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.

Globe Off The Market

Looks like the Boston Globe will remain the property of the New York Times Company.

The New York Times Co said it has given up its plan to sell The Boston Globe and related businesses after drastic cuts it imposed on the daily newspaper earlier this year improved its financial position.

The announcement caps a painful odyssey for the 137-year-old Boston Globe that began earlier this year when the Times threatened to close the paper if it could not get its unions to agree to deep cost cuts.

Selling the Globe would have been a dismal exit from Boston for the Times. The company spent $1.1 billion to buy the Globe in 1993, at the time the most money ever paid for a single U.S. newspaper. The offers it reportedly received for the Globe this month were less than 10 percent of what it paid.

The Times did not mention the bids and officials were unavailable for comment about whether they played a role in the decision to stop the sale. The company instead said the Globe’s financial outlook has brightened.

“The Globe has significantly improved its financial footing by following the strategic plan it set out at the beginning of the year,” Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Chief Executive Janet Robinson wrote to Globe workers on Wednesday.

“All along, we explicitly recognized that a careful restructuring of the Globe was one possible route and, thanks to your hard work, that is precisely what has been done,” they wrote.

Who still even reads the Boston Globe?

Globe Survives…For Now

Seems like the Globe may be lasting a bit longer…

The Boston Globe’s largest union reached a tentative deal with the New York Times Co. shortly after 3 a.m. this morning, agreeing to a substantial pay cut, unpaid furloughs, and modifications to the lifetime job guarantee provisions that protect almost 200 employees in the Boston Newspaper Guild, according to sources familiar with the deal.

With the agreement, the guild, representing more than 600 editorial, advertising, and business office employees, became the last of the newspaper’s major unions to agree to concessions with the Times Co. The Globe’s parent company now has the $20 million in concessions that it demanded a month ago. And perhaps more importantly, the Times Co. succeeded in changing the job guarantee language, which was widely considered a roadblock to any potential sale of New England’s largest newspaper.

It was a complex deal, a source with knowledge of the agreement said, with cuts across the board in various compensation and benefits categories. But further details about the changes to job security language and the proposed wage cuts were not available early this morning.

Standing before reporters after more than 10 hours in negotiations early this morning, guild president Daniel Totten chose to disclose very little.

“These negotiations have concluded and we have a proposal to bring before the members of the Boston Newspaper Guild,” Totten said. “Out of respect to our members, we will not disclose any details until we meet with membership.”

Moments later, the Globe management released a statement: “We have completed negotiations with the guild but have agreed not to release any details until the leadership speaks with guild members on Thursday.”

I guess we may still have a daily paper that will lose $65 million this year.

Just Die Already

The Boston Globe is still holding on for dear life…

The Boston Globe and its biggest union are “taking a break” until later Monday or Tuesday on talks about concessions that parent company The New York Times Co says are crucial to save the newspaper.

The union and management suspended discussions early Monday morning. They have not set a time or location for the next round of talks, a source familiar with the matter, but unauthorized to discuss it, told Reuters.

The Times Co had set midnight Sunday as the deadline to extract $20 million in cost cuts from its unions to avoid closing the Globe, which it said could lose up to $85 million this year.

The Times stepped up pressure on the unions, saying it planned to file notice with the U.S. government that warns it could shut the paper down in 60 days. Negotiations on cost cuts could continue even after that filing.

Just die already… we don’t need the Boston Globe. Let’s face it, $20 million in cost cuts doesn’t quite solve the problem of the other $65 million in projected loses.

It’s over for the Globe…just die already.

Hub Politics Exclusive Interview With Rob Willington on His Departure From The MassGOP

Hub Politics recently had the opportunity to interview Robert Willington, who just announced his departure as Executive Director of the Massachusetts Republican Party. The following was conducted via email December 20-21, 2008.

Q: Last night you revealed that you were leaving the MassGOP as the executive director, can you tell us about that?

A: Yes. I think this interview exemplifies the power of new media. I loaded up my car and decided to share this personal experience with my followers on Twitter and it quickly turned into something much bigger. Bloggers were calling me, State Committee members were emailing me and my Tweeters were tweeting me (that sounds ridiculous).

Q: You are a big fan of Twitter, so clearly it was no coincidence that you revealed your departure from the MassGOP on Twitter, as opposed to a press release from the MassGOP?

A: oops,.. just answered that above. But to add to it, Twitter is a personal Google. For instance, the other day I was hanging with @davidall at McGann’s pub and he was saying how he could ask a question in Twitter and it would be answered immediately. Another person asked him, “can’t you do that with Google?” and he agreed and we both shrugged our shoulders, affirming the question. As I thought about it more, I realized why @davidall preferred getting his answers from Twitter. In life, we desire human, personal interaction and this is the power of Twitter. Google, although great, is a computer and twitter is human – this is why Twitter wins over google when looking for answers. We’d rather get an answer from someone than from a something. Follow me @willington and @massgop @keepthatfaith and @blogsforjoy !

Q: The question on everyone’s mind must be “Why is Rob leaving?” So, Rob, why are you leaving?

A: My heart is with the MassGOP….I’m from Massachusetts (go Rockport Vikings) and love working for the GOP in the bluest of blue states. However, I’m not the CR (College Republican) activists sleeping on couches in campaign headquarters anymore. When I joined the MassGOP, I was a single bachelor….I didn’t need much, I just wanted a basic salary and to travel around the state helping the GOP. Now, I’m married with two recent WeePublicans. My personal world has changed a lot.

Q: So what is more challenging, being the executive director for the Republican Party in a ridiculously blue state, or fatherhood?

A: Executive director for the Republican Party in a ridiculously blue state, my wife is a rock star.

Q: So, what is next for Rob Willington? How about your web projects, Keep That Faith and Blogs For Joy. Will you be focusing more on those now?

A: No, I’m going to be very, very busy. BlogsForJoy.com and KeepThatFaith.com have taken a lot of my spare time recently, but in a way, both projects have a mission to be open-source and collaborative. BlogsForJoy.com should do well without my 100% attention and the same is true with KeepThatFaith.com (donate content), are there any conservatives out there that know their way around Photoshop?

You will hear more from me very soon.

Q: Aside from your departure, Chairman Peter Torkildsen also announced last month that he wouldn’t seek reelection. How do you feel about the future of the MassGOP, given the change of leadership it is experiencing?

A: It’s often joked that “There is nowhere to go but up” but it’s not true – we lost 3 seats this year. The future for the MassGOP is strong because there are a NUMBER of tools for the new team to use. I wrote a detailed manual on what we are doing and how to continue the building at the local level. Politics Magazine noticed how we (MassGOP) were winning non-partisan seats at the municipal level; school committee, selectman, mayor etc…. these candidates attended our trainings and were given access to voter vault. This is revolutionary, empowering these local candidates with sophisticated campaign technology is very important. A state senator once told me over breakfast that the GOP won’t see these results for at least ten years; he is probably right. We launched GOP Farm Team as a site dedicated to building these municipal offices for the GOP.

Q: You made a huge push for internet based grassroots efforts. Do you hope your internet influence will remain part of the MassGOP’s game plan?

A: It will, because it’s all set up – all of the MassGOP Twitter followers, the MassGOP Facebook friends, the thousands that expect mass emails, those that have signed up for our Mass Text messages, those that are dedicated MassRootsGOP.com followers….the new team has no choice because it’s such an efficient way to communicate and get things done. The foundation is built, the contacts (names, addresses, phone numbers, emails) are in the system; we have identified over 50,000 contacts through our aggressive online tactics. This was not easy and the new team has a wealth of info to use.

Also, using the internet is a way to multiply your office – this is what Chris Anderson calls the “Long Tail.” Many hands make light work. We can’t afford a huge staff, so what are our options? Only one answer – empower Joe Activist with the tools he needs to make things happen. When I started, I could not believe how much valuable information was stored on the MassGOP computers. MassRootsAction was my way of exporting this data out of the office and into the hands of the grassroots where it can be much more useful.

Q: Did you join the MassGOP with a set of goals, and do you feel that you accomplished those goals?

A: My goal was to turn the party inside out, to decentralize it. I think I made a major step towards this goal but more needs to be done. Before joining the MassGOP, I had a lot of campaign experience and I always had the perspective as a campaign manager out in the field (I managed two state rep campaigns in Massachusetts). I tried to have a “boots on the ground” perspective knowing how disadvantaged we were as Republicans in Massachusetts. I realized we needed some leverage and new media was the only way to give us leverage without spending a lot of resources. Almost all of the new media tools that we used were free.

Q: Is running for political office in your future?

A: Probably not.

Q: You sure? There is a Senate seat for sale in Illinois.

A: True, but considering the history of that particular Senate seat, I am way too qualified for it.

Q: Clearly, politics is a huge part of your life. What else are you about?

A: I’m working on my next step now – I have Keep That Faith and Blogs For Joy as side projects that keep me busy.  But besides politics and new media, traveling, family, photography, anything British and trying to put a dent in my book collection. 

Q: Do you think there is hope for Massachusetts?

A: Massachusetts voted for Reagan twice and recently had the longest running list of GOP Governors in America (16 years). So, Massachusetts voters can pull the lever for a Republican. In truth, most people are more motivated for personality than principle. I think it’s a mistake to say the Reagan victories were victories for conservative ideals and Obama’s victory is a victory for liberalism. Obama had a strong, likable personalty (the beer factor). Party building continues among the faithful – those that are motivated and involved because of the principles of the party. We can’t wait for a strong, likable personality (a Mitt Romney) to come and be the savior of the MassGOP. We need to act now, while knowing there are not going to be crowds of people coming to build.

One of the most destructive things within the party (and it’s not just the MassGOP that has this problem) is that campaigns feel entitled to MassGOP dollars just because they threw their hat in the ring. Talk about liberalism. If a campaign ignores our campaign schools and we know he or she will get in the mid or high 30’s on Election Day, why should we spend precious dollars on that candidate to bring them a few percentage points higher? What’s the value in bringing a candidate from 38% of the vote to 41% when we could be spending it on a campaign that we know is in the high 40’s? Too often, criticisms are served by people who are zoomed in on their district or area. Only if they could pull back and see the big picture they would have a much better perspective. This isn’t socialism where we are going to split the pot equally among all the campaigns.

The MassGOP can not bring a candidate from 39% of the vote to 50% plus one on Election Day – it’s up to the individual campaign to put themselves in a position to win, then the Party can come in to work like heck to put them over the finish line. Put us in field goal range. However, all campaigns deserve basic support – trainings, technology, lists, example fundraising letters, example direct mail, contacts and open communication with the State Party to serve as “in-house” consultants.

Q: Speaking of “The Beer Factor” there any pubs in Boston you will miss?

A: Yes, below the MassGOP HQ is Johnnies On The Side and we called it JohnniesDownBelow….great spot. Also, McGann’s as mentioned earlier, is a classic Boston Irish pub- you feel that you need to present your passport every time you walk in , it’s a perfect getaway (although there are pictures of John Forbes Kerry on the wall). And of course, the Red Hat was a short walk from the MassGOP HQ and it too has a great Boston atmosphere.

Q: As Executive Director, you were a big part of the Massachusetts Republican Party. With that behind you, who would you like to thank?

A: Hub Politics for sure, you guys rock. I’d also like to thank the State Committee members that were helpful and supportive, and everyone who saw the decentralized vision for the party that I had. I’d like to thank Darrell Crate for hiring me as Political Director three years ago and Peter Torkildsen for hiring me as Executive Director. Brian Dodge was a great Executive Director to work under and he helped me with the old-media when I took over as ED. I also want to thank every candidate that ran for office and carried the GOP banner in a awful year – those people are real GOP warriors. And of course, the troopers on the ground – the Massachusetts Young Republicans, the College Republicans along with anyone that made a phone call or knocked on a door. Amber Hillman and her victory staff were phenomenal with the amount of calls they were producing for John McCain. The BeverlyGOP and their self-organization skills (and volunteer skills) should be copied around the state, the Concord GOP for getting an office up and jamming it with volunteers, the AttleboroGOP for being a mini-MassGOP by traveling around the state helping other Republican Town Committees, and the BerkshireGOP with Peter Giftos, Matt Kinnaman and Jim Bashour. The Berkshire GOP has a full time office staffed by with an Executive Director out in Pittsfield, a very blue part of the state but they have an awesome team.

Q: Who are the political figures that you admire?

A: Washington, Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan. The non-political, but politically influential figures are: Friedrich Hayek, William F. Buckley, Whittaker Chambers, Frank Meyer, Russell Kirk, Dinesh D’Souza, & Thomas Sowell. D’Souza is one of the best minds that we have right now. This is why KeepThatFaith.com is having so much fun with Richard Dawkins, who refused to debate Dinesh D’Souza. This is the first KTF video and here is the follow-up video.

Q: If you could have a beer with any of the aforementioned political figures, who would you pick, and which pub would you choose?

A: Great question – probably comes down to either Whittaker Chambers since his life was so incredible, I loved his book Witness, but William F. Buckley also had an amazing life; former CIA officer, author to several books, ran for mayor, hosted Firing Line, brought the diverse conservative movement under one magazine, founded YAF, avid sailor – he did it all. Buckley is the godfather of modern American conservatism. Probably Buckley. I’d probably take Buckley to McSorley’s in NYC, would love to see him roll up in his scooter coming from the upper east side.

Q: Do you have last message of hope for the Republican in Massachusetts who are tired of the one-party rule here?

A: Yes, stop thinking in terms of “committees.” Someone once said, “if computers ever get too powerful, organize them into a committee – that will do ‘em in.” Next time you go to Washington D.C., or in the State House, look around for a statue of a committee – you won’t find any, there is a very good reason for that. Committees slow the process down and curve productivity (thank God Congress is comprised of committees). Folks, time is flying by and we need action in local communities now. First, set up a blog (our interns can get you one for free, very quickly) and become THE voice of your community, not just the GOP voice. Interview your board of selectman, interview your High School principle, talk to your police chief, how are the local shop owners doing? Take pride and interest in your community and use the blog as the window into it.

There are over 70 million blogs in the world, but there will only be 1 blog with a GOP perspective in your community. Pretty soon, many in the town will be visiting your blog to see what is going on, to see personalities and figures that they see every day – so long as you create good, quality content people will be coming back. Second, too often these committees will meet, eat, and retreat. After each meeting ask yourself this: how did we push back the Democrats and/or advance the GOP at this meeting? Did you combine your meeting with a phone bank targeting likely GOP activists to build the committee, did you combine it with a mailing to recruit new people or raise funds, or asking people to run for office? If we are about local action, then let’s see some local traction and stop looking up to 85 Merrimac Street for a hand out. I know of some other State Parties that often complain to the Republican National Committee for not getting funds or assistance – I have told the RNC directly that I don’t expect anything from them (however, they have given us a tremendous amount of support with our website, voter vault, and guidance…I often used the RNC as a non-monetary resource). Third, go door knocking and talk to the Unenrolled (independent) voters that voted in previous GOP primaries and invite them into the GOP – voter registration card in hand along with an invite to the Republican Town Committee social event that you are having next month. Grassroots means you knocking on doors.

Don’t just be a Republican that shows up once every 2 years to hold a sign on the street corner while sipping a Dunkin Donuts coffee – signs have not, and never will win elections. Enough with the signs. Get to a training and learn about voter identification and GOTV and become a little more sophisticated in your targeting and approach. Sign waving is a secondary campaign activity, not a primary one. GOP campaigns need to focus on the fundamentals that win elections (personal contact from trusted sources) not counting beeps and thumbs-ups on street corners. There are a lot of great posts on MassRootsAction on this stuff.

Finally, I say this as a conservative; enough with the “RINO” talk. What a waste of time. It wasn’t until the 1964 election that the conservatives began to find a political home in the GOP. Liberalism is an old political movement, conservatism is not. The Republican Party used to be the Party of the Lodge’s and Rockefeller’s. The people tossing around “RINO” are acting as if the GOP has held their particular view since the 1800’s. Folks, the movement began only 40 years ago, this thing is still pretty new. If you are a conservative and you retreat because of the “RINO’s” in the Party, then you are giving up on this fairly modern effort and the Party will be less conservative as a result. The same is true with the other camps in the GOP – when I met with the Log-Cabin Republicans, and the Rockefeller/Lodge Republicans etc and they complain that the Party is too conservative I tell them to get more involved because politics is about showing up. If you are complaining about a certain wing of the Party, chances are, it’s because that wing has showed up and you have not. You have two options: show up, or continue to complain about the other group showing up.

Lastly, if you are passionate about an issue then seriously start thinking about starting a PAC (political action committee) to raise funds to help in the 2010 battle. The GOP candidates got hammered with special interest money from the unions and other left-wing groups in 2008. We have a few solid allies on our side, but we need more ammunition. Start a PAC, develop a fundraising team and start building the bank to help candidates in 2010.

If you need help with starting a PAC, or if you want to reach me for any reason (for criticism, or for my address to send me iTunes cards for Christmas) you can reach me at rwillington[AT]massgop[DOT]com

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah everyone and please just do a little something this Holiday season. Joy is not finite – you can create a lot of it today and tomorrow by simply doing something. Visit Blogs For Joy and check the Joy Avenues to find out how you can create joy.

KeepThatFaith,