Since 2004, we have worked with Small Business California on their annual survey. If you own a small business we would like to get your thoughts and opinions.

Click Here to take survey

The finger pointing in the Massachusetts Senate Race began over the weekend and will continue for the next few weeks. No matter the outcome. Democrats have seen a change in the electorate this year but we been slow to respond. In 2006 and 2008 the strategy for electoral success was clear and straightforward. Run against George Bush.

That option is no longer available to us. Now Democrats must run clear campaigns based on their record, personality and goals. It does not matter were the seat is located or which office. The better campaign and candidate will most often win. This was not necessarily the case in 2006 and 2008 when voters wanted to toss out of office anyone tied to George Bush.

So how do we respond?

Run real campaigns that engaged voters. We can no longer be afraid of talking to voters. The town hall shouting matches were an effective conservative tactic because they frightened politicians away from direct voter contact. We need to overcome this fear and engage voters directly. It has been my experience that winning campaigns usually hold as many or more events than opposing campaigns.

The people’s issues must become your issues. It is time to focus on creating jobs and getting the economy moving. This needs to become a matter of real urgency. All political choices are personal choices. And the most personal thing a politician can impact is employment. For many people, the only thing more important than finding work is finding a spouse. That is why job hunting and match making websites dominate the Internet.

When your opposition gets small, go big. The Obama Campaign did this during the presidential campaign effectively, when opponents wanted to bog them down in details of an issue, he went big. When they wanted to talk about Reverend Wright, he talked about the state of race relations. Now we are bogging down in the details of health care reform. Instead of arguing over specifics we need to go big and start talking about making history.

Control the agenda. When you are in charge the most valuable thing is the ability to set the agenda. We decided to take up health care and we can decide what is next. Let’s decide. Don’t let the Republicans decide, make them react and when the react, move again. In politics the key those who are most successful can move from tactic to tactic the quickest.

Melissa Griffin reports, that the study on streamlining City government mandated by Proposition I, which passed in November of 2007, has not been completed or even started. Our firm ran the campaign to pass Proposition I to create the Office of Small Business and the study that they are ignoring is a major piece of the voter’s mandate.

The whole idea of Proposition I is to help small businesses by streamlining government. The first job of the Executive Director is to act as an advocate for small business within City government. Part of this study was also intended to help small business do business with the City. So that we stop giving huge contracts to huge companies outside of Bay Area.

The Oregonian’s Political reporter, Jeff Mapes is running down his top 10 political stories of the decade and today he highlights Governor Kulongoski’s reelection.

Kulongoski’s Rebound: At the beginning of 2006, you could get decent odds betting against Kulongoski’s reelection. Kitzhaber was thinking of running again. The unions, still unhappy about PERS, were keeping their distance. State Sen. Ben Westlund, a former Republican from Bend, launched an independent candidacy for governor that had more appeal among Democrats than it did in Westlund’s old party.
Republicans once again held a three-way primary, but Portland lawyer Ron Saxton was the clear front-runner this time. He had done a good job wooing the GOP constituencies and raised a lot of money.

Finally, the national climate turned hard toward the Democrats. By late fall, Kulongoski was sending out fliers that showed George W. Bush in a flight suit. The Republican brand was now toxic, from D.C. to Salem. Kulongoski was handily reelected and Democrats took control of both houses of the legislature.

In 1995, I interviewed for a job with the California State Senate’s Democratic Caucus. After the 1994 mid-term elections the California State Senate was the only state legislative body controlled by the Democratic Party west of the Mississippi River.

Many pundits and analysts are saying 2010 will be like 1994 or like 2006 what would be called a wave election. After living through a huge surge election like 1994, I don’t think they are correct for three reasons:

• Geographic and ideological isolation of the Republican Party
• Shifting demographics
• General disapproval of both parties

Over the past decade the Republican Party has become the party of the South. The push for ideological purity, the attacks on “RINOs”, has driven many socially progressive but financially conservative voters and candidates from the party. While a strong focus on issues like a woman’s right to chose, LGBT rights and immigration have energize a group of voters is has isolated the party from younger voters and minority voters.

Which brings us to the second reason why 2010 won’t look like 1994: shifting demographics. The anti-immigration campaigns of Pete Wilson and the Republican Party alienated Hispanic voters in California for at least one generation and the rhetoric used by many in the Republican Party is likely to continue this alienation for another generation. This trend is not isolated to just California or event the west.

Places that Republicans must win to take back 40 seats are not the same as 1994 and the messages they have used so far will not move young voters or minority voters.

According to the National Journal:

Still, it is worth recalling that the number of such heavily white districts has plummeted from 245 in 1993 to 145 now. That trajectory suggests the limits of a GOP revival built around maximizing its control over those places. Many analysts in both parties agree that the proliferating number of diverse districts will disadvantage Republicans unless they improve their performance among nonwhite voters, particularly Hispanics.

Voters are angry with both parties and all incumbents. They are mad at Republicans for driving our country in the worse economic recession since the Great Depression, two wars and massive debt. And voters are angry with Democrats for not fixing the situation.

Races in 2010 will break on a variety of issues and factors, such as; the popularity of individual members of Congress; if the economy and unemployment are improving and the effectiveness of individual campaigns.

Since March of this year, we have been working with a citizen’s group in Alameda to stop a fundamentally flawed and unfair ballot measure in their community. This measure would give complete control of Alameda Point to a developer, while sticking the community with most of the bill for infrastructure and clean up of the former naval base.

This last weekend our group hit 15,000 homes in Alameda with a doorhanger. It is gratifying to see this small group of citizens build a coalition and a local movement. This will be a difficult campaign to win, it is a special election February 2, 2010 and the developer has already spent more than $500,000 to our $5,000 but we have a real shot.

For those of you who follow this blog, you know I enjoy the politics that surrounds sports stadiums. So I could not let the possibility of a new arena being built in San Francisco for the Golden State Warriors pass without comment.

First this speaks to the inability of Mayor Ron Dellums to govern effectively. Between the A’s looking to leave, the Raiders wanting to leave and now the Warriors looking for a new home the businesses with the biggest stake in Oakland are all looking to get out of town.

An arena in Downtown San Francisco would be a huge asset to the convention industry and the City should pull out all the stops to make this happen. With an arena San Francisco would be an “A” list location for the NCAA tournament, major conventions and concerts these are events that just cannot be accommodated with out a 25,000 seat arena.

I have always believed that even without a professional basketball team you could fill an arena in San Francisco every day of the year. With the Warriors as an anchor tenant, and with new owners who might be able to put a winning team on the floor occasionally, a downtown arena will be a huge success.

As AT&T Park proved, San Francisco is designed to for this type of facility. Because all transit lines and roads lead to the City it is possible to build a large event space without acres of parking. This could be an exciting project and a huge asset for San Francisco.

Our client for Governor of Oregon, Bill Bradbury, announced his candidacy for office last week and I want to share with you his redesigned website at: www.bradbury2010.com and some of the new coverage. The announcement ended up being covered by 61 news outlets in at least seven cities and towns.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september182009/bradbury_gov_9-18-09.php?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=micro-blog&utm_campaign=twitter

http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/09/14/daily43.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=micro-blog&utm_campaign=twitter

http://news.opb.org/article/5840-bill-bradbury-enters-race-oregon-governor/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=micro-blog&utm_campaign=twitter

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/09/bradbury_to_oppose_kitzhaber_i.html

The campaign is off to a great start.

Pundits often wonder why politicians worry so much about keeping sports teams. Mayor Greg Nickels is going to lose his bid for reelection and one of the reasons is the City’s loss of the Supersonics. Now this is not the only reason, the City also bungled its response to winter storms and the mayor continued to push an unpopular plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

I believe for many residents of Seattle, the loss of the Supersonics defined the inability of the mayor to effectively govern.

It did not help that he ran the wrong campaign. Mayor Nickels spent resources attacking his opponents rather than reaching out to voters. He hid in his office and sent out direct mail and aired television commercials rather than directly engaging people in their living rooms and on the street.

In difficult times, voters give politicians very little margin for error. The only way to over come mistakes is through developing a relationship with your constituents. And the only way to develop a relationship is through direct and personal contact.

Unless you are a political geek of the highest order, you probable missed the news that the California State Auditor’s Office has released draft regulations for the drawing of political boundaries for the Legislature and Board of Equalization. Now if you actually want to read them and reach an even higher level of political geekhood you can find the draft regulations here.