political strategy

Scott Brown's victory last Tuesday was probably the greatest political upset in recent memory.  A Republican Party that was pronounced all but dead and an ideological movement that was said to have no appeal outside of Souther white guys was able to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat based on the explicit disavowal of his greatest policy wish, a day before the one year anniversary of Barack Obama's inauguration.  While the result of the race was based mostly on a rejection of the Obama administration's health care plan, it is worth considering how much can be attributed to the state itself.  It is more interesting than it would appear at first because, secretly, Massachusetts isn't quite as liberal as it used to be.

The Avant-Garde of American Liberalism

As late as the 1950s, Massachusetts' Congressional delegation was majority Republican.  But what occurred over the past 100 years was a demographic transition where, over the course of decades, different areas of the state passed from a Yankee majority (and Republican) to an ethnic Catholic majority (and Democratic).  This transition happened at the turn of the last century in Boston, in the Merrimack Valley in the 1910s, Worcester, Springfield, and other industrial cities during the New Deal, the South Shore and university areas in the 50s, and the North Shore, immediate Boston suburbs, and rural Yankeedom in the 1970s.  The watershed year for the state overall was 1952, in which the Senate race pitted the top Yankee family, the Lodges, against the leading Irish Catholic family, the Kennedys.  Old Yankee Massachusetts died when JFK was elected Senator.

The twin pillars upon which Massachusetts liberalism was constructed were the massive, impressive higher education system and the Kennedy family.  Due to its strong commitment to education, Massachusetts had always been in the vanguard of promoting left-leaning change.  But when the middle-class began to flood the higher education system following World War II, a critical mass of liberal college graduates was reached.  These men and women transformed their old line Yankee communities towards embracing the culture of universities.

The Kennedys cast a longer shadow over Massachusetts than any other political dynasty in any other state ever.  There's no need to go into the whole Kennedy legend here, but its real political effect was to put the white, ethnic working-class behind liberalism in a way that didn't develop anywhere else in America.  While their long lost cousins were participating in Hard Hat riots and cheering on Archie Bunker, they lined up behind 60s liberalism.  The only difference between the Boston Brahmins and Joe from Worcester was the locution by which they expressed the common liberal faith.

Beginning in the 1970s, Massachusetts was the most left-wing state in the nation.  It was famous for being the only state to vote for the doomed George McGovern.  From 1960 to 2004, there were 12 presidential elections.  In those year Massachusetts ranked as the following in Democratic percentage of the vote: 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 22nd (John Anderson won 15 percent, his best state; was Reagan's 3rd worst state), 2nd, 4th, 6th, 1st, 3rd, 1st.  In this time, three Bay Staters were the Democratic standard bearer.

The level of success Republicans had at the governor's level paradoxically was damaging because it wedded them to an outdated Rockefeller / small-town Yankee hybrid Republicanism instead of a Northeastern middle-class conservatism.  It seemed impressive that William Weld won election twice, until you consider that he ran to the left of his 1990 opponent.  Weld even won Cambridge, which gave Coakley over 84 percent of the vote.  The conservative-moderate coalition that would represent the most viable way for a center-right candidate to win did not form, leaving the party with a shallow base.

When revulsion with the Gingrich-era Republican Party hit in the mid-90s, Rockefeller Republicanism was finished, with no suburban / working-class conservative element waiting in the wings.  This led to a crippled party with no Congressional seats and a veto-proof Democratic majority in the state legislature.  Thus, the Republican governor wasn't that effective as a break on liberal policies.  This led to another decade of Massachusetts leading liberalism their way.  Republican registration dropped to between 10-15 percent of the voter population.

Signs of Change

However, Massachusetts is not as liberal as it used to be, at least in comparison to other states.  In an age when liberalism is identified with youth and minorities, Massachusetts is a relatively old and white state.  The Scott Brown triumph was presaged by the Jim Ogonowski campaign in 2007.  In a very bad politcal climate, Ogonowski came within six points of winning a Congressional seat.  It's easy to imagine he would've won in better times for Republicans.  In 2008, despite the Kennedy clan essentially appointing Obama as their heir, Hillary Clinton won the state's Democratic primary by 15 points.  Come general election time, Massachusetts fell to only the 8th best Obama state.  While Kerry was a native, it was very interesting to see no Democratic trend during four years of strong Democratic electoral success.

There are encouraging signs that slowly--very slowly, control of the party is being wrested from 'me-too' bluebloods to moderate conservatives.  Every statewide winner in the past twenty years has been a shade more to the right of their predecessor.  Paul Cellucci was more conservative than Weld, Romney was more conservative than Cellucci, and Brown ran as more conservative than the Massachusetts Mitt.  It is striking how conservative a platform Brown ran on.  His two main themes were explicit oppositon to Obamacare and taking strong measures against terrorism.  His success means that there is no reason for any Massachusetts Republican to shy away from taking conservative stands on these issues.

Scott Brown's election may be nearly as important in ending the Kennedy mythology as in damaging health care reform.  The end of the Kennedy legend means that the electorate can finally adapt to modern left / right politics.  The amount of middle-class and lower middle-class whites who are Democrats is unnatural based on current party demographics.  Shifting these voters over to the right would finally secure the GOP on a firm base.  Massachusetts would remain a definite blue state, but it wouldn't be as overwhelmingly Democrat.  It would look more like Connecticut than Vermont.

Rebuilding

One useful measure of the results map is to figure out where Republicans can't win.  If Brown couldn't do reasonably well in an area, then no Republican has a shot.  Coakley ran not much behind 2008 levels in the Berkshires and the immediate Boston area.  These areas are dominated by ideologically committed white liberals.  They are unwinnable for a center-right party.

Brown's bases of support were in the center of the state, and the North and South Shores.  In MA-5, in which Ogonowski nearly won, Brown won every single city and town.  The district revolves around old industrial cities like Lowell and Lawrence and outer suburbs of Boston of the type that were strong Brown boosters.  Hopefully Republicans look into challenging Tsongas once again.

The Worcester area holds promise.  The second city is much more centrist than Boston.  Brown earned over 47 percent of the vote in the City of Worcester.  He then ran up huge percentages in the surrounding towns and countryside.  This is an area more engaged in industry and small business than high-prestige jobs.  The type of voters Republicans need to convert to full time Republicans are heavily concentrated here.

The South Shore was Brown's best area in the state.  It is the most Irish part of the most Irish of states.  It contains a large middle-class with blue-collar values even if most are not blue-collar themselves.  The receding legacy of the Kennedy family could free these voters up to become relatively Republican.   The 10th district, based on the South Shore, was likely Brown's best Congressional district.  The district has a PVI of D+5, the most favorable in the state.

i think there is some hope for conservatives in the state.  You can't over-interpret the results and declare Massachusetts competitive.  This really was a perfect storm of very favorable national conditions, a very good Republican candidate, and perhaps the worst major campaign in modern times for the Democrat.  But the victory nonetheless reveals a way forward for conservatives within a state that had been permanently written off by Republicans.  It is realistic to believe that a solid center-right candidate can win in some places.  The camapign showed that there is little penalty, and a lot more to gain, by running somewhat more to the right of previous Massachusetts Republicans (but not too far right).  The task now is to build on this potential breakthrough and expand the reach of the party. 

In early 1942, the United States did something which was incredibly audacious and led to the loss of every aircraft sent on the mission.

They sent B-25 bombers to bomb Japan.

While the raid failed to inflict material damage to the enemy war effort, it greatly disrupted their strategic approach to the war and their use of available resources. 

The Republican Party and conservative activists have had many recent successes. Now it's  time now to take the battle to the "home island" of the Democratic Party.

It's time to play to win the 2010 MA Senate special election to replace Ted Kennedy. We need to rally behind Scott Brown

Hey, I know the conventional wisdom is this will be a coronation for Martha Coakley and we'd best not throw money into the wind. Jeez, this is even what RedState is posting. 

Coakley is the prohibitive favorite to win the January 19th special general election in this knee-jerk Democratic state.

And that's precisely why suddenly jumping in makes so much sense. 

The Democrats think this one is already won. They aren't expecting a fight. They are expecting something akin to the CA 10 special, where the game but underfunded Republican quietly lost by 10 points,

So there's a huge element of surprise.

There's really not enough time (the election is January 19) to spend a whole lot of money; especially when the Commonwealth is really not that large. (about 80% of the voters are in the Boston TV market; which is cheaper than San Francisco or Philadelphia).

So guess what, we could squander  a couple of million dollars and achieve little. But the "movement" seems hell bent on throwing a lot more than that trying to oust Barbara Boxer in the nation's most expensive campaign state. Well I think doing this makes more sense.

Why?  Huge risk, but even greater potential reward.

What would the impact to our party have been of losing the Senate seat held by Barry Goldwater or Bob Dole? Imagine the Democrats losing Ted Kennedy's seat?. 

The reaction across the nation would be pretty much like this. just two years earlier!

Even a highly competitive--albeit unssuccesful-- election night would inflict huge psychological damage on the Democrats. If Ted Kennedy's old senate seat was in jeopardy, why should a Blue Dog risk political oblivion when it's a lot less painful to just walk away? What's the value of potentially accelerating a couple of dozen Democratic house vacancies? A lot less than the cash which the party can readily replenish I say.

The Doolittle Raid told the Japanese there was no safe refuge from the American military. The Brown Raid into the heart of liberal Massachusetts sends the same message to the Democrats.

And if it fails, well, we weren't supposed to win anyway and we can raise more money. It's early in the cycle. 

As for the "we can't win in MA" argument; well. folks it's a special election. And in the horrendous political environment of 2007 the GOP came within a few thousand votes of winning the 5th District; losing to the widow of local icon Paul Tsongas. 

RedMassGroup has an excellent analysis of the 2009 senate primary and the 2007 5th District special; which are virtually parallel races.    

In the 2007 MA-5 special the Democrat primary had 55,517 votes cast versus 13,493 in the Republican primary for a 4.11 to 1 ratio of ballots cast.  In the 2009 US Senate race the Democrat primary had 664,795 votes cast versus 162,706 in the Republican primary for a 4.08 to 1 ratio of ballots cast.  Those numbers are similar....

Ultimately Niki Tsongas defeated Jim Ogonowski 51% to 45%.  Her margin of victory was slightly smaller than polling indicated.

The difference--well I think Scott Brown is a better candidate than Jim Ogoronski and the political environment is a hundred times better for Republicans.

The sad parallel is the GOP failed to properly fund the 2007 race, and we'll probably decide not to go all in on this one too. Nothing ventured; nothing gained.

Can this be done? After all, MA did vote for Obama by over 20 points. But he won going away in NJ, too, and the Democratic incumbent this November lost by 5 points on the "normal" election day; let alone dealing with the turnout vagaries of a special election held in mid-January where a small cohort of highly motivated voters can be decisive.

Back in September I suggested that there were enough non-liberal voters across suburban and exurban eastern Massachusetts to win a Senate special. I stand by my reasoning.

 In the 2002 election almost 80% of the the total vote in the Commonwealth was cast in the Boston media market and Romney won by more than his statewide plurality here; Democrat Shannon O' Brien actually carried the areas in the Providence, Springfield and Albany TV markets.  And the critical area was not the close-in urbanized area. O'Brien won the city and the close-in's by a 209,000 to 134,000 margin. But in the rest of Middlesex and Norfolk counties, and in Essex and Plymouth counties...Romney amassed a 576, 000 to 414,000 margin.  In the reaches beyond I-495 (metro Worcester and Cape Cod) Romney won  by 202,000 to 144,000.

Well, what's changed? Scott Brown still represents part of the I-495 belt. (called the "Off-ramp region" by one local scholar). Deval Patrick is still painfully unpopular, and Obama, Reid and Pelosi are less popular even in the Northeast than they were then.

So, folks, to my mind the question is not why do we go after the Ted Kennedy senate seat?

To paraphrase Ted's late brother Bobby, I see an election we can win and ask;:  Why Not?! 

I'm posting this short note for any bloggers who happen to be working in the area of political consulting, and who would be interested in participating in a short industry survey. We're looking for consultants who have worked on statewide and national campaigns; those with a blend of expertise are also encouraged to respond.

If you would like more information, please respond to me at: creativestrategist (at) yahoo (dot) com.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Michael Burns

1777 was a dark year for the forces of American freedom. British forces were engaged in an elaborate strategy to capture the largest cities in the Colonies and divide and conquer the American rebels.

It all came to naught along the banks of the Hudson in what was probably the most decisive battle in the history of the Western Hemisphere--the Battle of Saratoga. 

The Battle of Saratoga did not signal the demise of British resistance to American independence; but it ended any hopes the Crown had of a decisive victory on the battlefield to end the war.  

The Republican Party faces a decisive battle on the same battlefield this spring.  Kirsten Gillibrand's ascension to the U.S. Senate opens up her House seat. And the district is centered around---Saratoga.

I've attached the wikipedia article on the district.  The district is a white, suburban/rural district. As the CQ profile indicates , it's heavily weighed towards married couples living in owner -occupied housing; with relatively little poverty or very wealthy voters.  I would note that the district in by no means monolitihic, however, as it reaches from the far edge of the NYC TV market to deep in the Adirondacks.

Let's look at the geography:  Dutchess, Columbia and Greene counties are in the Hudson Valley. This area was Gillibrand's home area, and has shifted left during recent years due to ex-pat NYC residents; it's really too far to commute from these towns to the northern suburbs, let alone Manhattan. Columbia County voted Kerry in 2004 , when Bush ran well in suburban NYC.

Delaware and Otsego counties are part of the Binghamton TV market. They are small and usually dependably Republican.

Warren, Washington and Essex counties are the "North Country". The Glens Falls area is a micropolitan area of a bit less than 100,000 residents with its own radio stations, daily newspaper, and local insitutions.; although the broadcast TV is from Albany. The North Country is reliably Republican, but outside Glens Falls, thinly populated. 

The Albany suburbs are the linchpin of the district. Saratoga and Renssalaer counties are bedroom communitiies for Metro Albany. There is an academic/horse racing influence in Saratoga Springs (Skidmore College); but the larger community here is fast growing Clifton Park, which is soccer mom nirvana.

The presidential race numbers from 2008 were not encouraging, but McCain never competed  in NY. Obama won every county besides Greene and Delaware; but his plurality in the other counties ranged from Columbia's 56% to Washington's 49.5% , In 2004 Bush also did not contest NY State, but won every county in the 20th besides Renssalear and Columbia. 

A more accurate portrayal of partisan balance in this district was probably the 2000 Clinton/Lazio race. Hillary Clinton won statewide by 12 points, and ran very well in upstate NY, yet failed to achieve a plurality in any county within the 20th District besides Rensselaer. (and that is a bit deceptive; the strongest Democratic precincts in Rennselaer are in central Troy; which is and has been in the 21st District; I'm sure Lazio won the 20th District portion). The rest of the district yielded a 52% to 60% Lazio win. 

The NY State Board of Elections shows the GOP has a 71,000 voter registration edge . So the Charlie Cook (R + 3) rating understates the potential GOP vote here; especially as virtually every state legislator representing this part of the state is a Republican.  

We may have a plethora of candidates while the Democrats may need to import one from the adjoining district. This worries me, though.  None of the GOP names (Treadwell, Little, Faso) are from the politically crucial county of Saratoga, where the GOP hasn;t recently matched its 30,000 vote registration edge with election day pluralities; and which will potentially be amenable to an Albany based interloper.  Treadwell particularly strikes me in this failed model.

I would suggest that the NY Republicans look long and hard at a less partisan candidate from the district's political wheelhouse, who has a strong record fighting crime against women.

Whoever we pick,---and we'd better pick a winner-- we simply cannot lose this race. This is the House version of the Chambliss runoff.

We win the 2009 Battle of Saratoga and we are back on the path to victory.

We lose----well, there was another set of battles in this part of NY State a few decades before Saratoga.  

=======UPDATE========

The daily in Glens Falls, the Post-Star,  is reporting that the Republican county chairmen for this district will meet Tuesday.  A weighed voting system will be used to choose a nominee. No word on whether they will choose a candidate at this meeting; under NYS election law there is no primary for special elections, so it's boss rule

Treadwell has reportedly decided not to jump in as per the Post- Star  . The present candidates are State Senator Betty Little; Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco, and former Assembly minority leader and 2006 gubernatorial candidate John Faso.   

You know I've heard this before. And its' never true

Obama’s Centrism Could Drive the GOP Out of Business

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-centrism-could-drive-the-gop-out-of-business/2/

See. Obama isn;t such a wild eyed liberal after all. He might cut a few taxes in the middle of a recession, He has dinner with Republican chatterers. He might have to do something with Iran after his talking to them accomplished nothing.

So?

Ms. Rubin assumes that the nearly one billion dollars invested in the Obama campaign will result in no return on investment to the Bush hating left.  Perhaps the prudent Obama has simply decided to delay dividend payments until the 2nd Quarter. And that will obviously ignite opposition once the Left gets something tangible in return. If Ms. Rubin expects Obama to stiff his supporters for four years; good luck---I doubt they will react better than conservative Republicans after Bush's second term.

Ms. Rubin also grossly underestimates the impact a Supreme Court nomination or presently dormant issues like card check and immigration "reform" are likely to have on the body politics. Did anyone inside the Beltway see the Dubai Ports firestorm coming? Politics is full of the "unknown unknowns" and the political environment is full of dry kindling.

But what of the "known knowns". We know that Obama ran as centrist a campaign as he possibly could in the midst of the worst political environment for a Republican presidential candidate since 1964.  He had a huge financial edge and immensely favorable press. And he got 52%.

Are the rest of America suddenly going to change jerseys?

History shows that gravity beats strategy.  Gravity is a force of nature; strategy is a product of man.

Every president has achieved massive 65% approval in recent history

And every one of them has fallen to earth, some...such as both Bushes, arguably into the basement.

Now there were some bad decisions that caused this to happen, and talented opposition. But when it happens all the time; well, it's beyond that.      

Let's look at some numbers from Polling Report and see where gravity is likely to take Barack Obama

While the "wrong direction" percentage has declined in some polls since the Presidential election from the 75%-80% range; the latest poll shows we are still 26% right-59% wrong; leading one to perceive the "right direction" at the moment strongly correlates with strong Democratic party identification. Obamamania may not have permeated as deeply as its advocates hoped.

And levels of consumer confidence are still at the lowest sustained levels seen ithe decade; even after the Obama election.

The initial poll results for Obama are quite positive. But some internals might lead one to think there are some "bitter" people still out there. 

54% said they were "extremely" or "quite" confident that  "Barack Obama has the right policies and goals to be President of the United States"  45% did not have such confidence.

35% said Obama was "very likely" to "bring real change to the United States"  39% said it was "somewhat likely" or "not that likely".

So it appears most of the McCain voters still harbor doubts Obama will succeed or do the right thing.

Now back to gravity. A President cannot permanently defy gravity. If the environment is poor; no matter how nice a guy he is or how many past achievements he has , he will fall to the "earth" of the public mood.

GHW Bush looked invulnerable in the wake of the Gulf War; but it took a relatively mild recession to leave him with the lowest percentage an incumbent president received in 80 years. And the GW Bush years had some spikes during the GWOT, but only the Rove campaign in '04 produced  some stability; post Katrina the slide was on.

Back to the history of gravity. One truly skilled leader succeeded in changing gravity. he actually rebounded from his low point a year or so post-election to achieve a huge landslide re-election. Indeed, he got up from a political level that looked fatally debilitating.

That was Ronald Reagan. And it took 3.5 million net new jobs in 1983 (including an amazing 1.1M new jobs in September 1983) and 3.9 million in 1984 to achieve this rebound.  (Note also, the 1980's era labor force was much smaller; it's increased since from 100M to 145M' Obama would ned to add 5M + net new annual jobs to equal this) 

Look for Obama's ratings to fall to earth if the economy does not  rebound promptly.  And if Obama can't change the landscape as Reagan did, he might have a much rougher time getting re-elected than the star struck Beltway media thinks.

Of course if a overstuffed shortsighted stimulus bill doesn;t generate sustained growth, well the Bushes have set the precedent former Presidents are always welcome at the White House.

One final thing.  Even Ronald Reagan couldn't drive the Democrats out of business; nor FDR the Republicans. Maybe Ms. Rubin ought to ascertain how if those icons of American politics left the opposition standing how Barack Obama is going to outdo them. 

In politics, often times you find allies who you never thought you would have, but have decided necessity and temporary convenience make for a common cause.

Has Moveon.org jumped to our way of thinking on corporate bailouts? And if so, can we assemble a Right/Left coalition to fight the Great 2009 Bailout War?

Perhaps. Consider their recent mass e-mail

Dear MoveOn member,

Enough already!

We gave the banks $350 billion. It was supposed to get them lending again, to help companies and consumers get credit. But the credit markets are still frozen and the economy's getting worse. 

Now Treasury is asking Congress for the remaining $350 billion in bailout funds.1  No more oversight. No strings attached. Just $350 billion that could be spent on health care, or green jobs, or more teachers—going instead into the black hole that is our financial system.

We can't let that happen. Please sign our emergency petition:

"Not another dime for Wall Street until we understand where the previous bailout money went—and why the bailout didn't work as expected."

Clicking here will add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/bailout3/o.pl?id=15290-9234983-PGJEvbx&t=4

What happened to our bailout money? The banks won't tell the media, or Congress, or the Government Accountability Office!2

But we do know a few things.

Banks appear to have used much of the money to buy other banks.3 As one analysis found, the bailout "touched off a banking-sector version of 'Let's Make a Deal,' in which the biggest U.S. banks are using government money to get even bigger."

Then there's good old-fashioned waste. Insurance giant AIG, for example, spent $442,000 on a lavish corporate spa retreat just days after receiving $85 billion of taxpayer money.4 How much got wasted? We don't know, since there's zero accountability or oversight.

What the banks don't seem to have done is lend the money out. The credit markets are still frozen.5 Companies that need loans can't get them. Consumers can't get credit to buy cars.

In other words: driven by greed, Wall Street brought our economy to its knees through bad lending and complex financial instruments based on little more than air. Then Wall Street got took our bailout money and seems to have spent it on everything BUT getting the economy moving.

And now they want $350 billion more.

No. Way. Not 'til we understand what happened, and know that the money will go to something that actually benefits our economy.

Please click here and sign our petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/bailout3/o.pl?id=15290-9234983-PGJEvbx&t=5

Let's not let this happen!

Thanks for all you do.

–Noah, Carrie, Patrick S., Joan and the rest of the team

Sources:

Now, I'd rather NOT use the extra $350 Billion to ramp up government social spending as far as the eye can see. But, if the Left decides it's tired of bailoutmania, this is going to place major pressure on Democrats in the House and Senate to recant their previous positions in favor of throwing money at failed business models.

I have not seen any recent polling on the Wall Street bailout , but I find it hard to believe they are held in higher esteem than the car companies , whose bailout is rather unpopular    One of the benefits of seeking common ground to liberals aghast at corporate welfare is obvious---it depoliticizes the opposition and makes opposition a matter of thoughful public policy, not reflexize partisan attitudes.  It creates a big tent for moderates and independents to see this is not just some hard-line conservative ideologues preaching Adam Smith who think it's time to make free enterprise be free of federal revenue.

There is also a predicament for Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank. Since their party will be managing the bailout in a few weeks (and since the Democrats were too dense to replace their front men on this issue ) it's their problem now, and the people who allowed the problem to occur and wrote the remedy bill are now fully in charge.

Chris Dodd in particular is at risk. His recent CT poll numbers for re-election are upside down    and only large numbers of Democrats are keeping him near the waterline. (26% of Democrats are definitely for his re-election; only 5-6% of non-Democrats) But 8% of Democrats are definitely NOT voting for him. Can Chris Dodd survive losing support from his Left? It's not like CT Democrats haven;t turned before on a long time Senator whom they decided had  sold them out?    (one CT blogger has even suggested Rep. Chris Murphy might find Dodd weak enough to challenge in a Democratic primary )

Now this all may be self-serving drivel from Moveon. org the ostensible "grassroots" organization heavily bankrolled by some of the prime suspects in creating the mortgage meltdown, Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Sandler   And it's not like they haven't had an Orwellian conversion before about an anti-consumer, pro-Wall Street Democrat they once pilloried, and now champion . (Ironic that the press sees no irony in Obama appointed the "Senator from MBNA" as the "honcho' for the middle class ) . Like, "what the Auk?"

But we really ought to take this an run with this. Either we gain a powerful, albeit temporary ally in the latest battle for fiscal responsiblity...and that would be great..

or we expose Moveon.org as an unprincipled partisan fraud unwilling to challenge their own party. I can live with that, too.

Either way, we unite our present allies and divide our opponents. And all for a good cause, too.   

About the time community organizer Barack Obama landed in Chicago, a classic movie was released set in the Windy City entitled The Color of Money.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090863/

In recent days, we've discovered that the color of Barack Obama's money will be dollars colored in red ink.

Mr. Obama's team is putting together a new economic stimulus plan containing more than $500 billion in federal spending and tax cuts over the next two years, Obama aides and advisers said Sunday. That package would be far more aggressive than anything envisioned during the campaign.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122747905110751527.html

Of course, even without the "stimulus" package the federal deficit with all the existing bailouts will be in the astronomical trillion dollar vicinity

But as my local councilman has discovered, Senator Obama is still telling his Illinois constituents how committed he is to fiscal discipline. (H/T Tim White)

http://timwhitelistens.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-fiscal-conservative.html

"Senator Obama believes that our current budgeting and borrowing practices are fiscally unwise and unsustainable. This is why he strongly supports and has voted for commonsense “Pay As You Go,” or “PayGo” rules, which would require any new increases in discretionary spending to be offset by a reduction in other areas of spending.

Federal Debt, Deficit Spending

Senator Obama voted against the most recent effort to raise the national debt limit. The current national debt has exceeded $8.6 trillion dollars, and nearly $4 trillion of that debt is now held by foreign governments. Our national debt and annual budget deficits effectively tax all Americans by adding to the amount of interest paid to service U.S. borrowing; Senator Obama would rather invest these hundreds of billions of dollars into national priorities, such as securing our homeland, improving our schools and providing needed benefits to our veterans."

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/good_government_responsible_spending/

The Republicans lost a lot of ground with old time moderate Republicans who never were fervent tax cutters and are out of step with the social conservatives.   A party that presides over huge quantities of red ink and mismanagement simply doesn't offer them anything they don;t expect from the Democrats. So when a "Blue Dog" talks "PayGo", they perk up: it sounds like a better deal to them.

The Obama team has decided to throw their new found fiscal credibility out the window. The last thing you want to do with a huge Democratic majority in Congress is to invite them to spend money---you'll never get them to stop.

Apart from running off people who thought Bush was too big a spender, there are real fiscal concerns here. Forget the doomsday scenario when foreigners sell all our bonds and crash the dollar; well before then consumer interest rates will stifle consumption and private investment as the ravenous Treasury gloms up all the available capital to cover federal debt; leaving a limited supply of private capital to be bid up due to scarcity. 

And might I point out that without turning on the federal spending machine we are still going to have a structural demogrpahic deficit in about 36-48 months as the first boomers enter their golden years (ask Rick Wagoner how well this is working for GM)....in the misery love company dept. the Eurozone will have an even bigger demographic tsunami to overcome.   

Republicans may not want or be able to filibuster this spending spree to death. But trust me, after it is started there will be a "Big Dig" or "Bridge to Nowhere" in every state.  A party that has lost its way on economic issues can regain it by running at warp speed in the other direction from this fiasco in waiting.  

The GOP is literally at a make or break point that could a establish a fait accompli   

As we enter into the closing year of the new millenniums first decade, the approaching official national census process is where some, if not a large portion of the battle for our political future will take place.

After the census has been taken in 2010, every legislative district from which we elect council members in local and city governments to state legislators and members of congress will be redrawn based upon the population shifts determined by the census.

This means that once those figures have been established, during 2010, state legislatures will spend the following year redrawing new legislative districts.

Despite laws that try to regulate how legislative maps can be drawn and try to eliminate gerrymandering, redistricting is primarily a political process that is left up to the political party or parties with majority control at the time that redistricting occurs. That said, the powers that be use their majority status to creatively draw new legislative districts that favor their party. A handful of states have separatecommissions that draw the district lines.  Some of those grant veto to the states governors and some don’t.  But regardless, even those commissions, involved in those 6 or states, contain a degree of politcal leanings.

In either event, by using a range of election results from over the last 8 years or so, party leaders establish where their favorable votes come from. Using that as their basis, they draw districts that contain a plurality of population centers that favor their party.

This allows the majority political party to substantially consolidate power by creating new election districts that are likely to send more of their kind to their county seats and state capitols as well as those who we send to congress.

Regardless of the laws that are designed to take political influence out of the redistricting process and despite the various state redistricting commissions that are set up to oversee the process, it is an entirely political process. You must understand that the politicians create the new districts maps themselves or appoint the redistricting commissions regulating the process. Even when the courts have to step in, it remains a political process…….Who appoints the judges that make the rulings on this type of stuff?…..The politicians. So no matter what, it is a fact that the redistricting process is a political process. To pretend it isn’t, is a demonstration of naiveté that should prohibit one from even discussing politics. The only arguable point may be the varying degree of politicization that the process holds for one state or another.

Keeping that in mind, in one sense the census will, or could benefit, Republicans on the national level.  Having the majority in various state legislatures is key though. 

Areas such as the Northeast will see a decreased sizes in population. That will result in several Northeastern states losing congressional seats. The region has practically no congressional Republicans left. Connecticut’s Chris Shays was one of the last few holdouts and his overreaching attempts to appeal to  Democrat by essentially voting like a Democrat didn’t hack it. Republicans did not like his trying to be a liberal and liberals did not find him liberal enough so he’s out.

But the loss of seats through redistricting in the Northeast, where Republicans don’t have many seats, will favor Republicans where they are still strong….the South and West.

The census will show a strong increase in Southern population and so will the West. That means the representation lost in places like New Jersey and New York will be added to places like Florida and California, where the increased population will get increased representation. Except for California that bodes well for Republicans, but not in and of itself.

The party in power of each individual state legislature will ultimately determine the final redistricting maps. The party in charge at the time will create new districts that favor themselves and increases their own pluralities in their state capitol. They will do the same with their own states congressional delegation to washington, DC, as they draw congressional districts that favor their party as well.

So that means, if, for example, New Jersey has A Democrat Governor and a Democrat majority in the state senate and the state assembly, which they do now, Democrats will make their existing state legislative districts more favorable to electing Democrats. They will also draw congressional districts that are inclined to do the same. In fact, with the possible loss of one seat due to relatively decreased population growth, the Democrat dominated state legislature would probably emaciate one of the rare congressional districts that Republicans have held, forever, in Northern New Jersey. In the recent 2008 election, incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Fergusson retired and his seat was won by a Republican state senator named Leonard Lance. After redistricting, he and his seat will probably be gerrymandered out of existence.

This all points to the following .

• The GOP Must Act Quickly

We need to select a Republican National Chairman who has a vision of inclusiveness and a passionate command of the issues and ideological fervor that is rooted in the conservative foundation that has always been the basis of our most productive legislative sessions and our most successful election cycles. That person must also have the capacity for exceptional organizational development and cutting edge thinking that can exploit the internet and the grassroots. The new chairman must also be willing to act quickly and accept the fact that we need to prepare for the redistricting process that begins in 2010.  Any loss of time leading up to 2010 will wreak havoc on our prospects for the decade to follow. (Newt…..are you reading this?)

• A Bottoms Up Strategy

The new Republican National Committee Chairman must immediately focus on and direct all resources to local and state legislative elections. This may sound out of place for the “national” committee, however, by the time the end of 2010 rolls around, it is the state level which will strongly effect our national prospects in the redistricting process that occurs at the start of the next decade.

By spending the next two years establishing strong candidates to run strong campaigns for state senate and assembly seats, we will increase control of the state legislative bodies that are ultimately responsible for the redistricting that they will undertake after the 2010 census results. With that power and opportunity we will be able to draw new congressional districts that are favorable for increasing Republican pluralities in the newly drawn seats that will be up for grabs in 2012.

Without control of the redistricting process Democrats will have the opportunity to gerrymander more Republicans out of office and make it even harder to get elected into office . That will only make the decade to come more difficult for us to increase our state legislative and congressional prospects.

The new chairman of the RNC, whoever it may be, better be willing to utilize the little time we have between now and then wisely. The once every decade redistricting process that the new chairman should prepare us for could have more of an effect on GOP prospects and our regaining majority status in congress than any of the elections that will follow

GOOD ANSWERS

I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made.
–President Bill Clinton, on the 1991 Gulf War resolution

“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.”
–Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents

I haven’t committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law.
–David Dinkins, New York City Mayor, answering accusations that he failed to pay his taxes.

Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.
–Former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The streets are safe in Philadelphia. It’s only the people who make them unsafe.
–Frank Rizzo, ex-police chief and mayor of Philadelphia

I have lied in good faith.
– Bernard Tapie, French politician accused of fixing a soccar match involving the team he owned, when his sworn alibi fell apart in court.

I don’t need bodyguards.
–Jimmy Hoffa, labor leader

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
–Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC

The police are not here to create disorder. They’re here to preserve disorder.”
–Former Chicago mayor Daley during the infamous 1968 Democratic Party convention

China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.
–Former French President Charles de Gaulle

                                                    Click on the link above to see more of Politcs 24/7

Two GOP pundits got caught on an open mike yesterday treating John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as something on the order of the introduction of New Coke. One offered the opinion to the effect that "narratives are bull---t"

Hard to see how they made a living in this business.  What a candidate says and does is the narrative, and at the end of the day, it's all they have to sell to gain votes beyond that base number of voters who will vote for any living organism nominated by their party.

Abe Lincoln? The railsplitter born in a log cabin, the honest lawyer?  That's a narrative

Teddy Roosevelt? The hardcharging cowboy leading his men up San Juan Hill? Narrative

Richard Nixon? The poor boy from Whittier who took on the liberal establishment? Narrative.

Notice I haven't even gotten to the Reagan-Bush era yet.

Barack Obama is completely a narrative---the biracial philosopher king who will transcend all past divisions in our society?  

Now this is where campaigns fail. They lose sight of their narrative and to meet short term challenges go "off message". Then they look like "any other politician" and are treated  as such by the voters. (I would suggest that unattainable narratives, ala Obama's are a problem, too.)

In their vice presidential choices, Obama weakened his narrative. McCain improved his.

Obama had run on being the ultimate agent of change, but when push came to shove fell back on the most senior possible choice, Joe Biden, who's primary attribute was that he was believed to be an effective partisan attack dog.

Obama had the opportunity to define himself as post-political and truly representing generational change and a truly national campaign. Running with a deep blue Hackasaurus Maximus indeed pointed a light back at elements of Obama's resume (Chicago machine politics) which were better left unexamined.

McCain surely was counseled to choose a Biden-esq choice---some Republican senator or former appointee the chattering classes were comfortable with. But anyone who believes that Kay Bailey Hutchison of TX would enhance the McCain narrative just doesn't get it.

The McCain narrative is he isn't a comfortable establishment Republican and doesn;t much mind what their opinion is.  His electoral challenge was two fold. He needed to invest the Repblican rank and file in this narrative and he needed to link his narrative to that of contemporary swing voters in swing states.

Tim Pawlenty addressed this ; but the principal here decided to go bigger. That too, was a narrative choice--that he would buck conventional wisdom in a big fashion and not along the margins. And in choosing a running mate whom he must have known would be controversial, McCain basically screamed "maverick" from the rafters.

John McCain chose to gamble on his narrative and as of this morning, won the bet.  Barack Obama refused to place a wager and went with the house.  

Narratives matter. Not so sure about all the pundits out there.