Toby Nixon has now joined the discussion, via David Postman, regarding 2006 fundraising and spending by the State Republican Party. He says he doesn't think additional support from the State Party would have helped him. Fair enough.
I've said it already, the point of my original post on WSRP fundraising in 2006 was not to spend time questioning how much money was spent where and why. The listing in the first post of selected candidates where the WSRP failed to spend the money it could was not to second guess those races in particular, it was to highlight the fact there was very little money to spend, period. Diane Tebelius appears to have raised only $25,000 on her own for the Non-Exempt fund in 2006, which is for direct support of legislative candidates. In contrast, in 2005 I raised over $12,000 running for the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission, a modest elected position with no pay and only a one-year term. There's something wrong with that.
Candidates win or lose elections for many inter-related reasons . Financial support from the Party, or lack thereof, is rarely considered to be the tipping point either way except in very close elections. The point is the job of the Party in such circumstances is to do everything it can to help its candidates. Consequently, it's hard to see how abnormally low fundraising in 2006 is a good demonstration of such efforts, especially when everyone knew it would be a tough election year.
Obviously, a multitude of issues affected Republican candidates and their losses in 2006. Nixon cited one of them in his email conversation with Postman: "Democrats were energized, independents furious and Republicans discouraged 'by the failures of Congress and the administration in so many areas.'" All true in a way.
One angle keeps nagging at me though. I've discussed before the idea that among other problems, Republicans have lost touch with suburban voters on the key issues of education and transportation (or they're doing a terrible job of communicating about those issues). Bluntly, there is something wrong with legislative candidates and their message when Dave Reichert finds a way to win with a modestly comfortable margin in a Democratic-wave election year, and Cathy McMorris unloads a crushing, decisive victory in a race some people thought was going to be competitive. Sure, the national mood didn't help Republicans, and Mike McGavick got thrashed, but Reichert and McMorris found ways to win as sitting Republicans in Congress, while Republicans lost competitive legislative race after competitive legislative race within those same Congressional districts.
Nixon also tells Postman:
In many ways, I'm surprised Republicans did as well as we did in Washington and didn't lose even more seats, given the kind of reactions we were getting.
Um, Republicans got slaughtered in legislative races. They lost six of their twenty-three seats in the Senate, and seven of their thirty-five seats in the House. Moreover, Democrats nearly broke out their brooms for a clean sweep of the last Republicans left standing in suburban legislative districts. Republicans even lost two long-held seats in Spokane's 6th District. I'm not sure how it could have gotten any worse. I respect Nixon's service in the Legislature and his willingness to speak openly, but I don't think he and a lot of Republicans at the state level are facing up to the reality of how bad they got whipped and why.
After this sort of beating, it seems logical for Republicans to have a serious debate about where the WSRP is at, and where it should go in the future. It would seem, however, that the debate will only be worthwhile if everyone can be serious about what has and hasn't gone well in the past.
****
Footnote: Luke Esser's responses to the public questions I posed to him and Tebelius are available here, and do in part address the issues noted above.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 17, 2007 08:27 AM | Email ThisToby Nixon's failure to understand the real failure was the message the Olympians in the Republican party received.
And Toby Nixon, David Postman is not your friend. He is a vulture who will pounce on your first faux pas- just ask McGavick.
Posted by: swatter on January 17, 2007 08:43 AMBut I think the GOP absolutely flunked its base (even if it was discouraged) by refusing to engage the religious right and organizing at the grassroots level. McGavick absolutely turned off (and discouraged) the religious community long before he had the nomination with mealy-mouthed answers to "values" questions. That resonated to a message of, "he's not with us."
And I don't consider myself to be "one of them."
Posted by: NWconservative on January 17, 2007 09:00 AMDavid Adams, executive director
GoWashington
One more time How do you know that Dino Rossi
cant stand Diane Tebelius? In the case of McGavick's
campaign. If your refering to the money that
the state party received from some of McGavick's
contributors that Diane wouldn't give to
McGavick's campaign she did right thing. Had
she given them the money that would have been a clear
violation of campaign finance laws.
If its something else that the McGavick Campaign
is upset with please enlighten all of us.Other
wise if your unwilling to back up what your
saying don't say it anymore. We all know that
you support Luke Esser and thats your right.
But if your just carrying the message for the Esser
campaign then shouldn't be doing this kind of
stuff.
And all I have to say about Toby Nixon is that it sure would be nice if he took a little of the blame himself for losing his campaign -- it was after all his name on the ballot.
Somehow it's not his fault, or this Tebelius lady, but Congress. Eric makes a wise point -- you can't just blame Congress for state legislature loss if the actual congressman won.
Finally, the examples people give of number of Republican legislators who lost doesn't really reflect the true whipping taken by the party. Keep in mind that many legislators didn't have opponents or Democrats that were even serious candidates (look in Eastern Washington) -- so the number of lost seats is actually greater when you consider the universe is even smaller.
Posted by: Whiskey Dick on January 17, 2007 03:10 PMMy principles tell me that it is not necessary to spend billions of dollars more each year on education, to give in to every demand of the teacher's union, in order to get a quality product. My principles tell me it doesn't make sense to spend $100K per rider for a light rail system that will make no measurable difference in relieving traffic congestion but is just a feel-good social engineering program, while at the same time enforcing policies that cause development to occur farther and farther from employment centers. My principles tell me it doesn't make sense to shut down the economy, impoverish our society, and eliminate the wealth that enables us to be the most charitable nation in the world, in a futile attempt to stop a completely natural climate warming cycle. (My principles guide me in a number of other areas like open government, election integrity, fiscal accountability, etc., but you didn't mention those.)
I do think that national issues overwhelmed local issues, but don't deny that there were local issues as well. The people apparently decided they disagreed with me on those issues, which is their right. It doesn't mean they're right and I'm wrong, just that we currently have a difference of opinion. It is more important to me to hold true to my principles than to compromise them to hold on to public office. These things go in cycles, and I suspect at some point the people will decide they've had enough of expansive, expensive, nanny-state government, and once again seek representatives who want the government to be small, focus on essential services, and leave us alone to live our lives as we wish so long as we respect the rights of others. That may not happen in my lifetime; who knows. But I don't need to be a member of the legislature to work to educate people on these principles, to contribute ideas to the public discussion, to point out the problems with existing and proposed policies, to make a difference in the quality of life my children will have.
Instead, the Rs didn't even fill out slates for office. Take poor Kim Halvorson out there by herself. There wasn't even challengers in the other House of Representative or Senate. She was by herself in the 38th. She outworked her opponent by a whole lot, but there was not enough 'noise' (if you will) for the local Rs to even get press or noticed. It was ho-hummed in the area. There was no excitement in the air.
I totally disagree with your third paragraph. It was a rehash of what I was also told by another Olympian of the reason for the spanking. It is too easy to blame national for the spanking the locals received. You can't give up Seattle, so to speak, or the other side will bleed and take up the battle in the suburbs and make inroads, which they have.
You are right about one thing, though, in your third paragraph. The Rs will come into power again when we have a downturn in the economy and the Rs have to bail the State out. Unfortunately, that comes with a lot of bad PR- Dan McDonald is a name that comes to mind.
Lastly, thanks for joining us at Sound Politics where your political views are "Soup for the Hungry Conservative".
Posted by: swatter on January 17, 2007 03:42 PMThanks for joining the discussion. It gives me no joy to disagree with you strongly about analyzing the 2006 elections, where there is a strong gap from which neither of us is likely to back away from. At the same time, I don't think we're as far apart as you think on the right attitude for a public servant.
I generally agree with your characterization about how an elected official should conduct themselves in office. That being said, in a representative democracy I believe it is also appropriate for legislators to be responsive to the citizenry - to the degree possible - on issues those citizens deem important. Without making any judgment about your own service in this regard (since I don't know enough to do so), I do believe Republicans as a whole do not have a coherent, relevant message on the topics of education and transporation. Republicans should stand for what they believe, and in doing so, I think there are conservative policies on those two issues that can have some broader appeal in suburban districts. I just haven't seen anything remotely like that taking place and I think we have the electoral results across the Puget Sound area to prove it.
As to your principles, I appreciate your defense of them, but then again I wasn't questioning them either. Nor was I by any means suggesting you should back down from them. In fact, I largely agree with them, though I suppose we would have some policy disagreements about mass transit as part of a mix of roads and transit to address our transportation challenges. I disagree with the idea your response implies that the answer to the problems I posed is to simply abandon what you stand for. Rather, Republicans should be emphasizing how what they stand for matters on the issues citizens care about.
Indeed, I think conservatives such as you and me can hold to our principles and still be relevant to the electorate. Perhaps that's a fine line, yet I think it possible.
By all means, stand for your principles. Stefan has given much of your past good work in the Legislature its due good coverage, and I for one regret there are less bright, principled conservatives like you in Olympia. By the same token, Republicans as a whole have to offer solutions to the issues people care about or they won't get elected to stand for any of their principles at all. I just don't think that does us much good in the long run.
Best wishes in whatever path you plan to take in the future to contribute to public discussions.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 17, 2007 09:55 PMEric, if Toby's message had gone out or one like that, the Rs would be in charge. My point is that the R party has zero message right now; it doesn't necessarily limit itself to transportation and education.
Posted by: swatter on January 18, 2007 07:11 AMPhil, let's just say that it is widely known that Diane Tebelius is very difficult to deal with. I had contact with some McGavick staffers that didn't have many complementary things to say. Same goes for Rossi staffers.
I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: Don Johnson on January 18, 2007 04:53 PM