Here's how the Fighting Dems did:

[PeaceProgProsp]

Democrats challenged Republicans in 232 seats and won 28 of them (12%). Fighting Dems (Democrats who were in the armed services) challenged Republicans in 47 seats and won 4 (8.5%).

In 33 seats in which there was no incumbent, Dems won 20 (61%), and switched 8 from Republican. Fighting Dems contested 2 of these open races and won 1 (50%) in a previously Democratic district (with a margin of victory that race was 1/3rd lower than the ’04 margin of victory). Collectively, these 33 seats saw a 14% increase in Democratic votes.

Webb was the only Fighting Dem who ran for Senate. All the fighting Dems were white men except for one. I’ve included biographical details for the winning fighting Dems.

It would be interesting to do an analysis of what was going on in these races. I feel, generally, that military experience is a great asset for a Democrat. However, it appears that, despite Iraq being an overwhelming part of the political landscape, Fighting Democrats might not have had an advantage over any other kind of Dem. It appears that whatever it is about Fighting Democrats that make them good candidates might not have been expressed in its most perfect form and Democrats should look at the races and try to draw some lessons.


Seats vs. Incumbent Republican:
1. MN-1: Tim Walz - Chal. – Won – 53% (taught in China for Harvard, established a small business called Educational Travel Adventures, Inc.)
2. PA-7: Joe Sestak– Chal.- Won 57% (Navy Vice Admiral Joe Sestak retired after 31 years of service against Republican incumbent Curt Weldon; has a Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard; raised $420,000 in the first sixty days; Curt Weldon said Sestak should have sent his daughter being treated for a malignant brain tumor to a hospital in Pennsylvania or Delaware.)
3. PA-8: Patrick Murphy– Chal.- Will Win -50% (Iraq War veteran, former West Point professor, criminal prosecutor son of Philadelphia police officer and career legal secretary)
4. PA-10: Chris Carney – Chal.- Won - 53% (Lieutenant Commander USN Reserve, Associate Professor at Penn State)
5. AZ-3: Herb Paine – Chal- Lost – 39%
6. CA-2: A.J. Sekhon – Chal.- Lost 33%
7. CA-3: Bill Durston – Chal. – Lost – 38%
8. CA-4: Charles Brown - Chal. – Lost – 46%
9. CA-46: Jim Brandt - Chal. – Lost – 37%
10. CA-52: John Rinaldi – Chal.- Lost - 31%
11. CO-5: Jay Fawcett – Chal.- Lost - 41%
12. CO-6: Bill Winter – Chal.- Lost - 40%
13. DE-AL: Dennis Spivack – Chal.- Lost - 39%
14. FL-1: Joe Roberts – Chal.- Lost - 31%
15. FL-6: Dave Bruderly – Chal.- Lost - 40%
16. FL-7: Jack Changon - Chal. – Lost – 37%
17. FL-15: Dr. Bob Bowman- Chal. – Lost – 44%
18. GA-1: Jim Nelson- Chal. – Lost – 32%
19. IL-6: Tammy Duckworth- Chal. – Lost – 49%
20. IL-14: John Laesch – Chal.- Lost - 40%
21. IL-16: Dick Auman – Chal.- Lost - 34%
22. IN-3: Tom Hayhurst - Chal. – Lost – 46%
23. KY-2: Mike Weaver- Chal. – Lost – 45%
24. KY-4: Ken Lucas- Chal. – Lost – 44%
25. KY-5: Kenneth Stepp- Chal. – Lost – 26%
26. MD-6: Andrew Duck- Chal. – Lost – 39%
27. MI-8: Jim Marcinkowski- Chal. – Lost – 43%
28. MO-2: George Weber– Chal.- Lost - 37%
29. MO-7: Jack Truman– Chal.- Lost - 30%
30. MO-9: Duane Burghard– Chal.- Lost - 36%
31. NC-3: Craig Weber– Chal.- Lost - 31%
32. NJ-3: Rich Sexton– Chal.- Lost - 41%
33. NY-23: Bob Johnson– Chal.- Lost - 37%
34. NY-26: Jack Davis– Chal.- Lost - 49%
35. NY-29: Eric Massa– Chal.- Lost - 49%
36. OH-7: William Conner– Chal.- Lost - 39%
37. OK-4: Hal Spake– Chal.- Lost - 35%
38. PA-19: Phil Avillo– Chal.- Lost - 34%
39. SC-3: Lee Ballenger– Chal.- Lost - 37%
40. SC-4: William Griffith– Chal.- Lost - 30%
41. TN-7: Bill Morrison - Chal.- Lost - 32%
42. TX-3: Dan Dodd - Chal.- Lost - 35%
43. TX-5: Charlie Thompson - Chal.- Lost 36%
44. TX-6: David Harris– Chal.- Lost - 37%
45. TX-10: Ted Ankrum– Chal.- Lost - 40%
46. TX-13: Roger Waun– Chal.- Lost - 23%
47. VA-5: Al Weed– Chal.- Lost - 40%

Open Seats:
OH-4: Richard Siferd – Open –Lost - 40%
IL-17: Phil Hare – Open – Won - 57% (served in armed forces and worked in factory and became president of his union)

Senate:
VA-Senate: Jim Webb – Open – Win? - 50% (U.S. Naval Academy, one of seventeen to chose a commission in the Marines; served in Vietnam; law degree from Georgetown, did six years of pro bono work for Marine convicted of a war crime in Vietnam until the conviction was overturned)

[NJ Democrats]

1. Craig Weber was a fighting Dem?

I didn't knwo that. But he ran a poor campaign here. Congrats to the fighting Dems who won though!

[wellstone dem]

2. Tim Walz MN ran a terrific race beating the (upsetting the)

incumbent GOPer

[wildflower]

3. Thanks for posting this...

I've been looking for this info on how they did. They were a regular feature on the Majority Report, one introduced each week by Markos of the Daily Kos.

I thought as a whole, they would do better. Now I wonder if, for example, Cegelis would have done better than Duckworth?

Very interesting results. Thank you.

wildflower

[tritsofme]

4. Not likely, IL-6 is a conservative district

And they proved it to themsevles last night.

Roskam was just a known quantity, he represented most of that district in the state senate for some time, and was able to pull through.

I imagine that Duckworth did considerably better than Cegelis would have been able to do.

[PeaceProgProsp]

5. It's interesting that non-"Fighting Dems" had a 50% better chance

of winning than Fighting Dems. Non-FDs won 13% of their challenges and FDs won 8.5% (all dems won 12% of challenges).

I do wonder if the reasons are unique for each district or if there are more general theories of why this was the case.

It wouldn't be such an interesting question if Iraq were not such a major issue this year.

[wyldwolf]

6. yes, but there were only 9 in competitive races...

They won 4 and lost 5.

[BootinUp]

8. hey wolf, ya beat by " " this much.

[wyldwolf]

9. ...and looking at those districts, it easy to see why the Fightin' Dems...

... were called upon to run.

[PeaceProgProsp]

11. How did non-fighting Dems do in competitive races?

And how about the Democrats who won in races that were not thought to be competitive.

What's your source for identifying competitive races?

[BootinUp]

7. A lot of those races not even competitve

I think you need to eliminate races from the analysis where no Democrat had a reasonable chance.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. What's lost in the stats is the nature of the districts ........

These people were running in mostly red districts that have been DEEP red. Some of them ran in dsitricts where the Dems never even mounted a challenge before.

There's much more to this story than the stats.

I applaud your citing this and endorse the notion that we need to examine the races and see why what happened happened.

I also look at Duckworth, Davis and Massa with 49%. Not bad for first timers, huh?

And John Laesch ...... he was running against the Speaker of the House, fer krissakes.

This is a whole new phenonenon and we need to see if there's any gold to be mined. I suspect there is.