Is it smart for a politician to target vulnerable elections and move there to run or do you have to be FROM the place(or at least live there for a period of time unaffiliated with politics) in question to run for office and win? The old adage all politics are local seems to have shifted as vulnerable sates in Congress and state legislatures or being run by the national political party's...is this good or bad? From Huffington Post:
Having grown up outside of Philadelphia, I just want to say I really hope Chris Matthews runs for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, and is humiliatingly obliterated in a Democratic primary (preferably by a good progressive like, for instance, former Rep. Joe Hoeffel).* The sense of entitlement that this blowhard personifies is truly stunning. He's spent his entire life as a principle-free political gossip in Washington - a human embodiment of all that is sick and wrong with Beltway culture. And yet, he really thinks he can just parachute into one of the largest states in the country, buy a mansion in Philadelphia and be a senator on sheer celebrity alone. I mean, maybe he can - maybe politics is now so devoid of meaning that this is just the way it is. But I really hope not….The difference between, say, a Chris Matthews moving to Philadelphia and running for the Senate and an Al Franken moving back to Minnesota and running for Senate, of course, is that Franken has clear convictions. Franken has never ever been about just getting Al Franken's mug on television - he was a total die-hard progressive, and at points in his career, that progressivism undoubtedly made his media career harder. His run for the senate, then, was about the principles he's been advocating for decades (personally knowing Al, I think it was mostly about that for him, but even his critics would admit it's at least partially about that - whereas you can't with a straight face make the same case about Matthews). …Matthews, on the other hand, stands for absolutely his own career and by extension Beltway culture (and I don't think being for those things is an "ideology" or a "set of principles" in the same way advocating for a set of issues is). He's a guy so completely out of touch with economic reality that he insisted to the New York Times that he and his $5 million salary are not "part of the winner's circle in American life." As the Politico notes, he wants to "fulfill his boyhood dream of becoming a senator" - that is, he doesn't want to fulfill his boyhood dream of enacting universal health care or ending the war or some other cause, his dream is to simply BE a U.S. Senator - and, indeed, it doesn't even matter from where. It's not even his dream to become PENNSYLVANIA'S U.S. Senator - it's just to BE an officeholder.
Read Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/chris-matthews-insult-to_b_148391.html