That's my advice to the Washington state Republicans who are considering the idea of dividing the state in two. It has been a long time since Washington has had a Republican governor, and much of the state has been neglected for decades, but we are, I believe, close to solving the first problem and tackling the second. Currently, I would estimate Dino Rossi's chances of being governor by the end of this year at nearly 50 percent. And I would estimate the chances that a Republican will win the governorship in 2008 at well above 50 percent.
There's an example from a similar state that should encourage Washington Republicans. After Oregon, perhaps, it is hard to think of a state more similar politically to Washington than Minnesota. Here's what the 2004 edition of the Almanac of American Politics has to say about Minnesota's record in presidential elections.
Minnesota has the longest consecutive streak of voting Democratic for president of any state: the last time it voted Republican was in 1972, and even then it gave Richard Nixon his lowest percentage margin over George McGovern. But in 2000 Minnesota was seriously contested, and in end gave Al Gore only a 48%-46% victory over George W. Bush. It was a vivid contrast to 1988, when Bush's father lost the state to Michael Dukakis by 53%-46%. What changed in the meantime? Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura evidently detached many voters from their ancestral allegiance. Perot won 24% of the vote here in 1992 and 12% in 1996, more in each case than in any other state this large.
There's another mid-sized state where Perot did almost this well. Perot won 24 percent of Washington's vote in 1992 and 9 percent in 1996. As you probably know, in 2004, Bush did slightly worse in Minnesota (and in Washington) than he had in 2000. In 2004, Bush won 47.6 percent of the vote in Minnesota to Kerry's 51.1 percent. (In both states, Kerry probably benefited from Nader voters returning to the Democratic party.)
But to skip from 2000 to 2004 misses what happened in 2002 in Minnesota. In that year, Republican Tim Pawlenty won the governorship, Republican Norm Coleman won Paul Wellstone's seat after the death of Senator Wellstone, and the Republicans took control of the lower house of the Minnesota legislature by a big margin. It was big enough so that they kept control last year, even though they lost many seats.
Although 2002 was a breathrough year for the Republicans in Minnesota, it only capped a long rise for the party. This table, compiled by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, shows that Democrats* won control of the Minnesota Senate in 1972 and have kept it since — usually by margins of more than two to one. (Before 1976, the legislature was officially nonpartisan, but split into "Liberal" and "Conservative" caucuses, which were almost identical to the Democratic and Republican parties.) The Republicans have been gaining, seat by seat, since 1994 and are now within striking distance of a majority, with 31 seats in the 67 member body.
There's another similarity in the older data that those who have been around for a while — like me — will notice. In the 1950s, Minnesota was more Republican than the nation as a whole — just like Washington state.
How did Minnesota Republicans make these gains? With the right candidates and the right issues. And, I suspect, a better organization. There's no reason why Washington Republicans can't find good candidates and attractive issues. Rob McKenna and Dino Rossi were better than any of the statewide Democratic candidates last year, and I think intelligent recruitment can find more like them. The Democratically controlled legislature seems almost determined to give Republicans issues to run on in 2006. And there's no reason why Washington Republicans can't improve their organization in this state.
What kind of candidates should Republicans look for? There are lessons in the two biggest Republican success stories in Minnesota. Governor Tim Pawlenty came from a notably poor background; the Almanac says that "when he was 16 his mother died and his father lost his job at a trucking company". Pawlenty worked his way through college and law school and was the first college graduate in his family. Norm Coleman also grew up in modest circumstances (though he went to the same New York high school as New York Senator Charles Schumer and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). He was elected mayor of Saint Paul as a Democrat (though he had to defeat the party's endorsed choice to win the nomination). In 1996, he was Minnesota co-chairman for Bill Clinton and in 2000 he was Minnesota chairman for Bush. Why did he switch? He had conflicts with the Democratic party on abortion and dealing with the public employee unions.
If you think that Republicans have something to learn from Pawlenty and Coleman, as I do, you'll think that the party should be looking for candidates who didn't start out rich and for former Democrats who have broken with their party on matters of principle. Democrats can get away with running Rockefellers and Kennedys; Republicans should look first for Smiths, Johnsons, Browns, Kims, and Chens.
I'll have more to say about issues in the future, but I will mention one that Republicans should jump on now, the issue that led me to write this post. The desire of much of the state to escape from the control of Seattle Democrats should be a great issue for the Republican party. The press release almost writes itself. (That's a hint, Chris Vance.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(*The Minnesota Democratic party is officially the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party. It was formed by the fusion of the Democrats with the Farmer-Labor party, just as you would guess from the name. You'll often see it referred to as the DFL.
I probably should mention that I favor the proposal by Toby Nixon to split up King County into Seattle and the remainder of the county. I think it makes sense for many reasons and would favor it even if I did not believe that it would help the Republican party.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 24, 2005 02:51 PM | Email ThisIf it can be done at all it will be slow, very slow.
Even now the socialist are passing a hwhole bunch of ant-captialist/business laws. "Anti-Bully Bill", "Everyone gets free health cares/stuff bill"
Etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. If we dont want to be the next 3rd world state in the US, right behind CA (or maybe ahead depending on your perspective) then I am not sure anything less would have any kind of real effect.
It's like the price of gas. $1 seemed outrageous not to long ago, now $1.50 would be "Cheap". Our freedoms and rights are being whittled down in the same way.
Posted by: Todd on February 24, 2005 02:59 PMYou see even if, and this is a big IF, we were to get a Republican Governor in 2008 the best he could do would be to slow the slide.
No, Washington needs a major overhaul and we will never, ever, get that by simply getting a Republican in the Governor's mansion. Not any more than California was able to do that with not only a Governor, but a charismatic figure as well.
Secondly, I am afraid that the kind of Republican we would get could be a tax and spender.
I know this kind of talk scares our good conservative friends on the west side of the state, because you probably really really think you can change the liberal establishment. Well, you can't. Note that the legislature is moving more and more to the left.
What a state split would do is provide a wonderfull contrast of communities. It would provide the Republican souls that stayed behind ammunition to argue change. If that's what they really want to do.
No, make the split. Let us go. Any other argument is akin to putting up an iron curtain to keep us in eh? I mean, do you really wan to be on that side of the argument?
Posted by: Coyote on February 24, 2005 03:13 PMAnd I think we're starting to. Dino Rossi reminds me a lot of Pawlenty, both in his background and his demeanor. Additionally, Rossi's campaign used the same man who did Norm Coleman's great TV ads.
There's a ton more we could learn from Minnesota--thanks again for bringing this up, Jim.
Posted by: Timothy on February 24, 2005 03:16 PM
Amen, and amen, and AMEN!!!
Three point shot- Hard facts or figures that produce a response of lesser value from your opponent.
Rim shot- off topic entries, like this one.
The dribble- A subject that although beat to death people still have to debate.
Personal foul- Rough content of some blog entries in regards to derogatory mentions specifically about another blogger.
Traveling- Posts which allege to address an issue but have no fact to back them up.
Taunting- Posts designed to elicit emotional responses.
Overtime- Where this election and most of the issues sit right now.
The ball- The thread topic we should stay focused on.
Anyone else care to add to this side topic?
Posted by: Mark Beyer on February 24, 2005 04:38 PMWashington could well be poised for dramatic change with new leadership and genuine reform. It would be a shame to miss this opportunity due to short-sighted, backward thinking geared to the recent past.
Both nationally and locally the Democrat Party has entered a process of self-destruction that is the setting for alternative leadership to assert itself. But new leadership must win on the basis of merit, not default. And the good news is the the Republican Party has emerged as the source of innovation and positive change. For example, the latest flap over reforming Social Security has divided the electorate into those willing to consider sensible proposals for reform and those refusing to even acknowledge the need for it to occur.
Posted by: RLG on February 24, 2005 04:50 PMI have to disagree however that we should split the State.
What is really needed is to reform King County and Seattle. If we don't suceed, I might change my mind support an idea similar Morton's, except the dividing line would be Seattle City limits and not the Cascade Summit.
Posted by: DeadWood on February 24, 2005 05:16 PMLook, the democrat party held sway for decades on the strength of ideas. Yes conservatives knew those Great Society ideas were a crock even way back then. But today EVERYONE knows. That's the difference. Today it's liberals stuck in reactionary mode, trying in vain to protect all their discredited social engineering. Today WE have the advantage in IDEAS. Let's not get sidetracked into the sentimentalism of personal background. Sentimentalism is the liberals schtick. We're the intellectual party. Try to keep that in mind, okay?
Posted by: Chuck Miller on February 24, 2005 05:31 PMThere's just one problem with what your
saying.We don't have the leadership in
the state party.Well I will just say it
until chris vance is gone the republican party
will not be united.He is a divisive individual
who continues to drive people away.
We would have had a new chairman last
month had dino rossi not made such boneheaded
mistake endorsing vance.the party has to
believe in there leader.If he is not
honest he will lose his effectiveness.
I know this has happenend to chris vance.
For the record I will state I belong
to no one but my wife.this is what I believe
has to happen.!!
What would be beneficial is to split King County so that Seattle no longer controlled it. That would be the biggest shift of power in the whole state. And would be much more representative of the county as it is now. IMO
Posted by: Elmo on February 24, 2005 09:34 PMAs for the lawsuit, it is doomed. The judiciary is no less corrupt than the legislature. Even if the lower court rules in favor of the GOP, the Supremes will not have the courage to upset the status quo.
This is a socialist state, and the is nothing we can do about it. I guess we can move to Idaho or something, but that's about it.
Posted by: Kevin S on February 24, 2005 11:22 PMThat's at least half a lifetime.
Posted by: South County on February 25, 2005 05:26 AMWhat about real life? What about real leftwing Seattle area policies that are having a detrimental effect, EVERYDAY, on us here on the east side?
While it is a fun excercise to talk high brow political maneuvering, we on the east side, have to actually LIVE with cougars. And other such issues that effect our daily lives.
We have to live with the radical public employee unions that are attacking the Farmers right now in the state legislature. That means peoples livelihood.
I ask you, my fellow Republicans on the west side, are you so interested in winning a political election that you would hold others hostage to do it?
I have come up with my own term for this phenomenon. While the Soviet Union had the "Iron Curtain" to keep people from leaving the geographic region, you my friends, are promolgating the "Iron Stitch" that is meant to keep us sown on to the socialist west side.
Posted by: Coyote on February 25, 2005 07:15 AMDeport all the Californians back to California.
Can I have some of what you are smokin?
Posted by: Monroe on February 25, 2005 08:59 AMi think we've learned a valuable lesson from the republicans recently, and the democrats historically....its not about principle, its about power.
The following is a quote from a prominent center-right blogger, asking where the republican outrage went:
"If Al Gore, say, had, turned a surplus into years of mounting debt, if he'd added a huge new federal entitlement to Medicare, if he'd over-ridden the rights of states to set their own laws with regard, say, to education, if he'd put tariffs on steel, if he'd increased government spending faster than anyone since LBJ, if he'd said that government's job was to heal hurt wherever it exists, if he'd ramped up agricultural subsidies, poured money into the Labour and Education Departments, thrown public dollars at corporate America, spent gobs of money on helping individuals in bad marriages, used the Constitution as an instrument of social policy, given government the right to detain people without trial and subject them to torture, and on and on, I don't think National Review would have been content merely to nitpick. Do you? I think they would have mounted a ferocious attempt to remove the guy from office. The duplicitous, budget-busting Medicare entitlement alone should have caused an insurrection. It didn't. I think that tells you a lot about where some conservative thinkers are really coming from."
Posted by: dinesh on February 25, 2005 09:55 AMTo tell the truth, I don't see why the Coasties would be sorry to see us go. We've been called "hicks" and "goatropers" so long it's become synonymous with "Eastern Washingtonian." Our politics revolt the majority of them, our economy is (so they say) dragging them down, and we're no more alike than residents of any other two states.
They don't want us, we don't want them. Time to cut the ropes.
Posted by: Joel on February 25, 2005 11:43 AMWe can split the state however many different ways, but it's not going to make a difference until everyone becomes more involved in all of it. It's not just about president or Congress.
Believe me, I care who is in charge of the White House, and I care who our Senators are, and I want to be sure someone representing us in Congress is getting our fair share of the pork...PLUS what we have coming to us.:)
But Olympia is even more important...
And your county government is even more important...
And your city government is most important. Why? Because Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and whoever else aren't going to be able to handle your call when they forget to pick up your trash or you're getting messed over by whatever utility and the pothole in your residential street needs fixing.
Ad inifinitum, but, it really isn't going to have an impact until more folks become more involved in local races. Look at voting results. who gets the most votes? President. then governor, then on down the list. The great majority of the time, the bottom of the ballot races, the ones with the greatest personal impact, have the least voter participation.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 25, 2005 01:10 PMAs for who says you have to live with cougars? I ask, when was the last time you took a pack of dogs out to hunt them?
It is not like a cougar will walk up to your door, knock on it, and say "i'll be standing 50 yards out in that open field for you to shoot me."
No, they tend to be a little more sneaky than that (not as wiley as a Coyote however) and the BEST way to control their numbers is DOG HUNTING. But Seattle area voters killed that... so by extension they are killing our livestock as well?
Posted by: Coyote on February 25, 2005 03:36 PMThat would be never.
I am not asking who is keeping you from killing cougers. I was asking who is making you live with cougers.
Ah, I see it was not rhetorical. I'm sorry, I misunderstood.
When the Seattle area libs got behind the initiative to stop the hunting of cougars with dogs the measure passed. That little writ of joy has allowed the cougar population on the east side to increase substantially. Now they are killing our cattle and horses. Not to mention the sitings we get near our towns and schools from time to time (there is one that has shown his head on a hill above our grade school periodically and the little bugger just can't seem to be tracked down).
anyway, I meant to use that as an example as to how the liberal policies of the west side are having a real life impact on those of us on the east side.
I did not go into the dams... feild burning... pesticides... etc... All of which directly effect the amount of food and clothes that can be afforded by real families...(did i go overboard on the "real" aspect of the problem?...hehe)
Coyote
Posted by: Coyote on February 26, 2005 07:13 AM