‘Bulo’s Top 10 Republican Targets in 2010-#8

Filed in National by on April 16, 2009

8. Sixth Representative District-Thomas Kovach

‘Bulo doesn’t rate this race higher b/c, since defeating Mike Migliore in the special election to replace Diana McWilliams, Kovach has been more of a Dave Ennis-moderate than Wayne Smith- whacko or Greg Lavelle-blowhard. He is voting his Bellefonte/Claymont area district so far. He’s also signed onto some D-sponsored feel-good legislation. He has stayed away from the ideologues’ agenda. He has a solid, if narrow, base of support in his district through the Scouts, Immaculate Heart of Mary, and community service. The District also has experience voting for moderate Republicans, former Rep. Dave Ennis and former State Senator Dallas Winslow among them.

However, he is certainly beatable. The D’s have a pretty active committee in the 6th, and some good potential candidates. They will (or, at least, should) no longer be under the stigma caused by the Special Election where constituents thought that some kind of deal had been cut before the General Election. The District has a strong Democratic registration edge which has gotten significantly stronger in the past 8 years or so, and generally votes that way. Here are the District’s registration numbers and percentages as of April 1, 2009:

D             R               I     Total

7579    4836     4101     16,516

% 45.9   29.3     24.8

While those numbers would appear to to make this a slam-dunk for the D’s, those numbers are not that much different than what they were for the Special Election in December.

And one mustn’t underestimate Kovach’s organization. He won the Special Election on merit, and the D’s will not merely be able to win a ‘statistical’ victory based on registration figures. They need a good candidate and a solidly-executed campaign plan. Kovach also won primarily b/c D’s did not feel motivated to vote, something that must be rectified in 2010.

El Somnambulo believes that, in order to win, the Party should ignore the conventional wisdom that primaries are inherently a bad thing, and instead encourage interested D’s to run in a primary. There were a whole bunch of candidates who spoke to the committee on behalf of their candidacy for the Special Election, several outstanding ones. But, the decision to choose Mike Migliore was pretty much wired, as Rep. McWilliams supported him, and the committee was full of her followers. Keep in mind that the Party, and in this case the District Committee, selects the nominee for a Special Election, and there cannot be a primary. However, the process did leave some would-be candidates feeling disenfranchised, and the campaign had to generate its own momentum.

By encouraging an open primary, several qualified candidates can appeal directly to the Democratic voters. This means (‘bulo donning his Captain Obvious attire) that someone will actually have won the primary election before facing all the voters in November. He/she will have developed momentum by already building an effective and battle-tested campaign organization, and they will have the added name recognition from having engaged the voters earlier.

The oft-stated fear that primaries divide ignores two basic points: (a) The lack of a primary, and/or the perceived unfairness of the selection process for the Special had the exact same effect; and (b) Jack Markell, sure didn’t hurt him none.

The Party cannot afford even the appearance of trying to dictate the results of this one. To do so would be to repeat the mistake that most likely cost the D’s this seat last December.

Invite everyone to participate, and may the best candidate win.

Tags:

About the Author ()

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Thursday’s Open Thread | April 16, 2009
  1. jason330 says:

    Great points. A primary will clear the air and let everyone know who really has the chops to take on an incumbent.

    However, the primary dates are too close to the Gen. and so primaries are basically an incumbent protection racket.

  2. Unstable Isotope says:

    I agree Jason. I think primaries are a great thing to help the candidates get name recognition, especially if it is exciting (think Obama v. Clinton). I hope all those well-qualified candidates take a 2nd look at this race.

  3. anonyprick says:

    Kovach has something good going for him. The Sussex County committee threw him under a few busses at their last meeting. He was an invited guest, too. His support of HB5 was one of the many topics for the reaction. Their nose-holding review of his Republicanism can only be a good thing for New Castle County Republicans and crossover support up north. Aligning Kovach with Dave Ennis’ success there may have more potential to it than you mention.

  4. Another Mike says:

    I freely admit I knew virtually nothing about either candidate during the special election, but I voted for Migliore. However, I think the shenanigans apparently pulled by Diana McWilliams, Migliore and the state party/district committee really turned people off.

    In his brief time in Dover, Tom Kovach has been very accessible and pleasant to deal with. Like Terry Spence, he is someone who could gain favor in a heavily D district by staying that way.

    That said, I think a robust challenge is good for the candidate and for the people. I’ve been encouraged by family and friends to consider running for public office, but for personal and professional reasons that is not possible at this time. I will keep my eyes and ears open for possible candidates for next year.

  5. RSmitty says:

    @anonyprick:

    Like I needed more motivation in my rant against litmus-testing party members. Yay to Tom, boo to the nanny set.

  6. John Manifold says:

    I’m not in the district, so I don’t know of any “shenanigans” in Migliore’s nomination. State law says the party committee nominates the candidate. The committee chose a likable, energetic young guy who walked the district thoroughly and raised $44K on short notice. As John Tobin pointed out, the result was entirely traceable to turnout. Their districts turned out; ours didn’t.

    http://politicsbythenumbersmostlydelaware.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html

    As liberalgeek p0inted out, a lot of good people had their eyes off the ball. The sense of urgency that yielded a huge ground game for Bruce Ennis 13 months earlier was missing, 6½ weeks after our national sweep, on the final Saturday before Xmas.

    http://delawareliberal.net//2008/12/19/vote-saturday/

    Bulo is right to call for a wide search before the ’10 nominee is chosen, but if the locals settle on a candidate – Migliore or another contender – before September, so much the better. With Carney and perhaps Biden on the ballot, turnout should be less of an issue than would otherwise be expected in an off-year.

  7. John Manifold is correct. It was a weird coincidence, but a job offer in New Mexico for Diana McWilliams really DID come out of the blue in October, long after another name could be substituted on the November ballot. However, it simply did not seem that way to the local electorate, especially after a spate of other special elections. It smelled funny, even though it wasn’t.

    ‘Bulo’s point was that a sense of disenfranchisement on the part of those passed over made it tough to generate the necessary energy for the special.