Home › Blogs › eBurke's blog ›

How Republicans Can Win In Democratic Areas

Submitted by eBurke on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 11:20
in

Excellent analysis. Promoted. -Patrick

With all the special election bad news this cycle there was one special election that illustrated possible ways for the Republicans to win even in very Democratic districts. Jim Ogonowski in Massacussetts's 5th Congressional District came within just a few points of knocking of Nikki Tsongas. It was a 60% Kerry district, but it was more the Clinton Democrats than the Obama Democrats.

This is the key difference we must seek out. The type of upper-middle class liberal that Obama attracts is probably in all but very rare cases out of reach of Republican candidates. However, the middle and lower class Democrats that Clinton represents is a real pickup opportunity for our party and the conservative movement.

These were the voters Reagan won over that formed our large electoral victories in the 80's. The Merrimack Valley where the 5th CD in Mass is located is a perfect example. Ogonowski won huge margins in Dracut, Chelmsford and other areas with traditional Republican performances but he also did very well in Lowell, Haverhill and other areas that represent the core of the blue collar Democratic base.

Tsongas' electoral margin however came largely from Lawrence, a hispanic population base, and then Concord and the southern tier composed of the Obama Democratic model.

Ogonowski's campaign focused on immigration, earmarks, and controlling government waste. This combined with his farming and military background provided a strong outreach to the Democrats and Independents who supported him in the special election.

Our message and outreach must be focused on those issues (spending, bread and butter, 2nd amendment rights) that allow us the strongest case to reach these voters who have no inherent like for the upper middle class base of the Democratic Party.

 

UPDATE: It's good to be promoted to the front page. Here is a town-by-town breakdown of results and I am trying to find the average income numbers per-town which I believe will confirm my hypothesis (excepting Lawrence) the correlation between increasing avg income and % of vote for Jim's opponent.

 

City or town TP PR Nicola
Tsongas (Dem)		 James
Ogonowski (Rep.)		 Kurt
Hayes (Ind)		 Patrick
Murphy (Ind)		 Kevin
Thompson (Const.)
Acton 6 6 2,761 1,355 95 48 7
Andover 9 9 2,860 2,957 46 46 12
Ayer 2 2 488 512 23 29 4
Berlin 1 1 181 199 16 7 1
Billerica 11 11 2,594 3,129 38 128 30
Bolton 1 1 404 382 40 12 6
Boxborough 1 1 561 377 47 15 1
Carlisle 1 1 819 519 9 9 0
Chelmsford 9 9 3,544 4,020 74 181 20
Concord 5 5 3,097 1,385 48 42 5
Dracut 10 10 2,314 4,665 24 143 16
Dunstable 1 1 294 359 4 39 1
Groton 3 3 1,152 929 20 13 7
Harvard 1 1 792 446 35 12 13
Haverhill 21 21 3,840 3,709 69 103 37
Hudson 7 7 1,402 972 35 29 9
Lancaster 2 2 537 438 39 12 12
Lawrence 24 24 4,000 1,575 50 112 55
Littleton 3 3 924 830 21 23 2
Lowell 33 33 7,305 5,473 77 703 59
Maynard 4 4 1,129 641 32 23 8
Methuen 12 12 2,937 3,522 41 74 18
Shirley 1 1 558 479 15 14 2
Stow 1 1 806 548 38 9 3
Sudbury 5 5 2,408 1,387 73 43 12
Tewksbury 8 8 2,486 2,929 51 151 21
Tyngsboro 4 4 892 1,197 9 59 11
Wayland 3 3 1,246 621 9 12 4
Westford 6 6 2,032 2,215 47 79 14
Totals 195 195 54,363 47,770 1,125 2,170 390

 

2.5
Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

Comments

We also need to focus on

Submitted by Kevin Boyd on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 12:14.

Party building in Democratic areas (and I also mean the rural South). We need to build up the county/parish Republican Parties all over the country and the clubs that support them (YRs/CORPs, Pachyderms, women's clubs, men's clubs, etc.). By that, we need to recruit party leaders and make sure they have access to Votervault so they can target the chronic Republican voters to get them involved and then go from there to increase Republican registration and training the next generation of leaders.

Great Point of Focus, Kevin!

Submitted by Whitehorse on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 23:53.

Building from the grassroots up is done at the county level. Here in Cheatham County, TN, we have done just that. Republicans are on the county commission, city aldermanic & mayoral seats, & we have a great state representative in Phillip Johnson. One problem we face is recruiting more into the party after many of us have taken elected seats. It is, however, a good problem to have.

Reagan Dems

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:01.

If the GOP wants to reach the Clinton Democrats, who seem to overlap with the old Reagan Democrats, then it needs to ditch it's committment to Randian-style anarcho capitalism and return to the more pragmatic approach which Reagan took to economic matters.

 

This seems so obvious that it's curious it has not been done. It looks like the Randians are so entrenched that it will take a cataclysmic defeat in November before they can be dislodged. And maybe not even then.

Let's Make a Deal

Submitted by Kevin Boyd on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:16.

then it needs to ditch it's committment to Randian-style anarcho capitalism and return to the more pragmatic approach which Reagan took to economic matters.

 

This seems so obvious that it's curious it has not been done. It looks like the Randians are so entrenched that it will take a cataclysmic defeat in November before they can be dislodged. And maybe not even then.

Because "compassionate conservatism" has been working so well for Republicans recently.

Tell you what, since you want libertarians like me out of the party, we'll be more than happy to leave the GOP and join the Libertarian or Constituion Parties and vote for their candidates.

Good luck winning without us.

 

 

Baby Please Don't Go

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:42.

Kev, you may be happy to leave the GOP and join the Libertarian or Constitution Parties and vote for their candidates, but not me.  I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but I'd rather vote for a born-again capitalist pig in golf pants any day than some crackpot who believes that we really didn't land on the moon, or that it's ethical and  responsible to leave the people of Iraq to Al Qaeda, or that George Bush and Dick Cheney committed 9/11. No, no, no. 

*ahem*

Submitted by karasoth on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:51.

The LP rejected conspiracy theories this convention

 

Just saying

I'd love to stay

Submitted by Kevin Boyd on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:04.

But Jon doesn't want me in the party anymore :(

He's ashamed of me because I don't share our Dear Leader's brillant vision like No Child Left Behind, the first Farm Bill, the Highway Bill, the Energy Bill, Medicare Part D, detaining American citizens indefinitely, REAL ID, and other bloated spending and big government schemes

I left the Libertarian party

Submitted by karasoth on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:09.

I came on board in 2002 when this party had cajones. And have stuck with it till now. I voted for GWB because John Kerry was just that dangerous for our country. But I tell you I think Obama and McCain are both dangerous for this country in different ways

I'm heartened...

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 16:14.

...to see that at least you think that both Obama and McCain are dangerous for the country in different ways.  I left you a homework assignment on your post about McCain's character, but it sounds like you have already done some homework on Barack Obama.  Good on ya. 

As a Navy vet who's thoroughly researched the so-called Vietnam Vet anti-McCain propaganda, I wholeheartedly support McCain and disagree with the depth of your concerns regarding his character.  He's certainly flawed, but I agree with Carly Fiorina, he's "perfect enough". 

McCain is a narcissist

Submitted by karasoth on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 16:49.

John McCain Did attack folks in the POW/MIA movement. He attacked people who stood up for him when he needed it. He didn't need to attack them, and it served no good political position to attack them. Its the fact he choose to attack them and pressure they get investigated for criminal activities is absurd.

 

John McCain married a rich wife that gave him the ability to run for congress full time. McCain had a life of privilege, lost it, then traded up.

 

McCain was just an ordinary person who was part of the campaign finance system until -his- ethics with his connections to Frank Keating became an issue. His connections based on the family he married into to get into political positions. Then he accuses those members of government who participate in that system as being "corrupt" but when confronted on it says none of them are corrupt. John McCain is compensating for his own guilt

 

John McCain savaged his own party for not supporting him on campaign finance reform

he's savaged us for not supporting a global warming scam based system that would jack out gas prices up another 1.50 a gallon

He attacked people who disagreed with his plan to "propose your own plan or shut up"

John McCain has a sense of privilege and a sense of his own moral rightness at all times. And thats not going to be good in the next President we get.

 

He and John Kerry Shielded the Republic of Vietnam from punishment under US trade laws long enough to get a free trade deal for Vietnam. Shielded them for US laws that would discipline them for their human rights abuses and abuses of religous freedom. How can we believe in him to stand up for the people suffering and in need in the worlds of islamofascism when we see right here he didn't stand up when it counted for others.

 

John McCain only stands up when it counts for him

Compassionate conservatism

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 16:13.

Because "compassionate conservatism" has been working so well for Republicans recently.

 

I don't recall saying anything about compassionate conservatism. I said we need Reagan style conservatism. And that was pointedly NOT anarcho-capitalism. It was not really ideological at all. It was practical and empirical.

 

 

 

 

Randian-style anarcho capitalism

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:29.

First of all, great analysis by eBurke - totally agreed!

Jon, I was actually unfamiliar with the term "Randian-style anarcho capitalism" until I read your comment, which prompted me to research it, which led me to the following  Free Republic Post titled The Social Contract: The Ultimate Issue Between Liberalism and Conservatism, which in turn led me to the following book on Amazon titled Democracy, The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Herman Hoppe. Hoppe, a University of Nevada professor, was mentored by Murray Rothbard, founder of the modern Libertarian movement in America.

Andrew W. Rogers in Seattle, WA wrote an outstanding review of Hoppe’s book on Amazon in which he said that he responded most strongly to Hoppe's argument that ‘conservatives today must be antistatist libertarians and, equally important, [that] libertarians must be conservatives’ [p. 189]. In so arguing, Hoppe gives us a thorough and revealing deconstruction of modern ‘conservatism’ (so-called), showing how many self-styled conservatives are in fact merely the right wing of social democracy. He convincingly links the Buchananites, on the other hand, to ‘social nationalism or national socialism’ (p. 192). In either case, the neo-cons, the Buchanan brigades, and also the so-called Christian Right have, in Hoppe's eyes, ‘not a trace of principled antistatism.’
 
Andrews goes on to say that Libertarians shouldn't start feeling too smug, however. Hoppe also calls for principled antistatists to retake libertarianism from the ‘lifestyle libertarians,’ who see antistatism as just one part of a comprehensive revolt against all social order and bourgeois culture (these folks were devastatingly described by Rothbard as ‘modal libertarians’ or MLs -- a description Hoppe reprints in a footnote). He also targets ‘left libertarians’ like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, whose leading lights throw in the towel on the key question of State legitimacy, revel in the glamour and importance of life Inside the Beltway, and are reduced to arguing for reductions on the margin of an ever-expanding Leviathan.'
 
Thanks to your comment, Jon, I’ve just ordered Hoppe's book.  Hat tip to you.

 

Hoppe

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 16:10.

Hoppe is excellent. Hope you enjoy as much as I did. He used to write at LewRockwell if you are interested.

 

 

Worth pointing out

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 16:21.

that Rand and libertarians had a mutual hate thing going, back in the day. It's only recently that she became libertarian gospel.

 

 

You are incorrect

Submitted by karasoth on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 16:50.

As at least two LP founders were former Randian commune members

"commune members"

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 17:05.

As I say, the Randians are not libertarians. Which is not to say thay can't get involved with self-described libertarian organizations.

Here is Rothbard on Rand, "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

 Rothbard also broke with Cato, as mentioned above.

 

 

 

Wait wait wait

Submitted by eBurke on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:08.

You mean Reagan's "abolish entire departments", "slash taxes" approach was to the left of current Republicans? My argument is exactly the opposite of yours. Its that our less spending message works with these audiences.

Do you have any proof for your claim that its our too conservative economic policy that is the problem. I think most people here would say its that we're too liberal on those issues.

Do the opinions of our Presidential Nominee and Congressional

Submitted by karasoth on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:28.

Leaders count as proof? they've said we lost for being to conservative

Say what?

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 16:17.

You mean Reagan's "abolish entire departments", "slash taxes" approach was to the left of current Republicans?

Reagan never did "slash entire departments'. But that's besides the point. I'm talking of the modern GOP's obsession with "free trade", so-called, and open borders. On those issues, current Republicans are to the left of Reagan - they favor them.

 

 

deleted

Submitted by Kevin Boyd on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:17.

deleted

UPDATE - Ogonowski failed to get signatures

Submitted by Shawn Parker on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:32.

sorry to burst your bubble but....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/28/ogonowski_falls_sho...

When the deadline for certification passed yesterday, Jim Ogonowski, the Republican leadership's choice to challenge US Senator John F. Kerry, was 82 signatures short of qualifying for the GOP primary ballot, according to the state's central voter registry.

So let's not be crowning Ogonowski as a stellar candidate quite yet....

Anyway, back to the special election. 

Tsongas didn't do as well as expected... because there was a blood bath of a Dem Primary in the state (no surprise for Massachusetts) and every Republican in the state went to go help Jim.  

What did help Jim was the fact that he seemed more than Tsongas as the 'anti-Washington' guy.  I would argue that campaign had a lot LESS to do with the issues you cited than it did personalities. 

Basically since this guy was a hay farmer from Dracut, and Tsongas at the time didn't even LIVE in the district more people thought that he might actually not be as bad as the regular pols in Washington. 

First of all I think the

Submitted by eBurke on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 14:37.

First of all I think the current ballot access situation has nothing to do with what happened in the fall. Second, I think you are right he did do well because he looked like a regular guy and thats exactly the whole point of my post. Reagan / Clinton Dems will come over with our reform, good government message if we articulate it.

Has not failed to get signatures

Submitted by EaBo Clipper on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 17:28.

Read the story. 

In Massachusetts Signature gathering is a two step process. You drop off signature sheets at town halls to be certified you then pick them up and bring them to the Secretary of the Commonwealth's (State's) office.  There is a computer system that does a halfway decent job of tracking the signatures, but it is not the final number and is historically off as not all town clerks utilize the system.  The Ogonowski campaign has stated to me personally and to the press that they have the requisite number of signatures and will be turning them in by the deadline of Next Tuesday June 3, 2008. 

If on June 4, 2008 Ogonowski has failed to meet the standard then he doesn't have ballot access.  At this point even according to the Boston Globe not all town halls have used the on-line system.  He is 82 short according to the system a number that will easily be made up.  Don't write him off yet.

Mass GOP

Submitted by Benz on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 20:03.

Well...

It's not just Ogonowski, the Mass GOP is pretty much dead.

http://www.redmassgroup.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=946ED7E5C03C7AC5F868...

 

 

The Current Ballot Access does matter

Submitted by Shawn Parker on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:00.

I think it certainly matters, but probably in a different way. 

See to me, the issue is what happens when you have a pretty good local guy, currupted by high paid Washington insider consultants.  Without his Washington folks, Jim gets on the ballot, runs a respectable campaign and shows that the genreal public wants a genuine person.  With his new crop of Washington folks... he screws up.. the party 'establishment' screwed up again... Let's be honest he was the establishment candidate.. and the establishment just tripped over itself again.  My point is a larger one than your post.. we need a new establishment. 

See the Gods of the NRSC and probably some old friends from the NRCC convinced Jim to run again, thinking it will be easy to raise money against John Kerry...

See to me the real issue is not about issues.  In fact I am loathe to think that if only if we cherry pick a few issues, and have candidates run on those issues they will do well...

To me no...

Either authentic leadership, or an agenda and a cause, or we have the politics of the Bush-era (single dividing issues).  Agendas and a causes are larger bigger things than issues. 

The Dems have the war, we used to have the collective works of the Contract for America - not just single issues. 

Ok, so many I might sound picky.. but I think it matters to have a collective consciencness and guiding philosohpy instead of ballot tested single issues. 

That's why

Submitted by Kevin Boyd on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:02.

See to me, the issue is what happens when you have a pretty good local guy, currupted by high paid Washington insider consultants.

Which is why we need to develop a lot more consultants, outside of Washington.

People don't Hate Government, They want It to Work

Submitted by section9 on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:03.

The Social Contract Exists, period. The Libertarians are in Denial about this. There is a place for them. It's called the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party.

This is a place for people who don't care about the Supreme Court and national security. 

The Republican Party must go forward as the Party that cares more for what's in your wallet, the Democrats surely won't. 

There are going to be a lot of Democrats, going forward, who believe (rightly) that the Latte Crowd has hijacked their party through the "rules" of the Caucus System. This is what I call a target-rich environment.

Going up to one of these people and yelling, "This Is John Galt!" is not a way to win a House Race, much less the Presidency. 

*ahem*

Submitted by karasoth on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:08.

there is a social contract. And the Republican party has always ran that the government that can do the job best, and is most accountable to you should do it. Local government should do more because its more accountable. And when Local government can't do it then State government should do it. And when its something state government can't do then and only then should it be a federal case.

 

we should not make something a federal issue just to win votes, because we betray the truth of the Social contract

The Social Contract Exists,

Submitted by Kevin Boyd on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:12.

The Social Contract Exists, period. The Libertarians are in Denial about this.

Well...considering that the social contract is a classical liberal/libertarian idea....it's kind of hard to be in denial about it.

Wake Up

Submitted by fandom on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:21.

From someone who has spent the last 8 years working for Republicans who have done well in high democrat areas without dumping the values that makes you want to get up at 7am on a frozen october morning to go walk preccincts....

1. Cut the holier than thou crap: If you read the literature of where democrats were in the 1980's  sucking up to labor it sounds an awfully like the religious conservatives kowtowing we hear now, where there are no policy alternatives being offered as a vision.

This is where Mitt Romney screwed himself-if he runs as a can do guy, he would have been probably our best candidate and helped in the suburbs, instead he put himself in knots and got canned. There are a lot of young people that like this party and the roots of it, but when all they see on t.v. and in the press is policies and politics designed to win nova based religious councils they will vote for other people.

2. Fresh ideas: to the rest of America 1980, 1988, 1994 don't exist anymore. 2010, 2014 and 2018 do, we need to recruit young legislators with new ideas, and force our think tanks to stop talking about how great they were 20 years ago and start talking about how we want 20 years from now to look.

3. New hungry leadership: Too many operatives, members of congress, and leaches in d.c. are in charge, many of whom got there not by succeeding but by being further down the food chain when good things happened. Guys like Jeff Flake, Mark Kirk, Paul Ryan, and others would be innovators and fighters. Nixon had fire in the belly, Reagan had fire in the belly, Gingrich had an inferno, Boehner and McConnell and their staffs just have CHC bellies.

4. In college no one cares what you got on your sat's. No one cared in the 80's what the democrats did in the 30's or 60's, they won't care about what have done since if we don't back it up with policies, and programs which reinforce those agendas for tomorrow.

amen

Submitted by Shawn Parker on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:32.

Well said. 

I think we need to give 'The Next Right' a few days to let everyone vent about what's wrong... but I bet next week we'll start to see some of those smart hungry leaders and their ideas rise up....

This should be...

Submitted by Kevin Boyd on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:32.

It's own post

Word

Submitted by karasoth on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:35.

this should be a quality post

 

and some of us will still be GOP disodents

More fool them.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 16:26.

There are a lot of young people that like this party and the roots of it, but when all they see on t.v. and in the press is policies and politics designed to win nova based religious councils they will vote for other people.

I don't see why we'd want bigots in the party anyway. And that is what you are describing - anti-religious bigots. They already have a home with the Democrats.

 

 

 

Different strokes for different folks

Submitted by josephcollins on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 15:55.

Just throwing this out there, but in this era of microtargeting we should be able to target the Reagan Dems AND the snobby suburbanites... just with different messages.

So the bread & butter message works with the Reagan Dems.  Perhaps a more cerebral message for the suburbanites?

Not to say that we'd win a majority of either, but as long as we're targeting we may as well have a message for the upper crust as well.

Microtargetting is great and

Submitted by eBurke on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 16:09.

Microtargetting is great and having used it succesfully in a few races I am a big fan but you can't run two contradictory messages. We can stress different parts of our message but I would warn against this type of bifrication.

We lost MA 5 in the high income towns

Submitted by Ironman on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 19:40.

Ogo ran great in the Merrimack Valley, but in the yuppie MetroWest towns he got crushed

 

 

Acton 6 6 2,761 1,355

Concord 5 5 3,097 1,385

Sudbury 5 5 2,408 1,387

Wayland 3 3 1,246 621

We are going to have to get a stronger appeal with fiscally conservative "libertarian" style voters to carry seats like MA 5, whic hwas once a Yankee Republican stronghold.  And Ayn bleepin Rand and Bob Bleepin Barr are as far from a solution to this problem as I can think of .

 

Agreed

Submitted by EaBo Clipper on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 20:00.

Ogo lost in what can be described as the "Moonbat" highway region of the state.  The Moonbat Highway is State Route 2 eminating from Cambridge to now the Shirley area.  As the moonbats have outgrown the city they've travelled down that highway.  It's fascinating to look at election returns in those towns over the past 15-20 years to see the trend. 

Also Jamie Eldridge who is a state representative in that area ran and lost the primary.  But he is a darling of the progressive net-roots in Massachusetts and was able to mobilize a decent grassroots army to work his part of the district for Nikki. 

Consistent, Bold Conservatism

Submitted by Whitehorse on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 23:59.

Can win in many areas - some, unfortunately, it won't. I believe the first order of business is to make sure that Republican candidates win in conservative Republican districts. These are being targeted by "blue dog" conservative talking democrats, with far too much success. These "blue dogs" are running to the right of the candidates in these areas and winning. To defeat these "blue dogs," as well as get back the conservative democrats & independents, Republican candidates need to run on a platform of consistent, bold conservatism with plans of action to get this conservatism enacted.