I recently wrote a post about the fact that someone punched Matt Stoller in the face, and suggested it might have had something to do with him accusing people of being racist at every opportunity. Matt even weighed in and (correctly) pointed out that the post I had linked to was not drafted by him. He didn’t argue that charge that he likes to cry racism, he just argued the post’s authorship.

Well now he’s at it again.

In a post referring to an overtly racist pin some jackass was selling at the Texas GOP convention, Matt can’t help but make the claim that this is evidence of rampant racism in the Republican Party.

Every time I go on C-Span, and I’ve been on five times now, I get asked about race by callers on both sides. And while I try to make the point that the Republican Party is pretty racist on an institutional basis, the regular Republican activists are just so much more eloquent at expressing this point themselves.

His Twitter post of the same linked post said simply:

Texas Republicans, adorably racist as usual

Now this isn’t the first time Stoller has leveled this charge against Republicans. In a February 2006 post about a commenter at RedState, he claims to throw the term around sparingly.

I don’t throw around the racist word very often, because to me it is a very very serious charge. But there’s no other way to say it; this right-wing blogger ‘Blanton’ at Redstate is racist, and all the commenter freaks nodding in frothing agreement to his screed seem mighty close as well.

Yet his Twitter post, his current piece on the pin, his post on McCain’s “racist dogwhistle” in Meridian, a March 2006 post about the GOP’s “deeply racist institutional nature” and other Stoller diatribes have been pretty loose with the term and the generalization that Republicans are racist. (Granted, the McCain post was later updated to reflect his error, but how many of the people who linked initially updated their posts later to note his retraction?)

So a guy who claims to be conservative in the frequency with which he levels that particular charge uses some pretty generalized language whenever he does.

I find this interesting give the Democratic Primary voters who indicated that race was the sole or significant factor in casting their vote. Based on exit polls in a variety of states, you could easily argue that 15-20% of the Democratic base is racist. They openly declared that they voted based on that, or it was a significant factor in their decision.

So here’s my challenge to Matt…

I have $100 for him and will, on the day after the election, issue via this blog, TheNextRight, RedState, and TechPresident both a public apology for my “black eye post” as well as a formal acknowledgement that my party is more racist than the Democrats.

The conditions

On election day, if the final exit polls show Republican voters are significantly more racist, I will give Matt the hundred dollars and the apology. (By significantly, I’ll propose a 10% variation – so if Democrats report 15%, the Republicans can be no higher than 16.5%. If the Democrats are 20%, the Republicans can’t exceed 22%)

If, however, the number of Republicans who say that they voted based on race is lower than, or not significantly higher than the number of Democrats who say the same, Matt will give me $100 and post on OpenLeft, MyDD, and DailyKos a written statement that he is wrong, and Republicans are not institutionally racist, and his own party, is in fact, more so.

Pu your money where your mouth is, Matt. How sure are you about the GOP given your own party’s proclivity to declare their racism openly?

In an apparent nod to the old adage “It’s always darkest before the dawn”, Patrick Ruffini today has a post titled, “The GOP: Dawn Breaks?” While I think his argument has some merit, and I agree with him that 2008 is more about discontent than a Democrat wave, I have concerns with our ability to capitalize on that.

If the national environment does improve somewhat, and the nominee starts close to slightly behind, we won’t have the steady demoralizing drumbeat we had in 2006. Rank-and-file Republicans will be too focused on beating up Hillary. Democrats in red districts could be cross-pressured.

No Bush to Kick Around Anymore: 2006 was the last year in which a Democrat could effectively run against Bush. It is not possible to do more political damage to Bush. People know he’s leaving.

Is this a case for 2008 as a Republican year? Not yet. But the Democrats’ best-case scenario is probably a muted change election like 2000 or 1976.

The Democrats have – without a doubt – gotten just about all the mileage out of Bush that they can get. They’re in charge now, and the public knows it. Whether the public opinion polls that show Americans with a near-record low approval for Congress are due to their unwillingness to fulfill any of what they ran on, or whether it is simply a distaste for all things political is unclear. What is apparent, though, is a sentiment that Congress, as a whole, is dysfunctional.

It used to be that you could pretty much rely on voters to believe, “My Congressman is ok, but the rest of them are crooks.” That doesn’t seem to hold anymore. I haven’t seen that question asked in some time, but I suspect more and more people would believe there guy is crooked, too.

So what does 2008 look like? I think the likelihood is an anti-incumbent wave. Not anti-GOP and not anti-Dem. I also think that holds true regardless of who the candidates at the top of the ticket are. The fact is, there just aren’t that many people left who vote a straight slate anymore.

My guess is a lot of the internal polling numbers have made that case for a fair number of GOPers who are weighing their re-election chances. I don’t believe it is a coincidence that a slew of Members who likely just benchmarked their races are saying, “Umm… Maybe not.”

Ok, so if that’s true, why aren’t Democrats doing the same thing? Why aren’t we seeing more retirements? Well, to Patrick’s point, I think they’re misreading the cards. I think they’re assuming that this is a down year for Republicans, and the retirements have them giddy with the possibility of big numbers in 2009.

I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is you have two days to live. The worse news is I was supposed to tell you yesterday.

So let’s assume Patrick and I are right, and we are actually looking at an election that we could, under normal circumstances, capitalize on. What’s the worse news?

The worse news is two-fold. First, we have a boatload of seats to protect. Going into the 2008 elections, we have to protect 2/3 of the seats up for election. The house, with a raft of retirements comes a lot of open seats. Open seats are normally harder to keep than incumbent seats, unless the incumbents are particularly disliked. Second, we have a serious problem with our base.

Trouble with your droids?

It’s no secret that the GOP base is unhappy. It’s no secret that they’re not engaging. It’s no secret that a lot of people are unhappy with our slate of candidates for President. It’s also no secret that we have a significant fundraising problem.

Does all of that add up to the Perfect Storm? Will it all conspire to steal what should, under normal circumstances, be an anti-incumbent (and therefore, favorable for the minority party) election? It may well. This is where I don’t share Patrick’s muted optimism. I think he’s right that the tealeaves are more favorable for us than a lot of people are acknowledging, but I think our hurdles are great, and I’m not sure that we’re fast or limber enough to clear them.

So it’s all over but the crying in Iowa. The straw poll has come and gone yet again and many a campaign is left to deal with the shattered dreams that are produced by a nonsensical, non-binding event that is nothing but a fundraiser.

Jon Stewart, in coverage for Comedy Central after the 1999 straw poll, referred to the (mostly) quadrennial show as “Democracy’s Gaudy Pageant”. It truly is something to behold, and every GOP operative, at least once in their life, should attend. Of course, with more and more candidates realizing it’s a joke, the event has lost most of what it once was.

However, for those foolish enough to make the mistake of participating in 2011, here’s a rundown of what you can expect:

You are going to get screwed by somebody – The Straw poll is as notorious for this as anything else. It used to be common practice (and likely still is) for the second or third tier candidates to call supporters and encourage them to accept someone else’s ticket (and someone else’s free bus ride to Ames) and then vote for them instead. Many a candidate shelled out cash, food, and transportation only to find their “solid supporters” had screwed them. Case in point? Dan Quayle, my boss in 1999. We fed 3,500 people and got 900 votes. We had expected, and bought tickets for, about 1,500. A lot of people took our buses, and ate our lunch, only to vote for someone else.

You’re never going to do as well as you think – Ron Paul predicted he’d be in the top three only to come in fifth. Mitt Romney should have won by a huge margin, but when you add the second and third place candidates together, they actually beat him. In 1999, I learned this lesson from Lamar Alexander. I was seated in a cubicle upstairs in a study hall waiting for the results. I had found a phone line and was waiting with two press releases to send to our office in Phoenix – one announcing how well we had done, one announcing that we never expected to do well because we hadn’t invested the money in it. Alexander and his team came in and stood behind me – waiting for results on a TV in the room. When they were announced, and Lamar discovered he, too, had done worse than they expected, he shouted, “Well God Damn it, it’s not like we could have tried any harder.” After apologizing to me for disturbing my studies (I had my back to them, and they had not seen my Quayle 2000 polo), they stormed off in frustration.

It is likely that you will be outspent. If you’re not, you will probably win, but everyone will know the only reason you won is because you sent more than everyone else. – the straw poll is a fundraiser – first and foremost. The candidate who spends big wins big. The only way the race is close is if you have two candidates willing to spend big. In 1999, Forbes and Bush both spent an incredible amount of money. Forbes’ tent was ridiculous. It had giant glass French doors and air conditioning. The Bush guys were riding around on a fleet of brand new John Deere tractors and had an equally massive tent. Compare this to the Quayle operation which had secured the original tractor. It was made in Japan, had no instructions in English anywhere on it, and backfired like Uncle Buck’s Buick whenever it was turned off. Our ready room for the Veep consisted of a borrowed Winnebago. Looking at the results, I’m not terribly surprised that the two guys who spent a small fortune were duking it out for first. I’m also not surprised to see that Mitt won it this year (given he was the only guy spending a lot of money).

All the chatter about how the straw poll is a test of your ability to organize in Iowa is a bunch of crap. The straw poll is a test of how much you are willing to spend in Iowa. Period. He who is willing or able to spend the most will win. Congrats to Mitt and his team for proving that’s still true.

If it ain’t over until the fat lady sings, this Washington Post article may be an indication that she’s getting the pipes loosened up. Generally an article like this would have quotes from some mid-to-low-level GOP congressman (someone from the at-large seat in North Dakota, for instance) bemoaning the downfall of the GOP while all the top brass cheerily whistles past the graveyard.

Not this time…

“If you are a Democrat, you have to like the atmosphere,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.).

“It is unquestionably closer than we would like,” said Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.).

These two guys aren’t lightweights. Granted the article pulled two quotes that may well not be representative of their larger comments. Either or both of these guys could have said, “We’re going to hang on,” but the reporters left it out because it doesn’t fit with the storyline.

I suspect, however, that the quotes above are actually about the most positive things they could say about the current environment. With two new polls out (USA Today/Gallup and ABC News/WaPo) showing the GOP getting its ass handed to it.

Most polling shows a drop in support among conservatives and independents, but I’d really like to see the conservative universe broken down by fiscals and socials. I don’t think we’re going to lose a lot of social conservatives because they don’t, strictly speaking, have a lot of hope getting the Democrats to pass socially conservative legislation.

Fiscal conservatives, however, now appear to have equally dismal options for getting fiscally conservative policies out of either party. I suspect that’s where we’re bleeding support, but the timing of the Foley things gives us a convenient out to blame the social wing.

I received an e-mail looking for my thoughts on the “netroots” poll that got gums flapping last week. The poll is located here. The gist is almost 70% of Democrats believe internet political activists will have a significant impact on the elections. The GOP is almost exactly the opposite with 70% claiming it will have little to no impact.

Given their list of “GOP Insiders” it’s not a surprise. Most of those guys have been doing campaigns the “old school” way since the 70s and 80s. The fact that they would see a new medium as a fad or marginally effective is not a surprise.

The GOP is full of people who learned on old media – mail, phones, radio, and TV – and don’t know anything else. What’s funny is I imagine the same quotes were probably uttered by consultants when cable TV came along.

“Let’s be honest: The people who take the time and energy to [watch cable television] have made up their minds months before any election.”“When it comes down to it, those who are motivated to act via [cable television] are not being swayed to a different party or to vote. They are simply using [cable television] as another way to communicate.”

Now we recognize cable television for what it is – a very cost effective way to deliver a narrowly focused message. The Internet and blogs are that, and so much more.

The reason is inherent in the two-way nature of blogs. Imagine if television allowed anyone, anywhere to instantly refute the newscast with an audience of equal or greater size. Viewing blogs as some passing fad, or some novelty misses the point. It’s shortsighted and conveys a lack of understanding of new media and how people adopt new technologies.

Blogs are merely part of a larger movement in media. The concept of the “blog” will soon fade, but the movement they represent – a broad, diverse network of small, niche market news gatherers and commentators – will remain. As long as these “professionals” and the party leaders approach the changing media landscape with the same conceptual framework they apply to one-way television transmission, they’re going to get hammered.

The trouble for the GOP is we approach bloggers the same way we approach the media. We feed them sound bites, and send them suggested blog topics, but we don’t involve them in the process. We give them widgets they can drop on their website, and we allow them to participate in conference calls or seminars occasionally, but we do not leverage their real power.

Their power is their passion for politics, and their connections. If you had a community leader, someone whose social network was extensive, knew everyone, could gather a variety of opinions on short notice, had both a deep understanding of issues and a source for vetting solutions with an audience representative of the general populace, that person would be an invaluable resource for the campaign. They would likely be asked to serve within the kitchen cabinet for a fair number of candidates. They would likely be sought as an endorsement in the primaries, and as a trusted advisor to campaigns.

Because they are online, however, and choose to spend a great deal of time on the computer and manage their connections via e-mail and IM, the bloggers – who fit the description above in every way – are treated as media, and offered only occasional glimpses of the campaign, and rarely brought in to help.

That’s what the GOP doesn’t see. As long as it remains blind to that, we run the risk of turning the Internet into what talk radio is for Democrats – a medium that is not understood, and which gives the other side great power. Unfortunately, the power of the Internet, compared to talk radio, is much greater and capable of inflicting far more damage on us than we inflict on them with the AM dial.