The Virginian-Pilot political blog posted a blurb yesterday about a potential challenger for Congressman Bobby Scott (D-3rd). Seems the original tip came from United Conservatives that Coby Dillard, who worked on the McDonnell for Governor campaign as Deputy Coalition Director (Veterans/African Americans), is considering a run. Dillard runs a blog called The Dillard Doctrine and, according to a statement posted there, is deferring “any questions or further comments “on his next move “until a later time.”
A word of warning to young Mr. Dillard: take a look at the election results from 2004, the last time Scott had a challenger. That year, Scott beat the Republican Party’s favorite black conservative Winsome Sears by a whopping 69% to 31%. Now, take a look at the race in the 4th CD. Randy Forbes’ underfunded, unsupported (by most of the Democratic Party machinery) challenger got 35% of the vote. Recall if you will that 2004 was a presidential election year. Bush won Virginia that year – but not the 3rd CD. In fact, Bush only got 33% of the vote in the 3rd. He won the 4th (and I use the 4th as a comparison because there is a significant number of black voters in the 4th) by roughly 14%.
Then there’s Tuesday’s results. Bob McDonnell may have won Virginia, but he didn’t win the 3rd. McDonnell only garnered 35% of the vote in this district.
So while I would never tell someone not to run, I would encourage young Mr. Dillard to look hard at the reality of the district – once Tuesday’s euphoria wears off – and recognize what an uphill battle it will be.
I’ve no doubts that Rep. Scott is up for the challenge 😉
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Why would Dillard proclaim himself an advocate for the military? They have the biggest advocate in the world, the Military Industrial Complex. jeeez pete. That’s like saying I’m an advocate for millionaires. Oh wait, that is a Republican Party platform plank already. Okay, nevermind.
Every incumbent politician deserves a challenger, no matter how popular he or she might be.
Contested elections are the essence of democracy. The fact that so many seats are won by candidates who have no opponent is shameful.
The more candidates there are, the more robust and healthy is our political system.
Rick: In theory I agree. But it’s a stupid waste of resources for any political party to support a challenger in a district as gerrymandered as the 3rd — or the 1st CD or the 96th HOD district on the other side.
The winner of the every election for the 3rd CD was decided in 2001 during redistricting (actually it has been impossible for a Republican to win the 3rd CD since at least 1991).
Yeah, kinda like what the Republicans did down there in Texas. Not like this kind of voter manipulation is a Democrat Party exclusive.
And actually, the redistricting is doing exactly what it was meant to do, have a representative that gives voice to a large group of people in this area that didn’t have representation before.
It’s meant to secure incumbents, nothing more.
For once, I agree with you, Mouse. That’s the net effect of redistricting – at least as long as it is done in a partisan manner.
You’re kidding. You’re saying securing the incombant is the reason for redistricting?? REALLY? As opposed to insuring a group of voters are given a voice, where as they didn’t have it before redistricting? Really?
Before redistricting took place do you think Bobby Scott would’ve been elected in the 3rd CD?
The redistricting took place because Virginia was ordered to do it by the justice department, to make a majority-minority district. How does that ensure the incumbent?
Um, no, Alma. That’s not what redistricting does.
But that’s what it did.
No, it didn’t.
I agree with Steve on this.
You’re in a very agreeable mood today, Vivian.
No kidding, Mouse! She’s awefully agreeable today. I thought the 3rd CD redistricting was a wonderful thing. Wow, how could I have been so wrong? I felt it gave the minority voters a voice they didn’t have before. I’m shocked Vivian felt the 3rd CD redistricting was not a good thing.
There is a difference between a good thing and the redistricting process. I’m shocked that you don’t understand how the process works.
Take away party affiliation on the ballot and ban any electioneering within 500 feet of a polling place and I think the playing field would be greatly evened. The DEM sample ballot is god in most of the precincts in Norfolk. I worked the polls and a heavily black precinct on election day and greater than 50% of the people walked up and asked who to be told to vote for.
You’re a liar, Max Shapiro. No one walked up to you and asked “who to be told to vote for.”
(Also, still waiting on the answer to my earlier question. 19?)
Are you serious? I worked Brambleton and Bolling Park all day election day. You are correct, no one came to me asking who to be told to vote for. They looked at me, saw I was white and immediately gave me nasty, disgusted looks. They went right to the DEM table and asked who to be told to vote for. You can think I’m lying, but I was there for 13 hours, I saw it first hand. People who told me personally they would vote for my candidate refused to look at me and instead went right for the sample ballot.
The answer is 20 and if you think it means I am ignorant think again. My personal library would put yours to shame.
Because of my posts HERE, MB is afraid to have me post on HIS blog! He asks about someone’s age, and he acts like a petulant teenager.
That is exactly what partisan redistricting does.
The voters’ voices are of no concern to the people who draw the lines. It is all about maintaining – or increasing – the strength of the party in charge. At the top of the list is protecting the incumbents.
Show me where redistricting has ever resulted in an increase in the voters’ voices.
Partisan redistricting allows the electeds to select the voters, instead of the voters to select their representatives. And partisan redistricting is all that VA has ever known. When the Democrats were in charge, they did it that way, just as the Republicans did (and will do next time).
Actually, you’re not quite right on this. Redistricting takes place every 10 years (unless you live in Texas, in which case it takes place whenever they feel like doing it). The Justice Department does not order redistricting; what they do is to approve the plans. In the case of the 3rd, they had to approve the way the district was drawn – and the last time around, in 2001, there was a big fight over how the 3rd was redrawn. (The 4th was also a big problem – they took the black vote out of the 4th and split it between the 3rd & the 7th.)
The creation of a majority-minority district was a direct result of the 1990 Census: the black population in VA had increased to the point that there should be such a district.
I still think the redistricting of the 3rd CD gave a representative to a group of people who really had no representation before. Maybe I’ll revisit that time and see if I feel differently, but I don’t think I will. Anytime a redistricting tilts toward a minority, to me that’s a good thing, no matter the party in power, or the party to be in power.
You’re missing the point, Alma. Ask the black voters who were moved out of the 3rd and split into the 4th & the 7th whether they think they have a voice. Prior to the last round of redistricting, the 4th was close enough that they almost elected a black representative. By taking those voters out, they made the 4th impregnable.
And yes, the redistricting protects the incumbent, in this case, Bobby Scott. By making the district inhospitable to Republicans, Scott is assured that he will not face a formidable challenger.
(BTW – I happen to think Bobby does a great job representing his constituents. But that’s not the point. The point is competition.)
One more thing: before the 1990 redistricting, Scott’s area of Newport News was in the 1st CD. The Dems were in charge then. They created the district so that he would be able to run. (Same with the drawing of the 11th CD for Leslie Byrne.)
And..while creating minority-majority district is a good thing, it’s a two-edged sword. As Vivian pointed out, but shoving every African-American voter they could into the 3rd, the GOP in 2001 made the 4th impossible for a Democrat of any color to win. So while African-Americans are assured of electing an African-American in the third, they have no influence on what happens in the 4th, 1st and 7th. Is that a good trade off?
Districts should be drawn by computer, taking into account nothing more that population density and contiguity. Race and ethnicity should not be factors.
“Just who we need in Congress, another shouter!”
Let’s get after these statists…. Go Coby!