GOP Plot Strategy to Turn Maryland Republican

[Frodo]

Does anyone think that the GOP could eventually turn Maryland into a Republican state as they did in Virginia?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Heels Of Ehrlich, GOP Plans Md. Ascent

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 9, 2006; Page A01

When longtime state Sen. Robert H. Kittleman died in 2004, he left behind blueprints for turning Maryland into a Republican stronghold. They were found clipped to political maps and census data on a shelf in his Howard County farmhouse.

Kittleman's son says his father knew these were fanciful plans -- that it could take generations to turn Maryland from one of the nation's most reliably Democratic states to one where Republicans compete on equal footing for political power.
   
But this year, as Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. becomes the first Republican governor in half a century to seek a second term, top party leaders are dusting off Kittleman's dreams. True party realignment remains a distant goal, they say, but the political season that begins as the General Assembly convenes Wednesday will be guided by their desire for lasting influence in state affairs.

"We've been in the desert for 36 years," said John Kane, the state GOP chairman. "The governor has given us a toehold. Now we'll see if we can become truly relevant."

Maryland Republicans say the model for what's possible sits just across the Potomac River. In Virginia, GOP leaders toiled for decades to climb from the back benches of power to ultimately control both legislative chambers.

A similar effort in Maryland faces significant obstacles. An election defeat for Ehrlich this year, first and foremost, would set back any attempt to gain Republican footing. Demographics also pose a challenge. Unlike Virginia, this is a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 on voter rolls. And in the state's three largest jurisdictions -- Montgomery, Prince George's and Baltimore -- Democrats have widened that advantage in recent years.

But top Republican officials said the party is borrowing many of the ideas that started Virginia down the path to realignment three decades ago.

In addition to their focus on the Maryland governor's race, they believe the bid by Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (R) to capture an open U.S. Senate seat could provide inroads into the state's most reliable Democratic voters: African Americans. The GOP is targeting the state's populous blue-collar suburbs and fast-growing exurbs, where party leaders hope to pick up as many as 14 seats in the House of Delegates and seven in the Senate this November.

And they're already contemplating 2010, when a win in the governor's column could give them control over redistricting and crack open a state where, just a few years ago, Republicans felt like foreigners.

source

[Smash255]

No, and its going to be much harder to do so, especially as the suburbs continue to move left.

[bullmoose88]

its possible (in the same way flipping South Carolina is possible)...

but those big DC metro counties + baltimore carry a lot of weight, and unlike a Pennsylvania or such there are no winnable biggish counties to counteract.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I'm interested about your South Carolina theory, how?  I personally think NC is more winnable for Democrats.

Its interesting that the MD GOP appears to be basing its efforts on the Virginia trend, which surely happened during the 1960s-1980s?  This was part of a trend evident across the whole South.  Maryland is closer to Delaware and Pennsylvania's Democratic impulse than to Virginia and West Virginia.  It also appears that Virginia is trending Democrat now.  I think that the liberal bastions of Baltimore and environs will keep the state Democrat.  A little like Chicago and Illinois, is it that Maryland would vote Republican without Baltimore?  Also, isn't Ehrlich? endangered now anyway; again, in the senate race, Steele is trailing Cardin.  The Republicans will have to wait until 2010 when possibly Milkulski retires to be in with a chance.

[minionofmidas]

The Dem support is in the DC suburbs mostly. Baltimore area is closer.

[minionofmidas]

A little like Chicago and Illinois, is it that Maryland would vote Republican without Baltimore?

Fwiw, these are the states that would swing if you surgically removed one county, based on 2004 results:
To the Reps:
Delaware (duh, as New Castle is the only dem county in the state)
Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota (Hennepin. Ramsey is stronger Dem but also smaller, and doesn't quite do it.)
Oregon
Pennsylvania (Philly)
Washington
Wisconsin (where there's three counties available to do it with, Dane, Milwaukee and - surprise - Rock.)

To the Dems:
Iowa (Sioux County. Even though it's tiny. That's how outlandish that little Dutch Calvinist pocket in NW Iowa is.)
New Mexico (no less than six different counties, ie pretty much anywhere in Little Texas)

States where removing one county would cover over half the distance:
To the Reps:
California
Maryland (Prince George's)
New Hampshire (Cheshire, Grafton, or Strafford)

To the Dems:
Arizona
Colorado (El Paso)

Didn't mention the county name where it's bleeding obvious.

[bullmoose88]

I'm interested about your South Carolina theory, how?  I personally think NC is more winnable for Democrats.

Its interesting that the MD GOP appears to be basing its efforts on the Virginia trend, which surely happened during the 1960s-1980s?  This was part of a trend evident across the whole South.  Maryland is closer to Delaware and Pennsylvania's Democratic impulse than to Virginia and West Virginia.  It also appears that Virginia is trending Democrat now.  I think that the liberal bastions of Baltimore and environs will keep the state Democrat.  A little like Chicago and Illinois, is it that Maryland would vote Republican without Baltimore?  Also, isn't Ehrlich? endangered now anyway; again, in the senate race, Steele is trailing Cardin.  The Republicans will have to wait until 2010 when possibly Milkulski retires to be in with a chance.

I don't really think South Carolina is flippable...certainly there ways to make it happen...but it would have to be a perfect storm of possibilities...just like Maryland which doesn't have enough rural, suburban/exurban counties to outweigh Baltimore, metro dc

[Gustaf]

Sounds kind of stupid to me. Maryland has been trending Democrat for considerable time and hasn't been strongly Republican since the 50s. It even gave Mondale 47% of the vote. It would be like Democrats trying to flip Kansas (well, not quite that bad, but still sort of similar).

[MasterJedi]

Wisconsin (where there's three counties available to do it with, Dane, Milwaukee and - surprise - Rock.)

Any Republican who can suck away votes from Milwaukee can likely win the state.

[minionofmidas]

Wisconsin (where there's three counties available to do it with, Dane, Milwaukee and - surprise - Rock.)

Any Republican who can suck away votes from Milwaukee can likely win the state.

Given that Reps lost by 10,000 votes there obviously was a number of strategies that might have won them the state. Same goes for Dems in Iowa and New Mexico.

[MasterJedi]

Wisconsin (where there's three counties available to do it with, Dane, Milwaukee and - surprise - Rock.)

Any Republican who can suck away votes from Milwaukee can likely win the state.

Given that Reps lost by 10,000 votes there obviously was a number of strategies that might have won them the state. Same goes for Dems in Iowa and New Mexico.

True but it's the most effective way.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Didn't Bush win New Mexico because in 2004, 44% of Hispanics voted for him; whereas in in 2000, 32% did?  In Iowa, I thought the case was simply that between 2000 and 2004 Republican overtook Democratic voter registration.

[minionofmidas]

Didn't Bush win New Mexico because in 2004, 44% of Hispanics voted for him; whereas in in 2000, 32% did?  In Iowa, I thought the case was simply that between 2000 and 2004 Republican overtook Democratic voter registration.

44%? Tell that to the N New Mexico election results. Clearly a bad exit poll subsample.

[Adlai Stevenson]

If you've seen the latest Rasmussen polls then there could be some credence to the GOP's plan to flip MD.

[Frodo]

A Republican Maryland won't happen overnight, not in a single election, nor for the remainder of this decade, but given the gains Republicans have made in the legislature, voter registration, and in winning the governor's mansion, they are certainly laying the groundwork for it.  One simply cannot ignore the possibility of it happening in our lifetime. 

[Adlai Stevenson]

Isn't it a little like Virginia and the Democrats?  I think MD will at least go Democrat in 2008; but after that, who knows?

[Gustaf]

The difference is that there are at least indications of a Democrat trend in Virginia (and there are reasons for such a trend occurring). There is no such thing in Maryland.

[Gustaf]

Democrat margins in the 5 last presidential elections (relative to national average in brackets, all rounded off arbitrarily...)

1988: -3 (Dem: +5)
1992: 14 (+8)
1996: 18 (+9)
2000: 16 (+16)
2004: 13 (+15)

There is no real  sign of a Republican trend there, rather the opposite.

[Alcon]

Democrat margins in the 5 last presidential elections (relative to national average in brackets, all rounded off arbitrarily...)

1988: -3 (Dem: +5)
1992: 14 (+8)
1996: 18 (+9)
2000: 16 (+16)
2004: 13 (+15)

There is no real  sign of a Republican trend there, rather the opposite.

Trending is, by and large, overrated.  By the time trends have started, they're often already over - four years is a long time.  However, I have to point out that the 2004 number was actually much closer when you consider Nader's contribution between 2000 and 2004.

[Gabu]

How exactly does one turn a state Republican?  Are they abducting citizens and replacing them with conservative clones?

[ATFFL]

Anaconda to Rising Star, the boat has sprung a leak.  I repeat, the boat has sprung a leak.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

How exactly does one turn a state Republican?  Are they abducting citizens and replacing them with conservative clones?

Yes.

But other than that, its takes a lot of hard work and some serious strategic planning to get the job done.  Its basically a matter of progressively moving people from where they stand now and move them step-by-step to where you want them.

You take a hardcore Democrat, and move them to a weak Democrat.  Their children grow up and start voting and you try to move them from weak Democrat to independent.  Their children grow up and vote and you turn them from independent to Republican leaning, etc.  Even in the relatively quick turnaround in the "solid south" you see these generational patterns.

You "move" people by consistently putting forth candidates and a message that implies that the party they are with now does not reflect their values and beliefs.

[Gabu]

How exactly does one turn a state Republican?  Are they abducting citizens and replacing them with conservative clones?

Yes.

But other than that, its takes a lot of hard work and some serious strategic planning to get the job done.  Its basically a matter of progressively moving people from where they stand now and move them step-by-step to where you want them.

You take a hardcore Democrat, and move them to a weak Democrat.  Their children grow up and start voting and you try to move them from weak Democrat to independent.  Their children grow up and vote and you turn them from independent to Republican leaning, etc.  Even in the relatively quick turnaround in the "solid south" you see these generational patterns.

You "move" people by consistently putting forth candidates and a message that implies that the party they are with now does not reflect their values and beliefs.

I suppose, but it still sounds like a silly thing to say, although it's probably just that it was badly worded.  The people decide who they will elect; the elected don't decide what the people are.

[Gustaf]

Democrat margins in the 5 last presidential elections (relative to national average in brackets, all rounded off arbitrarily...)

1988: -3 (Dem: +5)
1992: 14 (+8)
1996: 18 (+9)
2000: 16 (+16)
2004: 13 (+15)

There is no real  sign of a Republican trend there, rather the opposite.

Trending is, by and large, overrated.  By the time trends have started, they're often already over - four years is a long time.  However, I have to point out that the 2004 number was actually much closer when you consider Nader's contribution between 2000 and 2004.

While that is true, it doesn't imply that Maryland is going anywhere. I mean, it just turned very Democrat. Why not go for something easier? It's like a Democrat saying "we're gonna turn Georgia Democrat".

[Beet]

Democrat margins in the 5 last presidential elections (relative to national average in brackets, all rounded off arbitrarily...)

1988: -3 (Dem: +5)
1992: 14 (+8)
1996: 18 (+9)
2000: 16 (+16)
2004: 13 (+15)

There is no real  sign of a Republican trend there, rather the opposite.

Trending is, by and large, overrated.  By the time trends have started, they're often already over - four years is a long time.  However, I have to point out that the 2004 number was actually much closer when you consider Nader's contribution between 2000 and 2004.

While that is true, it doesn't imply that Maryland is going anywhere. I mean, it just turned very Democrat. Why not go for something easier?

Because Maryland is just such a cool state, everyone naturally wants it.