Posted on 04/02/2003 10:42:08 PM PST by LdSentinal
True, although I still feel it's best to make as broad-based an appeal as possible. We've lost too many marginal contests as a result of trying to appeal solely to Whites.
"I've been told that Sanchez outspent Perry 3 to 1, though I'm not sure the timing parmaters. I'm quite sure that in the general election Perry was outspent."
Will have to wait until Barone's '04 Almanac comes out to see what it was in the general. I still think Perry spent more in the general, that was far too risky for the national/state GOP to let him get outspent.
"One thing we do need realise is that the Democrats did really try to win the gubernatorial and senate races in Texas in 2002, insisting right to the very end that they were winnable (some Dems actually were claiming that they were pretty sure Kirk would win, though I never bought that)."
Listening to the media alone, they made it seem like a likely win for Kirk (narrow, of course). The puff piece they did on 60 Minutes right before the election on Kirk was unbelievable, which should've counted against Kirk as a campaign ad (however, I wonder if it backfired against him, since they liberally used Molly Ivins in the piece speaking glowingly of him, not exactly who you'd want to speak about you if appealing to moderates).
"It is interesting that it's all white. Even more interesting, the 2 Rep districts are the most Latino."
Yes, although adding in (and I'm going on '90 figures here, since I haven't seen the '00 figures, yet) the Hispanic and Native American populations, the 3rd is the most non-White (and also the most Dem).
"You're right about Heather Wilson barely winning each time, though it's interesting that she did significantly better in 2002 (55%-45%) than she did in either 1998 (46%-43%) or 2000 (47%-46%), even though Bill Richardson was at the head of the ticket."
I believe they're going to redraw the lines for the seats, in which case she's likely a goner, unless she can pull off a miracle.
"Off the record, I do think, if we had decent data to refer to, we'd find that a growing percentage of Latinos are voting Republican."
That's the problem, finding reliable data. Some say the numbers are growing, some say the numbers are shrinking. We have no choice but to increase those percentages, or we'll lose seats (and the Presidency) on demographics alone.
"I understand and respect your opinion, but I just don't think that it's entirel coincidence that the winner in all of these cases was the white male."
I just think there were other factors there that made that a very minor issue in most of those races. Actually, something interesting I believe I failed to point out in the case of MD. Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend actually tried the "White" approach to reaching out and expanding her appeal to suburban White voters (by adding a retired White ex-GOP Admiral to her ticket), when all the while Ehrlich did the reverse in going to the Black community. Although she still got the bulk of the Black votes, it was Ehrlich's efforts that paid off with his more broad-based approach.
"I agree. I'm by no means saying that whites should run on the platform of being anti-Hispanic. That would be an egregious mistake. And, yes, you're absolutely right, many CA whites are brutish folk, some of the most spiritless in the nation. When I used to live there as a kid, I had very few friends, mainly because I didn't want to be friends with people of that caliber. You're also right about CA blacks. Their influence is definitely in decline in the Golden State - they only constitute 6.7% of the population in the state now! Considering that most blacks have an innate hatred for the Republican Party, regardless of what they do, I'd say that this is good for the future prospects of the GOP in the state."
But that's if, and only if, we can get more Hispanics into the fold (who are taking over the formerly Black areas). And not to say we should give up on Blacks, either, despite their dwindling numbers. I just don't believe on the whole, we've been nearly as aggressive as we could and should be in those areas. In fact, our failures to campaign in Black areas (along with Black radio/tv/print) allows them to believe all of the 'Rats demogoguery about the party. Tailoring our messages to these groups do pay dividends if we try.
"It's a very difficult situation in the Golden State, because nobody seems to much like the GOP anymore."
A lot of people within the party don't seem to like the party. And as long as we allow the Brooks Firestones and the Gerry Parskys anywhere near it, we'll continue to sink like a rock.
"There's no GOP statewide officeholders, for the first time since about 1882. Even heavily Democratic states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island can't say that. Republican fortunes have headed far south in California, but I don't think it's terminal. The question is: How does the GOP appeal to Asians and Hispanics without ignoring whites, who aren't exactly enamored with their party? Considering that whites are still the largest racial group, I think they need to be the prime target (as undesirable as this state's whites are). That said, I think that white candidates should be fielded in the most important statewide races, but they must be more to Hispanics and Asians than they have been in the past. It may sound a bit fruity, but I really think it's the best path to victory."
As I said before, I'll disagree solely on the "White guy" approach (I'd at least think we should run a diverse ticket for different offices). The problem is the weaknesses of the candidates. The strongest candidate for all of the offices that were open last year was Tom McClintock for State Controller. It wasn't because Tom was White, it's because Tom offered a Conservative "choice, and not an (liberal) echo" (as Goldwater put it) and had some backbone. The GOP puts up too many tentative and wishy-washy candidates. Now, saying that, I did support Simon over the horrid RINO Tricky Dick Riordan (I don't want to win as an "R" if the "R" is utterly meaningless and stands against everything that makes us what we are), and believed he deserved a chance. He did run a fantastic primary campaign, but between then and the general (and for heavens' sake, they need to move the primary from March. Who wants to pay attention to an 8-month long campaign ?) he simply foundered (and with a number of notable gaffes), and the message got lost. I don't think I would run Simon again, but I would run Bill Jones (who shot himself in the foot with going over to the "dark side" in '00 with McCain. Jones would've had the field cleared for him (no Riordan and no Simon) had he stuck with Dubya, and since he had statewide experience with winning as the incumbent Secretary of State, he might very well have taken down Davis) or Tom McClintock if that recall election occurs. Not because they're White guys, but because they're the most qualified.
"With Boxer, I strongly feel that a white male is the best candidate. It's going to be tough, but she's not near as popular as Diane Feinstein. What we need, though, is a candidate who isn't so busy backpedaling on his conservative views, that the voters would rather stick with the incumbent sleazo. Some people mentioned that Michael Reagan might run, although I can't help but wonder if his association with Newsmax might hurt him. Whoever it is, he needs to be strong (though not obnoxious) and unapologetic. He mustn't allow himself to be on the defensive like Bill Simon did in 2002. Boxer is the incumbent with the lousy record. She's devilish and mean, but a strong white guy might just call her bluff."
Same with Boxer, as I said, I don't know if the White male approach will work. The candidate, regardless of race or gender, needs to have that backbone. Of course, we still run the risk of finding someone who might be "too tough" on Boxer and get accused of (like Lazio in the NY Senate race), beating up or ganging up on a woman. To me, it just seems like a tough, but courtly woman (preferably Hispanic) might be the ticket. I'd especially like to see someone like Rosario Marin lure Boxer into making an anti-Hispanic comment (and, as we all well know, scratch a liberal 'Rat and find a racist), especially on an issue like Miguel Estrada's nomination (which could still be being held up by this time next year). I may be putting too much faith into Ms. Marin, as I don't know what her campaign style is, but she certainly couldn't have been too much of a slouch to have been so successful in an uber 'Rat area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.