The Crystal Ball: The Gilchrist "Boomlet"

I was reading my estimable blogging colleague Silence Dogood's post on Jim Gilchrist's clarification of his estate tax remarks. Mr. Gilchrist has posted the same comment here as well. I agree with most everything Silence writes, but I disagree that Gilchrist's comment "bat's away all criticism" of his tax hiking remarks.

I'm pleased by Gilchrist's support for replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax (I'm for either that or replacing progressive taxation with a flat tax). However, I agree with Jeff Flint's comment that it is hard to understand how a statement like "I'm for taxing the ultra-rich more" can be taken out of context. It doesn't square with the supporting the Fair Tax. Since Mr. Gilchrist has been willing to engage on the issues in the blogosphere, he would do himself a favor by directly addressing this subject and expanding on what context that soak-the-rich statement was taken out of.

That said, I just don't think Gilchrist can actually win this thing (before I go further, let me make full disclosure that I support Sen. John Campbell in the race and believe he is superior to any of the announced candidates).

First, there is the matter of party affiliation. the 48th CD is one of the most Republican in the country, and I just don't see enough Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) peeling away from their party to vote for the standard bearer of the vestigial American Independent Party-- which basically a small, scattered legion of cranky old white guys. A Gilchrist candidacy will run smack into the reality that the vast majority of Republican voters loyally vote for the Republican candidate.

Secondly, there's money. You need money to communicate with voters. There's been a lot of talk about Gilchrist leveraging his Minuteman fame to tap a nationwide donor base, but it remains to be seen if he can do that. Even if he manages to do so, both Campbell and Brewer will be more than able to keep pace.

Thirdly, Gilchrist is an unknown quantity. Outside of founding a controversial anti-illegal immigration group, what does anyone know about the guy? He's an unknown competing against two veteran candidates who have successfully faced the voters several times. Both Campbell and Brewer have emerged victorious in bitterly contested elections. Gilchrist has never run for office in his life. And you can bet their are opposition researchers digging around for negative information about Mr. Gilchrist. I truly hope there is nothing for them to find, but it is a reality for which Gilchrist should be prepared.

Campbell is already moving to neutralize the illegal immigration issue by co-chairing the California Border Patrol Initiative. Ken Maddox informed the voters of Campbell's prior bad vote on in-state tuition for illegal aliens, but got zero traction out of it. I applaud Gilchrist's support for the Fair Tax, but Campbell has an actual on tax-and-spending issues that is rock solid. So why should a Republican voter who cares about those issues go with an controversial unknown instead of a state legislator with a track record and who they have already voted for several times?

Some think John & Ken will get Gilchrist elected. I think Gilchrist will benefit from guest appearances on their show and their relentless focus on illegal immigration. However, John & Ken also have a good deal of respect for John Campbell (I don't know their attitude toward Marilyn Brewer). If the kings of L.A. afternoon drive-time turned on Campbell and made it their mission to defeat him (as they did with David Dreier), it is conceivable they could tip the scales in Gilchrist's favor. But why would they want to do that? I think any hopes Gilchrist's supporters are placing in John & Ken to pull their man over the finish line are entirely misplaced.

Silence put it well:

Now if you can only distance yourself from the American Independent Party's history and neutralize the OC Republican machine, you're golden.

I've given it a lot of thought, but I honestly don't think Gilchrist can do either of those things. I wish Jim Gilchrist well. He will certainly enliven the race and focus needed media attention on the problem of illegal immigration.

But he ain't going to Congress.

Comments

[Allan Bartlett]

Jim might not be able to pull it off, but it would be one hell of ride if he comes close. I also read Frank Mickadeit's piece in the OC Register today about Marilyn Brewer. She's pathetic. She thinks it's a big conspiracy that those mean male GOPers don't like her. Get over it Marilyn. Your a liberal Republican running in a conservative district. You were lucky to get elected to the assembly in the first place. You know if it was you versus a conservative nomineee that you will lose every time in this district. Your only hope is to split the vote in this special election like you did the last time you won.

Powder Blue Report

[Lurk]

The poll on Gilchrist's website is running about 20:1 in favor of his running (http://www.jimgilchrist.com/poll.php), but Jubal's right, this isn't the CD to run in if he was at all serious and had the money (lots). I previously suggested that Randy Cunningham's CD might be a better target.

I'm still hung on the idea of why bother? Gilchrist could be effective as a stalking horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse) for the immigration issue, but he doesn't have the politial clout (and surely won't get it from the AIP) and committee presence (rookies always get the unimportant ones, right?) to advance the II issue effectively from a congressional platform.

He probably has more value doing what he does today, or he might consider running for Campbell's vacating seat -- that would raise visibility to the issue within a body that seems ignorant of it and it dominated by slimy liberals who think they're building a constituency by tolerating the alien invasion and looking the other way as they suck up state educational and healthcare benefits. Running for this seat might also work with Haynes' Cal Border Patrol Initiative efforts -- that would place Gilchrist smack in the middle of the issue from a State-perspective, where he COULD be effective -- and frankly he'd have a better chance at success since he couldn't beat Campbell for congress.

Jim also needs some work on his presence and speaking ability -- he comes off as tentative and uncharismatic on the radio, and can be too apologetic. I think these skills can be learned, tho, and he's gets terrific support from John & Ken, which can't possibly hurt.

[you people crack me up!]

I'd like to know what PROOF Mr. Bartlett has that the 48th is a "conservative" Republican district. Overwhelmingly Republican, yes. But these coastal/suburban Republicans are known to be fiscal conservatives while socially moderate. Polling I've seen shows voters the 48th to be moderately pro-choice, pretty strongly pro-environment, anti-tax, fans of smaller government, even slightly pro-gay rights (including marriage). Surprisingly few voters in this district see immigration as a major issue.
Hardly the conservative place Allan would like it to be.
Seems to be a good fit for Marilyn Brewer to me.
And Lurk, OF COURSE the poll on Gilchrist's own website would show such odds. It's hardly scientific. The people who make the effort to find the website and bother to vote are likely Gilchrist fans. In polling, that's what's called a self-selected (i.e. non-random) sample.
But I forget, people on this blog are not interested in presenting factual information. They'd much rather tailor the facts to push their personal point of view.

[Allan Bartlett]

What kind of proof is good enough for you, you people crack me up ? My proof is recent election results. I use the people who actually come out and vote and not the ones who answer a biased poll question. Let's look at the last couple of recent Assembly seat open races. In 1994, Barry Hammond and Tom Reinicke, both self described conservatives, received 66% of the overall GOP vote compared with Ms Brewer, the self described "moderate" squeaking by with 34%. In 2004 in the last GOP open primary, Chuck DeVore, another strong conservative, soundly beat Christy Christich, another self styled "moderate". Please try again though. This is fun debating squishy RINOs(oops, that was redundant).

Powder Blue Report

[mocha]

You failed to also mention that Campbell trounced Maddox last year as well.

[you people crack me up!]

Sad response Allan-
One of the "recent election results" you offer up as "proof" is an Assembly race from 11 years ago. The other is a Republican primary.
I fear that some review from Campaigns and Elections 101 is called for here. The upcoming election in CD 48 is an OPEN SPECIAL. A different sort of animal entirely from the only truly recent election Allan cited.
Crossover voting from all parties are a factor in this sort of election.
I love your assumption that I'm a RINO. I'm actually part of that growing percentage of voters (in the 48th, in OC, and in California) that both major parties find scary. One of those pesky Decline to State voters.

[Allan Bartlett]

That's cool. "You pesky decline to state" voters don't vote much in primaries or special elections. I'm not to worried.

[you people crack me up!]

Once again, Mr. Bartlett misses the larger point by a mile.
In a super-low turnout open special election like this unique case, even a tiny number of DTS voters (and Greens, P&Fs, Libs, even Dems!) can make a huge difference in the results.
In the typical closed primary/general scenario, a candidate has to tout his or her conservative credentials to survive a Republican primary election.
What is Mr. Campbell doing to attract socially moderate high-propensity voters? And what can he do to attract them without alienating his conservative base.
This election is a different animal entirely. I'm looking forward to observing as it unfolds.

[Steve]

Kahuna took a look at the make-up of the district back in June and thought about some of the same things "You people crack me up" is posting.

Go to "Cox's replacement - Part V - The Nitty-Gritty" on June 6th:
http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2005/06/coxs_replacemen_3.html

[OC Watch]

Look -- Gilchrist is already upsetting the apple cart. Campbell has NO charisma -- he's like talking to cardbored; Brewer is washed up (what outstanding achievement can you associate with her?). This is the Prop 186 state -- & Campbell's got to be nervous. Too bad Gilchrist is AIP -- if he reregistered GOP it would throw a major curve to the machine. Face it -- the GOP is failing miserably on leadership when it comes to illegals draining -- no -- BLEEDING our economy and resources. Get a bunch of alpha males running Gilchrist's campaign (like the Bill Hunt campaign) -- and there will be a ground swell of grassroots support.