Talk Elections

GOP again sees state as winnable
By Michael Doyle -- Bee Washington Bureau
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Friday, February 27, 2004
WASHINGTON - Republicans next week will accelerate a drive to register 350,000 new GOP voters in California, in a campaign meant to both symbolize and boost their Golden State aspirations.
"California is definitely in play," Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie insisted Thursday. "We have a real chance to win it in November, and we are going to put our money where our mouth is in that regard."

 It remains to be seen exactly what Republicans can do with a state that favored Al Gore over George Bush in 2000 by a margin of 53 percent to 41 percent. But with efforts like an upcoming presidential trip likely to include a stop in the southern San Joaquin Valley, an imminent ad campaign and the beefed-up registration efforts, Republicans are at least stepping up their activities in a state that has eluded them since 1988.

Next week, President Bush is expected to make his own case for re-election in California, with a visit whose details remained a White House work in progress Thursday. The Bakersfield area in particular appeared of interest to White House advance teams, San Joaquin Valley congressional staffers indicated Thursday.

Such a visit to Kern County, which boasts the fourth-highest Republican registration of any California county, likely would focus on the economy and jobs. If it happens, the visit would be part of a state trip also including a stop in the Los Angeles area.

Formal announcement of the California trip could occur as early as today. Bush's efforts, though, also come as more Californians grumble about how he's doing. Fifty-one percent of Californians surveyed in February disapprove of Bush's job performance, according to a Field Poll released this week. This is his lowest California approval rating since he took office.

"The fact is, our numbers are down everywhere," Gillespie said, blaming the polling downturn on a drumbeat of Democratic primary rhetoric. "Obviously, I'd rather be up than down, but we've got some things we're going to implement that's going to change this."

Between June and December of last year, for instance, California Republican Party spokeswoman Karen Hanretty said the party registered more than 245,000 new voters.

That still leaves Republicans lagging Democrats in the state. The secretary of state's office reported in January that 43.2 percent of registered voters were Democrats while 35.7 percent were Republican.

Republicans, though, have been showing more registration momentum of late.

Gillespie hopes to further boost what he termed Thursday the "ground game," in part by declaring March 6-13 National Voter Registration Week. Marketing slogans, though, are the least part of this effort.

California Republican officials, for instance, are trying to capture more voters who decline to state their party registration.

Currently, 16.2 percent of registered California voters decline to state a party affiliation, compared to 10 percent in 1996. In a new move, Hanretty said Republicans are contacting these declined-to-state voters to find out whether they're susceptible to the GOP message.

"We'll be targeting them with mail and phone calls," Hanretty said.

Hanretty said Republican Party officials are also attending citizenship swearing-in ceremonies in hopes of recruiting new voters, and contacting new home buyers with similar hopes.

This ground game will soon be joined by the air war that kicks off March 4, when the Bush-Cheney re-election committee will be running its first television ads of the 2004 season. The ads will offer a "positive message," campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said Thursday; they will include Spanish-language versions, and will also include some ads run nationally on cable television and others run on local broadcast stations targeting specific regions.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Writer
---------------------------

The Bee's Michael Doyle can be reached at (202) 383-0006 or mdoyle@mcclatchydc.com.

 - Get the whole story every day - SUBSCRIBE NOW!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***

While I'm skeptical that California is winnable by Republicans, it's disturbing that Republicans are the only ones out there trying to reach out to new voters and register them. They work harder and organize better, and even after the past two election wins, I don't see the Democrats learning from that. The voter registration advantage of Democrats doesn't really work in most places around the country, even if it does in California, because many registered Democrats actually vote Republican.

haha.  i think they could catch john kerry in bed with a prostitute, and hed still win cali.

id rather bush concentrate on winnable states.

What, that means there are like 3 million more Dems in CA than Republcans?  Ed Gillespe, shut ur hole.  

No, wait....please, focus the campaign on CA, and while your doing that we can take Ohio, and Arizona, and West Virginia, and Florida, and Nevada, and ..........on and on and on

I thought you were gonna end that post with a 'YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAA', but you didn't... :(

I think CA is not in play.  But, what are they going to say?  They can't just say "We have no chance at winning California."

Kerry said he wouldn't campaign in the South, so you never know...

No, Kerry said we could win without the South. He has not said he wouldn't campaign there.

I think we need to start a "Democrats see Idaho as winnable" thread.  Anything's possible...

Yes, you know.  California was in play in a Dean v. Bush race, but not in a Kerry v. Bush race.

I think Kerry is favored to win California.

But, being the number 1 liberal in the senate these days, he is not favored to win the election.  I actually do think CA is in play this election, though it'll likely go Dem no matter what.  (However, they DID elect a Republican as governor, and that Republican is enjoying approval ratings in the 60 percentage range.  Even Tom McClintock, when combined with much of Arnold's votes, probably would have won the election last year.)

John Kerry is the most boring candidate for president this country has ever seen, and that's saying a lot considering some of the dubs we've had in past presidential elections.  What the Dems are thinking by (almost surely) nominating this guy, I will never know.....

I didn't even notice I did that   : D

I really have no idea why we are nominating him........

There, there.  It's okay.  There's always 2008 to look forward to.  Things just might go your way then.  But beware: Hillary is running that year and she'll do no better than Kerry.  Edwards is the guy this year, and in 2008 too...if you guys really want to win the White House.

BTW, I think it's really cool that you're against abortion.  That's the first thing your party needs to change its position on.  More power to people like you!!

Can President Bush win California in 2004? Yes, but it's a very small chance. What  Gillespie and the GOP is doing is planning a grand strategy. Report that California is winnable and force the Democrats to spend money in that state.

The republicans should try and win california even though it's unlikely but be careful not to forget other states that could be close

Bush lost California by 11 points last time.  A good showing would be if he cut it to 7 or 8 this time.  It's not possible to win there.  Forget it.  Defend the red states and attack something at least half way realistic like say Pennsylvania.  Rove wasted time and millions in California last time.  It was a complete wasted effort and I hope he learned his lesson.

Thanx, we really do need to change our position on that, it seems like most dems are only pro-choice cause reps are pro-life.  

Nothing religous in my stance like you see with lots of pro-life people, I'm just anti-killing.  

Actually, on commenting on the existing 60 or some stem cells lines, President Bush said:

"This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

There you go, the even Bush says an embryo is mere "potential" life.

Hockey Dude,

I'm the exact opposite of you...I'm with the Republicans on pretty much everything BUT abortion. I'm in favor of banning partial birth abortions and I'm in favor of parental notification, but other than that, I'm with the pro-choice Democrats on this issue.

...as a Californian let me assure you that this would only get him more votes....assuming she was hot!

I respectfully disagree sir.  GW is a wise man who learned from the mistakes of his father.  They didn't campaign in '92 and the GOP lost both houses of the leg and pretty much everything else.  Rove campaigned hard here in '00 and did well, at least we still have the largest GOP delegate in the house.  (not for long, Tom Delay's meddling fingers saw to that ;)  

Bush wants to spend some of that warchest out west, my friend.  Unless those fascists McCain and Feingold prevent it.

don't you mean unless he was hot.

Old habits die hard... :D

'he'? :)

California is about as winnable for the GOP as Louisiana or Arkansas or Virginia or Tennessee is for the Democrats.  In other words, not winnable, but less of a lock than say Utah or Massachucetts.

Eh... no Opebo.
California is on the same level as SC: possible but ONLY with the right issues etc.
And quite possibly not even then.

all you have to do in California...(not that you will ever have to) is run an ad reminding people about Roe v Wade and the fact that we havent had a new justice in like 11 years (which is a record)

...in fact I would like to see the dems use a womans right to choose the way the republicans are using gay marraige (since the majority of americans support choice)



...we can play the culture war too

Do you actually believe that if Roe v Wade was overturned it would make any difference in your life whatsoever?  I just want to know whether you're a fool or a liar.  Look, man.  I think abortion should be safe, legal, and federally funded (clearly a one-time shot of $400 is a helluva lot better deal than fifty thousand over the next eighteen years.)  Frankly, every republican I know does too.  But why the  are we still debating this anyway?

Oh, yeah, now I remember.  Thanks for reminding me how utterly nasty and underhanded the Dems are.  And as soon as I get my confederate battle flag out of the dry-cleaners, I'm going to yeson57and58 rally.  Maybe you'll counterdemonstrate?  

without Roe v Wade I would have 3 unwanted children...as would many people...or have been forced to backroom illegal dangerous abortions.

the fact is that it is the policy of the Republican party to remove a woman's right to choose, and if Bush had the chance he would put someone on the court who would do just that.


...so fly your confederate flag high, it makes the right seem so inclusive

California Dreamer,

Look, I'm pro-choice, but three abortions??? Let me know when your birthday is and I'll spring for some freakin' condoms...

No sir, without Roe v Wade you would not!  That is exactly the mischaracterization the Democrats have successfully pursued for years!  You really should look it up.  I, too, am ardently pro-choice, as are most of the republicans I know personally.  I know I'm a smartass most of the time but I was dead serious about that.  Man, this is what really steams me.  This is why I'm a republican.  The lies, mischaracterizations, and general misleading of the Left leaves me exasperated.  Your general lack of wisdom is exceeded only by your bigotry.

Angus,

The biggest reason I'm a Republican is foreign policy and national defense, but if you take that out of the equation, my being a Republican is more about politics than it is about policy...and I think that's exactly what you were getting at in your last post.

By the way, I love your posts when you're serious...please be serious more often...LOL

I suggest you look up your party's platform

I don't think that there is a fundamental freedom from anything that will naturally occur, ie death, pain, and hate.  Otherwise the platform is quite alright.

Irreverence aside, I think we might have a great deal of overlap, markdel.  I have read the constitution many many times and try very hard to interpret it.  Everyone looks at me strange when I say bush is a liberal, or I support abortion rights, or I oppose the currently proposed amendment, but I consider myself rather conservative fiscally.  On foreign policy, you and I may have some disagreement.  Mine are summed up by NHpolitico's signature file.  Part of the reason I'm a republican has to do with my love for personal liberty, appointment of constructionist judges (whether or not I agree with them), and national defense.   But a big part of the reason for me is a rejection of the intolerance and narrow-mindedness of the Left.  You're talking to someone who voted for the Duke in '88 and Clinton in '92 and'96.  I may be a newly converted Republican, but I am not a soft Republican.  And I do love my country.

Angus,

Yes, the left's mantra seems to be "We will not tolerate those people who are intolerant"

Just out of curiousity, based on what you said about judicial styles, I assume you are a big fan of people like Scalia or Bork?

scalia's a special case.  yes, bork was shafted.  No one deserved the treatment he (or Thomas, for that matter) received at the hands of the Democrats.

California Dreamer,

I don't have to agree with everything the party says. By the way, if it's not too personal, how in the hell can you end up having three abortions? I understand mistakes happen, but it's a surgical procedure, not a form of retroactive contraception.

Angus,

True. The Bork hearings were incredible and changed the landscape of American politics forever. The way the Democrats behaved in that timeframe set in motion the really ugly partisan behavior that occurred in the 1990's and 21st Century. I was on Capitol Hill the next year at the John Tower confirmation hearings...they were just as bad...the Democrats were just shameless on Capitol Hill when they ran the House and Senate.

From the Republican Party Platform adopted in 2000:
"We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life. "

...there arent even exceptions for rape or incest. It has gone beyond Roe v Wade in making it a states rights issue and ...it clearly states it wants to make abortions unavailable

This extreme view is out of step with California for sure and the rest of the country.

Most polls show this "illegal in all cases" view is only supported by less than 20% of the population.  And 54% support the Rove v Wade decision . Even a Fox News poll showed that only 26% support overturning Roe v Wade

for more abortion polls see: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

...and thanks for all the name calling, how very typical to resort to namecalling, even calling someone a bigot...kind of ironic.

California Dreamer,

What the HELL are you talking about??? Where did I engage in any name calling???

Okay, here's how I see that.  On a personal note, CaliforniaDreamer, I have been there too.  I have had my girlfriend look me in the eye and say we're pregnant ("We, you got a mouse in your pocket, bitch?").  Been there, done that.  You gotta figure out what's causing that man, and get it fixed!  I'm no biology teacher, but I think I may know.  What I wanted to say was "You're not actually going to have that bastard are you?!"  Harsh, yes.  True, alas.  I'm an irresponsible er, and you shouldn't judge my kind by my irresponsible behavior.  The choice was hers!  

Now, what you may not realize is that those who oppose abortion on principle do so in accordance with deeply held moral beliefs.  They view it as murder.  Do you get that?  Murder!  It's not a joke man, and it's not a cultural war.  I stick my foot in my mouth as much as my president, I'm sure, but I swear to whatever gods there be that I mean no offense.  I know serious religious christians (and others as well) that I'd trust with my life.  I'd close my eyes and let them take me to the ends of the world.  This is not patronization.  This is the truth.  You have never appreciated the freedoms that our forefathers defined, that our brothers have shed the blood for.  I'm not sure I do either, but I'll not have you impugn the deeply held moral beliefs of my countrymen.

Mark I was speaking to Angus who has made a number of personal attacks on me for meerly pointing out:
a. The Republican Party wants to remove a woman's right to choose
b. California sends politicians with this view into the political graveyard


by the way, supporting a woman's right to choose is not impugning another's religious views. They have every right to have those views, and no right to impose them on others.

This is the distinction between the Abortion and Gay Marraige. Pro choice people are exactly that...they support choice. anti gay marraige and pro life people want to impose their life choices on others.

As I have said before I could easily be a republican except for all of these culturual issues where the party wants to get into my bedroom, my viewing habits and my life and tell me what is moral and immoral.

When the Republicans kick these extremists out of the party they will never lose another election because many Dems believe in low taxes and less government and a strong national defense.

And the Proof is how California (which is the subject of this post) just elected a pro choice Republican, but the only way such a republican could have been elected was in an open election, such republicans like Richard Riordan always get killed in the Republican primaries.

Indeed I have.  I'm always moaning about the intolerance of the Left, and I do realize my credibility is undermined by my hypocrisy.  I have called Democrats morons, liberals, jackasses, and worse.  It's exactly the vitriol that drove me away from the DNC in the first place.  Did I mention I actively campaigned for Michael Dukakis?  Well, this is a tough issue, you must admit.  And I'm quite sure it fractures my party more so than it does yours.  In my mind, that is further evidence of the Big Tent about which I sardonically spoke in my previous posts.  

I apologize for having spoken in haste and anger, CaliforniaDreamer.  I hope we can continue this productive dialogue.

California Dreamer,

Yes, but what Angus is trying to say is that to deeply religious people, an unborn child is a human life no different than yours or mine, so to them, it's not a matter of choice at all.

Hindus consider cows sacred...and wished everyone would stop eating their ancestors.

I respect their beliefs but they dont have the right to keep me out of Burger King.

Look, I see your point.  You may be surprised to learn that many of us do.  And your metaphoric description isn't bad.  (well, we could pick apart your definition of respect but) all I'm saying is that this is an example of a snap judgement of the political right.  You actually make a better point by pointing out the platform.  Actually, Barbara and Laura were both specifically stifled on this issue as they disagree with the status quo.  I realize this cuts into my argument about acceptance within the GOP.  So do you.  But that's okay, I want to flay this fish.  Listen to the Zephyr Song by the red hot Chili Peppers.

Oh, and on the Roe v Wade thing, I was emphasizing that it was much like plessy v fergusson (1940s I think, upheld) and brown v board of education arkansas (1954?, overturned) states rights.  In this state, "states rights" would definitely imply that your life isn't affected.  Of course you can read between and outside the lines and say, well someone's life if affected.  No doubt.  

It's late.  I'm stoned.  Let's call it quits for now.  Peace.

yes markdel I misseds the signifigance of those two important schools decisions.  Feel free to diatribe  ;0