Earlier in the cycle, Democrats had hoped to target three House Republican incumbents in New Jersey: NJ-07’s Mike Ferguson, NJ-03’s Jim Saxton, and NJ-02’s Frank LoBiondo. With the retirements of Ferguson and Saxton, Democrats have a solid shot of picking up both seats with the candidacies of Linda Stender and John Adler. For a while, it looked possible that state Senator Jeff Van Drew would round out the trio by challenging the entrenched LoBiondo in his D+4 district. Alas, that wasn’t meant to be:
State Sen. Jeff Van Drew won’t challenge incumbent Frank LoBiondo for a congressional seat in November, Van Drew said this afternoon.
Van Drew was elected to the Senate in November after serving three terms in the state Assembly. […]
“We are approaching the most complex and challenging budget in the state’s history and for that reason, I’m going to stay where I am for now, although I will clearly say I look forward to the day when I will run for the United States Congress,” Van Drew said in a telephone interview this afternoon.
Van Drew said it’s possible he could challenge LoBiondo in 2010.
This is the safer move for Van Drew — fresh from beating an incumbent GOP state Senator last November, another bid against an incumbent so soon after his last race might have rubbed some voters the wrong way. However, it does look promising that Van Drew will be willing to make a real race of this seat in 2010. I look forward to his candidacy.
Meanwhile, the promising campaign of Rabbi Dennis Shulman against NJ-05’s ultra-conservative Scott Garrett leaves me hopeful that we could see three pick-up opportunities in the Garden State, after all.
This is too bad. But as you say, this is probably the right move for Van Drew.
I understand why Van Drew thinks this year is premature for leaving his State Senate seat. But unless he’s expecting McBush to win, maybe he should hold off another few years more. The party in power usually loses seats in Congress in the first midterm election, and it’s gonna be harder to win then than in a change year election.
But he’s not the only one tied up at the dock while the tide is running — Kathleen Sibelius apparently thinks 2010 will be easier than 2008, and Ben Chandler likewise.
Here’s a wager: I’ll spot you a popular Governor over a young legislator, and a state trending purplish over a red one, and bet you that Andrew Rice has a better chance of winning in Oklahoma in 2008 than Sibelius has next door in Kansas in 2010. In other words, I believe that in politics, timing is (almost) everything.
Oh well. I love Dennis Shulman and think he has a great chance. Garrett is way to conservative for the district and Shulman is giving him a run for his money. This is one of the seats we should be targeting in the netroots.
This is a D+4 district. Doesn’t matter how entrenched he is, it’s worth making a go of it, especially since the Democratic nominee won’t have NJ sewn up against McCain. Our first choice is gone, but plenty of freshmen now weren’t first picks for the party in 2006.
This is a funny district. Everyone is registered as a Democrat but a lot of them are really more like Reagan Democrats — conservative, catholic, blue collar, and low voter turnout. This is district that has just been crying for an active, grassroots campaign by a good challenger. It also has a large and growing Hispanic population that has been hard hit economically.
Among other things, LoBiondo promised to abide by term limits and he has overstayed his promise.
But to give credit, LoBiondo is popular as he is really works his district – goes to EVERYTHING – veterans events that might have 15 people – and he shows up. He pretty much rubber stamps the ususal GOP line but on a few issues important to his district, he has voted against them.
In a good year like 2008, a good candidate could win.
ABowers – I lived in this district for 15 years.