To all you learned Republicans, may I, as a Democrat, make an observation?
I’ve read every one of your posts in this discussion, and unless I missed it, the word “California” has not come up even once.
And that strikes me as strange because it would seem, to this admittedly non-conservative mind, that any productive discussion about how the Republicans can take back the White House should center around winning California and its 55 electoral votes. I don’t understand how it can be considered wise or even sane election strategy to concede California, and its 55 electoral votes, without even a token fight, year after year after year.
Yes, I know that George W. Bush was elected twice without even contesting California. But this does not make it viable strategy, for the reasons I will explain.
First, conservatives must, if they are being honest, concede that they did not “win” the 2000 election, even though George W. Bush ended up being declared the winner. Bush did not win the popular vote. Nor did he actually win Florida. I am not trying to re-argue the 2000 election, but you need to look at that election honestly if you want to know how to succeed in the future. More people went to the polls in Florida intending to vote for Gore than for Bush. A confluence of the “butterfly ballot”, Ralph Nader, and the “hanging chads” led to Bush being declared the winner. But make no mistake, Bush’s strategy in 2000 did not lead to him persuading more people in Florida to vote for him than Gore.
Sure, in 2004, Bush won the election with the same strategy. But barely. It was the worst showing in history for a sitting president that was ultimately re-elected.
The point is that the strategy of ignoring California and simply trying to win with a bare majority of 270 electoral votes is not a smart strategy. In fact, it is borderline political malpractice. It will result in failure much more often than not. The 2000 election, as I have pointed out, was an aberration. And in 2004, this strategy resulted in Bush nearly losing the election despite winning the popular vote.
So how can Republicans hope to compete in California? It’s really not that difficult. California is not as “blue” a state as everyone seems to think. California has, to my disappointment, recently voted for ballot initiatives that were against gay marriage and affirmative action. We also recently recalled a Democratic governor and installed a Republican one. This is the land of Reagan, for goodness sake! The idea that the GOP seems to hold, that this state is permanently “blue” makes me want to cackle with laughter at the unbelievable stupidity of the so-called “political strategists” who have been guiding the GOP.
So you can win in California. But is comes with a price: You would have to give up the party’s staunch anti-abortion position. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. You can’t win California otherwise. Anyone who is familiar with politics in California will tell you that you can’t get elected Dog Catcher in California unless you’re both pro-choice, and pro-death penalty.
I know that doesn’t sit well with a lot of you. You say you’re the party of principles. I can respect that. But all political parties have to decide which principles are essential to its continuing relevance, and which are simply “nice to have”. We Democrats have had to face this decision before. We used to be staunchly against the Death Penalty. It was a principled stand. Then we lost three straight presidential elections. We decided it was better to focus on the more core principles of the party and have a chance to win than to always lose the presidency. Since 1992, we have won the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections. As Tim Robbins’ character in Bull Durham concluded, “Man, I LOVE winning! You know? It’s like better than losing!” And I don’t give a shit what Ralph Nader says. I don’t believe that Democratic party has lost its soul.
Some of you might think that abandoning the pro-life plank would cause you to lose other states, particularly those in the south. Exactly which states would those be? Do you really think the southern states would start voting Democrat if you gave up the anti-abortion stance? Really? So southern GOP voters don’t care about gay marriage, prayer in school, and other GOP issues? And these voters would just start voting for people like John Kerry and Al Gore if the Republican position on abortion were more moderate? To quote tennis legend, John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”
Might a third party candidate emerge to siphon off votes from the GOP? Sure, that’s a possibility. But what damage would that really do? In Mississippi, you won by 13 points. In Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Oklahoma, you won by 20, 19, 21, and 28 points, respectively. Sorry, but I don’t envision Roy Moore getting 20% of the vote in any of those states.
And frankly even if you did lose a state or two over this position change, it would be worth it to compete and actually have a chance to win California. Add up Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and you’re still at only 45 votes. California has 55. California is worth losing at least two southern states over. And as I pointed out previously, it’s absurd to think you’d actually lose any of those southern states over the abortion issue.
You may be wondering why I’m willing to commit ideological treason for the sake of helping the GOP cause. If I’m being honest, I have to admit that I am not all worried about giving the Republicans a roadmap to victory because I am pretty certain that the GOP will ignore this advice. I am also pretty certain that in ignoring this advice, and continuing to cling to the abortion issue, the GOP will lose in 2012 and in 2016. The strategy of ignoring California and pandering to the far right was never a sound strategy in the first place, and with the changing demographics, its only going to get worse for you.
Do me a favor, Republicans. Print this out, and then stow it away in a drawer somewhere. After you’ve lost the 2016 election and Chelsea Clinton is sworn in as the 45th President of the United States (She turns 35 in 2015), pull this post out of your drawer and reconsider what I had to say. It’s my gift to you. You’re welcome.
