Who’s the “Party of the Rich” Now?

The special election for U.S. Senate last week revealed some intriguing demographic trends in Massachusetts that present a unique opportunity for the state Republican Party.

Take a look at this map showing margins of victory by town in last week’s election. Notably, Scott Brown generally performed better in exurban towns and less affluent suburbs such as North Andover, Canton, and Reading than in the wealthiest suburbs west of Boston such as Wellesley, Belmont, and Needham. Brown’s margins in many largely middle-class towns were greater than Mitt Romney’s in 2002, which is the last year there was a truly competitive statewide race in Massachusetts. However, Romney performed better than Brown in the upscale western suburbs. What explains this apparent paradox?

These results reflect a larger shift in the demographic makeup of both major political parties, which has been taking place across the country in recent years, culminating in 2008. The Obama coalition that year was formed of three basic demographic elements. The first element was made up of those with the least money in the country; Obama beat out McCain by 48 points among those earning less than $15,000 a year. The second element was made up of many of the wealthiest Americans.

The first element’s support for Obama is not entirely surprising. However, the Democrats’ gains among affluent Americans are somewhat of a surprise, especially given that Republicans have long held a lock on the wealthy vote. For example, as recently as 2004, President Bush won those Americans earning more than $100,000 a year by 17 points, and won those earning more than $200,000 a year by 28 points. In 2008, Obama beat out McCain by 6 points among those earning more than $100,000 a year, a 23 point turnaround in just four years. And Obama tied for the votes of those earning more than $200,000 a year, a 28 point gain from the previous presidential election.

The third element of the Obama coalition was made up of a large number of Americans in between the income extremes, many of whom likely believed he would fulfill his campaign promise to unite Americans by launching a pragmatic, “postpartisan” political era. Indeed, while Bush tied for the votes of those Americans earning in between $30,000-$50,000 a year in 2004, Obama won this group by 12 points in 2008. And while in 2004 Bush won those earning in between $50,000-$75,000 a year by 13 points, Obama tied for the votes of this group four years later. These middle-class voters make up much of the population of the swing districts/states that were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008, mostly in the middle of the country or in non-coastal sections of coastal states. And they are the same voters who have abandoned Obama in droves over the last year as his campaign promises of bipartisanship have been revealed to be mostly hollow.

One explanation for the migration of wealthy Americans to the Democrats in recent years has its roots in the boom of the technology and financial sectors between 1995-2008, which resulted in the rapid acquisition of great wealth among many Americans. This argument holds that such quick accumulation of wealth has weakened the connection for many affluent Americans between wealth and the policies that encourage success (i.e. low tax rates), which held more salience in the years when wealth was acquired as a result of many years of hard work. Among the new elite, social issues and environmental causes apparently trump economic self-interest. This is especially true among the very wealthy. For them, the impact of the recession has been minimal and the tax consequences of grandiose policy schemes are of little concern.

I would argue that the change is also generational. Newly wealthy members of the younger generations who have never known the days of tax rates as high as 90% in the early 1960s may not be aware of the possible long-term consequences of supporting Democrats. I imagine some of these wealthy Americans may begin to shift their party allegiances as those consequences (i.e. tax increases) become more clear in the coming years.

One definitive consequence of this demographic shift is the change in the power base of the Democratic Party. While still powerful, blue collar constituencies such as unions, already weakened because of declining membership, have lost ground to special interest groups funded by wealthy donors like George Soros, such as Moveon.org. And increasing numbers of Democratic candidates come from the ranks of the very wealthy, with the likes of Jon Corzine, Ned Lamont, and Maria Cantwell, among others, spending millions to fund their own campaigns.

These trends are also evident in Massachusetts, which last week’s election showed is not as ideologically homogenous as some pundits would lead us to believe. Indeed, the state Democratic Party here mirrors the national party in that it is an awkward coalition of conservative and liberal factions. In recent years, the wealthy liberal faction has taken over the leadership of the state Democratic party in Massachusetts, as evidenced by the nomination of Deval Patrick and the ascension of his top supporters into state party leadership. However, these changes have not taken place without some public dissatisfaction from conservative Democrats.

In a wise move, Scott Brown took advantage of this intraparty split by making a specific (and successful) appeal to conservative Democrats tired of the obvious elitism of their party leaders. In doing so, he laid out a political blueprint that may serve other Bay State Republicans well this fall.

Indeed, the intraparty split among Democrats is an important development that could be crucial towards making some serious Republican gains in November. It certainly should be eagerly exploited by state Republican leaders, who should take advantage of this dynamic by recruiting candidates from among the ranks of the middle-class “Brown Majority,” especially conservative Democrats and independents. These candidates could, like Scott Brown, begin to represent a new perception of the Republican brand in this state, and attract conservative Democrats as well as large numbers of middle-class independents who are fed up with the arrogance of state and national Democrats. Let’s hope our state Republican leaders take advantage of this unique opportunity. Their decision to do so could be crucial towards exponentially increasing Republican power from the local level on up this fall.

Baker Picks Tisei

Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker has chosen Senator Richard Tisei as his running mate.

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Charlie Baker has picked state Sen. Richard R. Tisei as his running mate, according to his campaign Web site and Facebook page.

An announcement is scheduled for 11 a.m. today at the American Civic Center in Tisei’s hometown of Wakefield, State House News is reporting.

Baker’s campaign manager could not be immediately reached for comment.

“Richard has years of experience fighting for the taxpayer on Beacon Hill and I’m thrilled to have him on the team,” Baker said in a statement posted on his campaign Web site.

The Web page contained on CharlieBaker2010.com included a photo of Tisei and an image of Baker-Tisei 2010 bumper sticker.

Baker and the Senate minority leader will take on convenience store magnate Christy Mihos in the Republican primary. The winner is set to face off against state Treasurer Timothy Cahill and incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick in a three-way contest in 2010.

I’m curious why Baker made this announcement now, instead of say, in late January or February. Baker has been trailing in the polls versus Christy Mihos since day one, and to make such an important announcement the week of Thanksgiving seems poorly timed. Baker may have been much better suited to have waited until after the US Senate Special Election. This would have accomplished two things.

First, that election would be over and done with. Right now, the special election is hot to trot, and the election is virtually around the corner; the gubernatorial contest isn’t for another 11+ months. What would the harm of been to wait two more months?

Second, of course, is knowing whether or not Scott Brown would be available as a running mate, should he even want it. Picking Brown, who would have just completed a fast-paced state wide campaign, would offer the campaign someone with some state-wide name recognition; I don’t think Tisei can offer that. There is a reason why Mihos is ahead of Baker in every poll…and it’s not because Mihos is a favorite of the MassGOP establishment. Tisei, the Senate Minority Leader, has served in the state senate for 25 years and is (still) up for reelection next year. If Baker-Tisei wins, that could lead to another lost Republican seat in the state senate. Why give up a seat in the senate held by a Republican for 25 years?

Additionally, by making the pick now, Baker has given Christy Mihos the opportunity to “out do” his choice of Tisei, as well as take advantage of the expected media attention while the gubernatorial race is hot on everyone’s minds. There’s something to be said about getting the last word.

Seeing as Baker has not seen a lead in the polls, ever, I’d say this was poorly played. Mihos still has the upper hand here…let’s see what he does with it.

[Editors Note: This post has been updated. It was previously stated that Scott Brown was not seeking reelection. To clarify, Scott Brown has said he will serve one more term in the State Senate, but is not seeking reelection in 2012.]

Gingrich Slams Mass GOP

A much deserved criticism of the Massachusetts Republican Party coming from former House Speaker New Gingrich.

GOP gadfly Newt Gingrich slammed Bay State Republicans for failing to cultivate a new crop of eager and committed contenders – adding the lagging party needs candidates willing to suffer bruising losses and come back for more.

“I would hope that (the Massachusetts Republican Party) would find some people who care enough about the country’s future to go out and get started and keep doing it,” Gingrich told the Herald. “Republicans here have never been able to build the kind of grassroots strength that you need.”

MassGOP chairwoman Jennifer Nassour said the party has scoured the state for new talent.

“Our candidates for 2010 represent a Republican Party of new energy and new ideas to deliver real reforms to Massachusetts,” Nassour said.

Gingrich, who lectured at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government last night, blamed an alliance between the state’s conservative Democrats and liberals for the GOP party’s struggles.

The former U.S. House speaker called state candidates that run only once “sad,” adding, “When people see you coming and they see you’re serious – you can build a momentum over time that you sometimes can’t get in a first campaign.”

The Massachusetts GOP has recently hit a low with only 16 Republicans in the House and five in the state Senate.

At this moment, my faith in the Massachusetts Republican Party to stop the sinking ship is virtually nil. Sure, we have a golden opportunity to take back the Corner Office, but let’s be honest, it’s not the success of the Republican Party that will make that possible, it’s the failure of Governor Deval Patrick.

The Republican Party needs to do more than just talk about change…they have to start making change.

Jennifer Nassour Elected Chair of Massachusetts Republican State Committee

The Massachusetts GOP has issued the following press release:

The Massachusetts Republican Party announced today that Jennifer A. Nassour was elected as chair of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee on a platform of strengthening the party’s grassroots, fund raising and communications. Nassour pledged to be a full-time chair and lead a resurgence of the MassGOP by harnessing the energy, dedication and spirit of Massachusetts Republicans and expanding outreach to unenrolled voters.

MassGOP Chair Jennifer Nassour said, “The Massachusetts Republican Party is blessed with great strengths, including dedicated and impassioned activists, accomplished and willing fundraisers, and principles that ring true and clear with Massachusetts voters. Together, we will grow this party from the grassroots up, building a strong base from which we can launch winning campaigns.”

“The MassGOP will continue to be the voice for common sense and honesty in the Commonwealth. By promoting and defending our values, we will generate new voters, new resources and a new day for Massachusetts Republicans,” added Nassour.

Nassour replaces outgoing Chair Peter Torkildsen, who stepped down after a two-year term.

The Honorable Peter Torkildsen said, “I congratulate Jennifer on her victory. She has many years of experience helping Republican candidates and she is committed to returning two-party competition to Massachusetts. I look forward to helping her in any way I can.”

“All Republicans in Massachusetts owe Peter a debt of gratitude for his service as an elected official and as steward of the party. We wish him well in his future endeavors and hope to continue to benefit from his experience and wisdom,” concluded Nassour.

Nassour’s comprehensive plan for rebuilding the Massachusetts Republican Party includes focusing on the traditional aspects of a strong party – grassroots, fundraising and candidate recruitment – while also increasing the use of technology to connect and communicate with voters. Her plan also calls for cooperating with New England and national Republican organizations and building connections with like-minded civic organizations.

Nassour, 37, is a Republican State Committee member from Charlestown and is Of Counsel to Consigly & Brucato, P.C., in Milford. Nassour is an accomplished fundraiser and a veteran of Republican politics.

As a fundraiser for both political and charitable causes, Nassour has raised more than $1 million. As a state committee member, she has been an active supporter of Republican candidates up and down the ballot, and she served as finance director for the Grabauskas for Treasurer campaign.

Nassour earned her juris doctor from St. John’s University School of Law in 2000. She also holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and a master’s degree in political science from C.W. Post University.

Nassour and her husband, C.J. Brucato III, live in Charlestown with their two daughters.

David (R) vs. Goliath (D): Republicans Take Down DiMasi

Everyone loves to see the underdog win.

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi is set to become the latest to leave the top post under a cloud of controversy, setting the stage for a bitter power struggle with his announcement last night that he is ending his 30-year political career, effective tomorrow.

DiMasi, reeling from ethics probes connected to his former campaign treasurer, ended months of speculation during which his subordinates have openly campaigned to replace him.

DiMasi, who also will give up his North End representative’s seat, follows Charles Flaherty and Thomas Finneran as the third consecutive House speaker to leave amid scandal. DiMasi has been under investigation for receiving a loan from a friend who was seeking support for a ticket-scalping bill.

With the departure of House Speaker Sal DiMasi–wow, three in a row, what an accomplishment–one can not underestimate the power the minority party had in making it possible. The Republican Party, a small spec of red in an ocean of blue, with its tiny slingshot, was able to put the wheels in motion (via ethics complaints and fact finding) to bring DiMasi down. If you’d to give credit where credit is due, thank the Massachusetts Republican Party.

Despite the truth behind DiMasi’s departure, he’s playing it off like he’s leaving is due to natural causes; as if in his mind, it’s just time to move on.

“I am excited on the one hand to move on to other challenges and new opportunities. I am sad to leave the House of Representatives,” DiMasi wrote. He has faced mounting pressure and revelations of potential impropriety. Despite widespread rumors he may be directly implicated, he has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

While this state is virtually under one party rule, the resignation of DiMasi and his predecessors is testament to the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we should be weary of any political party holding 90% of the legislative seats on Beacon Hill.

Let’s hope that DiMasi’s resignation signals a change in this state.