Bush's California Strategy
The senior George Bush wrote it off in 1992. Bob Dole conceded it to Bill Clinton in 1996. Now George W. Bush says he's going for the Golden State in 2000.
As the Texas governor put it during a visit there last week, "I know there's a rumor going around the press in California that somehow I'm not going to compete in California - that's wishful thinking on the part of Al Gore."
Most polls have Bush trailing Gore in California by at least 10 points. With a fairer shot at the true battleground states of the rust belt - Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan - why would Bush commit valuable money and resources to a huge state with expensive media that only the most optimistic Republicans give him any chance at all of carrying?
First answer: In the electoral vote chess game, this is the Bush opening gambit - keep Gore fighting for a state he absolutely needs. Gore has visited California some 40 times as vice president, and it's fair to say that his presidential ambitions begin with the premise that he can take its 54 electoral votes. In other words, Gore has already tallied California and Bush would like to say, "Not so fast there, Al."
Team Bush hopes that Gore will expend cash and other resources in defending California that he would otherwise use to win battleground states. And, after all, turnabout is fair play. Gore's pander (with all due respect to President Clinton, who insists it wasn't) to Florida's Cuban exile community with his Elian flip-flop was a shot across Bush's saddle horn in a state that is equally crucial to him.
The feints of electoral vote competition explain Bush's California dreaming to a degree (and Gore's Florida moves), but they don't tell the whole story. Why, you may ask, is the early action going down in these states? Why not Texas? Heck, if Bush thinks he can win California, why isn't Gore working the Lone Star State? Or why not George W. in New York, Gore's most important state after California and rough strategic equivalent to Bush's Florida?
Which brings us to the second answer: George Bush's California jaunt represents an effective strategic fake, yes. But for Californians like Republican Rep. Tom Campbell, who is making a play for Dianne Feinstein's Senate seat, and state Assembleyman Jim Cunneen, the GOP nominee in the race to fill Campbell's House seat, Bush's campaigning is very real indeed. What's more, it may be vital to Republican efforts to hold on to their razor-thin margin in the House of Representatives - with Democrats needing to gain only six seats for a majority, four Republican-held seats are in play in California alone.
A strong showing by a party's presidential candidate, even in a losing effort, can greatly aid those up for legislative seats further down the slate. Party-line votes start with the top of the ticket, and they add up. The California state GOP did, indeed, suffer from being abandoned by Bush in '92 and Dole in '96. Republicans also lost big in the '98 miderm elections. Former Governor Pete Wilson's Proposition 187 has galvanized the Hispanic vote against Republican candidates and the national party is at loggerheads with most Californians on issues like gun control, abortion, and the environment. With all this baggage, it's no wonder that California Republicans are looking to George W. Bush - young, Spanish-speaking, "compassionate conservative" - for help.
If Bush thinks he's going to win the presidency, it's help well given. In January, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that whoever wins the Republican nomination will "have to win by a pretty decisive margin to keep the House Republican." Since this election has all the makings of a real squeaker, some strategic boosts in well-chosen House races could do for the Republicans what sheer margin of popular vote cannot.
As for Gore's bid to compete in Florida, would it surprise you to learn that there are three open House seats there, all being vacated by Republicans?