Friday, August 01, 2008

Is Beth Low's Seat in Danger?

This ought to be a great year for the Democrats in Missouri. Hopes are high that we will win back a large number of legislative seats and executive offices. Add to that the prospect of Obama's two dozen offices in Missouri fueling further gains, and this state could have a very, very blue year.

It would be a shame for one of Kansas City's bluest districts to change colors in such a year.

While it's unlikely, it's possible. One prominent local Democrat told me only two weeks ago that Beth is unopposed this cycle. And she's been running as if she's unopposed. She has no campaign website, and she's spent 50% more on donations to campaigns of other candidates this cycle than she has on her own campaign, leaving her with less than $5,000 in cash on hand. On top of that, the candidates she's supporting are not even being embraced by local democrats - not a whole lot of people are pleased to make donations to Beth Low only to find out that their money is winding up in the coffers of Democrats they don't support and who are going to lose in their primaries.

Meanwhile, Lance Weber is mounting a stealthy campaign as a Libertarian, meeting people in coffee shops and neighborhood meetings. He's a young guy with an engaging manner and a good command of citizen interests. He has spent almost no money at this stage, but, if he cobbles together a bunch of attorney contributions from lawyers who appreciate having legislators who understand the court system, and if he attracts the attention of the national libertarians who would love nothing more than to pick up a shiny blue jewel of a seat like Missouri's 39th, he could leave a lot of local politicos with one horrible shock on an otherwise glorious election day in November.

I hope it doesn't happen. Beth Low's a fine legislator and deserves another term. And, in fact, I think it is about 90% sure she will get that opportunity. But one big blitz at the end by a charismatic, hard-working, written-off candidate could change the picture.

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beth Low is okay, nice but doesn't bowl me over.

To bad we can't get rid of Justus. I don't think any vote of mine has ever been wasted like that one. Ugh.

8/01/2008 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give it a rest Dan. You're just mad that Low has endorsed against your precious kander. that seat will never be anything other than a dem's and you know it.

8/01/2008 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the anti social services, anti healthcare, uzi in every crib so we can all learn about guns and the importance of them candidate could possibly win in what might be the most progressive district in the state? Slow news day I guess.

8/01/2008 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't say whether Dan is "mad" or not, but I think this post is right on. Beth Low ought to be cautious about spending donated money on losing campaigns, especially when she only has under $5000 cash on hand. Sure, she can raise a lot in a hurry if she needs to, but if this Weber guy is smart, he could blitz her at the end and leave her up a creek.

She's running like she doesn't think she can lose, and that is about the only way she COULD lose.

Besides, I don't know whether she's actually given Coffman any money - I didn't see Coffman listed in her donations, on my cursory check. But she has thrown a lot of money down the Donnelly tube - a LOT of money. And that's just stupid.

8/01/2008 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Conrad Burns and Tom Daschle said...

Anonymous 9:49 is right. The 39th District is Democratic property, and will NEVER go anything but blue, no matter how lazy Beth Low's campaign is. Don't worry - Lance Weber has no chance of winning whatsoever. None.

"The Empire doesn't consider a small one-man fighter to be any threat."

8/01/2008 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many Libertarians are in the House currently? When was the last one elected?

8/01/2008 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a story worth talking about. Jeff Roe backs someone in the 44th.

8/01/2008 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical Coffman bullshit, taking Jeff Roe at face value. This woman is entirely too stupid to be sent to Jefferson City. Gosh, if Jeff Roe predicts that Jsaon is going to win, that must mean that he really wants Jason to win, right?

Jeff Roe has a hard on hoping that Amy wins, so he can continue to have fun with her.

8/01/2008 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, Today you have proven two things.
1. You are stupid.
There is no way Low loses to a Libertarian. You mentioning it shows you are an idiot.
2. You are a tool for Kander.
You think this helps Kander because Low supports Coffman. It doesn't. It makes all Low supporters work harder for Coffman this weekend. Also, Kander doesn't need your help. You are a nobody. Coffman or Kander will win because of their own hard work, not sideline cheerleading fools. Stop helping Kander if you don't want Coffman.

8/01/2008 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Anonymous 10:59 is right. The fact that Jason is managing to dominate this race, overcoming the incredible disadvantage that your support gives him, is wildly impressive. If it weren't for you, he would probably be the unanimous choice of the district. But, even with your support, it appears he's managing to win. Quite impressive!

Oh, and that was a great point where you pointed out that Low wins. Almost as great a point as when Dan made it, stating that a Weber victory is unlikely, and that it is 90% sure that she'll win. But it somehow seems more believable when it comes from an anonymous person calling people names, doesn't it?

8/01/2008 11:48 AM  
Anonymous Lance Weber said...

Most people take it for granted that the people of the 39th District will always elect a Democrat to represent them. This may or may not be true but I think that a lack of competition breeds complacency and that appears to be the case in my District. When I was deciding whether or not to run, everyone told me that I had no chance of winning unless I ran as a Democrat and all of them encouraged me to file as such. They told me that my political positions didn't really matter as long as I identified myself with the Democrat brand. The fact that it would be disingenuous to run as a Libertarian in Democrat's clothing only seemed to bother me but no one else. My own family even suggested that I hide my libertarianism just so that I could win. I don't share the same attitude of contempt for "the masses" that many cynical people have developed by observing years of campaign trickery and deceit. In the end, I decided that I couldn't run as a Democrat because like most of my neighbors I drive a foreign car. Besides, have you seen how nasty local Democratic primaries are? It is not news to me that it would be an historical event for a Libertarian to win a House seat but I am going to give it my best shot.

Most of the people that I talk to in the District don't even know the name of our current Representative. When I tell them sometimes they say that they have heard of her.

When it comes right down to it, I think I can do a better job representing this constituency in Jefferson City. Maybe people are just being polite but most agree with me even though they wouldn't say so in public. I'm glad that we aren't required to vote publicly or I certainly wouldn't stand a chance.

An anonymouse above tried to pigeon-hole me as "anti social services, anti healthcare, uzi in every crib" which is making me chuckle as I type. If I am to be described in terms of what I oppose, then that term should probably be anti-interventionist or anti-elitist. I prefer to describe myself as pro-transparency and pro-accountability. Government isn't supposed to be about the will of the politicians or their party leaders, it is supposed to be about the will of the people. Good government starts at home and I want to try to engage the people of the 39th District so that we can become the most well informed and well represented district in the State.

My website is in transition as I upgrade and if any hackers out there want to give me a hand I am always seeking more help. Cheers!

8/01/2008 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan when I read your post that was a bit like campaign advise to a friend that you can't endorse, I said who is this guy?

But this is the guy running?

I'll take my chances with Beth

8/01/2008 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on Dan. So a member of the Democratic Party and House member who has given a bunch of money to the House Campaign Committee and candidates in seats held by Republicans is going to get your ridicule because she is helping Dems and has 5k currently for a November race against a guy who cannot fill out his ethics forms correctly and has less than $778 dollars in the bank? I do not understand a Democrat and member of the CCP putting a link to her Libertarian opponent on your blog. I realize you don’t like the fact she is as far out for Coffman as you are for Kander. The difference is the 44th is a Democratic Primary race with two candidates who have rabid supporters. This garbage is far different, you are a member of the CCP executive committee and you are going after a true progressive who has done nothing but lead the charge for social justice, kids, seniors and those who need our help in her time down in Jefferson City and pumping up her opponent. Honestly?

8/01/2008 4:02 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Oh, come on people! You cannot be serious.

First off, Anonymous 10:49 - I agree with your analysis, but I can never forgive you for that mental image.

Anonymous 4:02 - what post did you read? Where did I "ridicule" Beth Low? As for posting his link, I would have posted Beth's if she had one, which kind of proves my point, doesn't it? Where is the garbage you refer to - where I state she is "a fine legislator . . . [who] deserves another term"? Is that same sentence where I was "going after" her? I mean, what kind of stupid is your comment?

In case anyone somehow missed what I wrote in my post, I support Beth Low - I want Beth Low to win. That's pretty clear to anyone who reads what I wrote.

And I hope she reads the post a lot more clearly than some of the commenters here. It would be a shame if she didn't take the race seriously.

8/01/2008 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan I like you and enjoy your blog but I agree with Anon 4:02 100%.

Yes, she could be like the others and do a lot more for her own campaign. But seriously given how safe she is why not help others? Plus given how stingy all of the other Kansas City House members are with their money, I give her a lot of credit.

Those other reps are all talk no action for other candidates which is why ST. Louis gets the campaign cash dollars 9 out 10 times.

8/01/2008 6:04 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 6:04 -

That is a fair point - I just hate to see her running such a lackadaisical campaign, and I hope she steps it up a notch. It would REALLY suck to lose a seat that ought to be such a cinch, and don't think for a minute that Weber couldn't get a whole lot of Republican and Libertarian dollars if it looked like Beth had taken her seat for granted. He uses the term "complacency", and I fear he's right.

And 4:02's allegations that I ridiculed Beth Low or that I went after her or that my post is garbage - well, that just pisses me off.

8/01/2008 6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And 4:02's allegations that I ridiculed Beth Low or that I went after her or that my post is garbage - well, that just pisses me off.

Sounds like somebody needs a toe massage.

8/01/2008 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beth is one of the best door to door campaigners we have in the area. Don't you worry, she will be back out there talking to voters and win a third time by more than a 60% margin at worst. She may not have a web site, nor did she have one her first two races apparently, but she will be win just like those two prior races. Get through the primary and you will see all this banter is for not. Glad you are on her side Dan.

8/01/2008 7:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and the real problem is the headline. It is pretty much way off and smacks backhanded games if you were really concerned,which is why I think you got the response you did. Good to know you are on her side either way.

8/01/2008 7:12 PM  
Blogger CCP Admin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8/01/2008 7:15 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 7:09 - Thanks for the reassurances.

8/01/2008 7:24 PM  
Anonymous Lance Weber said...

Anon at 4:02 - "a guy who cannot fill out his ethics forms correctly"

Do tell.

8/01/2008 9:04 PM  
Anonymous T. Jefferson said...

Lance, you could be the greatest thing since sliced bread and I doubt that you would get support on any of the liberal blogs.

The most important thing is to be a Democrat, even an incompetent one. (No. I'm not claiming that Beth is incompetent)

It's no longer about being the best representative for the district or the state. It's all about being the best Democrat.

I find that to be rather sad. We're locked in a two party system, that alienates anyone who is not 100% one way or the other.

If you're a pro-life Democrat, or a pro-union Republican, neither party wants you. Independent thought is a thing of the past.

I wish you luck. Maybe after the two parties bring us to our knees people will start to look for "the best representative".

8/01/2008 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/01/2008 11:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan -

Are you going to post the same about Jason Holsman? He has given more to other candidates than Low, and he is facing a challenger as well. So, is Holsman in "danger" as well?

8/02/2008 12:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lance - Look at your 8 day report and read the first section. Your carry over receipts should reflect the last report total receipts before you add the numbers since the previous report. In the instance of the 8 day, you would add the $1.95 you raised in July to the total from your previous quarter.

Also, as for Holsman, you are way off. Low has given 19k plus in contributions which is about 10k more than Holsman who is just over 9k. That said, they are both helping Dems and should be applauded.

8/02/2008 1:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for letting me know Lance is running!

I will try and contact him today and donate and see how else I can help!

Traffic Court Lawyer

8/02/2008 7:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few days ago, Dan issued a prescient blog criticizing the Star's "sloppy" endorsements. Well, today, the Star has reversed itself on two endorsements -- one of which is the Sheriff's race. The Star now endorses Bullard for Sheriff, after Sharp confessed to sending and receiving huge amounts of porn via email while on police reserve duty.

Dan is now posting a blog about Low and the possibility that she could lose her seat. Dan has a unique ability to see things before they occur. Low would be wise to heed Dan's warning.

8/02/2008 11:13 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Don't feed the ego! ;-)

8/02/2008 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Lance Weber said...

Thanks for pointing that out Anonymous at 1:38 - good thing I'm not trying to deceive anyone or else I might have something to worry about there...

On the topic of compliance with campaign finance laws, it was surprising to me to see how little is actually required of candidates. If I had bad intentions and was seeking office to try to divert public money to my friends, relatives or business associates I would not have had a difficult time hiding that fact. But after all, we as a people let the fox guard the henhouse here, didn't we?

8/02/2008 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lance -

I realize you are a newly minted candidate, and likely new to politics, but here is some advice: Stop saying too much. You may have the greatest ideas in the world, but no one will know because you will undoubtedly shoot yourself in the foot. You have a tendency to explain yourself beyond what is necessary. Tone it down.

8/02/2008 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A quick look at the MEC website and you will see the three Kansas City Reps, Low, Talboy and Holsman have raised a combined 142k and given a combined 53.8k to other dems around the state. That is almost 40% of money raised and all three had candidates filed against them when filing closed. Both Low and Holsman have general elections in November. It's not irresponsible to work for a Dem majority, it doesn't happen any other way.

Who ever posted an insinuation that KC reps are self interested just got a lesson in reality.

Dan do you still think it was a fair point?

Why make this post at all? Do you not have enough courage to walk up to Beth and privately express your concern? That is what people in a party do. They stick togther and help each other raise money and then share in the mutual sucess a common vision and agenda yeild.

Either one or two things are true.

1. Lance Webber met with you in a coffee shop and convinced you much in the same way Kander did that he is a fellow attorney who understands the world the way you do. Then your sympathies for the young upstart triggers a desire to help.

2. This is retaliation against Beth for being a passionate supporter of Amy's.

Which ever one it is, consider the impact of your action. The 250 (at most) regular readers you have and the 25 revolving bloggers read your post and to them you are casting Beth's work ethic, intentions and abilities in a negative frame. What do you intend to gain? If you want Beth to work harder, give her a call, that's possessing respect for an elected official. If you are against Beth and wish to aid in her defeat then drop the pretense and get to work.

So I'll ask you again, what is the point of this post?

8/02/2008 4:46 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 4:46 -

Seriously, you need to relax and accept that other people are good democrats even when we don't behave exactly as you think we MUST.

Yes, I still think that was a fair point that it's good for Low to support other dems. Though, frankly, it baffles me why she's taken so much money given to her and supported Donnelly, but that's her choice.

Now, you offer a paranoid delusion of the ONLY two possibilities that could lead me to write a post that warns Beth Low that she should be alert in her race. How did you arrive at those two possibilities? Is your world so limited that only two possibilities offer themselves up to you?

As is quite clear from my post, I think Beth Low is going to win (90% sure, as I stated) and I want her to win. I'd rather have her win than have her spend her money on Democrats running against Democrats, wouldn't you?

Now, for you, an anonymous coward, to come here and try to lecture me on "how democrats do things", is beyond the scope of belief. I'll tell you how democrats do things - they do them by making sure they win their seats and supporting the ticket in the general elections.

Now, for you to complain that this is an Amy thing is just stupid. I haven't even checked to see whether she's given money to Amy, but she certainly HAS NOT been a "passionate" supporter of Amy. She has been pretty quiet as far as I've seen. I've seen Beth's name listed a couple places, but I sense that's been much more out of a sense of obligation than genuine support. It seems awfully half-hearted to me, anyhow.

I'll tell you exactly why I wrote the post I wrote. I wrote it because I wonder whether Beth Low's seat is in danger (that kind of explains the title, too, doesn't it?). I get from the arrogant tone of your questioning and your know-it-all claims that you can read my mind and know how democrats behave that you consider yourself an insider.

Probably an insider who thought that Amy was going to win her race because she has the support of people like you.

Probably an insider who thinks that Donnelly could win a statewide general election.

Probably an insider who thought Jason Klumb had things wrapped up.

Probably an insider who could not believe that Mark Funkhouser stood a chance.

Perhaps I'm wrong about one or two of those, but your arrogance and sense of entitlement to come here and tell me how to write my blog makes me pretty confident that you are one of those people who knows just about everything, except when reality slaps you upside the head.

And I don't want that slap upside the head to happen to Beth Low. That's the point of this post.

Now, as for your estimate of my numbers, you are demonstrating exactly how out-of-touch you are. 250?!? By exactly what time in the morning do you think I hit 250 on a typical day?

I don't often do this, but I'll make you an offer. You tell me who you are, and I'll share my numbers with you. I'll open my records and show them to you. Why? Because I think you are so colossally blind and stupid that you need to be awakened.

If, in fact, you are an insider in the Democratic party, then I really want you to get a better idea of what is really happening, so that you no longer think that YOU can tell people like ME what to write and how to write it.

Ignoranuses like you are exactly why 2004 turned out to be another losing year. Ingoranuses like you are the reason Bush won in 2000. People like me are the reason why we won in 2006. You'd better wise up or get the heck out of the way.

8/02/2008 6:27 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 11:13 - See what happens when you feed the ego?

8/02/2008 6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan -

Any comments on Dale Youngs' post on the CCP blog? He wrote that Jeff Roe is backing Kander?

I have a very hard time understanding how Dale could write such a blatantly false post. He is Coffman's most ardent supporter and is obviously worried about her chances. But still? His words are just false.

Your thoughts?

8/02/2008 7:17 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Dale must have badly misread the words in the post he discussed. It's been a tough race for his side, and I can't blame him for trying a little harder than normal to create a controversy.

Dale's a heck of a good guy, backing a good candidate.

8/02/2008 7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as well.

Looking forward to this thing being over.

8/02/2008 7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anybody think Dan would have made this post if Beth had contributed and endorsed Kander...

Of course not.

8/02/2008 10:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 10:14 -

Who cares? Your candidate lost - now get over it. Move on.

8/02/2008 10:17 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 10:14 - Oh, come on now, she practically has endorsed Jason through her extremely subtle support of Amy. And, yes, I definitely would have written this post regardless of her position on Amy. I want her to win. Don't you?

Anonymous 10:17 - No, she has not lost. This race could be tight - please get out and vote, and make sure to encourage others.

8/02/2008 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2561 to 18
Yeah, I'd say Beth is in some real danger, thanks for looking out for her interests.

8/06/2008 12:36 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

I saw that this morning - while primary totals don't matter a whole lot, especially when you're comparing a fringe party to a real party, I'll agree that it's difficult to foresee Beth getting shocked in November.

8/06/2008 5:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anybody here think that Beth Low will win the general by that same margin?

8/06/2008 6:43 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Of course not - but that's not the point. The fact that only 18 people chose to vote Libertarian in the entire district means, to me, that Lance Weber's message hasn't set a lot of people on fire for change. If he had brought in even just a few hundred voters, he still would have been crushed by Low's totals, but it would have shown that he had the attention of some motivated people, and been a troubling sign. With an infusion of Republican and Libertarian money, plus an inattentive campaign by Low, then it COULD have been a problem.

But I just don't see building from a base of 18 to knock off Beth Low.

In short, I expressed my concern that Beth Low's seat could be in danger. I was wrong.

8/06/2008 7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DAN! YOU ARE WRONG! AGAIN! YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT HARRIS! YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT BULLARD! And even though Kander won, YOU WERE WRONG about why he won. Please change your website to

8/06/2008 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He was right about Nixon (not a tough one, but better than you).

He was right about Page.

He was right about Zweifel.

He was right about Carnahan (not a tough one, but better than you).

He was right about Cleaver (not a tough one, but better than you).

He was right Kander - HUGELY SO!!!

He was right about John Burnett.

He was right about Jim Kanatzar.

He was right about Steve Bough.

He was right about Mary Weir.

10-2 - Pretty darned good, by Kansas City standards, I'd say.

Dan, I appreciate the time you spend sharing your insight and knowledge - you consisently out-perform Steve Kraske and the professional pundits, and you also write about beer, too.

8/06/2008 4:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree with Lance on political views, but he is honest and hardworking.

8/30/2008 6:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home