Redstate

I second.  I already focus my recommendations on election diaries but I'll make sure I continue to do so.  The level of research in some kos diaries is quite impressive, despite the signal-to-noise ratio.    For example, this analysis of MN was fantastic.  I wish we had more of that kind of work (with action items at the bottom).

We need to focus more on policy.  Republicans are in power.  We have to govern, while Democrats can just pick, pick, pick.

Good idea, but here's the problem. A lot of redstaters live in congressional districts that are uncompetitive. I live in Douglas County, Colorado. Tom Tancredo's CD. In 2004, turnout in Douglas was 94.5 percent. Yes, you read that right. Went 2-to-1 for Bush.

And I just finished up direct-mail work for a Texas state senate candidate. Primary's Tuesday, and there's no Democrat, so if my guy wins, mission accomplished.

You're highly complimentary of the koskids' laser-like focus, but they focus on candidates who can't win, so they wind up wasting a lot of D money and losing elections. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Here's what I think we, meaning conservative policy-wonk bloggers who also want to win elections, need:

1. A list of, say, the top five Democratic House seats that R's have a chance to win.
   
2. A list of the top five Republican seats that the Democrats have the best shot at winning.
   
3. A short list of steps that out-of-district redstaters can take to affect these elections.

For example, I think my district is safe R. But on the other side of the mountains, Ken Salazar's little brother John, a first-term major league doofus, is up for re-election. Is there a chance to take him down? What can I, in District 6, do to contribute to the defeat of the D in 3?

I'll think more about this and post it at Can't see the center from way over here, but here's one thing that will figure in, because it's been bugging me for a long time:

MC's no longer serve a strictly local constituency. Tancredo, for example, has a national constituency on illegal immigration. Ditto for Tom Delay for different reasons. Same for Henry Hyde. And the same holds true in the Senate.

But unless you live in their district, it's impossible to email these guys, unless you know someone on their staff. I have stuff I'd like to get in touch with Marilyn Musgrave about, and her district is just down the street, but the House email system virtually prohibits me from contacting her.

So, getting back to this comment's title:

Redstate editors can fill us in on the three-point list above. And they can talk to their friends on the Hill and convince them to break out of the parochial mold. Newt Gingrich nationalized congressional elections. But his heirs seem to think Tip O'Neill was right on all politics being local. If MC's want our help, they need to give us e-access.

I'll try to get working on a diary, but for the time being here is something.  Minnesota GOP caucuses are on March 7th at 7pm.

http://www.mngop.com/caucus2006/

Given the importance of Supreme Court nominations I'd say that electing Mark Kennedy is a big priority for national Republicans, but we Minnesotans have to be the feet on the ground.

It's on the top 3 list of R pickup opportunities.  Please keep us up to date and provide action opportunities.

It's not my research, but here's a good place to start:

3. Iowa's 1st District - OPEN (GOP Rep. Jim Nussle is running for governor): This race drops a position on the Line solely because it remains so unformed. Businessman Mike Whalen (R) released a poll earlier this week showing him with a comfortable lead over state Rep. Bill Dix and attorney Brian Kennedy in the Republican primary - not surprising given Whalen's regular television presence in promoting his Machine Shed restaurant chain. Attorney Bruce Braley (D) has raised the most money of any candidate in the field and seems to be the frontrunner for his party's nomination. The Democratic nominee will begin the general election with an edge, as John Kerry carried the district by seven points in 2004. (Previous ranking: 2)

2. Ohio's 6th District - OPEN (Democrat Ted Strickland is running for governor): Charlie Wilson's failure to get 50 signatures in support of his bid makes this a much more difficult hold for Democrats. Wilson seems likely to run as a write-in candidate in the Democratic primary - a costly and risky proposition. Even if he does beat the two little-known candidates also seeking the nomination, his inability to master one of the most basic elements of a campaign is troubling. National Democrats insist Wilson's campaign is undergoing a staff overhaul, but it may already be too late. State Rep. Chuck Blaisdel is the likely Republican nominee. This race may drop down the Line depending on how Wilson does in the primary.(Previous ranking: 3)
   
1. Colorado's 7th District - OPEN (GOP Rep. Bob Beauprez is running for governor): Republicans hoping to hold this seat should be troubled by a recent Mason-Dixon poll that showed Beauprez trailing former Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter (D) 43 percent to 37 percent in a hypothetical gubernatorial matchup. If that survey is reflective of the overall political climate in the state, likely GOP nominee Rick O'Donnell will struggle to keep this suburban Denver seat in the Republican column. Democrats are staging a primary between former state Sen. Ed Perlmutter and former state Rep. Peggy Lamm. (Previous ranking: 1)

4-10 are through the link.  I think NationalJouranl has a ranking as well.  As to the Senate, permit me to toot my own horn and provide the most recent Senate Outlook:

Finally, using the Tradesports odds, the result of the election today would be party switches in PA and MD and no other changes leaving the Senate at 55-44-1. But a slight Democratic tide (5-10%) would put MT, OH, MO, TN, and RI in the D column as a slight tide the other way would put NJ and MN in the R column. So the extremes are +3 to -6 for the Republicans, while a -2 to even is most likely.

Detail through the link.

As a practical suggestion, I would say that you'd be better off reaching out to their campaigns rather than their Congressional office, which generally tends to dismiss 95% of out-of-district mail as riffraff (not without justification).

Members worth their salt will have some sort of political operation that could steer you in the right direction. Tancredo has his Team America PAC for instance.

As for what people in other districts can do: Plenty. Volunteer phone-banking into competitive districts is becoming more and more commonplace, in addition to good old-fashioned contributing.

This is pure fluff, but on the off chance it might get people motivated...  There are some drop-dead gorgeous staffers working on the Senate campaign in Minnesota.  Get involved!

"For all their faults, the Kossacks have focused on the 2006 races like a laser beam."

You say that like it is a bad thing for our side. ;-)

Pick a race - a senate/house/governor's race. Write an update once a week. Easy 'nuff.

Here's a diary I wrote on a unique group of Dem congressional candidates for 2006.  Kos calls them "The Fighting Dems"--veterans (some who served in Iraq, some who haven't) who are mostly antiwar and VERY MUCH down on GWB.  Their appeal:  because they've been there, they are claiming a special platform from which to criticize how the President and DOD have waged the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, if you look at their strategic policy complaints and/or their proposed fixes, you're quickly struck by how vague and/or unrealstic they are.  There are plenty of examples in the diary.  

These Fighting Dems are claiming that, because of their military service, that gives them added qualification for serving in Congress.  OK, then.  IMO they should be able to field questions that demonstrate their grasp of why we went to war in Iraq, what really is or isn't working, and how to fix it.  

So, if you're at a rally with a Fighting Dem, ask a few of the questions listed in the diary.  Or, pass them to the local GOP campaign office.

For example, John Kerry is starting to solicit funds for Tammy Duckworth and other Dem Congressional candidates. (H/T WSJ Best of the Web) I'd like to know if these Fighting Dems:

• welcomes the open support of Kerry for their campaigns
  
• will invite Kerry to one of their campaign rallies
  
• will urge him to bring, and even wear, his "magic hat."

I live in NH, we have two seats.

While I vote against Charlie Bass if he has a primary oponent, he is unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon (but I can hope) because he is well liked-I think he won the last race with over 70% of the vote.

But for the most part congressional races in NH aren't too interesting-neither Bass or Bradley (both republicans) have primary oponents.  The races may get more interesting once we know who the dem candidates are, but at this moment neither of them looks to have their jobs threatened.

I'm in California; I only get one.  If Mary Bono gets hijacked by a 'national constituency' then I'm left with NO representation.

Seriously.  Don't mess with the House's design.  It's supposed to be local, and Reps who don't stay local, aren't doing their job.

is the Kos-like focus on elections that abandons good sense, civility, and national security as a means to an end.  Redstaters that spout partisan propaganda without factual basis are almost always called out, those at Kos are not as long as the rant achieves the purpose of demeaning the other side regardless of facts and truth.  They would rather win elections than protect our people and future, I would not like to see this attitude catch on here.

As a statistician, I'd like to raise a concern about your sampling technique.

The Kos site goes through a lot more diaries than we do here at RS. That means that getting to 129 diaries probably takes less than a day there. Here at RS the time to get 129 diaries probably takes a week or more.

Therefore you're comparing what was sampled over the course of a much longer time here. More input from the different news sources, etc.

Your numbers may be pretty much the same if you sampled for a given time on both sides vs. a number of diaries, but that would give a better comparison.

Kos has levels of participation and only about a dozen are heavy weight contributors. The rest, well mostly a core and scattering of regulars. The thing is anyone can post a diary and often, due to the volume, they don't last long on the page. I would say that a better tactic is to measure features and diaries that attain a certain level of readership. That would represent what is of interest at any time over there.

Kossacks support anyone with a "D" after their name -- regardless of policy positions.  

By comparison, what's the identity of thie place?  Does it favor important conservative issues, or the letter "R"? I, for one, think the policies are far more important.

Example: In a theorhetical race between Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chafee, a discussion of election tactics and party majorities would promote Chaffee. Is that the right idea?

Finally, when Kos "pushes" a candidate, that candidate always loses.  I attribute at least some of that to a blind  devotion to "D"s and opposition "R"s -- combined with an inadequate focus on policy and direction.

In short, when I saw those stats, I thought: That's what I like about this place!

I think we saw what happens when too much importance is placed on blogs and the Internet in general when it comes to winning elections. Kos and his compatriots may feel like they are doing a lot, and they may even be pressuring their own candidates in the primaries. But let's face it; bloggers are not the mainstream of the country, or even of the voting populace. Certainly it is important to contribute in any way possible and I think this new media is a great way to contribute. Ever since I read "Ender's Game" nearly a decade ago, I've been waiting for the net to be the central focus of news, politics and basically all information. It's getting there. But commentary posted on the Internet does not affect policy unless it is very well targeted.

What the Kossacks are trying to do is win an election over the net. That's not going to be possible for another quarter century. We should be focused more on policy for two reasons: One, we are the governing majority. Let's at like it. Two, we have a much better machine in place to win elections than the Dems. I think action like what the Kossacks are doing would simply convolute the process and hamper the machine we have in place. We all saw what the Deaninites did in '04 and what they continue to do today. They are a detriment to the party.

The kossites are fighting hard against Lieberman and Cuellar.  They are as ideological as they are partisan.

But that doesn't change my opinion on the appropriate weighting of the discussion.

Plus, Lieberman's problems with Kossaks go back mostly to supporting Bush's illegal and immoral war.  I question the depth of policy analysis going on there.

With those statistics is RS only has 5% of its discussion about Iraq.  Considering this is the biggest war since Vietnam, only devoting 5% of discussion to the topic of Iraq is a mistake, imo.

Maybe diehard conservatives consider Iraq to be only 1 part in 20 of what's important to them (politically), but I assure you that for the average US citizen Iraq is HUGE, probably 1/3rd of what they will be considering when they vote next election.  Granted, GWOT + Iraq is 35% from the numbers above, but I think its a mistake to try and sweep Iraq under the rug like the numbers indicate is happening.  That 5% number suggests that RS members consider Iraq to merely be a minor detail, hardly worthy of any concern.

and the economy is always #1 or #2 on "most important issue" lists and neither site covers it very much.  And neither site is trying to match the average voter's interest either.  Part of this might also be that most on the right see Iraq as part of a bigger picture in the GWOT.  Thus focusing on Iran, Hammas, Lebanon, etc is part of the concern with the Middle East and the GWOT.

C'mon, help a brother out, link us to some staff picture galleries.....

It's absolutely crazy that one of their sole voices of sanity is savaged by those kooks.  If JFK were alive today he'd make Lieberman look like Howard Dean.  What a detestable, classless bunch over there.

In the interest of professionalism, said beatiful staffers requested them to remain private.  Suffice it say that they were tasteful group photos at a weekly blogging trivia night.  Community!

I'm fairly new to Redstate and just figured out the comment configuration.  Also, oops on the grammar on that last one.