Redstate

If a great candidate comes along for an open seat anywhere, Rs should get behind him or her.

If there is a special election, Rs should pay attention because there isn't a strong argument that one election is distracting from others.

A strong loss would help win over some voters in MA-05 to voting Republican. In the long run, having a strong advocate (even a losing one) is part of getting a message out.

It would be great to break the D stranglehold on Massachusetts. But Ogonowski has done a great job regardless of the final outcome. His campaign has used the blogosphere well and he has adopted a "change" theme from the right. Other challengers can learn from his style and strategy.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

We got outspent big time. It's not like we poured in tons of resources. What the heck does focus on redder pastures mean? Not run candidates at all?

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

Focusing on redder pastures means not spending the $11k+ on a race like this and instead spending it in GA-08 or AZ-01 or FL-16. That $11k will now not go to candidates who face truly competitive races in such districts. Such candidates could very well win or lose by triple digits, perhaps even double digits, and the $11k would go a lot farther in races like that than in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

www.republicansenate.org

No offense meant, but while you have a good point about spending money, your underlying premise is a big part of why we have been losing.

There are not magical Red and Blue zones in the country. Those are indicators of election results. Red and Blue do not cause people to vote a certain way. It is just how it was.
All the election forecasts I have seen about 2008 on this site focus on how they voted in the past. The problem is, people don't look over their old ballots to figure out how to vote. They look at issues and candidates and parties.
If we run good candidates and sell our issues, the only voters out of our reach are partisan democrats, and that's a grand total of 20-30 percent of the population at most. Not registered democrats, partisan democrats. Every other voter is up for grabs every election with the right package. It is high time R's started acting that way. Then we can win.

All that said, if a particular race in an election is hopeless (i.e. bad candidate or some issue that will keep us from having a chance) then we should let it go. Ogonowski's race has not met the standard of premeditated failure.

It's more like 45-45 in close races. We're fighting over two things. Whether we can make our base (our 45) 46-48, and a very small number of swing votes. Most voters are reflexively partisan, especially in downballot races, because they don't pay attention, and there is no way to force them to do so.

Don't take my word for it. I'd advise every activist to study at the bootcamp of politics, i.e. the Leadership Institute. They've been doing this a lot longer than I have and they'll tell you the same thing.

www.I republicansenate.org

My point is that there are only about 20-30% who will vote democrat regardless of the circumstances. Every other vote is stealable. Unless we assume we can't have them, and just try to energize our base. A strategy that has been used for 20+ years almost exclsuively, and has been disasterous for us. The only way to win meaningfully is to lead. Lead on the issues, make people follow us to our destination, instead of just making sure the ones who already bought tickets are on board.

You have to be kidding. At the Presidential level, the last time conservatives got our man was 1984.

At lower levels, a quick glance at history will say that our strongest conservatives are our strongest candidates. Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords both changed parties, one after losing with solid Republican support. Gov. Pataki ran the NYSGOP into the ground. Liberal Republicans are the reason we got clobbered last year. They were Democrat-lite and frankly not worth the trouble.

Our strongest candidates are those who can articulate and enact a conservative philosophy and agenda.
www.republicansenate.org

I'm curious why you ask if I have to be kidding and then make my point for me.
Obviously you are confused because you bring up Chafee. We should not have spent money on him, because he is not one of us. An R in the name is meaningless unless there is some conservative backing to it.
The conservatives got their man in 2000 and 2004. It just turns out their man wasn't what they expected on some key issues. I'm all for calling Bush on his bad acting on immigration etc., but huge tax cuts, 2 solid conservatives on Scotus are nothing to ignore.
Lincoln Chafee illustrates the points I've been making better than anything. He was nearly indistinguishable from a D and he lost despite massive outlays of cash on his behalf. If we had believed in our ideas to support his primary challenge, there is a chance things might have been different - they couldn't have been worse.
We need to believe in ourselves and stop writing anything off as too blue, trending blue, purplish-blue, etc. And more than that, we need to not take Red for granted. Those aren't how people will vote, they are how they voted, and comparing 1978 to 1988, 2004 to 2006, 2000 to 2004, 1994 to 2000. They all prove my point. There is no race that can't be won given the proper circumstances, instead of whining about the past margins or even current polls, we need to be making those circumstances.

Mac,
I'm sorry if I misunderstood with regard to chasing down more votes than we can reasonably expect to get. Typically that is an argument made for liberal Republicans, and perhaps I mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that you were making that type of case.

As to your second point, most races can't be won by one side or the other. We're not going to take down Dick Durbin next year and the Democrats won't get to oust Saxby Chambliss. Now, if by "proper circumstances" you mean the Democrat being caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, you might be right. If you're talking more common circumstances, control of the House next year will be determined on the results of no more than 60 House races, and even that number is probably high. In the Senate, less than half the races are competitive.

www.republicansenate.org

I am just tired of us limiting our thinking. I for one have been saying all along that we don't gain votes by moving to the middle or even the left, but rather that we gain votes by staying where we are and bringing people to us. If we learned nothing else from Ronald Reagan...
Weak opponents help, but if we are to assume that votes are out of reach and not reach for them we are stuck with what we have. What we have does not include the House or Senate.
Very, very few races are locked in stone. There is always room for an upset. My point is going into each race confident that our ideas are better and then making the sale.

I have never even heard a whiff of suggestion that I had a liberal line of thinking before and frankly, it pains me.

.

First off, how much did the DCCC spend to defend this seat? More than 11k I would presume.

Second, the DNC/DCCC dry cleaning bills from them going number two in their pants when they clicked refresh and saw they were losing with 49% in are going to be astronomical.

And third, it's seriously important to remain at least a little bit competitive in the northeast. I mean, we have only one congressman in the six states in New England. Don't you find that a little pathetic?

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

The DCCC has more money than we do. The Democrats are cleaning our clocks when it comes to fundraising, and they are in a much better position to play on a broad playing field than we are. Also, a more accurate comparision would be RedState v. Daily Kos and NRCC v. DCCC money than RedState v. DCCC.

www.republicansenate.org

I still think there is a very good chance of winning here. Regardless of the outcome, we have won in numerous ways-

1. We acted like winners.
2. We scared the D's and made them spend time and resources on a seat they shouldn't have even had to pay attention to.
3. We raised a good deal of money just from Redstate, showing that we are relevant for more than ideas and cheerleading.

If Ogonowski wins, that is icing on the cake.

Our boy now leads, but make no mistake: there are no moral victories. If he pulls off the upset, more power to him. If not, we've lost.

www.republicansenate.org

Moral victories mean nothing for the governance of the country, but a good showing in a race we shouldn't have been competitive in is a good thing, not a bad thing to cry about.

That's like saying we'll fight them in Afghanistan, but let's not listen in on conversations and we'll leave the bank accounts alone, and DEFINITELY not fight them in Iraq now that Saddam is gone.

Fight like hell, wherever they are. Period. And always remember the "Glorious Disaster".

We're losing according to these fellows - http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9118

They have a lot more of the precints counted. Down about 2k votes out of 80k. 75% in.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

I think it's a good sign that Ogonowski really did make it into a race here in this state, esp. right now. I helped in the only way I could: by donating to Ogo's campaign. It's always dispiriting to see the Democrat hammerlock on this state continue, particularly after John Kerry got involved, which seemed to bring the curtain down.

However: Jim Ogonowski definitely "drew blood" in this race and it was a pleasure to support him. It's a lesson for the rest of this campaign: we're all going to have to work harder, but there's absolutely nothing dispiriting about it.

is solid Dem.

The political atmosphere is terrible for Republicans, the Iraq war is unpopular, Bush is despised, and yet we made strong gains in a safe Dem seat in the bluest of blue states.

The lessons I draw from this race are:

1) Run hard to the right on immigration in 2008.

2) Run against Pelosi as much as Hillary.

3) Our Presidential nominee needs to run as a Washington Outsider.

Much as I hate to say it about immigration.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Not to dwell tooooo much on immigration, but if a restrictionist message can resonate in MA, a state which hasn't had a lot of illegal immigration except for a modest amount of Brazilians, then it will work pretty much anywhere in the country.

The Long term implications of running on immigration are cloudy, but in the short term I see more upside than downside to running on border security platform.

Actually, the opposite seems to be true. People who have ran as hardcore restrictionists in border states and diverse districts have gotten their head handed to them. (see AZ 2006) It's in overwhelmingly white districts that it's worked.

“I am telling people loosen your ties, fire up the coffee pots, get ready for the weekend, ... We've got a lot of work to do.”

- John Bolton

Ogonowski was able to tie immigration to spending and make it part of a "you can't trust Washington" critique. It had more to do with a Change Agenda than anything else. This avoided the anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic tone that many immigration hardliners fall in to. Really, Ogonowski was just a great candidate.

Hopefully he tries again in 2008 just in case the year goes well for Rs and the Change Agenda.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

This is an artificial atmosphere in a lot of respects.

For one thing, I can't think of a major race decided on the war that went against us in 2006.

The lessons can be revised.

1) Run far to the right on Immigration. Against guest worker benefits, for the wall and more security. And make it clear that Liberal immigration policies are hurting the economy and the job market.

2) Run against Congress. Run against Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, the Extreme Liberal Activists, and the DC liberal establishment.

3) Good thing our top three candidates are all outsiders, while Hillary is the ultimate insider.

Security, Prosperity, Common Sense.

Security from terrorists and illegal immigration.
Prosperity through continuing Supply-Side Economics.
Common sense through opposing the liberal groupthink on social issues.

Do you think Stanford moped in the lockerroom because the media said they can't beat USC?

Do you think Bucknell moped in the lockerroom because the media said they can't beat Kansas?

Then why mope? Because the Media has never been on our side, and we will win anyways.

Ogonowski gained at least 10% more than he had any chance of getting according to conventionakl wisdom. If we could bring half of that (5%) to other races around the country, we would have a vast majority in the house in January 2009.

must be looking over her shoulders.

She is not even a year into control of the House with a historically thin Dem majority, and the Congress is already as unpopular as it was before Republicans lost control after 12 years.

And now they narrowly win a slam dunk seat in a special election. Not a good omen.

For what it's worth, this is one of the areas that carried Romney in 2002. Mr. Ogonowski managed to get in the race in the last two weeks. One month ago, I figured he was underfunded as silence answered Tsongas's many radio adds. He finally did, and all of a she was doing attack adds.

I will say one other thing: I am unregistered because the RNC has no presence interest in this state. If they showed some interest, especially with the lunacy that is Deval Patrick administration, there might be a groundswell.

... here

Looks like Ogo carried about 11 of 29 towns. He was beaten soundly in the limo-liberal towns of Concord, Sudbury, Wayland and Maynard, was clobbered in Lawrence (a rather blighted and depressed town), lost Lowell (by far the largest town in the district) by about 1800-votes but did very well in Haverhill (another town with some pretty blighted and depressed areas).

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Who knew?

EaBo-Clipper might have some more insights to share on that score (and I'm sure he'll be here tomorrow to give them).

I'm not going to hold my breath, though. He took a pretty bad beating in the media from Emily's List and other assorted communists - and there's only so much of that a man can be expected to endure, and to ask someone like Jim to endure it twice is probably a bit much to ask.

Also, let's just say that the People's Republic of MA just isn't a "target rich environment".

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.