we do – To win in 2014 the R candidate would need to be vetted and endorsed by iCaucus not the Republican party. ”
Lee, I’ve learned something these past two years — those who intend to volunteer and donate money should do the vetting. I have nothing against iCaucus; I think its questionnaire is the best ideological vetting offered but iCaucus doesn’t raise anywhere near the money nor volunteers as the RPSDC does. Like it or not, money and volunteers are needed to win elections
I’d love to see more iCaucus supporters gain influence within RPSDC.
“Lee, I’ve learned something these past two years — those who intend to volunteer and donate money should do the vetting.”
In other words, you.
And some wonder why republican turnout and registration suffers in the state, and since 2006, this county. The Republican leadership needed to reverse the electoral backtracking that Republicans in SD County done since 2006 requires engaging and investing Republican voters in the process of selecting their Republican candidates, not involuntarily excluding potential Republican voters, and divesting pre-existing Republican voters by choosing their candidates for them.