Guest Opinion by Keith Roark, Idaho Democrats Chair
In Idaho, Democrats Represent the Future
Guest Opinion in response to Idaho Republicans Respond to Election News.By Keith Roark, 11-24-08
Keith Roark
Idaho Republican Party Chairman Norm Semanko’s comments about the 2008 Idaho general election appeared recently in this space. Mr. Semanko took pains to assure everyone that his party is alive and well. The nation is bogged down in two costly wars, our economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression and our standing with other nations reached its lowest point during the Bush years. But here in Idaho, Mr. Semanko tells us, the GOP - the party that got us where we are today - is alive and well. That’s not necessarily good news, Norm, but the future is not as dismal as your words suggest.
While Barack Obama took 36 percent of Idaho’s vote, that was far better than John Kerry’s 30 percent in 2004 and Al Gore’s 28 percent in 2000 and clearly demonstrates a growth trend for Idaho Democrats. President-elect Obama’s vote total in Idaho was 55,000 votes greater than John Kerry’s total in 2004 while John McCain gathered about 7000 fewer votes than George W. Bush just four years ago. Most significantly of all, 43 of 44 Idaho counties voted more Democratic in the 2008 presidential contest than in 2004.
Historically, presidential years have been hard on Idaho Democrats, costing us an average of 5 to 7 lost seats in the state legislature. This year we lost only one seat and that loss came as a result of a shamelessly negative campaign against Rep. Jerry Shively of Idaho Falls. Republicans challenged every one of our Ada County legislative incumbents with big money and strong candidates and lost every race.
For the first time in 16 years, Idaho is sending a Democrat to Congress. Mr. Semanko would have the public believe this is because Walt Minnick simply outspent Bill Sali. While I delight in seeing a Republican chairman, of all people, complaining about a Democratic candidate spending too much money, the claim that money decided the election is preposterous and insulting to the voters of the 1st Congressional District. Walt Minnick was elected because the voters want someone who can and will work tirelessly to address their concerns about jobs, healthcare and education in an informed, effective manner. Those same voters recognized that Bill Sali’s buffoonish behavior and vaudevillian publicity stunts were unproductive at best and embarrassing to the district at worst.
Democrats are still in the minority in Idaho, but the demographic trends are very much in our favor. For a sign of things to come, look no further than Caldwell High School. Not only did Barack Obama win the mock election there by more than a two-to-one margin; down ballot Democrats Walt Minnick, Larry LaRocco and state legislative candidate Mike Warwick won, too. Idaho’s young people are looking to Democrats to address the issues of the future and turning away from the shrill and negative views of an increasingly extremist Republican Party.
2008 has been a year of unprecedented energy in the Idaho Democratic Party. From the chilly February morning when more than 14,000 people came to hear our next President speak at Boise State University … to record-breaking attendance at the presidential caucuses four nights later … to the veritable army of young volunteers in our get-out-the-vote centers throughout the state, energized Idahoans are now plugging into their state and county Democratic parties. Idaho Democrats look forward to fighting for Idaho’s middle-class in the 2009 Idaho Legislature and we’re laying the groundwork now for electoral success in 2010 and beyond. We invite you to learn more and get involved by visiting www.idaho-democrats.org.
R. Keith Roark is Chairman of the Idaho Democratic Party
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
The RNC always seems to play to ones ignorance and that is why they do so well in places with large home school populations.
Those stupid moderate to highly educated families usually are the most ignorant people in the US. Imagine a group of families that consist of two parents and one of those parents staying home to raise and educate their children. What's up with that old fashioned behavior.
I think we need more uneducated single parent households that fully utilize our public school tax dollars. After all, the US Public School System is good enough for President-elect Obama's children...Right?
Probably not an Idaho phenomenon, either. Winning candidates have an easier time raising money, in general. That has a lot to do with why incumbents get re-elected most of the time. But Sali bucked the trend. His Club for Growth sugar daddies weren't as keen on funding an incumbent as they were for his first (and most likely last) shot. That left him a day late and several dollars short.
More importantly, as Roark points out, Semanko's notion that Sali lost because he was outspent is simply laughable. Sali lost because as much as Idaho's 1st congressional district voters love a wingnutty ideologue, they apparently did recognize that it might be useful to actually be represented in Congress.
I sure hope the same people that let California's budget deficit rise to 20 BILLION dollars aren't the people you're counting on to move here to balance out the legislature; heaven forbid.
I guess if the Democrats that start getting elected are like Walt Minnick then things won't get that bad.
The state of California has several COUNTIES that are larger than our state in population, budget, and GDP. If California were a separate country, it would be in the top 10 largest economies of the world.
Sali: $857,976 Total Votes: 171,687
Minnick: $2,072,457 Total Vote: 175,898
It might not be as simple as outspending an opponent to win a race but the difference sure could have made a huge difference considering Sali lost by only <4300 votes. So using the word "laughable" may be a pretty strong term to use. The use of the words "may not have made a difference" would be more appropriate considering the numbers above.
The point is, Sali had the power of incumbency, and the huge benefit of having an R after his name, but still lost. I suppose there are others from his party who lost a seat from Idaho, but none spring to mind. Was George Hansen the last one?! Keep your GOP dues paid and your felonies off the record, and Idaho will re-elect you, 90-some percent of the time.
The primary (!) reason Sali won 2 years ago was his good fortune to have too many quality opponents. Either Keith Johnson or Sheila Sorensen would have made a fine Representative and won going away for their 2nd term, but they couldn't garner enough of the 55% extremity of the GOP that was torn between the three stooges of Sali, Vasquez and Semanko in the 6-way.
Candidates spend what they can, and yes, the biggest spender is the winner, 9 times out of 10 (according to http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html). This correlation does not tell us that spending buys victory, however.
Effective fundraising has something to do with organization, and a lot more to do with the candidate. Much is driven by perception. There are limits to how much even staunch partisans will chip in to a losing cause. That was a bigger problem for Bill Sali than not having the money to spend.