435 District Strategy

Implementing the "435 District strategy"--the High Value Enchanced Inquistion plan

In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle we have achieved far more than even I dreamed possible. I had hoped for a serious scare and some recriminations on the part of the Democrats, not a shattering of party unity and confidence.  

Now what?

Well, I'm told that the GOP is going to "fight everywhere" this year. But not all fights are created equal.  Barring cash in an incumbent's  freezer, once a district gets to D+20 CPVI there's really no path to a Republican victory. And while some back bench incumbents may be weak reeds, it's rather likely that unlike Martha Coakley, they will go down quietly and with little notice from the public. A Zack Space meltdown in Zanesville, OH is not likely to make the national wires.

What the GOP should set aside some resources for is to call out the loudest, most partisan and least appealing leaders of the Democratic senate and house caucuses.  We know who they are. They are the ones who react like stuck pigs to being challenged. They are the ones whom we can readily point to a paper trail of advocacy for deficits, government intervention, and crony dealing.   And these are the people whom we can readily define as the Democratic party for swing voters.   

By their vociferous counterattacks, they will do our job of defining the opposition for us.  Their colleagues in swing districts and purple states will try to win their re-elections based on incumbency and alleged centrism; this plan is designed to make that strategy unworkable for any Democrat.

Some of these people are already "on the list"--Harry Reid and John Murtha.  My plan is to wxpand the list to folks in D+10 plus constituencies, since in the wake of Scott Brown, these seats are no longer locks in the present environment.

The chances that any of these seats actually "flip" to the GOP is still remote. I believe the recruitment of serious candidates and the allocation of resources is still wise for a number of reasons. It will drive the narrative in less high profile seats and force moderates to defend the leadership party line. It will conversely, cause the Democrats to hoard their cash to play defense and cause them to triage their less senior members in swing seats.  Finally, since these folks are easily identified villains to the Right, there's the possibility to drop moneybombs in these places.

Here's my list:

Chuck Schumer

Schumer defeated an obscure GOP assemblyman badly in 2004 in what was a non-campaign. Since then he's been enbolden to play partisan bomb thrower and is one of the  happiest Democrats to lambaste "teabaggers" for the temerity to question Washington.  Schumer is probably one of the most anti-gun and pro-abortion politicians ever elected to office, and has treated Wall Street as an ATM for his campaign warchest. Needless to say this isn't quite the agenda every New Yorker applauds--his recent poll ratings have slipped.

Schumer is still a heavy favorite, but two things make this more than an exercise in wish fulfillment. First is Schumer' arrogance, which may remind voters of disgraced former Governor Eliot Spitzer. Second is the demographics of the off-year NY electorate, where Upstate casts a higher percentage of the vote--indeed, nearly half.

Larry Kudlow (whom I thought was still a CT resident) is thinking about this race. But has anyone thought that an upstater associated with the Tea Party--like Doug Hoffman--might send Chuck into orbit?   

Steny Hoyer

Hoyer is Nancy Pelosi's second in command. Unlike San Fran Nan, he actually represents some Republicans in his suburban Maryland district which is only D+11.   As it is in the Washington, DC media market it's not a cheap district to run in, but any misstep by Hoyer will be promptly reported by the national press.  Hoyer will have to explain his party's agenda in a district which contains many of the same sort of outer suburban communities that were Scott Brown strongholds in MA. Good luck, Steny.

Barney Frank

Chris Dodd is gone, but the other architect of the ruinous subprime mortgage bubble, Barney Frank, thinks he's going to coast to re-election. Perhaps he'd best look at the voting results in MA 4 as it appears his district was carried by Scott Brown.  MA 4 is a D+14 district but it is a gerrymandered mess which includes areaas far from Frank's base inside Route 128. These communities--even the blue collar ones--turned hard against the Democrats in the special election.

I'll explain in more detail, but the key to making this seat truly competitive is candidate recruitment and pushing aside a perennial candidate who simply doesn't "fit" this district in favor of one who could peel off a critical region from Frank.  

Henry Waxman

Henry Waxman is probably the one member of Congress most directly responsible for the decline of America's industrial vigor.  As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee he is single handedly responsible for pressing forward on a multifront regime of regulation and government edicts.   He also was foursquare for the government takeover of health care enbodied in the House's "public option" bill.

His district includes Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Malibu so we can be sure the entertainment industry will shell out to give him around. That said, money he gets can't go to Indiana or new Jersey.  His district also now includes large chunks of the San Fernando Valley where a political agenda based on middle class concerns might well receive a receptive response. 

It's pretty clear we would need a very libertarian minded candidate to get an audience here. That said, a "cool" Republican would draw attention to the party and draw attention away from older socially conservative white men in the Red States. And a credible campaign against Waxman--inagine Republican lawn signs on Brentwood hillsides--would be magnified in the national media.

I cna think of less notorious Democrats like New York's Gary Ackerman or CT's Rosa DeLauro who have baggage, atropried campaign skills and districts with appreciable Republican activity. But the bigger point here is to draw out the loudest and least  persuasive advocates for Democratic control of government.

The Democrats made sure they got Jesse Helms a tough race every cycle hoping for a meltdown. Now it's our turn.   

 

Implementing the "435 District strategy"--the High Value Enchanced Inquistion plan

In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle we have achieved far more than even I dreamed possible. I had hoped for a serious scare and some recriminations on the part of the Democrats, not a shattering of party unity and confidence.  

Now what?

Well, I'm told that the GOP is going to "fight everywhere" this year. But not all fights are created equal.  Barring cash in an incumbent's  freezer, once a district gets to D+20 CPVI there's really no path to a Republican victory. And while some back bench incumbents may be weak reeds, it's rather likely that unlike Martha Coakley, they will go down quietly and with little notice from the public. A Zack Space meltdown in Zanesville, OH is not likely to make the national wires.

What the GOP should set aside some resources for is to call out the loudest, most partisan and least appealing leaders of the Democratic senate and house caucuses.  We know who they are. They are the ones who react like stuck pigs to being challenged. They are the ones whom we can readily point to a paper trail of advocacy for deficits, government intervention, and crony dealing.   And these are the people whom we can readily define as the Democratic party for swing voters.   

By their vociferous counterattacks, they will do our job of defining the opposition for us.  Their colleagues in swing districts and purple states will try to win their re-elections based on incumbency and alleged centrism; this plan is designed to make that strategy unworkable for any Democrat.

Some of these people are already "on the list"--Harry Reid and John Murtha.  My plan is to wxpand the list to folks in D+10 plus constituencies, since in the wake of Scott Brown, these seats are no longer locks in the present environment.

The chances that any of these seats actually "flip" to the GOP is still remote. I believe the recruitment of serious candidates and the allocation of resources is still wise for a number of reasons. It will drive the narrative in less high profile seats and force moderates to defend the leadership party line. It will conversely, cause the Democrats to hoard their cash to play defense and cause them to triage their less senior members in swing seats.  Finally, since these folks are easily identified villains to the Right, there's the possibility to drop moneybombs in these places.

Here's my list:

Chuck Schumer

Schumer defeated an obscure GOP assemblyman badly in 2004 in what was a non-campaign. Since then he's been enbolden to play partisan bomb thrower and is one of the  happiest Democrats to lambaste "teabaggers" for the temerity to question Washington.  Schumer is probably one of the most anti-gun and pro-abortion politicians ever elected to office, and has treated Wall Street as an ATM for his campaign warchest. Needless to say this isn't quite the agenda every New Yorker applauds--his recent poll ratings have slipped.

Schumer is still a heavy favorite, but two things make this more than an exercise in wish fulfillment. First is Schumer' arrogance, which may remind voters of disgraced former Governor Eliot Spitzer. Second is the demographics of the off-year NY electorate, where Upstate casts a higher percentage of the vote--indeed, nearly half.

Larry Kudlow (whom I thought was still a CT resident) is thinking about this race. But has anyone thought that an upstater associated with the Tea Party--like Doug Hoffman--might send Chuck into orbit?   

Steny Hoyer

Hoyer is Nancy Pelosi's second in command. Unlike San Fran Nan, he actually represents some Republicans in his suburban Maryland district which is only D+11.   As it is in the Washington, DC media market it's not a cheap district to run in, but any misstep by Hoyer will be promptly reported by the national press.  Hoyer will have to explain his party's agenda in a district which contains many of the same sort of outer suburban communities that were Scott Brown strongholds in MA. Good luck, Steny.

Barney Frank

Chris Dodd is gone, but the other architect of the ruinous subprime mortgage bubble, Barney Frank, thinks he's going to coast to re-election. Perhaps he'd best look at the voting results in MA 4 as it appears his district was carried by Scott Brown.  MA 4 is a D+14 district but it is a gerrymandered mess which includes areaas far from Frank's base inside Route 128. These communities--even the blue collar ones--turned hard against the Democrats in the special election.

I'll explain in more detail, but the key to making this seat truly competitive is candidate recruitment and pushing aside a perennial candidate who simply doesn't "fit" this district in favor of one who could peel off a critical region from Frank.  

Henry Waxman

Henry Waxman is probably the one member of Congress most directly responsible for the decline of America's industrial vigor.  As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee he is single handedly responsible for pressing forward on a multifront regime of regulation and government edicts.   He also was foursquare for the government takeover of health care enbodied in the House's "public option" bill.

His district includes Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Malibu so we can be sure the entertainment industry will shell out to give him around. That said, money he gets can't go to Indiana or new Jersey.  His district also now includes large chunks of the San Fernando Valley where a political agenda based on middle class concerns might well receive a receptive response. 

It's pretty clear we would need a very libertarian minded candidate to get an audience here. That said, a "cool" Republican would draw attention to the party and draw attention away from older socially conservative white men in the Red States. And a credible campaign against Waxman--inagine Republican lawn signs on Brentwood hillsides--would be magnified in the national media.

I cna think of less notorious Democrats like New York's Gary Ackerman or CT's Rosa DeLauro who have baggage, atropried campaign skills and districts with appreciable Republican activity. But the bigger point here is to draw out the loudest and least  persuasive advocates for Democratic control of government.

The Democrats made sure they got Jesse Helms a tough race every cycle hoping for a meltdown. Now it's our turn.   

 

435 districts: Libs Give Us Priceless Organizing Tool in California

So, a bunch of liberal thugs put together a list of everyone who donated money for Prop 8.

This can be a priceless organizing tool for GOPers in Cali.  Make sure you check out both Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Feel free to forward this to the relevant authorities.

If Not Elected Chairman, Anuzis Should Go To State Parties & Build GOP Farm Team

Apologies for the long lapse between blog posts. The flu and work have been keeping me at bay.

I have not yet made a decision as to who to support for the RNC chairmanship, and I have not yet heard or met every candidate running. So it would be unfair for me to endorse anybody at this point. But I am intrigued with Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis.

This morning at the American Spectator's Newsmaker Breakfast at the offices of Americans for Tax Reform, Anuzis made his case to be the party's top man, saying that he wants the GOP to be rebranded as the party that can "restore the American dream." Talking about his immigrant roots, Anuzis identified himself as a believer in the Newt Gingrich-Jack Kemp message of the "opportunity society."

The most interesting part of the conversation came up after being asked about his "losing" record as party chairman of the Great Lakes State and how that qualifies him to head the RNC. Anuzis responded agressively, saying that that means no party chair from a blue state should be qualified to run for the GOP chairmanship. He said that his background growing up in blue-collar suburbia among Reagan Democrats and Independents makes him especially qualified to be the next chairman because those are the voters that the we need to go after.

While I don't necessarily agree that past categorizations of voter identification will work in future election cycles, I'm impressed with Anuzis for a few reasons:

  • While everybody realizes that the party needs to be rebranded, I like the direction he's going when it comes to the type of rebranding we need. I'm all about building "An Agenda of Equal Opportunity" that can battle the liberal movement's "Agenda of Equal Outcomes."
  • Anuzis seems like someone willing to take risks. He's endorsed the RebuildTheParty.com platform and has had great state legislative recruitment success in Michigan, something that he could translate to a 435 District Strategy (something that Patrick has been plugging). He also talked a lot about outreach to African-Americans and going to their playing field: churches.
  • Anuzis seems to get Web 2.0 tools. While I don't know whether or not he's interested in buildings communities vs. building lists (as Chip Saltsman mentioned), he has been using Twitter to communicate with conservatives. When asked about criticism of him concerning his use of Twitter to promote himself instead of the Michigan GOP, he rightfully said that people aren't interested in having a conversation with press releases from the Michigan GOP. People are interested in having conversations with personalities. Sure, he's using his Twitter account to promote his candidacy for the chairmanship; but he's also using it to build a community by being refreshingly honest and approachable in his Tweets. (By the way, I'll be shameless here. If you'd like to follow me on Twitter, I'm @alaskan.)

I haven't been paying attention to who the front-runners are for the chairmanship and which candidates have how much support. But if Anuzis does not win, the new chairman should consider tapping Anuzis to be a liaison to the state parties and giving him a travel budget to visit all 50 states consistently. If the new chairman does not tap him, Anuzis should consider working with groups like Slatecard or building a new organization that can allow him to help rebuild state and local parties. Why?

  • While Congressional leaders need to come up with their own agenda of equal opportunity, Anuzis could be a great at helping state legislators and state legislative candidates in each state coming up with state-based agendas of equal opportunity. Like Soren has mentioned before, the battles that need to be won are at the state level. Anuzis can use what he learned about recruiting in Michigan and help party leaders around the nation recruit for state legislative, city council and school board seats to build a strong GOP Farm Team.
  • Anuzis' use and willingness to learn Web 2.0 tools could give him a platform to help state and local party leaders start building online communities instead of online lists. Patrick is correct that Twitter is only one small part of Web tools that we can use. Anuzis could be a bridge between the 50+ and 60+ generation of party leaders that have no clue about Web 2.0 tools and the under-40 activists that can help state and local parties reach the next level.

There are some state and local parties that are in shambles, and the next chairman of the RNC can't spend of all his time worrying about every party organization. But it would be wise for the next set of GOP leaders to help Saul Anuzis (or someone else) travel to and help rebuild party organizations in all 435 districts.

Joseph Cao and the 435 District Strategy

There were two elections in Louisiana tonight, and it's fair to say that before tonight, what became John Fleming's squeaker in the 4th attracted 99% of the attention from the political class. After tonight, that figure should be reversed.

In the heart of New Orleans, in a district that is 28 points more Democrat than the national average, Joseph Cao sent Bill Jefferson packing. As Swing State Project notes, Cao now represents the district with the most lopsided voting patterns favoring the other party, outstripping the R+26 margin in Jim Matheson's UT-3.

As I noted yesterday and reiterate tonight, there could be no more vivid example of why we need to run Republican candidates in every district than Louisiana's 2nd. Cao won his seat more solidly than Fleming did in an R+7 seat. Starting with Obama CoS Rahm Emanuel, Democrats started to understand that Congressional races can be very nonpartisan under the right circumstances and that poor performance or other personal shortcomings by the incumbent can render even a hefty party ID deficit meaningless. 

We can't recreate Bill Jefferson in every district -- the guy was indicted on 16 counts and the feds found 90 G's in his freezer. It's also an accident of history that the election happened today instead of on 11/4 when Jefferson could have ridden Obama's coattails -- it was delayed by Hurricane Gustav. There isn't a Bill Jefferson in every district, but there is a Joseph Cao. Here's Cao's biography, boiled down:

  • Family fled South Vietnam in 1975 when the Communists took over
  • Learned English and graduated with a degree in physics from Baylor University
  • Joined the Jesuits after graduation; taught philosophy at Loyola University in New Orleans while going to law school
  • Advocated for Vietnamese refugees in the U.S., leaving private practice to do so
  • Returned to New Orleans after Katrina and became a community activist on rebuilding issues
  • Rebuilt his law practice from scratch after Katrina

Cao ran as an independent for the state legislature in 2007 but is otherwise a political novice.

In crafting our 435 district strategy, the lesson is that we don't need to run risk-averse politicians in longshot seats. We need to run everyday heroes like Cao. We need to identify people outside politics who've done things in the community and who can capitalize on the incumbents' mistakes. Every district has a Joseph Cao.

Syndicate content