Want To Make A Difference In The Rightosphere?

The gist of Jon's post here is that if you want to make a difference in the rightosphere, cut back on the punditry and rev up the activism.  I couldn't agree more.  As I've written before, it's embarrasing that we apparently had a close race with an outstanding candidate in NY-24, and he didn't show up on any race-watcher's radar screen.  If we don't have people on the ground looking for signs momentum from serious, articulate candidates, the people at the top will never know where to direct energy, attention, and eventually money.

For all the talk of the GOP's inability to win in New England, we've had several other races fly somewhat under the radar screen such as VT-AL last cycle, MA-05 special (this received some prominence), and ME-01, where GOP candidates kept their races in single digits at a time and place when the GOP President and brand have reached especially toxic levels (ME Bush Approval Rating: 23%).  In a normal GOP year, these races are close; in a good GOP year they are very winnable.

But the only way that we can possibly know about these races is either (1) count on the NRCC to tell us about them or (2) have activists on the ground communicating from the roots up where we have charismatic, articulate, intelligent candidates who can run effective campaigns with a sufficient amount of money.  I'll let you decide for yourselves which ones are the most important.

But if you really want to make a difference, follow a state legislative race.  I've long argued that there is a real upside to McCain losing, and that is this:  If he had won, with the economy in the shape it is in (and likely will be at least perceived as being in 2010), we would have had little chance of making gains in 2010, and could have faced another 2006-style blowout (interestingly, GOP losses in statehouses in 2008 were fairly modest). 

This in turn is important because most states will engage in their once-a-decade (usually) ritual of setting legislative districts.  Some states -- including important states such as Iowa and Arizona -- pass this off to independent commissions, but the vast majority of states do it the old fashioned way: Through partisan gerrymandering. 

One of the only reasons that the GOP was able to stay competitive in Congress for most of this decade was that for the first time in a long time, it was able to stay competitive with the Democrats in the gerrymandering department (no, the GOP did not have some nasty advantage here, as the Democrats had some pretty ugly gerrymanders of their own that didn't get much attention in MD, TN, AL, among others).  This can cut both ways, as a heavily gerrymandered state can become a disaster area for the gerrymandering party if the partisan winds shift even a little bit (see, e.g., Pennsylvania and Georgia).  But a modest gerrymander such as Ohio and Michigan can provide real bulwarks against even substantial partisan change.

Right now, we have little information about what goes on in state races.  Much will depend on what happens in open Governor's races in states like PA and AL, where an ailing Obama economy could shift things to the GOP (yes, the voters will turn on the party of change that quickly, see 1994 and 1982).  But the statehouses are a key component.  I've listed statehouses below where we're within seven in the state Senate or state House -- in other words, where flipping four seats would be enough to gain a majority:

AK-Senate, 10-10 Democrat (Reps hold House and Gov.)

CO-Senate, 20-14 Democrat (Dems hold large House majority and Gov.)

IN-House, 52-47 Democrat (Reps hold Senate and Gov.)

LA-Senate, 22-15 Democrat (Reps hold Gov.)

LA-House, 52-50 Democrat (Reps hold Gov.)

ME-Senate, 20-15 Democrat

MS-Senate, 27-25 Democrat (Reps hold Gov.)

MT-House, 50-50 Democrat (Reps hold Senate)

NV-Senate, 12-9 Democrat (Reps hold Gov., shaky)

NH-Senate, 14-10 Democrat

NJ-Senate, 23-17 Democrat

NY-Senate, 32-29 Democrat

OH-House, 53-46 Democrat (Reps hold Senate)

OR-Senate, 18-12 Democrat

PA-House, 104-99 Democrat (Reps hold Senate)

VA-Senate, 21-19 Democrat (Reps hold House)

WI-Senate, 18-15 Democrat

WI-House, 52-46 Democrat

Obviously some of these are critical.  Being shut out in Colorado would allow Democrats to improve upon the partisan gerrymander they succeeded in getting a judge to approve in the 2000 cycle, further entrenching their majorities (indeed, given that they did this in the 2000 cycle while holding onto only one chamber doesn't give me a lot of hope here).   Controlling redistricting in states like OH, LA and PA, which are slated to lose seats, can help ensure that the seats given up are Democratic seats, and not Republican seats.  Taking control of the Indiana House would allow Republicans to undo the Democrats' redistricting plan from the 2000 cycle which led to their 5-4 majority.  And making certain that we have a seat at the table in NV can help ensure that the new district is at the very least a "fair fight" district, much like NV-03 is now.

But we can't help unless we know what is going on at the local level.  You're our only connection, and we need your help if 2010 is going to be a success.