Posted on 08/31/2019 1:34:28 AM PDT by cotton1706
Longtime Illinois Rep. John Shimkus said Friday he would not seek reelection — becoming at least the 12th House Republican to call it quits after their current term is up.
Shimkus, who was elected in 1996 to represent the 15th District in the southeastern part of the state, made the announcement in an interview Friday with KMOX radio.
His announcement came after Georgia GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson said Wednesday he would retire at the end of the year as he continues battling Parkinson’s disease, setting up two elections for key Senate seats in the Peach State in 2020.
Shimkus was just the latest incumbent Republican lawmaker to not seek re-election.
Others House members leaving include Reps. Rob Woodall of Georgia, Susan Brooks of Indiana, Paul Mitchell of Michigan, Pete Olson of Texas and Martha Roby of Alabama.
Also, Reps. Rob Bishop of Utah; Mike Conaway, Will Hurd and Kenny Marchant of Texas; and Sean Duffy of Wisconsin.
Democratic retirements include Reps. Jose Serrano of New York and Dave Loebsack of Iowa.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“Politician” should not be a career. It’s not even a real job.
Will any of these seats be difficult for Republicans to hold? Are there any seats it is possible for Republicans to pick up from Democrats who are quitting?
I was kinda hoping the GOP would narrow the dems’ House advantage next year. With each departure, this is going to be more difficult.
Conservatives should find DINOs to run in ‘Rat primaries.
Why fight half a battle?
Hopefully an alpha Male is next for Congress.
These clowns are stepping down in hopes that a Dem takes the seat. Hopefully it doesn’t work out that way.
“These clowns are stepping down in hopes that a Dem takes the seat.”
The Trump Hate is strong in these people. They’ll go to any length to destroy the Republican party in order to undercut Trump.
That’s a total of 14 GOP House seats and 1 senate seat.
I don’t think more then 3 democrats have quit....yet, compared to our 14 quitters.
Amen. Good riddance.
Hardly. This is about as red as a district gets. It's had only one Democrat serve a single term since the 1930's.
Not this one. It's the safest of safe seats.
Are there any seats it is possible for Republicans to pick up from Democrats who are quitting?
Unlikely. But not impossible.
Did the 14 vote for the wall or against it?
Sure, but that has a very low chance of success.
Narrow it? We need to take back the majority, and if Donald Trump wins, we will. This is not 1988 or 1956, I find it odd most people here think Trump will win but seem to think the House is hopeless. If he’s winning, even in a near tie, he’s carrying most districts and anything other more than a narrow rat majority is very unlikely. If he’s winning by more than last time, forget it, it will be a GOP House, maybe narrowly but still.
We lost THIRTY incumbents in 2018 BTW, we did NOT lose due to open seats.
A retirement in safe seat like this means nothing and people peeing themselves over it makes less than zero sense. In this case it’s a GOOD thing, Shimkus is subpar for such a Republican (71% Trump) seat and has long overstayed his welcome. The rat nominee for this seat can’t get 40% let alone win it, and no the NRCC won’t need to spend resources there either, it’s a gimme district, courtesy of rat gerrymandering (they had to put the Republicans somewhere).
In other news, after abandoning his own seat like a bitch last year, Darrell Issa is thinking of running against Duncan Hunter in a safe (for CA) seat. Bastard.
Hunter should go less we risk losing it, but Issa? Hell no.
Varied. Some did, some didn’t.
The Republican Party as it was is no more.
Nothing has been done, that I can see, to replace it.
Impy, I don’t think it’s as simple as you make it seem. We lost plenty of seats in safe districts-—or, at least, districts once deemed safe. I think four or five of the CA losses were in previously safe districts but I could be wrong.
I’m less concerned with the “safe/not safe” aspect of open seats than the sheer randomness.
1) It ALWAYS depends on the candidate (see McSally’s senate run and Heller, vs, say DeSantis). The more open seats, the more likelihood of a Roy Moore or a Sheriff Joe who will lose regardless of the #s. I keep repeating this, but Moore left home 685,000 Rs on election day. That was an “un-losable” seat, yet he lost it.
So the more open seats you have, the more likelihood we’ll get at least a few dipsticks who couldn’t win a high school talent contest.
2) Money. The more open seats, the more money has to be spread around by the RNCC. In 2018, the RNCC was pathetic in how they allotted funds, putting, as I heard it, $10m into just two seats, Comstock in VA and Coffman in CO.
3) Organizations. Incumbents usually have proven organizations. That’s why they are incumbents. I can’t give you a house example, but John James lost MI for two reasons: lack of name recognition and a terrible campaign team.
I heard, for example, that a powerful radio host had arranged to have Ted Nugent in studio to endorse James, but his campaign manager was too incompetent to get James to the studio. This is just one of a number of complaints I hears about his team. McSally, bad as she personally was, had a terrible campaign team. (Fortunately, she has switched it out, but I’m not sure the replacements are that good, either).
4) Luck. At the House level, there is always the stroke of luck involving local issues-—a freeway going in, a local tax, some previous local history-—that can sway a race. Yes, this can go our way too, but in 2018, the DemoKKKrats did what I thought was impossible: they ran the table on every single GOP contested seat. 20 seats by under 2% each.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.