Twitter

POLITICS 24/7's 2010 Election Night Schedule, Projections & Analysis

Bookmark and Share     In these closing days of the midterm elections, Democrats have been unable to do anything to stop the hemorrhaging of support that continues to drain away from them. At the same time, the wind behind the backs of the G.O.P. continues to build and with no resistance in sight, the momentum for Republican electoral victories is only strengthening. Two weeks ago, I feared that Republicans had peaked in the polls. That would have been a premature occurrence and not boded well. But since then, as GOP candidates continue to rise in the polls, it is clear that Republicans did not peak too early. All indications are that the momentum is still behind them and building. As such, history shows that many seats which are close enough to be considered tossups and those that have Democrats holding only slight leads, are more likely to fall into Republican hands then Democrat hands.

In addition to that and the massive swing of Independent and women voters to Republicans from Democrats, I believe that the anti-Democrat sentiment is currently running so unusually strong and deep that traditional polling models are not able to accurately enough read the depth of support for Republican candidates that exists out there. At least not as accurately as they normally can be.

The polls most reflective of final election results are those that are taken among people who are considered likely voters. But this year, there exists a group of voters which can not yet be identified by existing polling models. They fall in neither the category of “first time voters” or “likely voters”. It is the segment of the electorate which is also the most angry and the most likely to vote against Democrats. They are voters who became fed up with government as much as 5 to10 years ago and tuned out and stopped voting. But now, they have become so angered that they have come out of inactivity and are going to be some of the first people to cast their ballots against Democrats on Election Day. Existing polls are unable to account for this demographic and are allowing for results that do not contain the influence of these voters.

It is this unseen undercurrent of Republican support which I believe is going to help tip tossup races in favor of G.O.P. challengers and produce a number of surprises in races that are leaning toward Democrats. For instance, while I admit that Barbara Boxer is likely to be reelected, I have a feeling that Republican Carly Fiorna is poised to pull off one of the biggest upsets of the night and throw Boxer into a long overdue retirement from politics. The same undercurrent that I believe may sweep Fiorna into the Senate, will probably also be sweeping Republicans Dino Rossi of Washington and, I am going out on a limb by saying West Virginia’s John Raese, also to victory.

On the Senate side I believe that Republicans establish majority control by winning in:

Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

West Virginia and Washington are going to be too close for comfort though, and these results may not be official for quite a while, especially in Washington where mail in ballots are going to make recounts a tedious and time consuming process.

As for Alaska, this will probably be the very last race to be declared and won’t be done on Tuesday. Expect a careful and methodical recount of tons of write-in votes and court challenges. In the case of Delaware, I am probably one of the few people who is still not writing-off the ability for Christine O’Donnell and the voters of Delaware to make the professional pundits, political establishment and the media, look stupid, by pulling off an unlikely surprise upset victory over Democrat Chris Coons.

So while I an sure that  the G.O.P. will have a minimum net gain of 8 seats in the Senate, I believe that some combination of wins in Washington, West Virginia and/or California, will give Republicans control of the Senate with a total of 51 to 49 seats. But the very real possibility of  a 50/50 tie does actually exist here. If that happens, expect the GOP to end up taking control at some point during the course of the new year as at least one Democrat or two switch Parties ahead of their 2012 reelection bids in an attempt to avoid becoming  a casualty when President Obama is on the top of the liberal ticket.

On the House side, I expect Republicans to increase their existing numbers by a minimum of 58 seats and possibly as many as 65 or even 68 seats. This would bring Republicans from the current 178 House seats to anywhere from 236 to 243 or 246 House seats. Such numbers would give the G.O.P. one of its largest majorities since 1946.

Many may believe that these figures are too high. As a skeptic, under normal conditions, I might believe so too. However, even though I am typically a pessimist and even though I usually prefer to lower expectations in politics, I am convinced that my projections are not exaggerated or overly optimistic and I believe there to be a greater chance for the higher estimate to come to fruition than there is for my lower estimate.

But the proof will be in the pudding and no matter how much statistical data and fine tuning of local factors that I combine together to reach my projections, only each individual voter ultimately knows what they will do with their private ballot. And Lord only knows the variables that things like the weather will add to the mix.

But signs of the final results will reveal themselves early on in the evening of November 2nd.

 `

6:00 pm: Parts of Indiana and Kentucky;

Polls close in parts of Indiana and Kentucky at 6:00 pm, but we may not hear any results until 7:00 PM when the rest of them close Indiana and Kentucky along with the states of Virginia, Georgia, Vermont, South Carolina and parts of Florida.

 `

7:00 pm: Virginia, Georgia, Vermont, South Carolina, Parts of Florida, All of Indiana and Kentucky;

The hour between 7:00 and 8:00 pm may produce election results that provide us with a hint as to whether the 2010 midterm elections are going to be a current, wave or tsunami for Republicans.

South Carolina’s Niki Haley will hold on to the Governor’s mansion for Republicans. But it is South Carolina’s 5th CD which may be one of the very first indication that normaly safe democrat seats and incumbents are about to fall like dominos. Here, if longtime incumbent John Spratt loses to Republican Mick Mulvaney, people like Michigan’s John Dingel and Massachusetts Barney Frank, better pull out the rosaries, find God, light a candle and say a few prayers because for the first time in their careers they will most definitely be vulnerable.

From Indiana, The GOP will gain a senate seat, replacing retiring Evan Bayh with Dan Coats and news that 8th and 9th district Republicans Larry Buschon and Todd Young defeat Democrat incumbents Trent Van Haaftern and Baron Hill will indicate that Republicans are on track to win 55 or more seats. Should they lose, the GOP will still be in line for at least 40 seats but significantly more than that may not be realistic. In Indiana’s 2nd district, if returns are still too close to declare incumbent Democrat Congressman Joe Donnelly the winner, or if his Republican opponent Jackie Walorski beats him, do not be surprised by GOP gains of 60 or more seats.

In Florida, early indications that Republicans are on track for 40 or more seats will be seen in early returns that give the GOP wins in FL-2 with Republican Steve Sutherland, and in the 8th, where the unbridled liberalism of Allen Grayson, one of the most obnoxious and arrogant members of Congress, should be shut up and shot down by Republican Daniel Webster. But if the G.O.P. is going to be riding a tsunami to control of the House, Lt. Col. Allen West, my favorite candidate of all running for the House, will win in Fl-22, along with Republican Sandy Adams over Democrat Suzanne Kosmas in Fl-24.

 `

7:30 pm: West Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio

Other races between 6 and 8 pm to look at as barometers include KY-3, where incumbent John Yarmuth should win by at least three or more percent. If his opponent, Todd Lally pulls off an unlikely win, this election will be a bigger landslide to the G.O.P. than anyone anticipated.

The same goes for KY-6 (Ben Chandler vs. Andy Barr), NC-2 (Bob Etherdige vs. Renee Elmers), VA- 5 (Tom Perriello vs. Robert Hurt), GA-12 (John Barrow vs. Raymond McKinney), OH-6 (Charlie Wilson vs. Bill Johnson), and WV-3 (Nick Rahall vs. Spike Maynard) and we should be getting news on SC-5 (John Spratt vs. Mick Mulvaney),

Perhaps the biggest news at this time will be the news that Rob Portman keeps Ohio’s senate in the Republican column and that John Kasich takes the Governor’s mansion away from incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland.

At the hour of eight o’clock, the real dye will be cast.

 `

8:00 pm: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida CD’s 1 & 2, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas;

At this point in time, despite Linda McMahon and the Republican candidate for Governor losing their races in Connecticut, look for CT-5 (Chris Murphy vs. Sam Caligiuri), to switch and if CN-4 also falls, you will have further confirmation of the 2010 midterm elections being historic. During the eight o’clock hour, one of the most indicators of just how big Republicans may win by, will be most played out in Mississippi’s 4th CD. If incumbent Blue Dog Democrats Gene Taylor goes down to Republican Steven Palazzo, President Obama might want to consider pulling a Charlie Crist and registering as an Independent because a loss by Taylor will mean that there is no place for Democrats to hide and no issue for them to hide behind.

A race that could be indicative of the big mo behind the G.O.P. will be Maine’s 1st district where Democrat Chellie Pingree could be beaten by Republican Dean Scontras.

The state to produce the most dramatic switch to the G.O.P. this hour may be Pennsylvania where, Republicans Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey will take the statehouse and U.S. Senate and as many as 7 seats could go red. The five seats most likely to switch are PA-3 (Kathy Dahlkemper-D vs. Mike Kelly-R), PA-7 (Patrick Meehan-D vs. Bryan Lentz-R), PA-8 (Patrick Murphy-D vs. Michael Fitzpatrick-R), PA-10 (Chris Carney-D vs. Tom Marino-R), PA-11 (Paul Kanjorski vs. Lou Barletta).

In regards to the U.S. Senate, sometime between 8 and 8:30 we should be hearing that my favorite Senate candidate, Marco Rubio, has pummeled both Charlie “What Am I Now” Crist and Democrat Kendrick “I should have stayed in the House” Meek.

We should also hear that we can say goodbye to Joe “Says Tax” Sestak in Pennsylvania with Republican Pat Toomey, and also welcome Republican Mark Kirk to the Senate from Illinois.

As far as the races for Governor go after the 8:00 pm closures, in addition to Paul LePage taking Maine, Tom Corbet taking Pennsylvania, and Florida going to Rick Scott, the GOP will also increase the number of Governors in their ranks with wins in Pennsylvania and Illinois and Maine.

`

8:30 pm: Arkansas

At 8:30 pm, Arkansas closes the book on the 2010 midterms with a stinging and embarrassing defeat of Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln and the flip of AR-2 from Democrat Joyce Elliot to Republican Tim Griffith.

A defeat of Democrats in AR-1 and 4 is not likely but possible. If they do fall to Republicans, this will be further evidence that we will be in the midst of a total shift in the tectonic plates of the political landscape.

Before 9:00 pm, we should already know that Nancy Pelosi’s tenure as majority leader is just a bad memory. But during this hour, a flood of states will be delivering additional blows to Democrats.

`

9:00 pm: Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Between 9 and 10 pm, the G.O.P. will make big gains in the all important statehouses which will be instrumental in drawing preferential districts for the incumbent Party for the next decade and also gains towards taking control of the United States Senate.

Republicans will pick up Governors in Kansas, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Wyoming, and have a good chance of taking Minnesota. Rhode Island’s gubernatorial leadership is likely to flip from Republican hands to Independent hands, but it is still somewhat of a tossup. And while I do not see us keeping Rhode Island, if by chance, Republican John Robitale defeated liberal Independent Lincoln Chafee and Liberal Democrat Frank Caprio, Democrats will need sedatives to get through the rest of the night because that will be indicative of a pending national whooping that will hit them so hard, FDR will feel it.

As for the Senate, say goodbye to Michael Bennet in Colorado, and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin.

House races to look at for signs of how substantial the night will be for Republicans include CO-7 (Permultter-D vs. Frazier), RI-1 (Cicilline-D vs. Loughlin-R), and especially NY-1 (Bishop-D vs. Altschuler-R), NY-13 (McMahon vs. Grimm-R), TX- 25 (Dagget-D vs. Campbell-R), and MN-8 (Oberstar vs. Cravaack). Any combination of three or more of these seats will be one of the final signs that Democrats are spiraling out of control in this election. From those states which wrap their voting up during this hour, at least 16 or 17 seats should switch from Democrats to Republicans. Some of the biggest gains are likely to come from New York where the GOP will pick at least 4 seats, (NY-1, 19, 20, and 29), but possibly as many as 6 with wins. A remarkable chance exists for Republicans to take back the 13th CD which is encompasses the Staten Island and Southwest Brooklyn section of New York City’s five boroughs. This seat has been the only one in which New York City sent a Republican to occupy. It was in Republican hands for decades but last year fell to Democrats after Congressman Vito Fossella received a DUI charge in Virginia and subsequently revealed that while he was away in Washington from his Staten Island family, he spent time with his mistress and illegitimate child in Virginia. The candidacy of Michael Grimm and the anti-Democrat environment we are in, makes this a good last chance to take this seat back.

The other New York race that is well worth watching is out on the Southern tip of Long Island where Tim Bishop, (D, NY-1) could find himself a victim of a trend that began on Long Island last November when one of its two counties was taken by surprise when Republican Ed Mangano came from nowhere to defeat a safe Democrat incumbent in a race that was largely seen as uncompetitive. Although that was Nassau County and NY-1 is in Suffolk County, there is not much that differentiates the one county from the other when it comes to political sentiments. In this congressional district, Republican Randy Altschuler is certainly giving incumbent Tim Bishop a run for his money and if there are going to be a lot of surprises on November 2nd, NY-1 is as a good a place as any.

`

10:00 pm: Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, Utah

It may not be made official for an hour or so but the biggest news of the night will happen not long after the stroke of 10 when Sharon Angle embarrasses Democrats by taking down their Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Further embarrassment will include the ridiculously lopsided loss of Harry’s son Rory Reid, who is running for Governor of Nevada. Hopefully the Reid family will take the message and crawl back under the rock they emerged from.

In this same round of poll closings Iowa will give the GOP a statehouse pickup in Iowa. House seats to watch include AZ-7 where a win by real life rocket scientist, Republican Ruth McClung could defeat incumbent Raul Grijalva. McClung is not favored to win but if she did, it would be indicative of 2010 being much more than a Republican wave election. Other races which are suppose to remain in Democrats hands but could be upsetting the establishment are AZ-8 (Gabrielle Giffords-D vs. Jesse Kelly-R), ID-1 (Walt Minnick-D vs. Raul Labrador-R), IA-3 (Boswell-D vs. Brad Zaun-R) NV-3 (Titus-D vs. Heck-R), ND-At Large (Pomeroy-D vs. Berg-R), and UT-2 (Matheson-D vs. Morgan Phipot-R).

`

11:00 pm: California, Washington and Oregon;

In this round of poll closings, the GOP will simply be putting the icing on the cake House, but could determine whether or not they take control of the Senate.

In California, Republicans may very well control in Sacramento with the defeat of Meg Whitman to Jerry Brown and while only a major last minute development can save her, Carly Fiorina will in my opinion fare far better and ultimately pack Boxer up with a victory of a percent or less.

Washington state is likely to produce an upset by sending republican Dino Rossi to Washington and retiring incumbent Patty Murray by another slim margin of victory, but mail in ballots will prevent this from being confirmed for days, at least.

The most interesting House race to be watched will be in California where Democrat Loretta Sanchez is in the tightest race of her nearly two decade in office as she tries to beat off a challenge Van Tran. Vietnamese Tran, a California state legislator, is unifying the significant 15% of the district populations which is Vietnamese, along with a coalition of Independent Hispanics, African-Americans and Caucasians, along with a sizeable Republican vote. Together, these groups are countering the overwhelming 69% Hispanic makeup of the district. But that is a pretty solid voting bloc and if Van Tran can pull this one off, it will in large part be due to the strong undercurrent that is sweeping Democrats away. Sanchez should win this election the surprise factor has great promise in CA-47.

`

12:00 pm: Alaska, Hawaii

At this point, Republicans may be needing a victory by Joe Miller to take control of the Senate. But despite losing the GOP nomination in Alaska, Miller’s closets opponent in the race, Lisa Murkowski, is still a Republican and if her outside chance of successful write-in candidacy comes true, she is still likely to caucus with Republicans and in that regards, accomplish the same goal as far as who will control the Senate. Either way, expect Alaska’s results to no be made official for quite a while.

In Hawaii, CD-1 will be an attention grabber. Here, Republican Charles Djou recently won the seat in a special election. Yet observers favor his opponent, Democrat Colleen Hanabusa to take this seat back for Democrats. I think Djou can keep it, albeit by a small margin, but by a majority nonetheless. As for the governor’s race in Hawaii, while Republican Duke Aiona has made this race a tossup between popular retiring Congressman Neil Abercrombie, I fear Abercrombie is just to popular to defeat in Hawaii. The fact that Aiona has made this race as close as it is, is a tremendous credit to him, but in the end, I see Republicans losing the hold they had on the Hawaii statehouse with retiring Republican Governor Linda Lingle, to Neil Abercrombie.

Photobucket

No matter what, Republicans will be back in a position of power that will make it at the very least alter the Obama agenda and make it impossible for the President and Democrats to try to circumvent them. If the GOP happens to take control of both the Senate and the House, you can rest assured that President Obama is going to be a different President than he has been over these past 22or so months. Will he abandon his agenda and moderate in order to work with Congress or will he stick to his guns and risk an endless stream of rejection from Congress? When Bill Clinton was faced with the Republican Revolution of 1994, he was reduced to having to explain to a reporter how he would be relevant to the political process during the second half of his term.

Now, with the Republican Rejuvenation of 2010, President Obama may be faced with the same need to prove how relevant he will be. This will certainly be the case if Republicans can exploit the small chance of taking over the senate as well as the House. But Bill Clinton was able to prove that he was indeed relevant. He began to pay attention to the pulse of the people and began working with the G.O.P. instead of constantly working against them. This will be harder for President Obama to do though. The has publicly told Republicans to sit on the back of the bus and called Republicans “the enemy”. Still, unless President Obama wants to endorse gridlock and seek to get reelected by claiming that the GOP is still in the way of his agenda which has proven to be a failure, he will be forced to moderate. How he reacts to the new political in America will be quite interesting. If he is the politically charismatic genius that some claim, he could turn things around and resurrect himself among mainstream and moderate America and the powerful Independent vote.

As for Republicans, it must be remembered that they are not winning because people like, trust or want them. They are skeptical of the GOP and not fully convinced that they understand that the people do not want to compromise on the issues of big government, big spending and further encroachment of our constitutional rights. This means that Republicans must be unafraid of saying “no” to the President. They must not backtrack on attempts to repeal government healthcare, cut the size, scope and cost of government or cave in to political correctness and fail to live up to the promises made in 2010.

The final political effect of the 2010 election results will be seen in the 2012 race for President a contest that will begin on the Republican side on Wednesday November 3rd. On the Democrat side it may not begin start up quite as fast. President Obama will be spending some time outside of the country in the days to follow the election. And when he returns home he will be making every single policy decision with 2012 in mind and others. But others like Hillary Clinton may also be doing the same. People like her might feel that the devastating losses that Democrats will have suffered, will require them to save the Party from President Obama and the nation from his policies. Such thinking could be behind the resignation from her position as Secretary of State some time during the beginning of 2011.

 

   GOPElephantRight.jpg GOP Elephant Right image by kempiteStars01.gif picture by kempiteGOPElephantLeft.jpg GOP Elephant Left image by kempite

Republican House Pickups

Results bewtween 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm

  • Indiana 8                - Larry Buschon over Trent Van Haaften
  • Indiana 9                – Todd Young over Baron Hill
  • Florida 2                 – Steve Sutherland over Allen Boyd
  • Florida 8                 - Daniel Webster over Allen Grayson
  • Florida 22               - Allen West over Ron Klein
  • Florida 24               - Sandy Adams over Suzanne Kosmas
  • Virginia 2                - Scott Rigell over Glenn Nye
  • Virginia 5                - Robert Hurt over Tom Perriello
  • South Carolina 5  -  Mick Mulvaney over John  Spratt
  • Georgia 2                 - Mike Keown over Sanford Bishop
  • Georgia 8                 – Austin Scott over Jim Marshall
  • Ohio 1                        – Steve Chabot over Steve Driehaus
  • Ohio 15                     - Steve Stivers over Mary Jo Kilroy
  • Ohio 16                     - Jim Rannaci over John Boccieri
  • Ohio 18                     – Bob Gibbs over Zach Space
  • North Carolina 8  - Harold Johnson over Larry Kissel

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

** -indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • Georgia 12               - Raymond McKinney over John Barrow**
  • Indiana 2                  – Jackie Walorski over Joe Donnelly**
  • Kentucky 3              - Todd Lally over John Yarmuth
  • Kentucky 6              – Andy Barr over Ben Chandler
  • Virginia 9                 - Morgan Griffith over Rick Boucher
  • Virginia 11               – Keith Fimian over Gerry Connolly
  • Ohio 6                        – Bill Johnson over Charlie Wilson**
  • West Virginia 1      – David McKinley over Mike Oliverio
  • West Virginia 3      – Spiike Maynard over Nick Rahall
  • North Carolina 11   - Jeff Miller over Heath Schuler

 

Results bewtween 8:00 pm and 9:00 pm

  • Connecticut 5           - Sam Caliguiri over Chris Murphy
  • Illinois 14                   - Randy Huttgren over Bill Foster
  • Illinois 17                  - Bobby Schilling over Ohil Hare
  • Maryland 1                – Andy Harris over Frank Kratovil
  • New Hampshire 1   - Frank Guinta over Carol Shea Porter
  • New Hampshire 2   – Charlie Bass over Ann McLane Kuster
  • New Jersey 3            – Jon Runyan over John Adler
  • Pennsylvania 3        – Mike Kelly over Kethy Dahlkemper
  • Pennsylvania 7        – Bryan Lentz over Patrick Meehan
  • Pennsylvania 8        - Michael Ftzpatrick  over  Patrick Murphy
  • Pennsylvania 10     – Tom Marino over Chris Carney
  • Pennsylvania 11      – Lou Barletta over Paul Kanjorski
  • Tennessee 6              - Diane Black over Brett Carter
  • Tennessee 8              – Stephen Fincher over Roy Herron
  • Texas 17                     – Bill Flores over Chet Edwards
  • Florida 2                    - Steve Sutherland over Allen Boyd
  • Arkansas 1                - Rick Crawford over Chad Causey
  • Arkansas 2               -  Tim Griffin over Joyce Elliot

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

 ** -indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • Alabama 2                             - Martha Roby over Bobby Bright **
  • Connecticut 4                      – Dan Dibecella over Jim Hines **
  • Massachusetts 4                 – Sean Bielat over Barney Frank **
  • Mississippi 4                        – Steven Palazzo over Gene Taylor **
  • New Jersey 6                       – Anna Little over Frank Pallone **
  • New Jersey 12                     - Scott Sipprele over Rush Holt ** 
  • Pennsylvania 4                  – Keith Rothfus over Jason Altmire **
  • Pennsylvania 12                – Tim Burns over Mark Critz **
  • Tennessee 4                         – Scott DeJarlas over Lincoln Davis
  • Texas 15                                – Eddie Zamora over Ruben Hinjosa
  • Texas 25                                – Donna Campbell over Lloyd Doggett **

 

Results bewtween 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm

  • Colorado 3                  - Scott Tipton over John Salazar
  • Colorado 4                  - Cory Gardner over Betsy Markey
  • Louisaina 3                 - Jeff Landry over Ravi Sangisetty
  • Kansas 3                       - Kevin Yoder over Stephene Moore
  • Michigan 1                   - Dan Banishek over Gary McDowell
  • Michigan 7                  - Tim Walberg over Mark Schauer
  • New York 19              - Nan Hayworth over John Hall
  • New York 20             - Chris Gibson over Scott Murphy
  • New York 23             - Matt Doheny over Bill Owens
  • New York 29             – Tom Reed over Matt Zeller
  • New Mexico 2           - Harry Teague over Steve pearce
  • South Dakota -AL    - Kristi Noem over Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin
  • Texas 23                     - Quico Canseco over Ciro Rodrigues
  • Wisconsin 7              - Sean Duffy over Julie Lassa
  • Wisconsin 8              - Reid Ribble over Steve Kagen

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

  ** -indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • Colorado 7                 - Ryan Frazier over Ed Perlmutter**
  • Louisiana 2        - *Cao over Richmond **~(see note below)
  • Minnesota 1               - Randy Demmer over Tim Walz
  • Minnesota 7              -  Lee Byberg over Collin Peterson
  • Minnesota 8               - Chip Cravaack over Jim Oberstar**
  • Michigan 15               – Rob Steele over John Dingel**
  • New York 2                – John Gomez over Steve Israel**
  • New York 13             – Michael Grimm over Michael McMahon**
  • New York 24             – Richard Hanna over Michael Arcuri
  • New York 25             - Anne Marie Buerkle over Dan Maffei
  • New York 27             – Leonard Roberts over Brian Higgins
  • New Mexico 3           – Tom Mullins over Ben Ray Lujan
  • Rhode Island             - John Loughlin over David Cicilline**
  • Wisconsin 13             - Dan Kapanke over Ron Kind**

 

Results between 10:00 pm and 11:00 pm

  • Arizona 1                               – Paul Gosar over Ann Kirkpatrick
  • Arizona 5                              - David Schwiekert over Harry Mitchell
  • Idaho 1                                   – Raul Labrador over Walt Minnick
  • North Dakota -AL              – Rick Berg over Earl Pomeroy
  • Nevada 3                               – Joe Heck over Dina Titus

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

 ** -indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • Arizona 7                              – Ruth McClung over Raul Girjalva **
  • Arizona 8                              - Jesse Kelly over Gabrielle Giffords **
  • Iowa 3                                    – Brad Zaun over Leonard Boswell
  • Utah 2                                    - Morgan Philpot over Jim Mathison

 

Results between 11:00 pm and 12:00 am

  • California 11                    - David Harmer over Jerry McNerny   
  • California 20                   – Andy Vidak over Jim Costa
  • Washington 3                  - Denny Heck over Jamie Herrera

Seat changes that would indicate  a trend toward Democrats losses much higher than expected

 ** -indicates seats that if Democrats lose will be  a sign of a Republican pickup of 65 or more seats if

  • California 18                   - Mike Berryhill over Dennis Cardoza
  • California 47                  - Van Tran over Lorretta Sanchez**
  • Washington 2                 - John Koster over Rick Larsen**
  • Washington 9                 - Dick Muri over Adam Smith
  • Oregon 4                          - Art Robinson over Peter DeFazio
  • Oregon 5                         - Scott Brunn over Kurt Schrader**

 

Results after 12:00 am

  • Hawaii 1                 - Charles Djou over Colleen Hanabusa

                                                      Bookmark and Share                                                  Click the image below for more from POLITICS 24/7     

 

Twitter, Iran, and Totalitarianism

One of my first thoughts on seeing Twitter being used by Iranians following their elections was, 'Imagine if they had Twitter during Tienanmen Square.' Totalitarian regimes historically thrive, in large measure, by controlling the media and modes of communication. Would be protesters become isolated. Government propaganda simply spins any protest or event into something that reflects well on the regime in power.

 

Yet now there is Twitter, other social networks, and the internet at large. It's wise for Tweeters and others to understand that the deck is still stacked against those protesting the election. The Iranian government still controls the media, and in a textbook totalitarian move they have banned foreign press. While members of the Twitter community have set up proxy servers for people in Iran to use, the government has shut down known internet connections, which means that in all likelihood a large majority of Iranians are only hearing the official government version of events.

Yet protests continue and news spreads in large part due to Twitter and the internet. This is not something past totalitarian regimes have had to deal with. There are enough Iranians using Twitter (or other forms of communication) to organize that protests continue. The government has not been able to implement complete control. Hopefully those watching, participating, and following #iranelection on Twitter recognize that there is a definite possibility that this ends very badly as totalitarian regimes are also brutal. The reality is that what results from this is wholly a guess, but it changes the playing field and gives voice to those who previously had none. Person to person communication tools change the dynamic shifting, at least some of the power to the people, and puts a crack in structure of totalitarianism.

tienneman ter copy

Twitter Changing the Playing Field In Iran and For Totalitarianism

Online Activism: Taking it to the Tweets

Patrick Ruffini wrote that “The Rightroots Needs Less Meta and More Purpose.” I’ve recently been involved in two Twitter campaigns which have convinced me that the proper combination of meta and purpose can lead to political success. 

Free the Hops

Free the Hops is an organization behind a recently successful bill to allow beers with more than six percent alcohol (98 of the world's 100 top gourmet beers contain over six percent alcohol) to be sold in Alabama. After a hard fought four year Internet-based campaign, the wildly popular bill finally passed in Alabama’s lower legislative chamber.

When the bill hit the state Senate, one senator decided to filibuster the legislation. Every time the bill came up on the floor, he’d irritate his colleagues by preaching about the evils of alcohol. After years of hard work by thousands of activists, it looked like the bill was going to die. That’s when we decided to take it to the Tweets. 

Online Video is done right by Gavin Newsom

Normal
0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0jnyuJ1Tg

 

I don’t really think that any of Newsom’s policies are good.

But I did think that his online video announcing his gubernatorial campaign was great.   Here’s why:

 

 

1-   It was Short

For the love of God please NEVER put a video on the Internet that is longer then five minutes.  The shorter the better. 

 

2-   It was made specifically for the Internet

I have seen far to many candidates and politicians use their youtube channel for reposting entire news conferences, long-winded speeches and news clips. I am not objecting to this material being put up, but online video allows for so much creativity and yet I see so many campaigns just pushing what was already on TV, and what didn’t make it onto TV.     

 

 

3-It was professionally produced

 

Did you notice the upbeat music that fit well with the theme?   The multiple shots?   The flowing story line?   The fact that Gavin speaking was shot specifically for this online video?  The fact that this video had quick edits and was always visually interesting?   The consistent text?  The good sound quality?   

Notice how when you give an intern a $300 camera you got at Best Buy you don’t have any of these things? 

If you want your video to be good, expect to spend a little bit of money on it.  It will still be a tiny fraction of Television CPM.

 

 

4-K.I.S.S.

 

This video was a very simple announcement:

 

San Francisco is doing great under my leadership.

I’m running for governor.

I’m liberal.

Join the Campaign. 

 

5-It spoke to a target audience.

Every time an online video is made there should be a specific target in mind: past donors, potential donors, gun owners, the media, young voters ect.

 

The target for this video was elite voters (voters that are informed and who’s political opinions are valued by their friends, family and neighbors) of the Democratic party, who will defiantly vote in the primary.

 

What did the video say to this very liberal group?

-I have little regard for the English language.

-Extremist government environmental policies create jobs.

-Government health care is wonderful and affordable because of me.

-Minorities like me.

-Government creates jobs that pay a “living wage”.

These are all things that the target audience wanted to hear.

 

6-It was used to in conjunction with the media.

The media talked about his video.  The story was about how he is cutting edge, and high tech.  As opposed to the story being about his problems: the failure of prop 8, his personal issues, ect.  He created the frame as opposed to letting the media frame him.

 

7-It was used in conjunction with the rest of his campaign.

The video promoted campaign stops he was going to be making up and down California.  And it asked people to “Join” his campaign (donate or volunteer).  

 

8-It was used in conjunction with other Internet properties.

Gavin twittered the video (where he has over 421,000 followers), put it on his facebook (where he has 50,000 supporters), his website (which gets more then 7 times the traffic of all his gubernatorial competitors combined), and he put it on the Huffington Post (where he is a regular contributor).

Online video must work hand in hand with every e-platform you have at your disposable to ensure proper distribution.

 

9-Awesome subliminal messaging!

“Stop looking back and start looking for solutions.”

“We can’t afford to keep returning to the same old tired ideas and expect a different result.”

“We need new ideas and bold fresh innovative solutions.”

=

Jerry Brown is older then dirt.

 

 

Bryan Barton is a political consultant based in Sacramento specializing in online video.

You can email him at bb@iStardom.com.

Or check out his videos he has made for Congressman Tom McClintock, The San Diego County GOP, and the Tea Parties at www.youtube.com/bryanbarton

 

Why Twitter Matters & The Left Should Be Nervous

I realize I'm inviting much ridicule from my friends on the left, but I'm going to write this post anyway, and I'm going to leave the title intact - Why Twitter Matters & The Left Should Be Nervous. It's no doubt going to generate some giggles among the online intelligentsia in the Democratic Party. That's ok with me.

I have, for several months now, seen a string of posts and tweets from these same lefty friends that are either mocking or dismissive of the Conservatives nascent efforts on Twitter. Here's one example courtesy of TechPresident's own Micah Sifry.

It's positively quaint to listen to Republicans murmur optimistically about their "dominance" on Twitter. #polc09, #tcot, #p2

The very first time I saw one, it reminded me immediately of comments I had seen and heard before. They were the openly dismissive comments directed by complacent and cocky Republicans at the Democrats efforts online.

I specifically remember more than a few people, myself included, who watched the rise of the online left with initial derision. As late as 2004 and 2005, I heard things like, "The Democrats and their blogs. How's that working out for them? All that effort and how many wins has it resulted in?"

Beginning with Conrad Burns and George Allen, we began to quickly see the results of "those blogs". It's a lesson we failed to heed early on, and it contributed greatly to our demise.

What we failed to recognize was the infancy of an effort to use new technology to mobilize. It was an effort to build a new network and the infrastructure to disseminate a coherent message.

I have argued that the reason the Democrats never mastered talk radio was very simple - they never had to. In modern politics, the insurgent party will adapt to the most interactive (and the most real-time) technology available at the time. In 1992, having lost the White House, House and Senate, the GOP gravitated toward talk radio. Despite it being a broadcast medium, it was the most interactive medium available. It was adapted to facilitate the conversation about the direction of the party and the country.

The Democrats, rising out of the loss in 2000, had to coallesce around a platform. Talk radio, had the Internet not been available, would likely have become the staging area and the rise of the left on talk radio would have been a near certainty. But a funny thing happened on the march toward the AM dial.

With the Internet, blogs and Meetup became the new polis for the exiled Democrats.

Now you could argue that two data points is hardly enough to qualify my central thesis - the adaption of interactive forums by the out party. But keep in mind that Americans detachment from one another and from in-person communities really didn't explode until about this same time. Prior to that, most people who were politically active simply turned to their party and its structures. It's just the last 20 years that have split us from our parties and each other, so we can only look at the data available.

That brings us back to the present day and the Republicans.

Now that we are the out party, we are turning to the Internet to discuss, debate and strategize the party's future. It is no longer, however, simple enough to label "The Internet" as a monolithic thing the way we did with the Democratic use of the medium. The Internet is no longer about websites as it was with blogs and Meetup. The Internet, as it exists today, is more a generic platform for advanced communication services - whether they are site based, text messages, cellular applications, or anything else.

In the world of converging technologies, Twitter represents the single most interactive, most real-time, tool available. Twitter is mobile. Twitter is rapid. Twitter facilitates deep content (via linking) and fast action (via retweets and viral distribution).

For the Democrats that dismiss Republican testing of many and various models of activism on Twitter, you should watch very closely what's going on, rather than simply mocking it. Complacency and satisfaction with your status quo is a slippery slope and it's very easy to fall into the "yes, but what has it gotten them" mindset.

It is likely, I would even say certain, that Twitter, or some next generation concept that builds upon Twitter's framework, will be a central component of the GOP resurgence. It most certainly won't happen overnight. However, I guarantee you will - when you find yourself out of power again - be able to trace the roots of your downfall to this earliest of efforts.

Until then, to my friends on the left, let me say two things. First, we'll keep using Twitter, and you can keep cracking jokes. Second, as long as you do, we'll see you on the other side, soon enough.

Update: Based on further conversation (via Twitter) about this post, I need to clarify a point.  I'm not claiming the GOP is currently "dominant" on Twitter.  That was Micah's reference.  I'm simply looking at the tendency for conservatives to adapt to Twitter faster and easier than they have other online venues.

The left's attitude (represented by Micah's comment) seems to me to be that the GOP is putting all its eggs in the Twitter basket without doing all the other things that the left did to be successful.  My argument is that's a false assumption.  It requires that the GOP mimic the left to advance online.  Just as the left bypassed the right's use of talk radio and went straight on to a different model, I think the right may be able to skip directly past the duplication of the left's infrastructure by simply making use of what are currently the most advanced communications and mobilization tools. I see evidence that many in the right are developing new models in an effort to do just that.

Those new models have not yet become "dominant". My central premise is, however, that many on the left  and right seem to believe we must embrace the left's status quo.  I, on the other hand, believe our salvation will not come in duplicating their model, but in creating a new paradigm for our own activism.

Everyone is an Instapundit: How the Left Underestimates Twitter

Interesting points from Bill. We should neither overestimate nor underestimate the power of new tools online. We have to match online tools with offline goals in order for political entrepreneurship to continue to grow on the Right. -Matt Moon

I've noticed a trend over the past few weeks, roughly concurrent with the Twitter-reinforced Tea Party movement, which is a tendency on the Left to dismiss Twitter both for its apparent limitations as well as its embrace by the political Right. Not only do I think they are making a mistake, but the explanation in part illuminates why Twitter is becoming ever more important to online communication.

To begin, here's erstwhile conservative John Cole making the former point:

Here is what I don’t understand about twitter. When blogs came out and started to rise in popularity, lots of folks in the MSM and elsewhere said “Great. Just what we need. The undigested, unedited thoughts of the rabble.” If blogs are the undigested thoughts, tweets are the orts.

Here's Bloggingheads regular commenter B.J. Keefe, responding to new host Matt Lewis' point -- via my post here -- that the Right is succeeding on Twitter:

Is this anything worth bragging about? What does it even mean, that there are more Republicans spewing out sound bites and ill-considered thoughtlets? ... [G]iven the choice to "dominate" on Twitter compared to, say, the blogosphere, let alone actually getting people off their couches to go knock on doors, I know which one I'd pick.

Even as Markos Moulitsas has recently taken to Twitter, at least one Daily Kos community member decided to hoax the TCOT list about the contents of the stimulus bill -- "$2 million for Shamwows" -- and with some success, too. (On the other hand, this guy makes a good point.) And here is Gavin M. from Sadly, No!:

Twitter is that new thing that’s like burping the alphabet. Republicans are big on it because they have nothing to say.

He is being glib (what? impossible) but this is a trend, all right. What's driving this attitude? We can't ignore sour grapes -- for the first time in a while, the Right is being recognized as doing something online better than the Left. It only makes sense the Left would want to minimize that, both to reassure themselves, discourage the Right and encourage skepticism among outside observers.

It's absolutely true that, by itself, Twitter is a stunted communication tool. The brevity allows for faster communication, which also means less context and a greater likelihood of jumping to conclusions. Then again, the value of each individual tweet is infinitessimal and easily countered (the so-called "self-correcting blogosphere" in fact wasn't, but the Twitterverse may be different).

Of course, there is a lot more to Twitter than 140 characters, thanks to its API and developer community. For those who may have not been following it closely, Twitpic lets you share pictures. Power Twitter embeds those photos (and links to YouTube) on the page. Utterli lets you post audio. Services like Bit.ly make it easy to track clicks on links you post. Both Farhad Manjoo and David Weinberger have recently explained how Twitter users have compensated for its limitations.

Twitter's homepage famously asks "What are you doing?" but, famously as well I think, the vast majority of Twitter users ignore this question and say whatever they think needs to be said. Twitter is what you make of it.

What's Behind the Right's Current Twitter Advantage + Using #TCOT vs. No Hashtags Whatsoever

Practicing Politics in the Twitter Era: If we are to speak of the age of online politics -- and I am not certain that we should -- let's say we've lived through the Blog Era (2001-04), the YouTube Era (2005-08) and now we are in the Twitter Era (2008-?). This screen shot of a blog post at Media Matters (of all places) juxtaposing tweets from Newt Gingrich and Matt Cooper -- proof alone that everyone in Washington is using Twitter -- provides a useful snapshot of the how Twitter works alongside the blogosphere (rumors of its death still exaggerated) in moving political messages online:

Zing.

So the Right had a vibrant 'sphere in the post-9/11 Warblogging Period, which drifted after the 2004 election, as frustrated soon-to-be-ex-Pajamas Media bloggers can tell you. The Left owned the YouTube era, which happened to coincide, not coincidentally, with President Bush's second term. Their political blog infrastructure was developed largely on the participation of bloggers and blog readers, not anyone using Twitter yet, most of the time because Twitter did not exist or see any significant usage until SXSW 2007. (You know who I can't find on Twitter? MoveOn.)

For at least a year now, the Right again has been leading the way on an Internet-based communication platform. So far it's to organize for Conservatism somewhat broadly as a unifying cause. Top Conservatives on Twitter is not quite a MoveOn for the Right -- a whispered-of but ultimately mythical animal not unlike the "Party-in-a-laptop" idea popular with some Neoliberals -- but it could have more value as a list than Gingrich's own Drill Here, Drill now efforts and even the (also short-time) #dontgo message it spawned last August. These new conservative projects are often built around Twitter itself. Sometimes this results in really annoying tweets, but at this point the right is doing more interesting things in this space. Twitter is smaller than Facebook, but makes up for it in volume of press hits (hopefully someone with Nexis can back this up for me) and news reports that its traffic is about to go all hockey-stick. Maybe it will go Galt as well.

Conservatives also have other, much older infrastructure whose blogging component counts a few successes but still relies on decidedly Web 1.0 websites, and so hasn't taken as big a hit in the Great Blog Crash of 2008-09. And like companies of the dot com crash (including Google itself), the concepts and websites that clawed their way out of the rubble did not and will not bring back substantial returns in the short run. Twitter, by its sheer simplicity, is kind of a Long Tail product in that we can (and often seem to actually do) use it in spare moments between the day, which means its audience could approach that of e-mail (especially since, you know, you need an e-mail account to join Twitter). Either could build that kind of reach, depending on who experiments more through the rest of the arbitrary era proper.

Using #TCOT vs. No Hashtags Whatsoever:

According to Internet marketing blog Hubspot, the right's #TCOT momentum means it vastly outnumbers the hashtags left-leaning Twitter users and bloggers... er, aren't listed as using, not here at least. Hmm. So which hashtags do the left use?

    Pause for dramatic effect.

Turns out the left-verse doesn't do hashtags at all, that I could see from checking these accounts over the weekend:

My question for the Left is whether the port side of the Twitterverse will adopt the same habit of hashtags that moves stories -- and if it does, whether it will even be led by the Kos-Greenwald-Marshall-Hamsher-Klein-Stoller-Yglesias Netroots movement. (Note: In the comments at Blog P.I. a fellow Twittizen points out there is a website collecting progressive hashtags: Tweetleft. And as she observes, organized hashtag use lies beyond "'the usual' accounts.")

And my question for the Right is whether they know any of the Top 5 Conservatives on Twitter, because I haven't got a clue.

Benchmark note: As of Sunday afteroon, Markos Moulitsas (2,411) has 7,288 fewer followers than John Culberson (9,699).

Adapted from a post at Blog P.I.

JACK KEMP - A POLITICAL ICON BATTLES CANCER

antjackkemp8x10aIt has been reported that Jack Kemp has cancer.

His office released the following statement:

"Mr. Kemp has been undergoing tests to determine the origin of the disease and the options for continued treatment. He will continue to serve as Chairman of Kemp Partners and plans to remain involved in his business, charitable and politically related activities. Mr. Kemp and his family are grateful for the thoughts and prayers of friends and appreciate respect for their privacy at this time".

The disturbing news hits POLITICS 24/7 hard. For me Jack Kemp, has been a shining example of the type of leadership we expect, want and need in government and the news causes reason for me to pause.

As a young man Jack F. Kemp spent 13 years in professional football, playing quarterback for the San Diego Chargers and Buffalo Bills. He led the Buffalo Bills to the American Football League championships in 1964 and 1965 when he was named the league's most valuable player. He also co-founded the AFL Players Association and was elected it's president for 5 consecutive terms.

After a period working for the Reagan gubernatorial campaign in California during 1966 and as special assistant to Reagan when he was Governor, Kemp in 1969 worked for the chairman of the National Republican Committee. In 1970 Kemp was elected to Congress where he represented the people of Buffalo, New York in the state's 38th district and served their until 1989.

Barely in my teens, my political interests were inspired by Ronald Reagan. They grew each day for the eight years thatant952 he was President but during the mid 80's I also came to appreciate the Congressman from my home state of New York. Although Jack Kemp was from Buffalo and I was from Brooklyn, the distance did not takeaway any sense of the Congressman's i.mpact on me.

Many casual voters outside of Buffalo may not have heard of him at the time but those involved in the issues shaping America sure did. Especially those who considered themselves "movement conservatives". They considered Jack Kemp a leading figure.

A movement conservative is one who supports all or nearly all conservative principles with a coherent philosophy, and who advances broad conservative goals both individually and through teamwork. At the time, I did not know it, but I was one and Jack Kemp was one of the movements leaders.

Kemp's credentials increased in In Congress where he became increasingly interested in economic ideas and was a keen supporter of supply-side economics and especially of large cuts in direct taxes, which he argued, would pay for themselves. Kemp was also a strong and vocal advocate of deregulation and enterprise zones. In 1978, together with senator Roth of Delaware, Kemp sponsored a 30 percent across the board tax cut which was in large part enacted in the 1981 Reagan budget. It is said that he sold Reaganomics to Reagan. Kemp's vigorous promotion of supply-side economics made him a well known, if not controversial, politician and earned him a popular following among the Republican rank and file.

In addition to being a fiscal conservative Kemp has also been conservative on cultural and foreign affair issues. In one debate with Mario Cuomo, Kemp said of himself, "I am not a hawk but actually a heavily armed dove".

Over time, I came to appreciate Jack Kemp more and more. I followed his voting record and read the speeches he offered on the floor of the house in the congressional record. His words were always inspiring to me. Although those speeches were often intermingled with words that I needed to lookup in the dictionary, once I did, they made sense antkempsellingreaganomicsand they were supported by all that freedom in a free nation meant.

On top of that, his voting record always matched his rhetoric. Jack Kemp meant what he said and said what he meant.

Later, while working on Kemp's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, I learned that I was not alone in sometimes having to look up the meaning of something Kemp said. While gathering the mornings news clippings for the campaign's press secretary, I stumbled upon an a piece from a local paper that wrote "although very passionate about economic policy, Congressman Kemp often finds himself speaking to an audience of reporters and voters alike, who have a glazed look in their eyes that is brought about by his discussion of intricate policies and use of technical terms that Kemp uses with the familiarity that we have with the alphabet".

After reading that I was actually relieved to know that I wasn't quite as ignorant as most. I was just as ignorant as everyone else.As the Reagan years were winding down I geared up to take the Reagan revolution to the next level and I prepared to make sure that Jack Kemp became our next President. The man to carry the torch into the future. I even developed a report which proved that Jack kemp would be the Republican presidential nominee and that Jean Kirkpatrick would be tapped as his running mate.

I was also a fan of Ambassador Kirkpatrick and the relatively close ties that she and Kemp had at the time, seemed to me, to make them a perfect and likely ticket.

antkemp1988As the 1988 campaign began, I found myself traveling to campaign for Jack Kemp in New Hampshire and eventually became a low level field director. I will never forget sitting on campaign busses traveling from every Notch from Dixville to Zealand in the North White Mountains and Great North Woods to Portsmouth and Seabrook in the Seacoast region and Nashua, Concord and Manchester in between. I was often honored beyond belief to sit next Jack Kemp on the campaign bus and have the opportunity to brief the would be President on events at our next stops and update him on how the door-to-door events at previous stops went.

Although Kemp did win in Dixville Notch, when all of New Hampshire's votes were counted, Kemp came in third behind then Vice President George H.W. Bush and Kansas Senator Bob Dole, but ahead of Delaware's former Congressman and Governor Pete DuPont, evangelist Pat Robertson and Reagan's former chief of Staff, General Alexander Haig, respectively. Suffice it to say, I was devastated.

In 1989 President George H. W. Bush appointed Kemp to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development when he formed his administration. In this role Kemp was perceived by many as a maverick rather than a collegial member of the administration. Yet he successfully implemented many policies and programs which won over friends and foes alike. One of Kemp's most effective creations was the introduction of urban enterprise zones.

antdolekempjugateWith his maverick image in place, in 1996 the Republican nominee for President, Bob Dole picked Kemp to be his Vice Presidential running mate. The selection was something of a surprise, not least because Kemp and Dole had policy disagreements in the past and had been rivals in 1988. Dole had generally been skeptical of massive tax cuts preferring to emphasize deficit reduction but the electoral dynamics of 1996 converted Dole to the merits of tax cuts. In this context Kemp was an ideal vice presidential choice. He symbolized vigorous tax cuts and was able to generate enthusiasm among Republican activists. Kemp was well known nationally because of his football career and visionary economic and defense policies; and it was hoped that Kemp's energetic style and manner would balance Dole's age.

Maybe it did or maybe didn't but either way Americans wanted a second term of Clinton and Gore and they got it.

antdolekempcampaignitems

Just as was the case in the 1988 primaries, I was disappointed but just like before I remained a fan of Jack Kemp.

I feel that there are few people who have actually been involved in politics on par with Kemp. Sincere, principled, hard working, innovative, persistent and consistent, Kemp and his leadership has influenced our nation much more than your average politician and he helped take what was once a fringe wing of American political thinking and turned it into mainstream policy.

All of his leadership and accomplishments led me to pick up the moniker 'Kempite". On the internet, one must often come up with a user I.D. and since all of my online activity involves politics, I felt there was no name better to choose from other than Kemp's.

So today, from the bottom of my heart, I offer my wishes for a speedy recovery for Secretary Kemp and it is the greatest hope of all of us that he defeats this bout with cancer with the same level of energy and success that earned him his victories and honors in the N.F.L. and that moved America over to his way of thinking in politics.

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

And Be Sure To Also Sign The Petition To

REPEAL THE CONGRESSIONAL PAY HIKE

Sign the Online Petition - To Repeal The Automatic Pay Raise That Congress Is Receiving Congress

Pass The Link On To Family, Friends and Co-workers

http://www.gopetition.com/online/24301.html

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

The Rightroots Needs Less Meta and More Purpose

Aaron Marks asks if we are on the verge of a rightroots movement. The answer to that question depends on what we're organizing around: new tools or specific political objectives?

The last couple of months has seen a flourish of conservative organizing on Twitter. Now, we have DiggCons, complete with hashtag.

As someone who just crossed 3,000 followers on Twitter while writing this post, I'm just as thrilled as anyone about these developments. But I feel compelled to add a caution.

If these new movements don't evolve beyond efforts to colonize insert-Web 2.0-property-here, reacting to perceived liberal dominance of these spaces, we will not move the ball forward. That's because strategy must always precede tactics. A unifying goal to organize around is inevitably more compelling than cheerleading for specific tools. The end goal should not be to dominate, or keep ourselves from getting buried on Twitter or Digg. The goal should be to (eventually) dominate the American political system through the strategic use of all the tools at our disposal, including e-mail lists, fundraising, blogs, social networks, Twitter, or tools that don't even exist yet. In terms of how we communicate to the outside world, blog / Twitter / Digg triumphalism should be kept at a minimum, and a statement of our ultimate political objectives -- delivered in clear, non-technical language that even late adopters can understand -- must be in the foreground.

If you want a great example of goal-based online political organizing, look no further than Chris Bowers' call to his readers to pressure Democratic members of Congress to support no-name liberal legislation that would normally die in committee. This is actually a useful and serious political objective the realization of which just happens to be made easier by technology. But there is no tech-triumphalism in this -- just a hard-nosed political goal.

In many ways, the Open Left example mirrors the initial development of the conservative and liberal blogospheres. Conservative blogs in their early days featured a lot of blog-triumphalism, with "Carnival of X" serving as the precursor of a hashtag. This self-referential activity was good at building lots of interlinking between blogs -- but meanwhile, the left was beating us by organizing around concrete political objectives outside the political blogosphere. Raise Money for Candidate X. Defeat Bill Y. There is a lesson there. Anyone, whether an existing user of the tools or not, will be drawn to the goal, and will eventually latch on to the tools as a way to achieve the goal. The netroots was not self-consciously about dominating blogs. It was about routing around existing failed power structures to achieve concrete external goals, and blogs just happened to be the readiest tool in the arsenal.

People like Justin Hart are working to convert the right's energy on Twitter into dollars for candidates and organizations. And #TCOT has a whole slew of action projects, including a campaign to realize the 435 District Strategy and pressuring RNC members to get on Twitter. Given that Twitter is best used as a person-to-person medium, this is actually not a bad way to personally influence the 168 who elect the next Chairman to make sure our concerns are heard.

As someone who conspired in the creation of a hashtag around the wedding of one of The Next Right's founders last night (Congrats, Soren!), I know what great fun they can be. But if our goal is to exert real-world political power and convince the late adopters to follow, we might want to think about organizing our movement around things that are more serious, and less meta, than another hashtag.

Are We On the Verge of a Rightroots Movement?

It’s been a while since I’ve heard chatter on the blogosphere about building a Rightroots movement (I last commented on it at the end of October). However, over the past few weeks, I’ve seen a number of major developments that suggest we might be on the verge of establishing a true and effective Rightroots movement.

When John Hawkins wrote about this topic, he noted that (emphasis added):

One of the biggest problems online — and this extends outside of the blogosphere — is that there are far more liberals online than conservatives and they’re much more enthusiastic.

Because of that, huge websites that can drive a lot of traffic like Digg, Fark, and YouTube have come to be dominated by liberals, even though they aren’t liberal per se.

Over the past few months, some great minds on the Right – people like Patrick Ruffini, Mindy Finn, Eric Odom, and Michael P. Leahy – have taken the lead in organizing conservatives online. As a result, I believe we’re witnessing a substantial increase in both online participation and enthusiasm among the Rightosphere. Although we haven’t fully established ourselves on Digg or YouTube (yet), we have taken Twitter by storm – and establishing a significant conservative presence on other websites may be coming very soon.

And so without further ado, I wanted to take a highlight a few fantastic websites/projects that have come to fruition since the election that are helping to organize a Rightroots movement. If you’re not already active with them, you should definitely check them out and consider getting involved.

  1. Rebuild the Party – When Patrick Ruffini and Mindy Finn initially started Rebuild the Party, it was simply a forward-looking plan for the Republican Party (albeit a phenomenal plan that I have enthusiastically endorsed). However, it has since blossomed into a substantial movement. Over 7,000 people, mostly ordinary citizens, have endorsed the plan. All but one of the candidates for RNC Chair has publicly announced their support for it. And over 2,100 folks have jointed the Rebuild the Party Action Network. This is a very strong showing of the Rightroots who are clearly looking to rebuild after the devastating results of the 2008 election.
  2. News Platoon and DiggCons – A number of folks, led by Eric Odom, launched the #dontgo Movement in response to the Congress’ unwillingness to pass offshore drilling legislation in August. And although #dontgo remains the umbrella organization, Eric has recently released a number of notable new spin-off projects. One of them, News Platoon, is building a state-by-state grassroots network that offers “REAL news stories across” a given state. New Platoon’s first state, Tennessee, is in beta. The other project that Eric just today released, Diggcons, is aiming to even the conservative hand on Digg, where for the most part the Right is held to a whisper.
  3. Top Conservatives on Twitter – Michael P. Leahy started Top Conservatives on Twitter as “a rallying point for conservatives on Twitter.” The #tcot hash tag has been one of the top 10 trending topics on Twitter for weeks now. The list started out with no more than a few hundred names; it has since ballooned to nearly 2,000 users, and 15 RNC members have signed up on Twitter.

With websites and projects like these springing up across the nation, I truly believe that we are witnessing a new conservative online movement. We may not yet have established a true Rightroots movement, but I am starting to think that we are getting very close. A critical next step will be using peer production and mass collaboration to our advantage.

Syndicate content