GOP Sees California as winnable

[Beet]

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.

[WalterMitty]

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.

[HockeyDude]

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

[Gustaf]

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...

[© Tweed the Younger]

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."

[Gustaf]

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...

[Pictor Ignotus]

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...

[© Tweed the Younger]

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...

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

[Clay]

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.....

[HockeyDude]

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 didn't even notice I did that   : D

[HockeyDude]

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

[Clay]

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!!

[MN-Troy]

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.

[Dave from Michigan]

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

[agcatter]

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.

[HockeyDude]

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!!

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.  

[Beet]

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!!

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.

[MarkDel]

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.

[California Dreamer]

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

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

[angus]

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.

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.

[angus]

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

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

don't you mean unless he was hot.

[Gustaf]

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.

Old habits die hard...

[Gustaf]

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

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

don't you mean unless he was hot.

'he'?

[opebo]

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.

[Sibboleth]

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.