The Next Right

This Apolcalyptic Rhetoric Is Getting Ridiculous

Sean Oxendine — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:08:58 -0500

In the last couple weeks we've seen no shortage of sentiment implying that the GOP is in something akin to death throes, provided that it doesn't come to resemble something other than the modern GOP. This post has been building in me for a while, but the latest piece by Ron Brownstein, titled The Bush GOP's Fatal Contraction, kind of set me off.

Look, I'm not going to say that nothing bad happened to Republicans on November 4. I don't need to repeat the litany of losses we suffered that day. If you've forgotten, read Brownstein's piece. I've seen those numbers myself.

But I don't think its fair to say that "Bush leaves behind a party that looks less like a coalition than a clubhouse." It is a pretty d*mn big clubhouse. In the past few years, under a Republican President's watch, we've had two wars go badly, one of which a very large chunk of the country believes was unnecessary and founded on lies, a recession begin, instances of severe corruption, sex scandals, graft, massive deficit spending, and a city go under water, the financial system collapse, and a Republican President argue for a $700 billion bailout. All that was missing was plagues of locusts, and I'd have signed up for Hal Lindsay's newsletter. The Democrats nominated not just a political candidate, but a pop culture phenomenon, who raised three quarters of a billion dollars over the course of his campaign, who ran (at least in Virginia) on a platform of ending a foreign adventure, tax cuts for 95% of the American people, a health care plan in the middle of the free market and government-run plan, and good old fashioned mom and apple pie.

The result? The Democrat got about 53% of the vote, about the same as the first President Bush got against Dukakis, and if 5% higher than Kerry performed. Lest you think that this can all be chalked up to the racism of those darned West Virginians, Obama only ran about eight-tenths of a point behind Congressional Democrats.

In other words, about 9 in 20 voters voted for Republicans, versus 11 in 20 Democrats. In similar circumstances like 1952 and 1920, the verdict against the in-party has been much more dramatic. This is a bad result, but it is not a "chuck the social/fiscal/defense conservatives over the edge" bad result.

Brownstein continues that "[t]he consistent thread linking the 2006 and 2008 elections was the narrowing of the playing field for Republicans even as Democrats extended their reach into places once considered reliably "red." Pardon my colloquialisms, but "well duh." The Republican party consistently failed to perform and to produce good results over the past four years, and when it did (in Iraq), it was too late for the 2006 elections, and just in time for the business cycle to swing negative. When the Republican party was performing well, from about 2001-2003, it looked like reliably blue areas of the country like the upper midwest and the Pacific Northwest were trending their direction, while nothing was going right for Democrats. When you have power and you govern well, the country swings your way. When you have power and you don't the country does the opposite. Very quickly, it turns out.

The results of this election should not have surprised anyone, and if they did it should have only surprised them by how well the Republicans performed given the circumstances. When you have a President with 25% approval ratings, you don't make advances into blue states, you struggle to hold on to purple states, and you lose some ground in red states. That's not partisanship talking, that's common sense.

And Brownstein overlooks the most important fact of all when he writes:

But to win the GOP nomination, McCain embraced Bush's core economic and foreign policies and then selected, in Sarah Palin, a running mate who waged the culture war with a zeal that made Bush and Karl Rove look squeamish. Both decisions weakened McCain's position with centrist voters; then the financial collapse deepened the hole.

The very important fact that he overlooks is that even with Sarah Palin and McCain's supposed embrace of Bush's economic and foreign policies, McCain was leading Obama before the financial collapse took place (and this was well outside the time of the regular convention bounce). Obama was reduced to making snarky comments about lipstick on pigs and old dead fish and running commercials about how McCain couldn't send e-mails. He was getting ready to drop Keating 5 ads. In other words, up until September 15, this was a very winnable race for Republicans. It wasn't just at the Presidential level either -- between the RNC and the financial collapse, every generic congressional ballot poll had the Democrats' lead in single digits; we also had the first poll showing Republicans leading in the generic ballot since 2004. We were headed toward a three or four Senate seat loss, rather than the seven or eight one we're looking at today. Given the overall condition of the country even pre-AIG/Lehman Brothers, that is astounding.

If McCain had pulled it off, and Obama had received only 49% of the vote and Democrats had made minimal gains in Congress or worse, the conclusion would be either (1) that Americans are racist or (2) that Democrats just can't win the Presidency. Sorry, but the difference between a permanent Republican majority and a pup tent Republican party isn't 4% of the vote.

Anyway, the point of all of this is to go back to something very, very important that Patrick wrote about a week ago, and which conservatives should ponder carefully before they start excommunicating any branch of the party or otherwise seriously altering their message. He writes:

American elections are by and large not referendums on ideologies. They are contests of personality, optics, and performance in office. This goes the same for when they win or we win -- whether it's 1980, 1994, or 2006/2008. The Democrats did not have to change their ideology to win; they needed to change the charisma level of their standardbearer and needed an economic crisis and a prolonged unpopular war.

Because ideology doesn't matter in elections, and so much of politics depends on ephemeral characteristics like personality and who was in when the economy cycled south, the parties paradoxically have relatively wide latitude to govern ideologically without fear of public backlash once they get in. This is why cries of "socialism" were so ineffective during the campaign, and likewise why Bush got most of what he wanted in his early Presidency, even before 9/11. If Barack Obama is able to adopt far-left policies and make it look like he's making the trains run on time, the country will enter a new liberal era not by virtue of public opinion, but by acquiesence to what appears to be competent governance. In 1993-94, the Clintons tried to move the country to the left and looked incompetent in the process. It was the latter more than the former that opened a door for conservatives in 1994.

This is spot on. Republicans didn't lose because they were too conservative, or not conservative enough, or didn't ban abortion, or wanted to ban gay marriage. They lost because they were given the reigns of power, and they didn't perform. If you look at the big party changes across recent American elections: 2006/08, 1994, 1982, 1980, 1974, 1966, 1958, they share a common thread: The in-party screwed up. It doesn't have much to do with what the out-party was doing. If the Democrats screw up, all of those glowing internal exit poll numbers about Hispanics and youth and turnout and what-not will turn as depressing for them as they did in 2002 and 2004, when we were crowing about how Republicans had won 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties.

That's the worst thing about this election for Republicans -- our fate is not really in our hands. But in the meantime, we shouldn't act like the results from November 4 are a 1964/1984 "will we ever govern again" result, because they weren't. What we're doing on this site is important, and the party does need to examine how it interacts with its online communities, how it presents its message, and how it attacks the incoming administration. But that's ultimately for what happens when we are handed the reins of power. At what point in time we're handed the reins depends as much on the results the incoming Administration is perceived as supplying as it does anything we do in the background, but in the meantime, we've got a pretty darned good bedrock to build upon.

Obama Had 13 Million E-mail Addresses and Raised Half a Billion Dollars Online

Patrick Ruffini — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:08:56 -0500

Jose Antonio Vargas breaks down some monumental numbers.

13 million e-mail addresses.

$500 million raised online.

6.5 million donations from 3 million donors with an average donation of $80.

3.2 million Facebook friends (to John McCain's 600,000).

2 million My.BarackObama.com profiles created.

One million participants in Obama's cell phone text messaging program -- this is less than the 6-8 million rumored but still massive.

400,000 volunteer blog posts written. 200,000 volunteer events created. 35,000 local and affinity groups created by supporters.

Three million volunteer phone calls made in the last four days of the election through the website without supporters having to step into a campaign headquarters.

The campaign had a full time chief technology officer in addition to a new media director. They had a full time analytics team whose job was to do nothing else but monitor site data.

Governors 2009/2010

Sean Oxendine — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:36:00 -0500

Governor's races are odd birds. Of all the races I follow -- House, Senate, Presidential, even state legislative -- they tend to be the least partisan. The reasons are similar to the reasons that Presidential races often seem so issues-less, especially when compared to the legislative races: People don't look at their chief executive and see a bundle of issues; they see a leader. This is more pronounced at the local and state level, where they just see someone who fixes potholes and makes sure their kid gets funding for afterschool football.

On top of this, these races are going to be very much subject to the performance of the economy over the next few years. In 2002, Democrats and Republicans alike suffered as chief executives were forced to make cuts in state budgets during the 2000-2001 semi-recession. Given the full-blown recession/semi-depression we are likely headed towards, there could be a similar effect. Sarah Palin is still very popular in Alaska, but after she cuts education to keep the budget in balance, will she still be?

So anyway, theses are very preliminary. Right now if I had to guess, I'd say Republicans would net one or two Governor's mansions, bringing them to 23 or 24 seats. I've bolded the ones that I think seem especially primed to change hands.

Given the large number of open seats and undeclared candidates, I'm even less certain about these than the Senate ratings (which is pretty darned uncertain). This is especially true of open races that I've labelled uncompetitive, since really no one can call an open Governor's race uncompetitive this early. But just watch me. Because I'm dangerous like that.

More below the fold.

Not Presently Competitive R	Potentially Competitive R	Competitive R	Competitive D	Potentially Competitive D	Not Presently Competitive D
AK-Gov	AL-Gov	CA-Gov	KS-Gov	IL-Gov	AR-Gov
FL-Gov	AZ-Gov	GA-Gov	ME-Gov	MD-Gov	CO-Gov
ID-Gov	CT-Gov	HI-Gov	MI-Gov	MA-Gov	IA-Gov
NE-Gov	SC-Gov	MN-Gov	OK-Gov	NJ-Gov	NH-Gov
	TX-Gov	NV-Gov	PA-Gov	NY-Gov	NM-Gov
	VT-Gov	RI-Gov	TN-Gov	OH-Gov
		SD-Gov	VA-Gov	OR-Gov
			WI-Gov
			WY-Gov

Not Presently Competitve R

AK-Gov: (Sarah Palin) Andrew Sullivan once fantasized that Sarah Palin would have trouble trying to survive in Alaska. It's a pipe dream. For the love of God, a convicted Republican felon nearly won re-election there, and Don Young ended up winning fairly handily. Fuggedaboudit.

FL-Gov: (Charlie Crist) Crist presently sports an approval rating of around 65%, which I'm sure he's out-and-out thrilled about. Normally a Florida race would be one that I would say could swing either way, but you have to like Crist's odds right now.

ID-Gov: (Butch Otter) This was close in 2006 when it was open, but it is hard to imagine it being close this time. Pretty much everyone except the Club for Growth hated Bill Sali, his opponent was a former Republican who campaigned on tax cuts, and he still only lost 51-49. As a complete aside . . . anyone else notice how all Idaho politicians seem to have names that sound vaguely like gay porn stars? Butch Otter, Dirk Kempthorne, Mike Crapo. The only one with a normal name was Larry Craig.

NE-Gov: (Open). You know, the thing I miss most about my old blog is coming up with childish comments about candidates with names like Dave Heineman, Chandler Woodcock, and Dave Heineman. I was crushed when Dick Swett didn't run for Senate in 2008. But whatever. The bottom line is, Democrats win the Nebraska Governor's office when Republican governors screw up or raise taxes. That hasn't happened here, and I think Obama's 45% is about the ceiling for Democrats right now. We'll see who get nominated.

Potentially Competitive R

AL-Gov: (Open). Bob Riley (teenage wasteland, whoa yeah) is term-limited. The Democratic bench in Alabama is pretty thin, but Democrats can still win in the state. Artur Davis is running, leaving a very uncompetitive open seat in AL-07, but given how Obama went over here I'll believe it when I see it. I'll wait and see who the Republicans put up, but you'd have to like their odds of holding on.

AZ-Gov (Brewer). This state is trending Democrat more slowly than people think, and many of the recent gains in Congress have been due to local conditions. We actually had a decent year in the statehouse in 2008. I don't know how good a pol Brewer is, and the Republican legislature might push through some divisive stuff that hurts her popularity, but for now, there's only the potential for competition here.

CT-Gov (Rell). Rell no longer sports an approval rating of 105% like she did in the 2006 cycle, but she's still pretty darned popular. She's apparently revving up the re-election campaign, and it is pretty hard to imagine her being defeated. But it is still Connecticut.

SC-Gov (Open). I really have a hard time seeing this being all that competitive after the last couple of open Senate races, but Dems have won the governor's mansion in recent years. We'll see how recruiting goes, but you have to like the GOP's odds.

TX-Gov (Perry). If Perry runs again, I think this will be a tough race for the GOP. I'm not sure that Texans want 14 years of Rick. If he retires or loses in the primary to Kay Bailey Hutchison, its less competitive. You'll hear a lot of noise about the race from the Kossacks, just like you did in 2002, and just like you did about beating Cornyn.

VT-Gov (Douglas). He still continues to be popular, and has won in some horrendous Republican years. If he retires or runs for Senate, I would imagine that the Dems will get this one back.

Competitive R

CA-Gov (Open). You have to like DiFi's odds of winning the seat she lost to Pete Wilson 20 years ago. Still, there are some potentially serious candidates on the Republican side. Two surprising facts about California: Democrats have only controlled the Governor's mansion for 20 of the last 110 years, and no Democrat not named "Brown" has served two full terms since the 1850s. These are the types of things I carry around in my head, people.

GA-Gov (Open). I think there will be some type of a competitive race here. Some brilliant-sounding guy named John Oxendine is in the running, but there might be a nasty primary between him and Light Governor Casey Cagle. Dems have a former General/Labor Commissioner, who could help them get rural whites back.

HI-Gov (Open). Popular Governor Linda Lingle will be term limited. It's hard to see how Republicans keep this; the cupboard is pretty bare there.

MN-Gov (T-Paw (?)). Pawlenty can run again, or he can concentrate on a Presidential bid, or try to do both. Democrats have been shut out of the Governor's mansion for 20 years here, so you'd have to like their odds in an open race. Either way, unless the brand makes a comeback here, expect a competitive race either way.

NV-Gov (Gibbons (?)). Governor Gibbons is mired in all manner of scandals, and has an approval rating in the 40s. There's even a recall effort going on. Not looking good for him. Right now it is looking like Republicans' best chance is to prim

RI-Gov (Open). Republicans have managed to hold the Governor's mansion for 16 years in what is arguably the bluest state in the nation. You'd have to think their run is about to end, now that Democrats have stopped running Myrth York.

SD-Gov (Open). Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin may be making a run for an executive slot, in which case you have to think this is a pretty competitive race, even in a very red state.

Competitive D Races

KS-Gov (Open) -- Sam Brownback is running for Governor. He's reasonably popular, and will be running in a very red state where Democrats don't have much of a base. Hard to see this not being at least competitive for Republicans.

ME-Gov (Open) -- I know, I know. But the GOP actually probably would have won here in 2006 of all years if they hadn't nominated a social conservative (in Maine of all places). It's a quirky state, so I say competitive.

MI-Gov (Open) -- It's been rough in Michigan, but Republicans have a couple of statewide figures in Mike Cox and Terri Lynn Land, which pretty much guarantees at least a competitive race. Granholm isn't particularly popular, so that won't help any.

OK-Gov (Open) -- Governor Henry is term-limited in a state that has been steadily trending Republican, even in the last few years. Dan Boren has said he won't run for Governor this cycle, so you have to like the Republicans' odds, assuming that this time around there's no cockfighting referndum on the ballot and we don't nominate a Christian conservative candidate who explodes in an on-camera bust of profanity right before the election. Regardless, this will almost certainly be competitive.

PA-Gov (Open) -- The Democrats' bench is surprsingly thin here, and Republicans have a good number of candidates with statewide experience. This should make for a good race.

TN-Gov (Open) -- This state swung heavily to Republicans in 2008. The awesomely-named Republican Congressman Zach Wamp is considering running. Have to like his odds, especially with Harold Ford Jr. tied up at the DLC.

VA-Gov (Open (?)) -- Are the Democrats really going to nominate Terry McAuliffe? Really?? Maybe there is a God. Anyway, the Republicans have been having problems in the state lately, to say the least, but they have an articulate candidate who will be difficult to beat, while the Democrats will be having a primary among three pretty mediocre candidates. If Tim Kaine is escorted off to some cabinet position, there won't be much to stop a Republican rebound here (yes, I know he can't run, but he wouldn't be spending a whole lot of time on the campaign trail like Mark Warner did for him during his 2005 comeback).

WI-Gov (Doyle (?)) -- Governor Jim Doyle seems bound and determined to run for re-election, but he only got 53% of the vote in 2006, and he's got a pretty mediocre 49-47% approval rating. Definitely vulnerable against the right Republican.

WY-Gov (Open) -- If you know anything at all about politics, you'll understand this rating.

Potentially Competitive Seats

IL-Gov (Blago (?)) -- Assuming he's not in prison, Governor Blago is free to run for re-election. If he is, or if he doesn't run, Democrats' odds improve markedly. Even then Republicans have to field a candidate, which will be no small task here.

MD-Gov (O'Malley) -- Marty O'Malley doesn't have a particularly high approval rating; earlier this year he was actually less popular than Bush. But unless Former Governor Ehrlich makes a go of it, this won't be competitive. O'Malley's ratings have improved of late, so maybe even then . . .

MA-Gov (Patrick) -- Patrick has succeded in getting his approval rating up to 51% in MA. If he continues, he'll be impossible to defeat. If not, he still might be impossible to defeat. The cupboard is pretty bare for Republicans in a very blue state.

NJ-Gov (Corzine) -- New Jersey always seems to play Lucy to the GOP's Charlie Brown. But once again, polling shows a competitive race for a fairly unpopular Democratic incumbent. The US Attorney for NJ is in the race, and is running pretty close to Corzine, who is at 42%.

NY-Gov (Patterson) -- A lot depends on whether or not Rudy runs. If he does, it could be close, though Patterson will probably have to make a mistake that puts a dent in his 59% approval rating.

OH-Gov (Strickland) -- Strickland sports a tepid 45% approval rating in this swing state, which pretty much automatically puts him on the watch list. With the trouble the economy is likely to go through in the next few years, I'd be sweating it if I were him. The GOP has had a rough go the last few years, and only holds one statewide office right now: Auditor.

OR-Gov (Open) -- Gov. Kulongoski leaves office and isn't terribly popular. The Dems have controlled the Governor's office since the 1986 elections, which would seem to open them up to a "change" campaign. But the Republican cupboard is pretty bare here. Secretary of State Bradbury will be a good candidate for the Democrats in a state that ain't getting any redder these days.

Not Presently Competitive D

AR-Gov (Beebe) -- 75% approval rating. It's a red state at the Presidential level, but as blue as Massachusetts at the state level, for historic reasons (AR didn't have a populist/establishment split in its Democratic party in the 30s and 40s, so the Republicans didn't have a faction to take over in the 50s and 60s). Better off concentrating on Senator Lambert-Lincoln.

CO-Gov (Ritter) -- Not above 70% anymore, but still 2:1 approving.

IA-Gov (Culver) -- Chet's well above 50%, and this state has trended blue of late.

NH-Gov (Lynch) -- So like, you know how if you play in 3d edition Dungeons & Dragons and your character can attain Godhood eventually? Er . . . me neither. But if that were the case, I think it would pretty much describe Governor Lynch's standing in New Hampshire.

NM-Gov (Open) -- The Republicans got wiped out here in 2008. Not gonna happen.

And now I'll return to playing with my Star Wars action figures. Pkew-Pkew! Look out Han Solo! It's IG-88 and Zuckuss!!!

Mike Huckabee and libertarians

Jon Henke — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:36:56 -0500

We've seen a lot of social conservatives upset over today's intemperate attack by Kathleen Parker (Note: she was unnecessarily contemptuous, but her point that "the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs" is worth serious consideration).

Well, I am a libertarian, so let's talk about the Kathleen Parker of the social conservative crowd: Mike Huckabee.

This week, Huckabee called libertarians the "real threat" to the Republican Party...

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." ... "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument."

We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. ...

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff."

Excepting the anarcho-capitalists (who basically aren't a part of the electoral equation, anyway), I don't know a single libertarian who says we shouldn't fund police, prisons or courts. Most libertarians who are aligned with the Right or the Republican Party are less concerned about the few billion that Huckabee describes here than they are about the few trillion other dollars the government is spending, or the uncountable additional costs of unnecessary regulation and legislation. (This is a perfect illustration of my problem #3 with Mike Huckabee, noted below)

So, let me boil down my problems with Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee is a Rawlsian liberal + social conservative: Mike Huckabee describes his political philosophy as (a) the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you", and (b) a passage from the Bible ("Inasmuch as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me"). This is not "conservatism"; it is basic Rawlsian liberalism.

Huckabee makes little distinction between religion and politics: It's not that he's religious. It's that Mike Huckabee appears to be incapable of drawing a meaningful distinction between religion and politics. For instance, in 1997, Governor Huckabee held up a disaster relief bill for weeks because he objected to its description of floods and tornados as "an act of God". He explained his position on another bill by saying "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice." He has asserted a Christian duty to support other policies. The Right desperately needs to remember that where the government intrudes, church recedes.

Huckabee accepts the Democratic framing: Mike Huckabee seems to have far more complaints with Republicans than with Democrats. Worse, he embraces liberal or Democratic caricatures to attack Republicans. Whether it is his attacks on libertarians, business or the Club for Growth, Huckabee almost invariably misrepresents their views, portraying them in the same cartoon terms that Democrats like to use (see the examples quoted earlier in this post).

This is easily as contemptuous, as offensive as anything Kathleen Parker has written about social conservatives. So, yeah, a columnist express disdain for social conservatives. Cry me a river. We libertarians had a social conservative Governor and Presidential candidate call us the "real threat" and "smug", and brazenly misrepresent our views before calling our message un-American.

Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition. The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition.

Huckabee may believe libertarians are the "real threat", but his God, Guns and Butter agenda would destroy the Right far more effectively than the libertarian cartoons that exist in Huckabee's head.

The Way to Five Million Activists

Patrick Ruffini — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:54:51 -0500

A question I often get with Rebuild the Party is how we intend to get from Point A to Point B. That we have admirable and oftentimes lofty goals, and what we need is a roadmap for accomplishing them.

Let me give a great example of how the bit about five million new Republican online activists gets done in real life, and it has to do with the first outrage of the Obama era: the auto bailout.

With all deference to our friends in Michigan, a functioning RNC would be able to take a hard line against the bailout-of-choice for the auto industry. Or against insert-Obama-outrage-here. It doesn't really matter. We'll have plenty of issues once these guys actually get in.

Practically, this means that the RNC needs to be able to publicly stick its neck out on core issues where 80 or 85 percent of our House and Senate conferences agree. Currently, this is very difficult because even when Congressional Republicans take a good, populist position, the White House has to take the Responsible Presidential Position, which usually serves as a wet blanket as far as firing up the base goes.

But without a White House, the RNC can align itself with galvanizing positions on key issues. And one by one, it can start launching online petition drives around them, of which the good ones can get in the hundreds of thousands of signatures. The auto bailout would be a good prototype, but again, the specific issue really doesn't matter as long as the RNC is bought into the basic idea of aggressive recruitment based on opposition to specific Obama policies, not just vague direct mail boilerplate against the "Obama-Biden Democrats" I got during the campaign.

Not all of them will catch fire. Not all of them will be Drill Now. But some of them will be. Even Eric Cantor's "Call Back Congress" petition during #DontGo got 35,000 signatures based on little more than recruitment to the blogosphere -- just imagine if the RNC had gotten involved and put its list to work? And every little bit helps in getting to the goal of five million.

Left Watch: Center for American Progress

Jon Henke — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:42:03 -0500

It's important for the Right to be aware of what the Left is doing. Few, if any, on the Left are doing it better than the Center for American Progress...

[T]he Center for American Progress has become in just five years an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the new Obama administration.

Much as the Heritage Foundation provided intellectual heft for the Republican Party in the 1980s, CAP has been an incubator for liberal thought and helped build the platform that triumphed in the 2008 campaign. [...]

To help promote its ideas, CAP employs 11 full-time bloggers who contribute to two Web sites, ThinkProgress and the Wonk Room; others prepare daily feeds for radio stations. The center's policy briefings are standing-room only, packed with lobbyists, advocacy-group representatives and reporters looking for insights on where the Obama administration is headed. [...]

CAP, which has 180 staffers and a $27 million budget, devotes as much as half of its resources to promoting its ideas through blogs, events, publications and media outreach. [...]

Podesta modeled the center on the Heritage Foundation, which became the go-to policy-research organization in 1981 when newly elected President Ronald Reagan embraced its conservative ideas embodied in a book called ``Mandate for Leadership.'' Heritage was just seven years old. [...]

Podesta likes to say, ``we're not a think tank, we're an action tank,'' said Dan Weiss, an environmental activist who joined CAP last year.

This is important. The Center for American Progress has adapted and modernized some of the Right's best strategies and tactics. They have a conceptually superior understanding of how best to do what they are doing.

They realized that information and ideas already existed, and action - the organization and application of information - was what the Left needed. So they created a Marketing Tank.

They realized that a think tank was two different organizations - policy (501c3) and communications (501c4) - and those two organizations required structural separation to be most effective.

They realized the Permanent Campaign was reality, so they built infrastructure to construct the permanent campaign outside of actual campaigns - to ensure the permanent campaign would be both permanent and ideological (rather than merely partisan).

They realized the internet was their most effective channel - their killer app - so they prioritized the internet as a more effective means of communicating and mobilizing people around ideas, resulting in ideas that very quickly enter the bloodstream of policymakers, the media, influentials and activists. As John Podesta has said...

Address the issues—in real time. “When we got into this, conservatives had natural outlets on talk radio, Fox, etc. Progressives were weak at this. So we designed a suite of products—a daily e-mail, a blog, etc.—to engage with policy decisions every day.”

Get the long-term message out. “Traditional progressive research institutions devote about 5 percent of resources to outreach. We’re around 40 percent, and it’s paying off. In 2005 we put out a plan for affordable health care for everyone. Now all the Democratic presidential candidates are in favor of universal health coverage.”

Whatever you think of their agenda, it's difficult not to admire how smart the Center for American Progress has been about building an effective new machine that marries policy, communications and action. In a town that had grown comfortable and complacent about building new political infrastructure, the Center for American Progress helped produce a revolution.

There is much to learn from that.

Senate Preview 2010

Sean Oxendine — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:17:06 -0500

In light of Patrick’s earlier post on the importance of Senate recruiting, I thought it would be good to give a preliminary outlook of where things stand in the Senate. I’ve divided the Senate seats for 2010 up into three categories for each party: Seats that will be competitive no matter what, seats that could be competitive with the right national environment and/or recruiting effort, and seats that would require a major shift in the national environment to become competitive.

At first glance, the outlook is pretty grim for Republicans. Of the two competitive Senate seats for the Democrats, both probably at least slightly lean their way to start. For the Republicans, probably three of the four Senate seats for Republicans are at best 50-50. With the right combination of recruiting, retirements and national environment, this could easily get really bad, really quickly. Considering that at the beginning of this cycle only the open Colorado seat and maybe Oregon or Minnesota would be placed in the definitely competitive category, we see how important a role the environment and recruiting can play (indeed, without stellar recruiting by the DSCC of candidates who didn't intially want to run, AK, NH, NM, and VA might have had different outcomes). Similarly, in 2004, Senators Chafee, Allen, and DeWine, and potentially Talent, would have at best been in the “potentially competitive” category.

But it’s a double edged sword, and shows why you should ALWAYS recruit your best candidate to run. If Tim Roemer had run against Dick Lugar in 2006 – someone considered as unassailable at recruiting time as, well, Mike DeWine – he probably would have had at least a 50-50 chance at becoming a Senator. We just don’t know how the national environment will look two years from now, and that will greatly impact who is seen as vulnerable. The situation swung wildly from Democrats to Republicans to Democrats from 1992 to 1994 to 1996, and swung pretty decisively from 2004 to 2006. It isn’t impossible to imagine Bayh or Mikulski or even Obama’s replacement being vulnerable in 2008, provided we have the right recruits in place and are running in a favorable environment.

It’s also worth noting that the famed midterm election tendency, which finds that the President’s party always loses seats in the midterm election, simply doesn’t hold as well in the Senate. While there are only three exceptions since the Civil War in the House, there are a number of exceptions in the Senate since direct election of Senators commenced in the early 1900s, including 1962, 1970, 1982, 1998, and 2002. Therefore, we probably shouldn’t expect the “midterm tendency” to bail Republicans out.

So with that said, the ratings are below the fold.

Not Competitive At This Time D	Potentially Competitive D	Likely Competitive D	Likely Competitive R	Potentially Competitve R	Not Competitive At This Time R
DE-Sen	AR-Sen	CO-Sen	FL-Sen	AZ-Sen	AL-Sen
IL-Sen	CA-Sen	NV-Sen	KY-Sen	IA-Sen	AK-Sen
IN-Sen	CT-Sen		NC-Sen	KS-Sen	GA-Sen
MD-Sen	HI-Sen		OH-Sen	MO-Sen	ID-Sen
NY-Sen	ND-Sen			NH-Sen	LA-Sen
OR-Sen	WA-Sen			OK-Sen	SC-Sen
VT-Sen	WI-Sen			PA-Sen	UT-Sen
				SD-Sen

Potentially Competitive R Seats

Arizona (John McCain) – If popular Governor Janet Napolitano runs against McCain, she would make for a very competitive race, and indeed has led in some polling. If she waits until 2012 to challenge Jon Kyl, he probably cruises. Much will depend on how the Obama Administration pans out.

Kansas (Brownback Retiring) – It’s hard to believe that Kansas is potentially competitive, given that the state has elected all of three Democrats in its history, and none since 1932. But the 800 pound gorilla in the room is popular Governor Kathleen Sebelius. If she can be persuaded to run – and if Obama doesn’t select her for Agriculture Secretary or some such – she’ll be difficult, though not impossible to beat. If she doesn’t run, this shouldn’t be particularly competitive. Congressman Jerry Moran is running on the Republican side.

Iowa (Chuck Grassley) – Grassley is in his late 70s and may retire, at which point you’d have to like the Dems’ odds in a state that has been trending their way in recent elections. Grassley is something of an icon, sports a 63% approval rating, and would have to be the favorite if he runs for re-election.

Missouri (Kit Bond) – Every six years the Democrats say that they will take out Kit Bond, and every six years he’s re-elected with a votes share somewhere in the low-to-mid 50s. Maybe lightning will strike this time, as Bond is below 45% in tests against various political figures. Then again, those figures are already known statewide (Dick Gephardt, Robin Carnahan), so if Bond were really destined to lose, you'd expect them to perform much better. More importantly, none have declared.

New Hampshire (Judd Gregg) – The temptation is to say “here we go again” after John Sununu lost, but Sununu lost to a figure with about as good a brand as there is in the Granite State. Obviously if popular Governor John Lynch runs this would be a real headache for Gregg, but other than Lynch, there isn’t anyone nearly as formidable as Shaheen.

Oklahoma (Tom Coburn) – I guess if Governor Henry challenged Coburn it could be competitive, but in Obama’s worst state nationwide, I just think the odds against it are awfully high. That said, Henry’s approval rating is substantially above Coburn’s, and his term is up in 2010.

Pennsylvania (Arlen Specter) – To be honest, I just don’t see Chris Mathews posing that big of a threat to Senator Specter. If it were Minnesota, it would be a different story altogether. But we’ll see. Any number of young Democratic Congresscritters might be eying a promotion.

South Dakota (John Thune) – If Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin ran, it would at least be competitive. But word is she has her sights set on the Governor’s office.

Likely Competitive R Seats

Florida (Mel Martinez) – Given that Martinez is pulling in between 31 and 37 percent of the vote in recent ballot tests, it is difficult to see how he wins re-election in this purplish-red state. Two years is a long time, but we’ve got a lot of work to do here.

Kentucky (Jim Bunning) – Bunning barely scraped by against unknown State Senator Dan Mongiardo in 2004. He’ll have a heckuva time holding this seat against likely opponent Ben Chandler in 2010, without Presidential coattails to support him. The 40-44 approval rating isn’t great news for him, but McConnell just won re-election with a similarly upside-down approval rating (but Bunning is no McConnell).

North Carolina (Richard Burr) – After seeing what happened to Elizabeth Dole, who lost to a relative no-name by a margin much greater than Obama was carrying the state, one has to think Burr, who has generally sported similar approval ratings, is in real trouble. Expect Burr to spend a lot of time in this state, defending a seat that has switched between Republicans and Democrats in every election since 1974.

Ohio (George Voinovich) – Two words: Mike DeWine. Voinovich’s approval rating is above 50%, which is better than DeWine can say, and he won’t have the Bush albatross to the same extent that DeWine had. But Ohio Democrats are on a roll, and Voinovich is having trouble getting above 40% in ballot tests.

Not Competitive at this time R Seats

Alabama (Richard Shelby) – unless the 74-year-old Shelby retires or commits an unforgivable gaffe (see Allen, George), its hard to see him going down to defeat.

Alaska (Lisa Murkowski) – If the last couple of cycles have shown anything, it is how difficult it is for a Democrat to win in Alaska. In 2004 and 2006 Democrats have had high hopes of stealing a statewide office from Republicans, only to have them dashed. Unless Murkowski becomes a convicted felon, she should be safe, and even then it appears it would be a 50-50 proposition.

Georgia (Johnny Isakson) – Obviously anything can happen (see Chambliss, Saxby), but it is pretty difficult to imagine Isakson falling below 50%, especially without Obama at the top of the ballot.

Idaho (Mike Crapo) – Assuming he avoids airport bathroom stalls, he should be handily re-elected.

Louisiana (David Vitter) – Yes I know about the hooker. I also know about the 67% approval rating he was sporting in the wake of the scandal (and 55% in July of this year). Given the thin Democratic bench and, um, demographic shift, I don’t see this going anywhere.

South Carolina (Jim DeMint) – Nothing for Democrats here.

Utah (Bob Bennett) – Nah.

Potentially Competitive D Seats

Arkansas (Blanche Lincoln) – Its pretty amazing that the state that was one of John McCain’s strongest states has elected all of one Republican Senator since Reconstruction, but for historic reasons there is no Republican Party here to speak of. Lincoln is one of those Senators who is probably rooting for Norm Coleman and Saxby Chambliss, because she doesn’t want to be tagged as the deciding vote for every piece of controversial legislation that goes through the Senate. Against a no-name opponent she garnered 56% of the vote in 2004; depending on how the Obama administration and Republican recruiting fare, it could get worse for her this year. But given that the GOP failed to mount a challenge to Senator Mark Pryor this year, this could go either way.

California (Barbara Boxer) – Even though California is a very blue state, you have to consider any Senator with an approval rating below 50% to be potentially vulnerable. That’d be Barbara Boxer, a.k.a. Dianne Feinstein’s consistently less popular Senate counterpart. A lot will depend on recruiting here, but I wouldn't really hold my breath.

Connecticut (Chris Dodd) – I struggled mightily with this one. After all, Connecticut is a solidly blue state, and the GOP’s best shot, Governor Jodi Rell, is likely not running. But it is hard to ignore the Countrywide scandal hovering over his head, and it is likewise hard to ignore his upside-down 43-46 approval rating. If the GOP can find a credible candidate – no small task – it could make a race out of this.

Hawai’i (Daniel Inouye) – Inouye has been involved in Hawai’i politics since statehood; it is no exaggeration to say he is a legend. The only reason this is listed as potentially competitive is that he is 86 years old at this time, and Republicans have a potentially credible candidate in Governor Linda Lingle. It’s hard to see Lingle taking on Inouye – she’d likely wait until 2012 to take on the less popular Daniel Akaka (who will be 90), but if Inouye retires or if his health fails, she could make a race of this.

North Dakota (Byron Dorgan) – John Hoeven, John Hoeven, John Hoeven. If Hoeven runs, this race would be something of the irresistible force hitting the immovable object. I can’t find a recent poll for Senator Dorgan, but last time it was measured (2006), it was 75-21 (and hovered around 70 for most of the year. But Hoeven’s is even higher, at 86-10, and he was last elected with a 74-24 advantage over his Democratic opponent. If we can convince Hoeven to run, this will be our best chance to defeat a Senate Democrat for the first time since 2004. No, that’s not a typo. Then we’d just have to get Ed Schaefer to run against Kent Conrad in 2012.

Washington (Patty Murray) – The original “mom in tennis shoes” has been in the Senate for three unimpressive terms. With the Bush Administration behind us, it might be possible for a candidate like Dino Rossi or Mike McGavick to knock her off. Still, her approval rating (for now) is at 55%, so it would be no small feat.

Wisconsin (Russ Feingold) – This is another one I debated, but given that Feingold couldn’t get above 55% of the vote against a weak candidate in 2004, and sports a tepid 53-45 approval rating, I can't say that this is in the bag for him. Paul Ryan would be a nice recruit here.

Likely Competitive D Seats

Colorado (Ken Salazar) – While Colorado has lurched to the left of late, I believe that a large part of that is due to the state’s visceral reaction to the Bush Administration. Salazar would likely be vulnerable regardless of who was President, since the most recent Democratic polling has him under 50%, with an approval rating under 40% (and a similar disapproval rating). Liberals may primary him as well. Either way, this will likely have some degree of competitiveness, regardless of recruiting efforts.

Nevada (Harry Reid) – Harry Reid dodged something of a bullet with Jon Porter’s defeat in 2010. Still, there are statewide Republicans who may challenge him, including Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki. Reid’s approval rating hasn’t been measured recently, but last time it was tested, it was a horrendous 32-51 split. As the face of Senate Democrats, he has a tight rope to walk in a state that has hewed close to the national average in recent elections.

Not Competitive At This Time D Seats

Delaware (Joe Biden’s Successor) – Delaware isn’t a particularly competitive state for Republicans, and they have a very, very thin bench here. It would take a recruiting coup and a major blunder by the appointee to make this competitive at this time.

Illinois (Barack Obama’s Successor) – This is better for the GOP than Delaware, but not by a lot. The only difference is the GOP has some credible candidates, but unless Blagojevich picks himself and/or the Obama Administration tanks, neither of which is impossible, this is simply a very tough state.

Indiana (Evan Bayh) – Again, being the deciding vote on cloture on a number of measures isn’t really what he wants, but it is hard to imagine him tanking so badly that he loses. Some people say that Bayh may retire but that seems extremely unlikely to me, as he’d have to get a real job.

Maryland (Barb Mikulski) – Unless Gov. Ehrlich runs and the economy collapses (even more), it is just hard to see Mikulski retiring (although she is 74) or losing. She hasn’t fallen below 60% of the vote in any race since her unsuccessful Senate bid in 1974.

New York (Chuck Schumer) – Senators with 60% approval ratings don’t lose unless they are in states with heavy bases for the other party. That ain’t New York.

Oregon (Ron Wyden) – Maybe Wyden will retire, but the bench is thin and we just lost a strong Senate candidate to a fairly weak candidate. Wyden’s approval rating isn’t anything to write home about – about 54-34 – but it should do the trick.

Vermont (Patrick Leahy) – It’s amazing to think that Patrick Leahy is only 70 years old, given that he’s been in the Senate since I was in diapers. It’s also amazing to think that his initial win was regarded as a fluke in a state that had never elected a Democrat to the Senate. Anyway, if Jim Douglas ran this seat might be competitive, but more likely it would end up the way it ended up in 1992, when Douglas lost to Leahy by ten points.

Now That's What I'm Talking About

Sean Oxendine — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:16:58 -0500

There's a new blog around, Red Albany, dedicated to covering the race for the New York Statehouse. Judging from the content so far, it looks to be very well done.

More, please.

Infighting We Can Believe In

Patrick Ruffini — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:12:40 -0500

The price of power.

Kos:

But there's also disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.

I'm done with Reid as Senate leader.

A Kos commenter:

I hope Reid is as forgiving

when we all support his primary challenger.

Stoller:

I sort of get tired of making this point, but Democratic leaders are often not on our side, they often don't agree with us, and it's foolish to consider them as teammates. They aren't.

Sirota:

With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head. In fact, with their votes, they have aggressively worked to start and continue the war, pass the bailout and destroy our constitutional rights to privacy. So, are we really surprised that they have rewarded Joe Lieberman with a chairmanship that he can use to investigate the president he said poses a danger to America?

Jane Hamsher, on the phone with Howard Dean:

JANE HAMSHER: With all due respect, Governor Dean, we were all just told to go screw ourselves. That our concern for Barack Obama and that our concern about the war and everything else that we fought so hard for within the Democratic Party is meaningless.

And Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.

A Reality Check On New England

Sean Oxendine — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:50:37 -0500

The supposed big story of the Congressional races is that Republicans lost their last Congressional seat in New England with the defeat of Chris Shays. The implications of this are supposedly ominous, as Reid Wilson declares:

But Shays' defeat shows that even someone prepared for a tough race who has spent years building his reputation within the district can go down to defeat. Republicans are going to have to re-establish a foothold in the New England before they can seriously challenge for the Speaker's gavel.

The answer to this is "hogwash." New England holds a special place in history as the traditional seat of power in the nation. When the Northern Republican party was in its prime, New England was the place to be, politically, economically, and culturally speaking. But it is a crumbling ediface of its former self, with the accompanying decline of economic, cultural, and especially political influence.

In the 1950s, New England had twenty eight Congressional districts. In the Republican party's greatest time of historical dominance in the early 20th century, it had around thirty-three seats. Today, New England has twenty-two ~~states~~ seats. It will lose another after this census, meaning that it will have only five more seats than Massachusetts alone had at mid-century, and will barely have half as many seats as, say, Texas. Indeed, Texas alone presently supplies about as many Republicans to Congress as all of New England supplies Democrats.

Even adding New York to the definition of New England does little to alter the analysis; by adding New York to the New England states we end up with fifty-one seats. That's less than California, and it will drop by another three after this census. And between New York and New England, Republicans have dropped a grand total of eleven Congressional seats (six from New York, not New England). Even taking over every Democratic seat in New England AND New York would barely get Republicans a majority in the House.

This isn't to say that the Republican party shouldn't compete in New England -- it should, it can (as evidenced by continued successes in gubernatorial races, competitive House races in Vermont, Maine, and Massachsetts in the worst possible conditions imaginable in the last few cycles, and continuing party competitiveness overall in New Hampshire), and it will. A House seat is a House seat. Obviously the Senate picture is very different, since you're looking at 12% of the Senate drawn from those states. And to the extent that problems in New England are symptomatic of problems in other, growing portions of the country, like Fairfax County Virginia or Orange County North Carolina, that point (a different one than that being made above) is taken.

But the importance of New England to holding the Speakers' gavel is grossly overstated, and is an artifact of history, much like the belief that upstate New York or downstate Illinois is staunchly Republican. The focus of the Republican party in the short-to-medium term should remain in the Rust Belt and the Mountain West; fixing the party's problems there will do a lot more for the party's future than re-establishing its bona fides in Rhode Island.