You may have read his odd column in today's Seattle Times, where he seems to say that Washington Republicans would control the state if only the state party had been nicer to activists of all sorts. Now, I think that the leaders of the state party should be nice to volunteers, but I also know that most students of elections think that a better organization can add, at most, a few percent to a party's total in a general election. And it is simply a fact that pleasing some activists will annoy others.
Not being sure what Davis meant, even after several passes through the column, I listened to David Boze discuss the column with him this afternoon. Davis didn't really clear up my own confusion, but he did make this extraordinary claim: "Ronald Reagan won the city of Seattle in 1980."
I'm pretty sure that's wrong, though Reagan did carry King County in 1980, with 45.4 percent of the total vote. (Carter got 39.2 percent of the vote in King County, and John Anderson got 12.7 percent of the vote.)
Nor am I sure what conclusions we should draw from Reagan's victory that year. That we should talk Anderson into running again? Good idea, but I doubt that's possible.
I don't have time to do an analysis of my own, not today, not this week, not this month, but when I do, I will start with population changes, not the hurt feelings of activists. And I would suggest that anyone who wants to understand the difficulties that Republicans face in the state do the same.
(I should add that I have no idea whether state party leaders have been, over the years, nice to volunteers. Or, for that matter, whether all the volunteers have been reasonable about what they can expect from the leaders.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 18, 2008 05:10 PM | Email ThisQuote: Chris Vance, a former state GOP chairman, recently declared that he has never seen the party as united as it is today. Well, that's because there's hardly anyone left: The party has run out libertarians, Ellen Craswell's Christian conservatives, Pat Buchanan's social conservatives and, in 2000, even presidential candidate John McCain's "mainstream" conservatives! Unquote
I read recently that when Jennifer Dunn was running the show, the party platform was one page long (i.e., "liberty on the nonessentials"), but that now it runs to 30 or 40 or more pages.
Posted by: ewaggin on February 18, 2008 06:28 PM Are you a member of the mainstream republicans of Washington state? The fact you
don't understand what Reed Davis
was talking about makes me wonder whether you are.Because you see only the high and mighty
from that organization would come to the conclusion you did
after reading that article.
What's wrong with you? Do you really think everythings a okay
in the State Gop right now?
How much money do you think the
the state Gop has raised so far
this year? Do you think its 100
dollars? How about 20 dollars?
How about 0? Yeah that's right
they haven't raised a dime so
far this year.
The state party is in big trouble right now and all you can do is make fun of Reed Davis and what he was talking about.
Reed was exactly right in his analysis of what's wrong here.
All you have to do is start looking around to see what's going on. Luke Esser has put all
of his eggs in the Dino Rossi
basket. Its never a good idea for a political leader to do that because it could end up being a disaster.
Sir this has been and is a losing party and as long as people like you have this point of view it will only get worse.
Cities Total 994,049 1,384,270 390,221 39.3%
Unincorporated King County 513,270 352,764 (160,506) -31.3%
King County Total 1,507,319 1,737,034 229,715 15.2%
Washington State 4,866,692 5,894,121 1,027,429 21.1%
Source: U S Census 2000, PL 94 - 171 data (Mar 2001), and Washington Office of Financial Mgmt.
N A: City incorporated after April 1, 1990.
RACE IN WESTERN WASHINGTON
About 32 percent of Seattleites are ethnic minorities, up from 26 percent in 1990.
In King County, 27 percent are minorities, up from 17 percent.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/race261.shtml
Probably one of the most difficult jobs is that of a party leader. Having said that, both parties don't seem to have leaders that can expand the base of either party. Too, often their role is that of enforcing party discipline and not of expanding the base.
I don't see how either party is going to convince indies to join them. The republicans have such fights internally, it seems, between moderates, libertarians, conservatives, and extremes.
It is interesting how you intend to win the governor's race when you seem to be conceding King County and the urban areas.
Nope. In fact, I am only vaguely aware of who they are.
But I have been studying elections, formally and informally, since 1960. And it is simply a fact that party organizations do not usually decide general elections. (Which is just as well, in my opinion.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on February 18, 2008 06:44 PMIt would be "Stability". People are scared...some of it coming from Democrat fearmongers like Al Gore.
Some days, reading the news, it's like we've been mesmerized into a state of mass hypnosis where the Earth is on Fire, the Economy is Sinking and the War is Failing. However, if you turn off the Tv, shut down the browser and take a walk outside, you will find crisp chilly winter weather as you drive to your job...which still exists....and you will probably feel much safer than you did after September 11, 2001.
That's why we need a McCain to come in and just be a breeze of fresh air. [Actually, I wish he would appoint Bob Lutz, Chairman of GM as Vice President for his recent pronouncement on global warming being "a total crock of sh*t."]
As far as the older suburbs just naturally going Democrat with density...why? I think the Dems need to be called...they really haven't delivered in a long time. What about the Mon-Nooo-Rail. 1 Billion dollars out the door??? Lite rail...one minute the head Demo, Sims, is for it...and then 3 years later he disowns it??
The Republicans will succeed if they go back to their roots of being a Reform Party. This election is not about Lib/Con...it's about Insiders and Outsiders....corruption and mismanagement versus a clean broom.
Republicans win on principles. They lose on betrayals.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 18, 2008 07:40 PM1. Education and competition in education. Where is the Math has done yeoman's work about having standards that will truly educate our children. Competition in education is necessary.
2. A stable economy that helps in sustainablejob creation. Small businesses create many jobs and they need to be encouraged and helped.
3. A budget with accountability and that is sustainable.
4. I don't know what states can do about the health care issue, but that should be looked at.
5. Supporting families and supporting adoption of children. There are many families that would take in children, but the costs of adoption are high and some children need counseling and therapy after they are adopted. Help with this.
Family issues know no race or class.
Posted by: WVH on February 18, 2008 08:18 PMThat's about how that rant is supposed to go right?
The column penned by Reed Davis is a head scratcher. It's not that everything he said is wrong, nor certainly is everything right. It comes across almost as sour grapes from someone who is possibly bitter over a certain Senate primary defeat.
One of the lines is completely precious where the state party has "run out of Ellen Craswell's Christian conservatives". Tell that to Rick White circa 1998...
Posted by: Don Ward on February 18, 2008 11:31 PMIf we are to ignore Davis for the reasons state by Earling, then we must also ignore Vance, who was a disaster as a congressional candidate and who brought that same lack of fundraising and strategic thinking skills to the table when the Bellevue Mafia blessed his takeover in the 01 reorg.
It's of interest to me that instead of thoroughly exploring the many and obvious shortcomings of the WSRP, Miller and Earling instead focus on attacking Davis. While Davis, under other circumstances, is certainly worthy of attack, a fact is a fact, even if it's painful. And the painful fact of the matter is that the party in this state has no clue, no plan, no vision and no way to keep the blue steamroller from rolling.
Beating Davis like a pinata doesn't begin to address the problems confronting the party; problems that no one wants to talk about; problems that everyone wants to treat like their "stinky ol' mother in law."
Introspection is what's required here, and while Davis certainly never acted the part, Eric's attacks against Davis could easily be repeated against Vance, yet I must have missed those.
Will the massive problems confronting the party ever be addressed? Will they at least ever be identified? Will we even begin to acknowledge that there ARE problems?
Apparently not, since the response to the opening salvo has been to bitch-slap Davis, instead of demanding action to resolve the many issues confronting the party that remain unresolved as if they do not exist.
Well, I've got news for you. There ARE problems... HUGE problems. And ignoring them while beating the messenger will not make them go away.
Posted by: Hinton on February 19, 2008 01:24 AMI didn't lob any grenades at Vance because he hasn't penned any op-eds savaging the WSRP in the Times of questionable validity and with an obvious chip on his shoulder.
I would agree there were problems with Vance's tenure too, particularly in engaging grassroots activists. But that's complicated because part of what Vance was trying to accomplish was finding a way to support candidates who wouldn't repeat the campaigns of Craswell, Smith, and Carlson but who would still retain a necessary level of grassroots enthusiasm. It was a tricky but necessary line to walk.
In the big picture though, I think a lot of what gets pinned on the state party - in party by Davis - is really a function of the county parties. Those are the organizations best suited to ensuring grassroots activists are engaged and have opportunities to do so. As you well know, however, the quality of the county parties varies wildly; in part due to their volunteer nature.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 19, 2008 07:06 AMIt would be interesting to hear from the Sound Politics editors as to what violation of your principles would cause you to oppose a candidate. So far all I can tell is, all of you are opposed to anyone that says they are a committed Christian or a Democrat. All of you seem to accept R candidates who expand government, illegal immigration and disrespect for the rule of law, nominate extrememly liberal judges, limit free speech, limit private property rights, and are anti-life, ... In fact the more nasty positions a R candidate holds the more you find them electable and thus more deserving of your praise and respect.
Posted by: John McDonald on February 19, 2008 08:33 AM1. What I said was "Washington State Republicans are more united than I have ever seen them." I think that is true. We are all very divided at the national level, but do you know any Republicans who don't support Dino Rossi?
2. The WSRP is governed by the 117 members of the state committee - the grassroots. The Chairman can't do anything that doesn't have the support of the grassroots.
3. Reed Davis ran for WSRP Chairman and got 4 votes. My predecessor and successor each served less than a year as Chairman before lossing the support of the State Committee. I was elected by the State Committee three times. With all due respect, I think I can claim to know something about what the grassroots wants from the WSRP.
4. During my tenure we raised more money and engaged more grassroots volunteers than ever before. During the 2004 cycle the WSRP raised and spent roughly $20 million. The WSRP and the Bush campaign organized a huge volunteer GOTV effort and we made over 500,000 volunteer voter contacts the last weekend before the election.
5. We changed the Party's rules to give more power to the grassroots in regards to GOTV and candidate support.
6. During my tenure we won the majority in the State Senate in 2002. In 2004 we suffered minor losses in the legislature, but we won two open congressional seats, elected the first GOP AG in 12 years, and elected Dino- twice! The freefall occurred in 2006, after I left, and was largely a result of national trends, not anything the WSRP did, or could've prevented.
I don't like having to go over this stuff again and again, but I don't want to see revisionist history take hold.
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 19, 2008 08:40 AM If you don't want it to happen then stop revising
history yourself.So you really believe in 2000
that the state committee supported you more than
did Mark Hulst? Chris we both know what happened
in 2000 during the election proceedings for State
Chair. If wasn't for Dino Rossi you would have
been thrown out on sorry rear end. So don't bring
it up again sir.
Lets just take your observations one at a time
shall we. So you can say for a certainty that
every republican in the state of Washington is
supporting Dino? Thats pretty good even for you
Though as far as I know there aren't any other
declared republican candidates for governor.
So its not as though there is someone else to
support. Not to mention if the party is as you
united as you say it is, Then why is Luke Esser
having so much trouble raising any money?
2. So when you got Mike McGavick to run for the
senate and tried to stop anyone else from running thats
really what the grass roots wanted?I have a very
hard time believing that they were ok with all
the crap you pulled during that time frame.
Number three we have already touched on.
4. So you raised a lot of money during your tenure. Chris how much was actually left when you
resigned?
5. Who actually was it that was instrumental in
getting the party rules changed?If had been
left up to you sir the changes that your so willing to take credit for may not have happened.
6. This is so choice of you to say. Taking credit for all the wins and when the roof caves in
well will just blame on national trends.I have yet to hear you or any of your elitist establishment
friends take any responsibility for what happened
in 2006. Had you and friends not shoved McGavick
down our throats and supported a candidate that
a lot of people were excited about and would have
energized the base of the party. Then we wouldn't
be in the mess we are now.
I don't like having to bring these things up over and over again. But Chris as long as you
continue to shovel this garbage I will.
Again, just dealing in facts:
I was relected in 2005, defeating Mark Hulst and Rose Strong. I was re-elected with a strong first-ballot majority. That's a fact. The rest is your opinion.
Mike McGavick was endorsed by the State Committee and the State Convention - the grassroots. That's a fact. The rest is your opinion.
When I resigned the WSRP had plenty of cash on hand, but we were in debt to our legal team. Dino and I had designed a plan to retire the debt, and it was paid off within a year.
Speaking of fundraising, where do you get the idea that Luke is struggling? My understanding is the WSRP has raised roughly $200,000 already this year and fundraising is ahead of schedule.
I strongly supported the rule changes made by the E-board empowering the grassroots.
Finally, how can you criticize any Chairman when we lose but not give credit for wins? My point is were pretty successful during my 5 years.
Phil, my question for you and other critics is this: if you represent the grassroots why don't you ever win primary or Party elections?
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 19, 2008 10:08 AM This is amazing, your really something you really
are.First of all I was not talking about how many votes you received in the election.We both know what
happened behind the scenes before the vote even took
place.So lets not go back over this again.
Yeah your right Mike McGavick was endorsed by the state committee. What your conveniently leaving out
was by the time the convention came around you and
your friends had pretty much ran anybody else that
had a chance of winning off. Chris your the one that said the state committee knew and approved of
everything you did in regards to McGavick not I.
Having talked to a number of the committee members
it was pretty clear they didn't. I will not dredge
up again that whole sorted ordeal. I just happen
to think that that kind of behavior was and is beneath
a chairperson of state political party and will
just leave at that.
As far as the money you left behind. No matter
how you try and portray it a debt is debt.As to
Esser's fund raising as of today he raised just over
60,000 for the state party. 50,000 of it came from
two donors both of which I might add are from out
of state.Its also important to note that the state
party has spent over 95,000 this year. The majority of which went to pay Luke's salary, as
well as the rest of the office staff. So yeah
Luke's raised some money but there still in the
hole.
I'm not really sure what one has to do with other
but ok fine congrats on your wins.What I was and am saying is that you and your friends have never taken
responsibility for what happened in 2006. Its always someone else's fault never yours.
I am not a candidate or State or county political
party chairman. As such I don't have the resources
or the clout to promote a successful candidate.
you as a state chair do and for whatever reason
in some cases you didn't. you refused to put any money in the 1st district legislative races when
Joshua Freed was running. Both times Joshua ran
he lost by small margins. I know you didn't think
a republican could win in the first district and
that's why the state didn't help. When John Koster
was running against Rick Larsen for congress. Larsen's campaign ran some tv adds that made John
look pretty bad. All of it of course was a distortion of his record. His campaign had adds
ready to respond to these attacks but you refused to
released the time slots.
In 2005 Susan Hutchison has some polling done
on her behalf regarding her chances against
Cantwell. The polling revealed she was in a
statistical dead heat with Cantwell.
Now if I had been the state chair and knew that
information I would have rolled out the red carpet
for Susan. Did you do that Chris? No because you
and your establishment buddies were so hell bent
on Mike McGavick that you did everything you could
to stop Susan from running. So lets not sit here and try and pretend that you have always had the grassroots best interest at heart.
1. In case you hadn't noticed, the party is divided at the state level too. Aside from universal support for Dino (though that remains to be seen for this time around), it was almost a three way tie in this state for support among the 3 remaining presidential candidates, not to mention, large numbers supporting Romney, and "uncommitteds". Should make any attempt at a theme of "unity" interesting at the state convention, no?
2. If you want to call the 117 members of the state committee the "grassroots", therein lies your problem and the problem of the top down management style of your predecessors and successors...unless you want to dramatically reduce the size of the party even more? No, the grassroots of the party are the rank and file people who vote Republican, expecting a Republican philosophy of government to be applied.
3. You can claim to know something, that's true.
4. You're proving Reed's point, it's all about money and marketing to you. Ignore the fact that grassroots conservatives aren't happy, and that we're losing elections.
5. ??? Please explain.
6. Minor losses in 2004??? We hung on to two open congressional seats, yes, and elected our first Republican AG in 12 years (against a largely unpopular opponent). I have my doubts about whether we'll be able to hang on to all of these the next time around.
1. I agree we are all fighting about the direction of the national Party, but here in Washington we all support Dino.
2. The State Committee is elected by the PCOs. How much closer to the grassroots can you get?
4. Phil and Hinton both said I wasn't a good fundraiser and didn't engage grassroots activists. That's what I was responding to.
5. During my tenure we changed the WSRP's rules in several significant ways to put more power in the hands of local parties.
6. The big losses in the legislature occurred in 2006, not 2004.
Again, Michelle, if you and others are the true representatives of the conservative movement why do you constantly lose primary and party elections?
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 19, 2008 04:07 PMWhat I do know is twofold: I give Chris a lot of credit coming on here and handling himself well even when he knows he is going to get slammed; and we should focus more on the present and future than the past.
Posted by: pudge on February 19, 2008 05:33 PMThe timing of your departure speaks to a talent for self-preservation more than anything else. The only question that needs to be asked is this:
Was the party better off when you left it?
As much as you would like to disavow the results of your tenure, those results are clear: in 06, the strategy was yours, the staff was yours and the results... yours.
Had your nonsensical "suburban crescent" strategy been worth the paper it was printed on, we wouldn't be having this "discussion," and like any other politician, you'd be taking all the credit. Further, there is a major likelihood you wouldn't have bailed on the party in an election year.
And please, Chris, don't confuse your re-election as party chair as anything other than what it was: the same choice we're faced with when voting for president this cycle: you were the best of an abysmal lot to chose from.
As for your candidate skills, you neglected to mention the results of the vote or fundraising for your congressional race... you know, to keep things in perspective?
What did you do to stem the blue tide in King County? Did the WSRP GAIN minority votes and voters, or LOSE them on your watch?
Refusing to accept blame for the failures of your tenure doesn't change them. You had ample opportunity to turn the WSRP into a force to be reckoned with... much like Berendt and the democrats.
And my guess is this: Berendt's departure did not foretell the collapse of the party in this state. Yours... actually did.
We got hammered in 06, and sadly, we'll get hammered again. And had you stayed in 06, the outcome, I believe, would have been no different.
Posted by: Hinton on February 19, 2008 05:38 PMBefore I can answer your question, what are you talking about? I ran for state committee ONCE and lost to a very likeable incumbent. I had no real criticism of her. How is that "constantly losing"? As for others who lose primaries, I think you know the answer to that. Your top down CEO management style ensures their defeat before their campaign ever gets started.
Posted by: Michelle on February 19, 2008 05:44 PMI think the people offering their perspective here have been eye witnesses to the state committee's actions. I know that's true of my own perspective.
Posted by: Michelle on February 19, 2008 06:09 PM
Pudge,
Should Mark Hulst run next
January for state chair I would
strongly suggest you get to know
him and know about him before you write him off as an abysmal
choice as you did back in 2000.
I venture to say you don't know
Mark at all or you wouldn't have
ever said such a stupid thing.
Please don't overestimate the importance of the State Party. There is nothing any Chairman could've done to prevent what happened in 2006. We got hammered at every level all over the country.
If you really want to talk about what is going on with Republicans in this state please read the article I wrote in Crosscut on this subject, then send me an e-mail. I would welcome your thoughts.
www.crosscut.com/politics-government/5511/
Uh. Perhaps you meant to write that to Hinton? I said nothing about Mark Hulst.
Posted by: pudge on February 19, 2008 09:18 PM My apologies I confused you with Hinton and meant to point
Out to him that he was and is
Wrong about Mark Hulst. Again
My apologies.