Middlesex County Republican Convention: A Zoo

I attended the Middlesex County Republican and had a couple observations. I have never gone to a political convention of any kind. The organization was a little iffy, with a supposed scheduling conflict with a school play in the auditorium early on but that was settled. The actual votes took far too long, testing everyone's patience. Being involved in the political process should not be such a hassle. In the future, the Republican Party of Middlesex should try to make the process more delegate-friendly. There were also sound and lighting issues, which I guess are not really big deal.

Speeches from Anna Little and Shannon Wright for the 6th Congressional District were strong. Unfortunately Republicans don't have much hope at defeating Pallone in the 6th. Diane Gooch was energetic in her speech but it was not very smooth. I Forget the other guy's name, he sounded like a quality guy but not a Congressman. Wright is a great speaker but I don't think she is qualified to be a Representative either. State Legislature would be a good place for her perhaps or maybe private sector for a while.

Sam Thompson's defense of Scott Sipprelle was inappropriate and a buzzkill. He sounded angry and bitter. He does not inspire much enthusiasm, only frustration. Scott Sipprelle and Mike Halfacre gave good speeches. Halfacre repeated himself on his record as Mayor but other than that he was strong. He paused for applause a bit too much. Sipprelle used his serious tone, with a steady buildup to a strong finish. He did not deliver a speech to get get loud applause. He had a message he wanted to deliver. He has more qualities of an executive/leader type, not a politician. A quality I highly value and would be a great change of pace against Holt. He also stated he would challenge Holt to a debate. If Holt refused (which he obviously would), Sipprelle promised to saturate the airwaves and TV with campaign ads.

Leonard Lance is unimpressive. His odd hand and arm motions, strange pitch changes, and smug look on his face after the speech was troublesome. He seemed to be manufacturing the enthusiasm and trying to illicit applause rather than actually say anything substantive. His vote for cap-and-trade was not addressed.

The master of ceremonies was a sleepy old man that did not seem aware of what was going on in the auditorium at times. In the future, The Republicans of Middlesex ought to pick a person with a bit more wit, energy, and voice for that role. Overall a fun time. An interesting process.

Sipprelle crushed Halfacre, which should probably lead to Halfacre's withdrawal from the race. He can't raise money, he can't campaign, and he clearly lacks grassroots support outside of his little town. Sipprelle won 10 of the 13 towns. Diane Gooch won the endorsement of the Convention, but Little took a small bite out of her dominance I think with her speech. Lance was endorsed again because his challenger did not show up, he sent an aide instead.

I think it was a good Convention overall. They have some things to work on thats for sure though. I am a supporter of Sipprelle so was glad to see the 220-134 ass-whooping he gave Halfacre. I hope Halfacre decides to withdraw gracefully rather than drag out a negative campaign for an election he cannot win. He seems better suited to the State Legislature or perhaps remain mayor of Fairhaven. He has a pretty good record there.

The New Jersey Republican Party: a flawed organization

Lately, I have learned more about the primary process for the Republican Party here in New Jersey. Counties apparently have screening committees or conventions of local Party leaders, municipal chairs and a few community delegates that choose who gets "the line" in that county's ballot. From what I am told, it means you are on a list of Republican Party candidates that I guess are preferred while the rest are just listed below that individually.

Essentially, if you are a primary voter and don't know a whole lot about the candidates, you could just pick the Party line candidates and move on. So really, it is the local party leadership that is really making the decisions.

Who are these local party leaders? From what I can tell they are municipal chairs, freeholders, mayors, county assemblymen and chairmen. Basically they are local politicians and party loyalists. They trade in clout and influence at the local level so much that they really feel it is more valuable than money. They probably trade in money and "favors" too. They have egos, special interests, and their own agendas when they make decisions on who gets the line. It is not fair and it is not open.

To sum up, Republican candidates that are mostly likely to win get the line, or they get the backing of local party leaders. Where are the people in this? Where are the Republicans out there that aren't directly involved in local party politics? The only way to break through this is to become familiar with the candidates and decide for yourself if the County "line" has the best person for the nomination or if there is someone better. How many Republicans do that? How often does the person with the County line lose, I wonder???

Here, you get nominated if you have the most buddies at the local level. Do they care if you win the general election? Maybe, maybe not. For federal elections in particular, they probably don't see much value in a Republican winning the general election. Their interests are at the state level. And it appears Republicans try to establish their own little fiefdoms within State and Local Government while Democrats have their own. They gerrymander district lines and cut deals so that incumbents and party leaders are protected, minimizing competition and minimizing the influence of the people. The people really don't have much influence unless they learn for themselves about the people on the ballot.

This is a sad state of affairs for a Party trying to make progress, regain a couple House seats, challenge for a Senate seat, or maybe even retake the State Legislature. Their strategy protects their 40 or 45% but minimizes the potential growth. Sure they are now all safe, but unless some miracle happens they aren't going to get 55% or 60% of anything.

If you want to move up to the majority and play with the big boys, I suggest the Republican Party eliminate the heavy hand of Local and County Party bosses. Get rid of "the line" and have county committees and conventions only make endorsements.

From what I have seen, I certainly understand why Republicans are demoralized and made physically ill by the process and getting involved in politics. It is why good people don't get involved in general. If you are all happy with your little fiefdoms, by all means keep hijacking the primary nomination process and protect yourselves. If you want to win, you will have to try something else.

Jon Runyan kicks off campaign in 3rd District

Former offensive tackle Jon Runyan begins his campaign against Democratic incumbent John Adler today down in the 3rd Congressional District.

The 3rd is likely one of only three potentially competitive districts in New Jersey. The voter registration count places Republicans and Democrats close to one another, which means independent votes will likely decide the outcome. Polls also show that Republicans are more enthusiastic these days and may turnout out in much higher numbers than registered democrats. That could also give Runyan the edge.

Republicans held the seat for a while with victories of 58-64% (a guy named Saxton). Bush won the district with 51% in 2004. McCain (in a bad year) lost it by only four points. Given the shift in popular opinion, I think this district is perfect for a switch.

Runyan needs to make sure he keeps the Republican base excited, and presents himself as the anti-Pelosi/Adler. So far, it appears he will do precisely that. In this area, I don't think fundraising will be a factor either. In fact, unless Runyan killed a hooker at some point in his life or there are pictures of him stealing lunch money from children, there are no other significant factors on this race.

Is Runyan the right candidate? He is still mostly an unknown so hard to tell. But if he develops into a serviceable Republican canidate, he will win. He does not need to be Scott Brown to win. Here, average is sufficient to win.

Campaign For Liberty: Meet the candidates of the 12th

Campaign for Liberty held a event to meet the candidates running in the Republican Primary in the 12th Congressional District.

The candidates there were Scott Sipprelle, Mike Halfacre, and David Corsi. I don't know of any others.

Sipprelle came off as the most serious of the three. He gave detailed answers to many questions and tried to answer the questions directly rather than shift to his preferred talking points. He was clearly irritated at the bringing up of his donations to five House democrats and Chuck Schumer in 2002. He said he was offended and explained his donations were to Blue Dogs in hopes of swaying them to vote against Obamacare. Four of them ended up voting against it. He explained his positions on the Federal Reserve, taxes, the economy which does not include abolishing it. He is a "to-the point guy", with a less than poetic delivery, being blunt at times, and as I said serious. The other candidates were unwilling to challenge him on policy.

Mike Halfacre is probably the most likable of the three. He smiled alot, spoke directly to the person asking the question, tried to be funny, and gave Republican talking points as answers. But he gave the least amount of detail of the three. His personal story is nice but he repeated it three times. And claiming he was "from the streets" made me cringe. His answer on abortion was awful, demonstrating he seems to think the issue is more political rather than moral. His answers on taxes and spending were better. He was the more realistic and practical one. He also elaborated the least during rebuttal, satisfied with his first round answers.

David Corsi was the most entertaining. He has unique positions on the Fair Tax, on the Federal Reserve, and other government programs. He wants to abolish the Medicare and Medicaid programs (not sure how that is possible). He demonstrated strong knowledge in these areas but his solutions seemed not only unrealistic, but I am not convinced they would work. He had a spat with a tax attorney (or accountant I don't remember) regarding the 16th Amendment which was mystifying. It is unclear why, but the debate on the 16th Amendment got very fiery and delayed the whole event for a good 8-10 minutes. Corsi held his ground and did not get angry or visibly shaken by the man. On the other hand, it was difficult to take Corsi seriously with his very ambitious and radical plans. While Halfacre was more realistic, Corsi was the radical idealist. Corsi also stayed out of the spat between Sipprelle and Halfacre, which was most wise.

Sipprelle is the serious answer man, Halfacre reminds me of the high school captain of the football team, and Corsi the entertainer. I could imagine Sipprelle getting up in front of the class giving complete answers while Halfacre poked fun at him trying to make the class laugh and ignore his presentation. Corsi meanwhile is the class clown, getting plenty of positive attention, but with no one really taking him seriously.

As a matter of disclosure, I was a mix of class clown and slacker that never tried in high school.

Overall, I think no one is served by a drawn out personal battle between two Republicans. Sipprelle was pushed off his positive and substantive message for a brief time. If he stays on it, he has the policy expertise and seriousness to carry on. He cannot allow these silly attacks (which are fairly weak even if all true), to drag him into a personal battle. Corsi will likely run as the libertarian candidate which is a horrible fit for the district.

Halfacre clearly knows how to deflect attacks and remain likable while his website and campaign aides are constantly on the offensive, attacking Sipprelle week-after-week. A personal battle will push out the policy differences, intelligence, and capability in exchange for a decision on who is most bearable and most believable. Halfacre could convince them he is the safe, bearable one. If the decision shifts more to the issues, Sipprelle has the advantage.

My choice is Sipprelle. I have always preferred the "smart" ones rather than the "clever" ones.

Congressional Races: No competition in 2010

Every analyst both online and in the print media seems to believe 10 out of the 13 Congressional races are not competitive and the incumbent is safe. Garrett, Lance, and Adler appear to be the only realistic competitive races. And recent developments suggest Garrett and Lance are probably going to win with only minor trouble.

Have things changed so little in New Jersey? With Christie's victory, the unpopularity of the democratic agenda, and a recession only 1 Congressional seat is going to change hands? It seems that on the federal level, New Jersey has not changed.

The reason is simple, gerrymandering. The State Legislature and Governor draw the district lines and have intentionally drawn them so that each one encloses the ardent supporters of each Congressmen. Every look at a map of the districts? Its bizarre to say the least. As long as this practice is continued, the state government working with the Congressmen of the state will continue to draw districts to protect incumbents and minimize the number of competitive districts or "swing districts". That means that even if people start voting differently or start shifting, in the end, there will be only one new Congressmen out of thirteen.

Want to change this? The focus of the New Jersey Republican Party should be on the State Legislature in hopes of ending gerrymandering and increasing competition. Democrats still control both houses in the legislature and will certainly attempt to re-draw the districts for 2012 to favor their incumbents and minimize chances for Republican pickups. I am unfamiliar with New Jersey law so I am not sure Christie can veto the legislature's drawing of the districts or what the process would be for that. Gerrymandering can only favor Republicans if they won majorities in the two houses in 2009 or can in 2019. Not exactly good chances there. This state does lean-left and so generally democrats will have the edge in absolute terms year in-year out.

Until then, any progress in increasing Republican support and membership in the state will all be for nought. The Democrats will simply look at the election results and then will determine how best to hide the new Republican gains in already Republican Congressional districts, keeping their party buddies safe.

New Jersey 6th: Can Pallone be defeated?

Short answer is no. Pallone has won the last four elections by more than 65%. Democrats have almost a 3-to-1 edge in voter registration. Overall voter registration is a bit low as well. The gerrymandered district is 16% black and encompasses democratic stronghold New Brunswick. Pallone also has a war chest of roughly $4 million, more than enough to scare away challengers. In Presidential Elections, only Bush in 2004 managed to get above 40%, with 43%.

Diane Gooch, Monmouth County GOP Vice Chair and Highlands mayor Anna Little are running. Other candidates include Fabrizio Bivona, and Shannon Wright. Gooch seems to be the favorite thanks to her party support and personal wealth. she might be able to match Pallone in resources but can she overcome the tremendous voter registration advantage?

As of yet there is nothing of a campaign or a message that can be analyzed to see if Gooch can pull off what Scott Brown pulled off in Massachusetts. Given the below average voter turnout in this district and its strong democratic lean, Gooch would have to run a 5 star campaign full-time and be a charismatic superstar.

I don't think it matters whoever wins the nomination. Pallone is safe in my opinion and see no reason to think otherwise.

Halfacre Poll a joke

A poll has been released by the Halfacre Campaign showing that Halfacre beats Holt in a theoretical matchip 43-41, while Sipprelle loses 20-55. But look closely at the poll question:


In a head to head ballot test between Holt and “a Republican who, as Mayor, cut spending and lowered property taxes three years in a row,” Holt trailed by five percentage points, 46%-41%. Against “a Republican who made millions on Wall Street, and who contributed some of his money to Democrats like Chuck Schumer and five House Democrats as recently as June of 2009,” Holt has a huge lead: 55%-20%.

Not even close to objective or scientific. If this is the best Halfacre has, its truly sad. It is bad enough he has spent the last two months directly attacking Sipprelle on his contributions to democrats and his career on Wall Street, he is now putting out goofy poll numbers. My question is why such a great Republican felt it necessary to commit several posts on his campaign website about a candidate that had JUST JOINED THE RACE. Barely a week after Sipprelle announced, Halfacre committed most of the space on his site to Sipprelle rather than himself.

Halfacre, even with those conservative credentials as mayor, does not inspire much confidence as far as his integrity, character, and skills as a campaigner. If anything he has focused the attention of Republicans on his opponent, which was a bad choice since many are finding Sipprelle is a solid Republican and a very solid candidate.

After today I am going to look more into other New Jersey races. I think I have said enough about this one.