Obama's Election Strategy: Class, Race Warfare is Good for Me

Barack Obama wants this country to bleed in all ways possible from class struggle and race struggle. He is a modern Leninite who wants to hype class struggle to get a dictatorship of the liberal elite in order. In fact, even people across the pond realize Obama is going to shatter and tear this nation asunder just to keep his job:

President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign will be the first in modern political history to abandon white working-class voters, strategists claim.

For decades, Democrats have been losing more and more blue collar whites. Their alienation helped lead to the massive Republican wave in 2010, when the GOP wooed 30 percent more of them than the Democrats could.

Democratic strategists say President Obama is focusing his attention, instead, on poor black and Hispanic voters and educated white professionals.

In other words, Obama is focusing on the Occupytards who think they are better than you because they went to college and studied art therapy and you didn't; as well as those who are addicted to the government drug of entitlements and set asides.

Thomas Edsall wrote the same thing in the NY Times a few weeks back:

'All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment... and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic,' longtime political reporter Thomas B. Edsall wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times.

'The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort,' he writes later.

So, white union workers, screw you! sez Obama. He is going after people who are taking your jobs. This guy wants to balkanize us so he can divide us, then we can't stand together to stop him from destroying our country.

Obama Doesn't Like Nor Want White Working Class Folks

The Dems are trumpetting how now they just want to focus on white elitists and low income minorities. What about the white working/middle class folks? Forget about em. Shows you how bad things are for the Bamster, since he now has to actually be honest. From the NY Times:

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

First, I take issue that the Dems were ever FOR the white working class/middle class. In fact, look at a lot of even FDR's policies, and who did they favor? Big business. Who are Obama's policies favoring? Crony big businesses. Where is the help for the small working class guy? Nowhere. So, for all you union types who think the Bamster still loves ya, what do you think now? He has used you and played you. Maybe a bit of wising up is in order.

With All The Dems Have Done, They Claim Republicans Seditionist?

Well, if you read between the lines of a Dem Strategy memo, that is what they are saying:

This morning three Democratic Party strategists, Ed Kilgore, James Vega and J. P. Green, sent out a "strategy memo" that was titled, rather clumsily: "Beyond 'Sabotage' -- The Central Issue About the Growing Political Extremism of the Republican Party Is That It's Undermining Fundamental American Standards of Ethical Political Conduct and Behavior." That's quite a charge; what evidence do the authors offer in support of it?

They begin by referring to a Washington Monthly article in which a blogger named Steve Benen "gave voice to a growing and profoundly disturbing concern among Democrats--that Republicans may actually plan to embrace policies designed to deny Obama not only political victories but also the maximum possible economic growth during his term in order weaken Democratic prospects in the 2012 elections." This is a remarkably silly theory. If Republicans really wanted to retard economic growth, they would join with the Obama administration in raising taxes, increasing regulations and proceeding with the government takeover of medicine and destruction of small business. But they aren't doing that. Instead, Republicans are advocating the same policies they do when a Republican administration is in power: lower taxes, less regulation, a strong national defense. Democrats and Republicans disagree, of course, as to how economic growth can best be promoted. The disagreement that is now playing out in Washington is a continuation of the same debate we have witnessed for the past forty to fifty years.

Beyond that easily-dismissed charge, what do the authors have to say? They allege that Republicans have adopted a "politics as warfare" philosophy that is unprecedented in American history and amounts, really, to sedition:

There is a deep apprehension that fundamental American standards of proper political conduct and ethical political behavior are increasingly being violated.

The key feature that distinguishes the increasingly extremist perspective of today's Republican Party from the standards of political behavior we have traditionally considered proper in America is the view that politics is--quite literally, and not metaphorically--a kind of warfare and political opponents are literally "enemies."

Um...who was referring to political foes as "enemies?" Let's go back to the pre election speechifying of the One:

If Latinos sit out the election instead of, "we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us" -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder.

Gee, that isn't like warfare, punishing enemes and rewarding friends? Aren't we all Americans? Well, at least most of us. Who are the ones engaging in dirty tricks and turns of phrase now? But wait, they continue:

They continue:

This "politics as warfare" perspective has historically been the hallmark of many extremist political parties of both the ideological left and ideological right--parties ranging from the American Communist Party to the French National Front.

In the politics as warfare perspective extralegal measures, up to and including violence, are tacitly endorsed as a legitimate means to achieve a party's political aims if democratic means are insufficient to obtain its objectives.

* In the politics as warfare perspective all major social problems are caused by the deliberate, malevolent acts of powerful elites with nefarious motives. An evil "them" is the cause of all society's ills.

* In the politics as warfare perspective the political party's philosophy and basic strategy is inerrant--it cannot be wrong. The result is the creation of a closed system of ideologically controlled "news" that creates an alternative reality.

* In the politics as warfare perspective standard norms of honesty are irrelevant. Lying and the use of false propaganda are considered necessary and acceptable. The "truth" is what serves to advance the party's objectives.

* In the politics as warfare perspective the creation of contrived "incidents" or deliberate provocations are acceptable. Because the adherent of this view "knows" that his or her opponents are fundamentally evil, even concocted or staged incidents are still morally and ethically "true." The distinction between facts and distortions disappears.

OK, so where is the evidence that the GOP and conservatives have done such a thing? Here goes the great leap from reality to Oliver Stone fiction:

It is easy to see examples of the various politics as warfare- based views and tactics listed above directly reflected in the statements and actions of the extreme wing of Republican coalition--they range from Michelle Bachmann and Sharon Angle's winking at violence with references to "second amendment remedies"...

...to Andrew Breitbart's deliberate editing of a video to smear Shirley Sherrod...

...Fox News' tolerating attacks on Obama as equivalent to Hitler...

...and airing repeated suggestions that the miniscule New Black Panthers present a real and genuine national threat of stolen elections...

...and Grover Norquist's endorsement of a government shutdown over extending the debt limit, despite the genuine dangers this poses to international financial stability.

OK, where to begin?
1. While Sharon Angle did say something about "second amendment remedies, Bachmann never has.
2. Andrew Breitbart did no editing of his video on Sherrod.
3. Every Fox News host villifies those who say Obama is Hitler. I have seen them condemn those who use the Obama/Hitler meme.
4. We have a bunch of thugs threatening harm against people and standing with clubs outside a polling place, and this is laughed off and seen as an exaggerated threat? Child please!

What we see here is a new narrative they are forming. They are going to try to frame everything the GOP does as hyperpartisanship or "Politics as warfare." They are going to try to paint the GOP as evil power brokers even as the Powergrabber in chief steals more power from the other branches and rules by executive unchecked fiat. Disgraceful!

Rush on Bad Strategery of "Let's Support RINOs"

Again, don't take my word for it, here is Rush Limbaugh opening up yesterday's radio show:

Today, as we start the radio program, America is hanging by a thread. So we have to see what we can do with a thread. At the end of the day, our freedom has been assaulted. This is the kind of change that people did not think they were going to get when they voted for Barack Obama. Freedom must win the day. . . . They won because they held Congress and the presidency, and therein lies the lesson: We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out. We need to chase them out of town. But we need to do more than that. We need to elect conservatives. If there are Republican primaries, elect conservatives and then defeat the Democrats -- every last one of them[.]

Emphasis added.

Note that Rush didn't say that we need to elect "moderates" or "centrists" or "RINOs"; we need to elect CONSERVATIVES.

We need to offer the American people a clear choice, not Democrat-lite.

Why "Let's Support the RINOs" is Bad Strategery

Don't take my word for it, here's NRO's Jim Geraghty in today's "Morning Jolt" e-newsletter:

Folks, we did everything right: The grassroots rallies, the big crowds at the town halls, the wins in New Jersey and Virginia and Massachusetts, the multiple rallies on the Hill, the widespread bright spotlight on this legislative monstrosity's flaws, the phone calls, the e-mails, the ads, the polls in key districts. We turned the vote to create Obamacare into political suicide, not realizing how many members of the House the Democrats were willing to sacrifice to achieve their goal.

But the health-care bill passed, with 219 Democratic votes.
Those 34 Democrats who voted no shouldn't rest easy, since we're coming for them, too -- one of the key lessons of this is that Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle, and Mark Kirk will come through for you when Bart Gordon won't.
You know how much we rail against RINOs? Take a look at all of those so-called pro-life, or conservative, or centrist Democrats. Not every last one of them, but a heck of a lot of them sold out: John Boccieri, Charlie Wilson, and Steve Driehaus of Ohio. Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana. Bart Stupak [] and Dale Kildee of Michigan. Suzanne Kosmas and Allen Boyd of Florida. Betsy Markey of Colorado. Tom Perriello of Virginia. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, Dina Titus of Nevada. All of them touting how centrist they are, or how they have conservative values, or how, no matter how much they march in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi on other issues, they have deep and abiding respect for the unborn.

Emphasis added.  
Bottom line: You just can't trust a "centrist" or a "moderate" to do the right thing when the chips are down and the big deals are on the table.

Usual Suspects' Grand Strategery: "Support RINOs"

The vote on socialized healthcare hasn't even been taken yet and the usual suspects here in Ohio are already issuing their grand strategery for "taking back" the House and it has a familiar ring to it: "Support RINOs"

On last night's show, Mark pointed out that we have a RINO to thanks for the socialized healthcare charade we are currently seeing in Dee Cee today.  That's right, it was RINO Olympia Snow from Maine who from her perch in the United States senate heard the "call of history" and went along with this nonsense.

We should never trust another RINO again.

I find it interesting that all the "insider" and Columbus-based bloggers tend to always come back to the "Support RINOs" strategery as their answer for everything.  It is a strategery that hasn't worked, to my knowledge, in my lifetime.  But all those folks who claim to be the smartest people in the room are quick to go this route.

How about this strategery, guys?  Let's support the most conservative Republicans we can get elected and let the RINOs do their part for conservatives for a change.  How about that?  I love how these folks always go to the DeWine vs. Brown US Senate race and say, "You filthy conservatives left Mikey out to dry." while totally ignoring the FACT that FAR MORE RINOs let Ken Blackwell twist in the wind.  So spare me your righteous outrage and face the reality that we need to start working together.

Bottom Line: When RINOs show up and do what's right for conservatives, then we can talk.  Until then, I got better things to do...like rallying the grassroots people that are going to show up on election day and throw these bums out of office.

Day #1 of your political campaign…from the fundraising perspective

"Day #1 of your political campaign…from the fundraising perspective" is penned by Kyle Sisk of http://kylesisk.typepad.com/ and this is my virgin post on WMD (thanks for the invite, Matt!) so if I messed something up with this post I apologize.

Some of you know I used to raise money for a living for just over 11 years to elect and defeat people, ballot initiatives, etc. Others who I have met over the last four years do not.

Suffice it to say I was rarely popular (understatement I know), frequently disliked (understatement again I know), had a horrific bedside manner (understatement I know and I actually do have remorse about not having a better bedside manner with officeholders, candidates & staff) and not that many people are sad I am no longer in politics (understatement #4).

All that said, over the last five years I have enjoyed watching the successes and failures (yes, I have enjoyed watching both) of my two handfuls of friends I still have from politics, my former friends and those who I once considered enemies.

Although I am sure there will be some comments to the contrary, I never really had anyone from March of 93 to today ever say, "That guy did not know a %$#@*@ing thing about raising money for political office." People have said A LOT of things other than that, but never that.

So, from time to time I will offer up some advice on running for political office from the perspective of raising dollars effectively.

If you are my friend, former friend or you are running against someone I do not really care for and you benefit from this advice...fantastic! God bless you!

If you are someone who used to be one of my enemies {or as I have been told by a few people on Cap Square...some of you still consider me an enemy...if you fit into that category...well...you really need to get a life at some point...I am sorry your mom didn't hug you or tell you that she loved you as a child...I am out of political fundraising...find a new person to write anonymous memos about :-) ... I am no longer a threat to your power or your pocketbook} and you benefit from this advice...that is great, too! I am confident and sleep well knowing you will answer to The Higher Power someday ;-)

Alright, advice time...I have always gotten a kick out of the fact that when it comes to fundraising a lot of candidates and campaigns either want to start by creating some grandiose plan before doing any face-to-face meetings or they just want to dive in doing meetings with whoever they are comfortable with or who they can get meetings with at the drop of a hat.

These are both a road to being an answer in a future production of Political Trivial Pursuit. I will tell you the most effective way to raise your $ in a few paragraphs, but for now...

If you are running for statewide office in 2010 anywhere in the US then congratulations!

Let me drop some reality on your head like a grand f’n piano. You are ~380 business days from your election right now. But, in truth, we all know that is what the calendar says and it is not the real world we live in. The real world has holidays like Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Rosh Hashanah, summer vacation so the spouse and kids still recognize you, your sickness, sickness of kids &/or spouse, conferences & seminars out of state, other barnacles (shout out to Sponge Bob) real and imagined, blah, blah, blah...and the list goes on. Even though the calendar says 380 business days I would argue that even the best candidate I ever worked with would probably (if given truth serum) would call that number 320 business days for solid campaigning between today and election day 2010.

So, now we are starting to get down to being able to have a real discussion about fundraising for the campaign. I know I am severely jaded on the following point of view, but I truly believe that for a down-ticket statewide office there are only two things that truly matter: money & votes.

Sounds rudimentary I know, but since raising money and talking with actual voters are usually the two things most candidates abhor doing it is very hard for the fundraising operation to get as much of the 320 business days that are needed to raise the necessary funds for a successful statewide run. There are a lot of fun, sexy, largely inconsequential things most candidates and campaigns enjoy doing more than raising $ and impacting voters.

In a perfect world, if I were in the business today I would be trolling the streets for a candidate to run for statewide office who was willing to spend 290 of the 320 allotted business days doing nothing except raising money. But, alas, I am no longer in the biz and I do not believe such a candidate exists...at least not in Ohio...maybe in South Carolina there is such a candidate...darn Gamecocks...they get the early primary that actually means something, they have the warm weather and they get a candidate who will raise money 290 out of 320 business days!

Hopefully your candidate will at least do 250 business days of fundraising...which brings us to the most effective way to start a run for political office...from the fundraising perspective.

There are probably 1,500 plus prospective donors the candidate probably should personally meet face to face and another 1-2,000 prospective donors (we will call the potential pool of statewide donors a pool of 2,500 people) the candidate probably should personally call on in an ideal world, but that would be an impossible number of meetings with time for nearly zero calls per day and with drive time, the need for sleep (unless you have a candidate who is The Terminator your candidate probably needs sleep), meals (many candidates do not need meals...definitely not a double whopper before eating a chicken dinner for a total of two meals in a 90 minute period...but candidates do have to eat), etc. the list will need to be prioritized between meetings and calls.

If you can get your candidate to commit to averaging a minimum of three face to face fundraising meetings on each of the 250 business days allotted for fundraising and you can get them to stick to their commitment then you should get on your knees and thank God because you have a wonderful candidate....if they keep their commitment...good luck with that ;-) Assuming they do then 3 x 250= 750 face-to-face fundraising meetings. On that schedule, my guess is you will be able to get your candidate to do an additional 600 fundraising calls without a meeting (you might think this # sounds low, but there will be a lot of trading messages, missed calls, the need for follow-up calls, etc...trust me...the 600 different people from the 750 face-to-face people is a good number).

NOW you are in a position to create your fundraising plan and move forward to implement it.

All you need to do is reduce the entire pool of 2,500 potential donors to a pool of 1,350 (sorry...1,150 of the 2,500 will either only hear from staff or from fundraising mail) and then break the list of 1,350 into five labeled categories (friends, first contact, fence sitters, bet hedgers & enemies).

I hope you are not being naive or stupid at this point after reading that last paragraph.

Yes, you must label people, profile people, whatever you want to call it so you will have the most effective pitch possible for each and every meeting and so you will utilize your time in the most effective way possible. If you are not tackling the list of 1,350 in this fashion and your opponent is then I would probably be betting on your opponent...sorry...just being honest.

Friends are just that...friends. They are the donors who will support you and only you no matter what. If you need to show strength in your ballot situation, you are the cowardly lion and you need to grab some low hanging fruit to build some courage, have an important filing period coming up or have some other timely issue where you feel you need to hit these people first then go for it. BUT if you do not have some pressing reason why you need to go to these folks first then please hold off on meeting with them until after you meet with this next group...

First Contacts are those donors who will give to whoever asks them first and then will use that as their reason/objection for why they will not give to anyone else. Period. This can sometimes be a large list in names and amount of $ so if there is not some overwhelming reason to the contrary I would recommend you start with this group first because whoever gets to these people first will reap the benefits.

Fence Sitters are those donors who will do anything they humanly possibly can to stay on the fence and not give to either side under any circumstance. You are best served by calling these people instead of meeting with them (no matter how large of a donor they are ... don't fall into this trap and think that you meeting with a fence sitter is going to make the difference...no offense, but a Gubernatorial or US Senate candidate has probably tried the same tactic and if they could not get the fence sitter off the fence you probably won't have much luck either).

Bet Hedgers are those donors who will give to both candidates and hedge their bets. I like getting these people on the books pretty early because it has been my experience that if you are the first one to these folks early for say $2,000 and then your opponent gets to them a little later for $2,000 then you can usually swoop back late in the 11th hour and get another $500-$1,000 without your opponent getting squat.

Enemies actually have a few sub-groups. Some enemies you can get to be bet hedgers...treat them accordingly, but don't count on late $. Some enemies can be prompted to be fence sitters...treat them accordingly. Then there are some enemies that are just going to remain enemies...treat them accordingly...whatever that means in your vocabulary. If that means acting like they don't exist then do that. If that means making mean faces or giving dirty looks to them when you see them then do that. If that means something like "If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone" then do that.

Once you have gotten your list of 2,500 down to 1,350 then label your 1,350 into these five categories then you can truly and as objectively as possible prioritize the list of 1,350 into a prioritized list for meetings and fundraising calls. Hit the First Contacts first. Call or avoid the Fence Sitters, but check your f’n ego at the door and do not meet with the Fence Sitters under any circumstances. Mix in Bet Hedgers with Friends in your schedule and start those meetings as soon as you are through the First Contacts. Only meet Enemies if you are pretty confident you can move them to be Bet Hedgers or Fence Sitters...otherwise put them on the call list or avoid them altogether. Make calls whenever you have any downtime (other than when you are dropping the deuce...I had a candidate whose wife had a mullet and sometimes he would take his phone into the can with him...a certain level of dedication or a little bit over the top...your call) and if you start to get behind on your call schedule then lock yourself in a room somewhere for a call day/block of call time until you get caught up.

And so ends lesson #1...it all probably seems pretty simple, but believe me...this stuff works!

Even War Critics Now Say Iraq not Only is NOT LOST, But is Winnable, and in fact, Being Won

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack (no, not the former host of Celebrity Poker Showdown)gave a fascinating presentation. From Commentary:

Senior Brookings Fellows Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack gave a report today and entertained questions at a Brookings briefing on Iraq. It was the single most illuminating presentation I have witnessed on the status of Iraq and the potential way forward. Neither man can be accused of shilling for either the administration or John McCain for numerous reasons: both have been strong critics of the war and O’Hanlon opposed the war at the onset and still believes on balance it has not made us safer. I understand from Brookings that the entire transcript will be posted, but I offer some highlights below.

O’Hanlon explained that the last three months has been the “spring of the blossoming of Iraqi security forces” and Iraq is on an “impressive trajectory” although we have not yet “reached a stable end point.” He stressed that the 80% reduction in civilian violence was much better than he thought possible. He went through a detailed review of Basra, conceding that Maliki’s actions took the Americans by surprise and that in the first week things went poorly. However, by the second week two brigades were deployed from Al Anbar ( a testimony to massive improvements in Iraq security force logistics) and the mission was successful, allowing the Iraqi army and national police force to now control the streets of Basra.

Pollack echoed these observations, saying that “The headline was the emergence of Iraqi security forces.” He explained that the fundamental shift from Americans leading with Iraqis in support to Iraqis leading not just “hold” but “clear” operations is now “well underway.” He observes that sectarian divisions within the military are receding as mixed Sunni and Shia units have been successful in Basra and Mosul operations. He sees vast improvement in military leadership which “is one of the main reasons for improvement” in the security situation. He credits the military success with allowing for a “fundamental rearrangement” of Iraqi politics, observing that Maliki is now “flying high” with new found respect from Sunnis. The big picture take away, he says, it that having achieved remarkable success with major issues we now can begin to address “second and third order problems” such as insuring that military forces “stay in their lane” and do not subvert civilian leadership.

I asked O’Hanlon whether his previous criticism that Barack Obama was in denial about facts on the ground still stood. In a lengthy answer he and then Pollack avoided a partisan hit on Obama and I think revealed their true purpose: to inform the public and policy matters about the real situation in Iraq and allow Democrats to in essence climb back off the surge opposition policy limb they have crawled out on. (This is my description; they were quite tactful and even optimistic that this is a time when political leaders can reorient themselves to new facts.) Both indicated that it would be a mistake with critical provincial and national elections upcoming in 2008 and 2009 to begin an abrupt withdrawal in 2009. O’Hanlon offered that Democrats could take credit for having pressured Iraqis on a political front with the clear message that our presence would not be indefinite and that they should accept that “the good news is you may be able to leave earlier than proposed based on progress and not on defeat.”

Continuing with the answer, Pollack said that “our support is absolutely critical” in the short term and that “a massive withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2009 is not a good idea.”

O’Hanlon continued by praising McCain’s May 2008 speech that envisioned half the U.S. forces out by the end of his first term. He then said that there might be a “more optimistic” timetable which Obama could conceivably adopt whereby we would return to pre-surge levels this year, see a modest reduction in 2009 and further reductions to 50,000-70,00 troops in 2011.

The writer of the piece Jennifer Rubin goes on:

First, facts do matter and they are readily available to anyone who cares to find them. Second, the wisdom of the war and the mismanagement of the war for a number of years needs, for the sake of the country’s national security, to be separated from what we do now. As O’Hanlon said “we are where we are.” Third, Democrats can save face and claim credit for pressuring the Iraqi government if they are inclined to depart from their defeat at all costs approach. Fourth, no one should be Pollyannaish about the success to date but a better outcome than almost anyone would be imagined is now possible. Fifth, the military success of the surge followed by the remarkable progress of the Iraqi military has now empowered Maliki as a truly national political leader. That is what we had hoped when the surge began and that is the basis by which we can achieve a decent outcome and eventually draw down our troops. Finally, I am considerably less optimistic than O’Hanlon that there is now a political window during which the Democrats can be weaned from their defeatist perspective. I fear it would be too great a shift for Obama and the Democrats who have banked on failure. I hope I am wrong and pray that this is the beginning of a reconciliation with reality.

Jennifer, given the Dems continued rhetoric, I wouldn't hold my breath. Look at globaloney (thanks for that Tom Blumer), the War is lost, Bush Lied People died, etc., and you can continue to see that reality is not the Dems' strong suit. And don't even get me started on the Great Society.

A Fresh Look at Ohio's Political Landscape

A few years ago, I wrote a piece for the Miami Vally Conservative Alliance in which I laid out analysis that Ohio was actually a Lavender State, despite the big wins by Ohio Republicans and President Bush in '04.

This map I put together has its flaws, which we can debate in the comments, but I think it illustrates fairly well what I think the reality of Ohio as a Purple State.



KEY:

Red = Counties won by Bush04 and Blackwell06
Purple = Counties won by Bush04 and Strickland06 OR Kerry04 and Blackwell06
Blue = Counties won by Kerry04 and Strickland06

NOTES / OBSERVATIONS:

There are LOTS of opportunites in southern Ohio for a conservative Democrat (that ain't Obama) to make inroads.

Northwest Ohio seems pretty solidly Republican as does most of Southwestern Ohio.

Northeast Ohio seems pretty solidly Democratic.

Central Ohio looks to be a free-for-all.

6/4/08 UPDATE: There was interest among the NextRight readers of the piece based on this one for a map of the Clinton/Obama primary. Here it is...

[Note to self: RE-PLACE THE CLINTON/OBAMA MAP - In the meantime, Obama won five counties, none of which were Purple, in fact, they are the BROWN and CYAN counties in the next map.]

KEY:

Cyan counties were won by Clinton in the Dem Primary

Blue counties were won by Obama in the Dem Primary

So the end result is this:



KEY:

Red = Counties won by Bush04 and Blackwell06
Purple = Counties won by Bush04 and Strickland06 OR Kerry04 and Blackwell06
Blue = Counties won by Kerry04 and Strickland06
Brown = Red Counties that voted for Obama in Dem Primary of '08
Cyan = Blue Counties that voted for Obama in Dem Primary of '08

6/4/08 UPDATE 2: By request I have added in the keys for the two new maps. I have been informed that I mis-identified Lake County's voting record. I'll verify that and make appropriate changes as soon as I get a chance to do so.

6/5/08 UPDATE 1: Lake County has been fixed (was inaccurately BLUE; now is PURPLE). I am not sure I can fix the graphic on NextRight as Photobucket is being really difficult to work with to replace the image.

A Strategy So Crazy, It Just Might Work

Over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins has posted a memo from Rep. Thaddeus McCotter that outlines the kind of strategy that ought to work. While the whole thing is a pretty good read, I want to clarify a couple of points.

Let's start with this from the Challenges section:

4. Homicide vs. Suicide: The Democrats want to kill us off. We must not help them by committing suicide. Following their successful 2006 “rubber stamp for Bush” election, the Democrats again seek a national referendum on us. Thus, we must stop running public referendums upon ourselves, because it abets the Democrats’ goal. Remember: a self-obsessed quest for an illusory ideological purity will put our conservative philosophy into a permanent minority.

Emphasis added.

Now, don't be confused, I'm all for supporting the most conservative candidate that we can get that isn't screaming for a return to the 19th century. But we do have to be realistinc about the choices we are making. For the POTUS race, that means making a choice between John Sydney McCain and Barack Hussein Obama. I've heard conservatives actually say that they can't tell a difference between the two and there are a few issues in which the guy with the "R" at the end of his name is not on the right side; but if you can't see a difference between these two candidates, you're not looking at the candidates at all. (There is a time and place for that discussion and this ain't it...there will be plenty of time for contrast pieces between these two candidates and trust me, we'll get to it.)

Moving on...

...to the Opportunities section, where we have this bit:

4. Mavericks vs. Hacks: Each member must be able to augment their core principles with issues that maximize their in-district appeal. Our Conference must not impose an arbitrary ideological litmus test or label upon any member, for it will harm every member’s personal ability to appeal to their constituency and win.

My take on this comes down to the very simple fact that if you don't vote for -- as much as it pains me to say this -- a Steven "Cut and Run" LaTourette, if that's the choice you have, then the agenda of Rep. Jeff Flake doesn't get advanced. This comes down to getting enough Republicans in office in order for conservatives to have enough horses to move the agenda.

The answer to the LaTourettes of the party is a little thing called party discipline. That will require real leadership...

Bottom line: electing Democrats or letting Democrats get elected, doesn't help Rep. Jeff Flake or Sen. Tom Coburn or the conservative agenda. It is just that simple.

Does Operation Chaos Really Help Republicans?

I've been sort of "on the fence" on whether or not the prolonged Democratic primary helps or hurts them. One of the smart guys in e-Campaigning, Michael Turk, opines on his blog that that struggle will ultimately benefit the Democrats and their nominee.

First, people in this country have incredibly short attention spans. Any fatigue present in June is unlikely to carry until November. It’s just not like us to carry that baggage for five months. This whole notion stems from the fact that nobody has seen a race like this in generations. People are used to these fire-and-forget campaigns. The argument assumes that people prefer that and don’t want something more. I think there is ample evidence, just in the water cooler conversations, that people are engaged in this, have picked a candidate to back (regardless of their party) and want to see who wins.

That’s significantly different from an election plagued by fatigue.

Second, the Democrats will end up with a huge advantage coming out of this. Having been forced to compete in all 50 states, they will have a ground game in all 50 states. They will have built the machinery to compete in places the GOP has ignored for decades either because it was “safe” red territory or because the states simply weren’t on the radar.

Voters in these states will be intimately aware of the Democrat, will have seen countless ads for them, will have seen them in their state. The GOP, by comparison, will have no exposure, name ID solely based on their name, not their message, and no organizers. That’s going to make more states competitive.

These two points have always been dancing around in the back of my head. Sure...Operation Chaos is tons of fun now...but I think Turk is right that there is no way rank and file Democrats are going to still be this irritated by the "other" candidate come November.

Don't pass over Turk's second point... The GOP, no matter if we're talking the RNC or the Ohio GOP (88 in 08: It's More Than Just a Slogan!), tends to get complacent. We need to fight that battle constantly. Of course, our candidate is not exactly been a real inspiration to the base to begin with, but we have to stay engaged or we are going to see what one-party rule looks like from the other side. Surely, no Republican wants to see that.

Sitting It Out

I wanted to take a moment to thank the conservatives and other ticked off Republicans who "sat it out" in '06... Really, I appreciate the fact that you so desperately wanted to "send a message" to the Republican Party that you encouraged people to vote for Democrats. That whole strategy of winning by losing is and was pure genius. By letting the Democrats win majorities in the House and Senate, conservatives and other disgruntled Republicans who "sat it out" are equally to blame for raising my taxes as the Democrats and other disgruntled "Republicans" like George Voinovich who actually voted to raise my taxes. This is what you wanted conservatives and other disgruntled Republicans...enjoy the higher taxes courtesy of our new Democrat overlords.

I sincerely hope that conservatives and other disgruntled Republicans have learned their lesson by this. Just in case there are a few conservatives and other disgruntled Republicans out there who are willing to win by losing via the "let's sit this one out to deliver a message" strategy, let me spell this one out for you. That strategy does not work. All it does is divide the party that is our best hope for real freedom and liberty. Instead of a smaller government and lower taxes, we're going to get more statism and much higher taxes.

But don't let all of that get in the way of your selfish rant...I mean, it's not like they aren't going to raise YOUR taxes...just everybody elses... Right?