What can Republicans do to be competitive in the Pacific Northwest again?

[smoltchanov]

In OR, the GOP is beyond dead.  They have NOBODY and they have nobody elected at any statewide level.  In WA, the GOP has put through some decent candidates.  The problem is, WA Gov races are in presidential years. Otherwise, Rossi wins in 2004 and possibly 2008. 

The other problem is that the WA GOP is very conservative.  So, each candidate seems to make the same mistake as moving too far right in the primary and then trying to moderate for the general election....too late!

Generally agree. GOP in Oregon can be reduced to one name: Knute Buehler. Despite his loss in SOS race in 2012 (again - presidential year) he, pro-choice and pro-"gay marriage" is, theoretically, the only party's hope for the future. In Washington state - yes, elections in presidential year generally kills even reasonable party's candidates (like McKenna in 2012).

[OSR stands with Israel]

What can they do to make WA & OR competitive again? I assume it will have to be after the gay rights issue has died down, which it should have by 2020. Will a moderation on climate change be necessary, due to the region's high number of environmentalists? How would the emerging Libertarian segment of the party play there in a national election?

Have a Ralph Nader type candidate spliting the Democratic Vote

[Sumner 1868]

What can they do to make WA & OR competitive again? I assume it will have to be after the gay rights issue has died down, which it should have by 2020. Will a moderation on climate change be necessary, due to the region's high number of environmentalists? How would the emerging Libertarian segment of the party play there in a national election?

Have a Ralph Nader type candidate spliting the Democratic Vote

That was Bush's strategy for winning Oregon in 2000. It didn't work.

[Sumner 1868]

Everyone is forgetting that the Northwest has traditionally been Democratic. This goes back to the Depression.

[5280]

Maybe the Pacific NW needs to change the way it thinks politics and be more like the Rocky Mountain states and attract more business with fiscal conservative mindsets.

[cmckain14]

Republicans do control the WA State Senate and came very close in the House.

[Sumner 1868]

Republicans do control the WA State Senate and came very close in the House.

That's a side effect of fatigue over thirty years of one party in government combined with Eastern Washington becoming ever more lopsided toward the GOP. Holding the WA legislature in 1995-1999 did not help the GOP-in fact, it hurt them.

[Boston Bread]

The independently drawn WA map was skewed a bit towards republicans in the same way that the AZ map is skewed towards democrats.

[Mercenary]

Pro environment socially libertarian economic moderate would probably do well. I dont think that full blown far right economic policies would do well even if paired with social libertarianism.

Actually Huntsman kind of fits that, but I dont think he would have competed that well for some reason. Probably better than Romney and McCain though.

I think it is poasiblw but difficult. Certainly generic R will never have a chance again.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Become the Democrats.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Everyone is forgetting that the Northwest has traditionally been Democratic. This goes back to the Depression.

Republicans dominated Pacific Northwest from 1952-1988

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Stop being the anti science, bible thumping , racist, neo confederate revanchist party would help.

[Blair]

Pro environment socially libertarian economic moderate would probably do well.

So a democrat then?

A republican can get away with being one of these things, but not all three

[Rockefeller GOP]

Stop being the anti science, bible thumping , racist, neo confederate revanchist party would help.

Disregarding your misguided and elitist generalizations (I've noticed our non-American posters have a much more inflated view of what your average American Democrat is like than is reality), the types of candidates that the GOP runs in the Pacific Northwest generally don't fit your absurd description.

[Mechaman]

Everyone is forgetting that the Northwest has traditionally been Democratic. This goes back to the Depression.

Republicans dominated Pacific Northwest from 1952-1988

The Election Results on this website contradict that statement (referring largely to Senatorial and Gubernatorial elections).

[Sumner 1868]

Everyone is forgetting that the Northwest has traditionally been Democratic. This goes back to the Depression.

Republicans dominated Pacific Northwest from 1952-1988

Kennedy barely lost the state, and Carter came fairly close. Both could have won with a little more money/time/focus. And, except for a brief Republican period in 1980-1982, Democrats have controlled at least one branch of the state government since 1956. Your also forgetting it went for Humphrey in 1968.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'd agree the area has overall leaned Democratic since then.  Let's take Oregon for example.  It voted for Humphrey, it voted for Dukakis, it voted for Gore, it voted for Kerry...although, Oregon has a history of being close in presidential contests. Oregon was Ford's closest victory, voting for him by 0.17%.  In 1988 it voted for Dukakis by 4.67%.  In 2000 it voted for Gore by 0.44%.  In 2004 it voted for Kerry by 4.16%.
Nonetheless the state has voted Democratic in every election since 1988, by an average margin around 7%, so it's Democratic.
And that is a fairly good representation of the Pacific Northwest as a whole.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Everyone is forgetting that the Northwest has traditionally been Democratic. This goes back to the Depression.

Republicans dominated Pacific Northwest from 1952-1988

Kennedy barely lost the state, and Carter came fairly close. Both could have won with a little more money/time/focus. And, except for a brief Republican period in 1980-1982, Democrats have controlled at least one branch of the state government since 1956. Your also forgetting it went for Humphrey in 1968.

Oregon had all republican governors from 1939-1987 except from 1957-1959 and 1975-1979.

Oregon went republican every time in those 40 years presidential in every year from 1952-1992 except 1964 and 1988.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'd agree the area has overall leaned Democratic since then.  Let's take Oregon for example.  It voted for Humphrey, it voted for Dukakis, it voted for Gore, it voted for Kerry...although, Oregon has a history of being close in presidential contests. Oregon was Ford's closest victory, voting for him by 0.17%.  In 1988 it voted for Dukakis by 4.67%.  In 2000 it voted for Gore by 0.44%.  In 2004 it voted for Kerry by 4.16%.
Nonetheless the state has voted Democratic in every election since 1988, by an average margin around 7%, so it's Democratic.
And that is a fairly good representation of the Pacific Northwest as a whole.

Actually Oregon went to Nixon in 1968

[Sumner 1868]

Everyone is forgetting that the Northwest has traditionally been Democratic. This goes back to the Depression.

Republicans dominated Pacific Northwest from 1952-1988

Kennedy barely lost the state, and Carter came fairly close. Both could have won with a little more money/time/focus. And, except for a brief Republican period in 1980-1982, Democrats have controlled at least one branch of the state government since 1956. Your also forgetting it went for Humphrey in 1968.

Oregon had all republican governors from 1939-1987 except from 1957-1959 and 1975-1979.

Oregon went republican every time in those 40 years presidential in every year from 1952-1992 except 1964 and 1988.

I was referring to my state. Oregon has always been somewhat more conservative than Washington. Although Oregon came extremely close to supporting Carter in 1976.

[Mechaman]

Everyone is forgetting that the Northwest has traditionally been Democratic. This goes back to the Depression.

Republicans dominated Pacific Northwest from 1952-1988

Kennedy barely lost the state, and Carter came fairly close. Both could have won with a little more money/time/focus. And, except for a brief Republican period in 1980-1982, Democrats have controlled at least one branch of the state government since 1956. Your also forgetting it went for Humphrey in 1968.

Oregon had all republican governors from 1939-1987 except from 1957-1959 and 1975-1979.

Oregon went republican every time in those 40 years presidential in every year from 1952-1992 except 1964 and 1988.

Yes, except you made a blanket reference to the "Pacific Northwest". [/grammar Nazi]

Perhaps if you said "lean Republican" there would be more truth to it.  Generally when I think of "dominating" I think of OK Republicans and MA Democrats.

[TNF]

Three possible routes, ranked from most plausible to least plausible

1) Double-down on identity politics. Do whatever the GOP can to expand their appeal among whites in the region and bring the sizable Asian minority population in the region into their coalition. Getting enough white voters and peeling off enough of the Asian vote will isolate and defeat the Democrats, who rely more on white voters in this region than in any other in the country, with the possible exception of lily-white New England.

2) Become Democrats-lite. Become 'agnostic' on same-sex marriage and abortion rights, and do something to reach out to minority voters that typically vote for Democrats. Token support for legislation on the environment, women's rights, and civil rights would probably also help.

3) Go to the left. Extremely unlikely, but they'd be able to peel off the working class part of the Democratic coalition, meld the trade union apparatus to itself, and bring in a lot of nonvoters into the political system.

[DC Al Fine]

The problem with the Pacific Northwest, is that the interior of those states is far too conservative to produce candidates who can occasionally overcome the liberal majority.

Let's compare Massachusetts and Washington. Both are liberal states dominated by a large city. The MA GOP resembles the Canadian or UK Tories. Even though they lose most of the time, they still produce politicians who can take advantage when the Democrats screw up. Not so with the WA GOP, which resembles Idaho. Now having a more right wing party is fine when you live in a right wing or even moderate state, but a right wing party certainly won't be able to take advantage of Dem screw ups in a very left wing state.

[Sumner 1868]

The problem with the Pacific Northwest, is that the interior of those states is far too conservative to produce candidates who can occasionally overcome the liberal majority.

Let's compare Massachusetts and Washington. Both are liberal states dominated by a large city. The MA GOP resembles the Canadian or UK Tories. Even though they lose most of the time, they still produce politicians who can take advantage when the Democrats screw up. Not so with the WA GOP, which resembles Idaho. Now having a more right wing party is fine when you live in a right wing or even moderate state, but a right wing party certainly won't be able to take advantage of Dem screw ups in a very left wing state.

Seattle isn't the reason Democrats do so well. It's the King County suburbs, and, to a lesser extent, Pierce County.

[bobloblaw]

So long as the Dems in WA doesnt introduce an income tax, there is no reason to vote GOP at the state level.