blue states

Arlen Specter's departure has triggered the predictable media outcry attacking the Republican Party as an increasingly insular conservative rump, a regional party at best with no foothold in the Northeast.

That is one narrative. But there's a different story being told by the likely Republican lineup of Senate candidates in 2010. It's a story of our best pickup opportunities coming in blue states from more moderate Republicans, not from easy layups in red states represented by Democrats (of which there are many). And by and large, these candidacies are being embraced by conservatives, chief among them Mike Castle (DE), Mark Kirk (IL), and Rob Simmons (CT) (disclosure, I work on the last race).

Arlen Specter's erratic behavior in the last week is proof he needed to go. But this doesn't change the fact that there needs to be a functional relationship between the conservative and moderate wings of the party, and that any situation where a blue state Republican is ipso facto disparaged as a RINO is a dysfunctional one not conducive to building a majority led by the right.

I wasn't happy with Collins and Snowe's votes on the stimulus, but it is useful to make this distinction between the Maine Senators and Specter. For them, one gets the sense that it's not about ego or entitlement. They are genuinely moderate-to-liberal Republicans (moreso Snowe) representing a deep blue state that just legalized gay marriage through the legislative process.

If it's a choice between Lindsey Graham, a headline-grabbing conservative-hating conservative, or an honest, workmanlike moderate like Collins who will not go out of their way to rip the party to pieces in the press, sign me up for the moderate. Both parties will have their moderates. And if we keep ours in line and grab some of theirs, that's the surest sign we're winning (see: card check). If we ever find ourselves in the position where moderates can't vouch for a center-right governing agenda, we are in trouble.

There is a categorical difference between egomaniacs or iconoclasts like Specter, Chafee, and frankly Lieberman who fancy themselves Senators-for-life and think of themselves as entirely above party, and those who understand that parties and ideological blocs are vital to shifting the political center of gravity. Yes, they won't be with us on stuff like earmarks, and yes, we'll razz them about that. But you know what? No intellectually honest person could ever call them a Specter. We need to take back seats in places like North Dakota and Arkansas to allow the natural Republican small state majority in the Senate to reassert itself. But I wouldn't mind planting a flag in the blue states either. And that is going to take a certain type of candidate.

Early in this campaign we were treated to the Obama camp promising to "expand the field" and campaign hard to win traditionally Red States.www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/1/144541/9616 

Even Michael Barone said to "throw out the map" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/throw_out_the_maps_in_2008.html  thinking we would have an "open field election" (I questioned this at the time, BTW)

The sports analogy would be akin to a spread shotgun formation, where a football team tries to use the whole field to set up one-on-one matchups and provide the running game lateral room for big plays, while enabling receivers to get quickly upfield for deep passes. 

Speed, elusiveness, and finesse are essential to executing this offensive philosophy. It's hard for a inexperienced quarterback to succeed in this gameplan, because such a triggerman will tend to get sacked, throw picks, or put the ball on the ground a lot., instead of knowing when to just heave the ball in the stands.    

Obama had the chance to go this route by choosing Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, or Kathleen Sebelius. He didn't.

Instead by picking a running mate from a very "Blue" state it is apparent that Team Obama will be narrowing the field and trying the old "smashmouth"  football approach of trying to grind out a messy victory in the mud.

In the power running formation, one tries to overload the point of attack with blockers and outmuscle the defenders on a narrow slice of field.  The odds for disaster are lower (fewer interceptions, sacks or fumbles) but it is hard to score often or win big over a credible opponent in this fashion. (One problem the Obama camp has with this plan is their candidate lacks any bonafides on old time Democrat bread-and-butter economic issues) 

The best electoral argument for Biden is he may help a bit in PA. But there were better picks to do that,even. Surely Ed Rendell or Bob Casey,Jr. have more vote pulling appeal in PA.http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/PA/   But Rendell and Casey lacked foreign policy experience. Evidently trying to fill this hole was more important than going to a better electoral choice. Having been seen a lot on Philly TV and growing up a half century ago in Scranton is thin gruel to help Obama in a state he got hammered in during the primaries, and will almost certainly cost him the presidency were he to lose it in the general election.. 

Biden offers no help in any 2004 red state that I can identify. Hell, even Dick Gephardt might''ve helped in MO if Obama wanted to appeal to tired old DC career politicians.  

No, Biden was an effort to firm up the Democrat base and grind out a win along the traditional Democrat/Republican scrimmage line.  Which is what we now have at summer's end http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Instead of the "we can lose Ohio and still win" meme, the Obama camp has pulled its ads in seven red states it was working hard in all summer. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/50084.html

Florida and Virginia are surprising, although Obama has been unopposed on the TV  in FL, dropped over $5M , yet  failed to overtake McCain. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121850408634131921.html  I presume he'll be back in those places, but I suspect they have thrown in the towel in the other five.  Perhaps the reason Obama made such a boring VP choice is they have made the strategic decision that they simply can't execute the "big play" in red states, having lost ground in many despite massive effort. 

No, there has not been a huge surge of Obama Republicans, or evangelicals for Obama. There are just a lot of mostly young and well educated Democrats for Obama. The strategy he is left with is to take the 2004 John Kerry voting pattern and put it on steroids.   This will amount to trying to squeeze another 120,000 net votes out of Cuyahoga and Franklin counties,http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/   or gin up turnout in Denver and Boulder http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/co/prescounties/    and hope another state like NM or NV  flips.

This will be exacerbated as certainly some voters in VA and IN will be disappointed that Biden was picked over well liked local officeholders. Obama had recently lost some ground in both states  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/in/indiana_mccain_vs_obama-604.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_mccain_vs_obama-551.html and I suspect Obama will find IN drifting out of reach soon.

Especially if Team Mac puts a few hundred GRP behind this ad in the Richmond and Indianapolis ADI's http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/08/23/joe-biden-on-barack-obama/

The Biden pick will relieve McCain of worries that his base electoral votes will be at risk. The freedom of decision now rest with his team, who can now decide whether it is their turn to open up the field with an unconventional choice, or look for a conventional pick who can enhance our vote totals in the traditional battleground states and media markets     

I have no gripes with Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty taking it to Obama-Biden on the traditional line of scrimmage, but boy am I feelin former champion women's jock Sarah Palin about now.

This was a line from an old Billy Joel song Miami 2017. Sadly, it accurately describes the straits of the New York State GOP.

Now, lots of folks will immediately post that this is a liberal, Democratic, Bush hating state chock full of nonwhite and nonchristian voters. Well, it wasn't Goldwater's Arizona a decade ago and the state still had a Republican Governor, a Republican senator, a Republican attorney general, and a dozen GOP congressmen.

Not to mention Giuliani was Mayor of NYC then.

So where have the mighty fallen:

a) the leader of the NY State Senate is stepping down  http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/bruno_1255832___article.html/decision_joe.html

Now Joe Bruno had been pretty much a status quo Republican over the past few terms; even opposing former Governor Pataki's budget cuts at one point. But with liberal Democrats controlling the rest of state government; status quo was actually pretty refreshing. We can thank Bruno for contributing to the self-immolation of former Governor Eliot Spitzer, for example.

Republicans are highly likely to hold Bruno's seat in the Albany suburbs but with a razor thin margin going into this election and many vulnerable incumbents, Dean Skelos's tenure as Majority Leader may be brief. http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/20747614.html

b) the Island of Lost Dreams

Staten Island's 13th Congressional District has been a Republican stronghold since the days of Reagan. It would take a political disaster for the Democrats to swing this seat. And guess what......the Republicans have had two already this year.

First, Cheato Vito Fossella's drinking and philandering render him politically toxic, so he stands down for re-election. Then ,after all the well known local officeholders passed on the race, a retired financier stepped up offering to partially self fund the race, and got the nod.

And he died

   http://www.nypost.com/seven/06242008/news/regionalnews/gop_left_in_the_lurch_on_si_116950.htm

Now there are enough registered Republicans and behavioral Republicans in this district that even one of the "nobodies" might win, since McCain is expected to carry this area. But we've taken a double whammy here.

Mike Bloomberg, who has never been accused of not having good radar for this stuff, exemplifies this. Adopting the GOP as a flag of convenience post Giuliani, he has now become quite publicly "independent".  

It's likely that in 2009 there will be no indicia of GOP control of state government,  low single digits of Republican house members out of 29, and control of no local government larger than some upstate counties.

No matter what you think of New York, this sort of weakness in the nation's third largest state--and still it's mainstream media capital--isn;t good for the party in the rest of the nation.

Looking outward, the national party may be too closely identified with southern white protestants for this electorate.

Looking inward, mushy moderate officeholders have made the local party's "brand"  hard to distinguish from the Democrats.  Weak candidate recruitment and gaffe prone campaigns haven't helped either.

If there's ever a state that desperately needs its own "Next Right", it's  New York,  Will the locals rise up, or will they huddle in the bunker or call Mayflower?