Republican Primary 2008: Not one GOP race, but 53

Sacramento Bee ^ | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 | By Peter Hecht - Bee Capitol Bureau

[LexBaird]

In the bluest of blue of California's Democratic congressional districts, long-frustrated Republican voters are suddenly and decidedly relevant.

That's because in 2008 the Republican Party will scrap its traditional statewide winner-take-all California presidential primary. Instead, the GOP will select the vast majority of California presidential delegates based on who wins in each of the state's 53 separate congressional districts, including 34 held by Democrats and 19 by Republicans.

California Republican Party chairman Ron Nehring said the change is an attempt to open up America's most populous state to district-by-district contests he hopes will put candidates in closer touch with voters.

[LexBaird]

A bit of an older article, but with the Primary season upon us, how do y'all think the CA delegates will shake out in February?

[LexBaird]

for your CA ping list?

[So Cal Rocket]

Rudy will take the urban centers, approximately 25%-35% of the delegates.

Hunter will win in and around his Congressional District, approximately 5% of the delegates.

Fred will win the rest.

[scrabblehack]

I would have thought that urban centers were more than 35%. Indeed, Dems control 34 of 53 seats...

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml

I’m assuming that each CD will elect 3 delegates, with the remaining or so being awarded at large. Some of those urban center CD’s have very few R’s.

Schwarzenegger did do well in many of these D areas. Yeah, I know, I’m comparing general vs. primary....

I think I’m leaning toward Rudy getting the higher delegate count but Thompson getting more votes...

[w1andsodidwe]

This Northern Californian sees it the same way.

[Combat_Liberalism]

Rudy will do better than anyone thinks. He is a hard campaigner. He has lots of leadership experience. That experience is going to pay dividends. He is particularly good at inspiring his troops to work like trojans for him. He will win more California districts than his competitors believe, including some suburban ones. He will win more delegates in Dixie than most observers are willing to credit him at this time. Rudy spent thousands of hours campaigning for GOP candidates in Dixie in ‘04 and ‘06. Fred needs to step it up with more than folksy one-liners if he is going to wrest the nomination from Rudy. I’m a conservative who will vote for Fred if I think he can beat Hillary. Otherwise, I’m going with Rudy. His liberalism on social issues irks me, but not as much as the thought Bubba and the Mrs. back in the White house for eight years. Most conservatives do not comprehend just how anti-GOP of a mood has swept over the Republic. I don’t see Fred as having the capacity to buck that trend at this time. I see Rudy as a winner in all the states Bush took plus Pa, NJ, Conn., Minn., and Wisc. I see Fred taking most of the Dole “L” but not taking OH, Iowa, or NM. I hope I’m wrong about Fred, but his history does not lend me much encouragement.

[fieldmarshaldj]

How do you expect a liberal Republican to win with a 3rd party Conservative in the race ? Fred’s not just the best candidate, he’s the only candidate.

[LexBaird]

I see it as something of a showdown for the CAGOP. Are the Conservatives really the determining faction, or is it as Arnold has been preaching, and the party in CA really wants centrists?

If the Rep. primary voters tip one way or the other decisively, it will set the course for the next Gubernatorial and Senate race. Are we going with Arnold’s vision or McClintock’s?

[Combat_Liberalism]

You seem determined to hand victory to the Clintons. You say that if Rudy wins, you’ll go 3rd party. If you can’t have it all, you’ll destroy the party. Good luck with that approach.

[fieldmarshaldj]

A Rudy nomination will hand the victory to the Clintons, not me. If we’re determined to nominate someone who is a policy liberal Democrat for the GOP, there will be absolutely no reason for Conservatives to vote for that nominee. I’m a Conservative first, and Republicans don’t win races by nominating liberals. If that worked, the northeast and the coastal states would be overwhelmingly GOP. We try to battle the rodents in a fight to move leftward, and we lose. It’s that simple.

[calcowgirl]

Sorry... I wasn’t around yesterday... and I don’t have a CA ping list (just a McClintock list)
(just an ad hoc ping-a-bunch-of-folks-that-come-to-mind-at-the-moment list, lol).

[calcowgirl]

I’m reviving this thread... with a few pings.

I was just watching a youtube video from last Thursday’s press conference of Pete Wilson’s endorsement of Giuliani (who Wilson is confident can win the nomination in California). At the end of Part 5, the reporter directs a question to Pete Wilson about a “recent change in how republican delegates are distributed - a GOP rules change” (loose quote). In response, in the beginning of Part 6, Wilson acts clueless and asks if the reporter means a change in how electoral counts are counted. But Rudy is nodding and bobbing his head in the background, jumps in, and answers the question.

“You get 3 delegates per congressional district. Democrat congressional districts are going to be very important—to Republicans. In fact, in a way, disproportiately. You’ve got to work with that.”

Now, I know I’m a tad bit cynical about all of these RINOs, but I smell a rat in this whole thing. Rudy is just a bit too informed on the inner workings of this for my liking and I think it is exposing his strategy, although I don’t understand exactly what it is. Can anybody elaborate on how they think this is going to all play out—or what he’s trying for?

Here is Part 6 of the press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIsVjJ2_Fcc

From the information below, I find that this GOP Rules Change was made in 2004, although no one noticed.

http://race42008.com/2007/02/18/2008-california-republican-primary-will-no-longer-be-winner-take-all/

California Republican Presidential Primary Will No Longer Be Winner-Take-All In 2008

The California Republican Party has modified its rules, changing the Golden State’s presidential primary from a winner-take-all contest to one where most of the 173 available Republican delegates to the party’s national presidential nominating convention will be chosen by winner-take-all within congressional districts. The new rules were actually in effect for the first time during the 2004 California Republican presidential primary, but few folks noticed because President George W. Bush was the only significant GOP candidate on the ballot.

Keeping in mind from a previous discussion that there are three types of delegates - electoral (with two types within this category - congressional district and at-large), Republican Party leader, and bonus - it appears that California will have 159 Republican congressional delegates, 11 Republican at-large delegates, 3 Republican Party leader delegates, and 0 bonus delegates. The 3 Republican Party leader delegates - RNC committeeman, RNC committeewoman, and state Republican Party chairman - will be uncommitted delegates; the 11 at-large delegates will go to the Republican presidential candidate winning the most primary votes statewide; and the 3 delegates in each of the 53 congressional districts in California will go to the Republican presidential candidate winning the most primary votes within each of those congressional districts.

[ElkGroveDan]

Can anybody elaborate on how they think this is going to all play out—or what he’s trying for?

I think they are going to put their time and energy in lost-cause Congressional districts in places like South Central LA where there are only 50 or 60 Republicans. They have figured out that Rudy's star power can win him those little enclaves and more than make up for conservative and Northern California districts that will be won by a real conservative but have hundreds of thousands of Republican voters and hence expensive and time-consuming to campaign in..

This thing is going to come down to grassroots activism in those high-dem congressional districts where no one has ever campaigned or organized before.

[calcowgirl]

This thing is going to come down to grassroots activism in those high-dem congressional districts where no one has ever campaigned or organized before.

Thanks, Dan. That's kind of what I was thinking too.

To your knowledge, is CRA or any campaign working to counteract Rudy's strategy (if that indeed is his strategy)?

[ElkGroveDan]

Nope. No group on the conservative side has much money these days. But there’s is exactly one high-profile Republican who has tried to work these districts in years past. I think I’ll call him this week and get his thoughts.

[calcowgirl]

Another little tidbit. I guess Giuliani can't win unless the GOP changes all their rules?

Why Is Rudy Campaigning In New Jersey?
01 Oct 2007 11:33 am

For Rudy Giuliani, so far as the Feb. 5 primary goes, New Jersey is a shiny Yale lock. He is a favorite son, his campaign manager is the most powerful (not-for-sale) Republican in the state right now, the state party changed its rules to give the winner of the primary all of the delegates, and he's extracted more than $2M for his race.

I wonder how many other GOP State parties changed their rules to favor Giuliani.

[SierraWasp]

I don’t know, but I’m equally as interested in what was contained in Comment #16 above, that was removed! I just hate it that they have blocked my little way of getting in to see those deleted comments... DRAT!!!

[SierraWasp]

"Are we going with Arnold’s vision or McClintock’s?"

Are you serious? In a state where even the lion's share of FReepers are totally prone to celebrity worship???

After McClintock showed the stones to challenge Pete Wilson's raising our taxes the highest in history to that point, Wilson called Tom "(BLEEPING) irrelevant" and has made it his mission to fullfil that prophecy by encouraging Schwartzenpeckerhead to jump in the recall that had no primary election element!

Then he went even further in February 2005 by convincing niave delegateds at that CAGOP CONvention to endorse Schwartzensocialist over a year before there should have been a primary that Arnoiled never would have survived.

The CAGOP has been CASTRATED of it's formerly "red state" conservatism, completely!!! It's now totally in the hands of the neutering moderates, thanks to little Petey Wilsonegger!!!

Thanks for reposting this old article LexBaird. I like the leading questions you ask as well!!!

[calcowgirl]

Comment #16 was mine—but it was intended to be freepmail to EGD and included a personal comment that I hadn’t intended to post publicly. Hence, I asked that it be removed.

No scandal there! LOL.