6 votes

California - Congressional Districts to Target?

Hi, all - hope I am not inadvertently blowing someone's secret
super plan... but here is my take on some of the best prospective
Congressional Districts for Dr. Paul in California. There is something
for everyone up and down the coast - Inland Empire doesn't appear to
me to offer decent prospects. I'm mainly just looking at a couple factors,
Ron Paul's '08 results, and the places where the fewest votes acquired
will have the most impact. Not the only things to consider of course
but significant, I think.

Working from the '08 figures, I identified the top dozen CD's in terms
of their Ron Paul support last time. I also identified a dozen or so of
the districts where the fewest voters translates to the biggest percentage
gain. Six of the districts rate high under both criteria. At least it suggests
where *not* to expend a lot of our limited resources.

The situation for some of these CD's (South Bay Area, mostly) will have
changed a bit due to redistricting, I am working from the 2008 California
results available here:


These show a dozen districts where Dr. Paul had his best percentages,
ranging from a high of 8.5% to 5.6%. They vary geographically, in their
urban/rural character, in their ethnicity & etc. but they are all
basically liberal Democrat-held districts.

One important figure I give for each district is 1=xxx. This indicates
the number of votes that constituted one percent of the vote in the
Republican '08 primary in that CD. The lower the xxx figure is, the
more bang per vote.

For example, the lowest number is for CD 31 (East LA and Hollywood)
where only 800 votes constituted 7.8% of the total so one percent
of the vote = 103 votes. The highest number for these 12 CD's is over
600 votes = one percent, but for many CD's not listed, one percent of
the total is 800-900 votes. So, one vote you get out of Hollywood
may equal eight from Orange County. There are other counties
where Paul's totals were lower than this group, but where any votes
you can sway are going to be relatively powerful in affecting the
results. Those are listed below.

CD 8 8.5% 1513 1%=178 Incumbent: Pelosi
CD33 8.1% 1093 1%=135 Incumbent: Bass
CD31 7.8% 800 1%=103 Incumbent: Becerra
CD 9 6.6% 1172 1%=178 Incumbent: B.Lee
CD14 6.2% 3274 1%=528 Incumbent: A. Eshoo (R)
CD53 5.9% 2547 1%=432 Incumbent: S. Davis
CD6 5.9% 3437 1%=583 Incumbent: L. Woolsey
CD34 5.7% 843 1%=148 Incumbent: Roybal-Allard
CD28 5.7% 1198 1%=210 Incumbent: Berman
CD 1 5.7% 3512 1%=616 Incumbent: M. Thompson
CD17 5.6% 2255 1%=403 Incumbent: Farr (R)
CD15 5.5% 2430 1%=442 Incumbent: Honda(R)
(R) = Affected by redistricting

The following districts had lower RP vote totals than those above,
but offer good bang for the effort: 1%<300 votes

CD13 1%=295 votes
CD20 1%=237
CD32 1%=237
CD37 1%=171
CD38 1%=210
CD43 1%=235
CD47 1%=234

Any thoughts?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

vote totals

Your analysis is quite interesting; I haven't focused on vote totals like those you have laid out.

Let me see if I correctly understand what you are saying: concentrate on those districts where there will be a lower total for ballots cast.

Is that correct?

With the limited time remaining before more than half the votes will start to be cast via mail ballot it makes sense to concentrate efforts that way.

We're not going to get them all so it seems logical to go where you "get the most bang for the buck", where the total ballots cast will be least. If I'm understanding you right, that's a very sophisticated way to view it.

Paul gets the younger vote so I'd recommend also concentrating by age group AND by income---younger, poorer are our demographic.

The first, age, is obvious, since Paul consistently has done best with under 30 and under 45 age groups.

The second, income, usually isn't so obvious to libertarian/Paul type activists. Historically, all around the nation, the free market issues which go to ballot via initiative have done best among the lowest income, worst among the highest income. It's possible to see this if you consider, those most comfortable want no change, while those worse off are more receptive, they know something must change.

Paul has and will do best with those most disenfranchised-young, poorer and non-white.

I'd like to know more of how you intend to target. What tools? The only real way to get registration and completed absentee forms is face to face. You do both where the canvasser/circulator retains the hard copy so it's turned-in quickly and directly to the proper offices. Anything short of that just won't work. If you rely on what people tell you on the phone, like "sure, I'll change my registration---you lose, they won't do it, there's no follow thru by the individual voter. You've got to do it in person, face to face.

I've been stressing absentee (meaning any vote by mail people), as nearly 60% are likely to vote by mail and since it's the best way to measure your progress: You actually can know how many votes you turn-out thru registration and absentee ballot requests.

You do it beginning with a current voter list, with voter history (so you can identify the likely voters), party affiliation, (so you know who needs to change affiliation, to re-register Republican) and you will know age.

If you combined that with census data (cheapest and quickest add-on you could hope to find which would give you a general idea of income for any given district or precinct)---with the time left, I don't think you really need to worry about enhancing the voter list even with income data, so probably you don't want to waste precious time and money on that. Pretty much, you can tell the income of a precinct just by standing in it, by looking at it. In Southern California, we already know the people in Gardena don't make as much as the folks in Bel Air.

Because there really is no time left, I've also stressed precinct parties. They can quickly be arranged. You need host/hostess residences, and the Paul campaign has more fervent supporters and a numerically superior base of energetic activists throughout each state.

IF I understand your original premise correctly, it might work like this:

You organize precincts for house parties. Once you have people in a target district who will host a rally, you invite by phone and any other way which is feasible. You invite ALL voters, any party, as long as there still is time to register and re-register.

The purpose of the party is to give you the best shot at getting voters to register Republican AND to request an absentee ballot. You get the forms in hand and turn them in quickly, within the time period allowed in the law, like either daily or no more than every few days you turn in those reg cards and absentee forms.

Then you do follow-up. You'll know exactly when the ballots are mailed out and you concentrate on calling voters to prompt them to return the ballot---if you have enough people willing to help, you can track the ballots which are returned, that data is public. However, tracking is a big project in and off itself, so don't worry so much about that, just concentrate on getting the registrations and absentee requests. Remember too that with a current voter list which has voter history, you'll also know how people voted in past elections, you'll know who routinely vote by mail, who is a permanent vote by mail and who always or almost always goes to the polls on primary day.

Finally, you concentrate on issues. There are a number of issues where Paul is head and shoulders above his opposition. I think the drug issue is most significant. With that you appeal most to younger, lower income and non-white. The MJ issue alone is probably the hottest, not just in California but everywhere.

The trick is turning those people out to vote. It's tough, but those are our voters.

Of course, you don't publicize any of this. That is suicide. It lets Romney et al know exactly what you are doing and where you are doing it. So you keep it offline. They still WILL be able to know you are doing absentee, because once cards and forms are submitted that data becomes public, but the other campaigns really have no time left to respond, and probably they won't even be looking for you to be doing it.

There are other issues besides the drug issue. Income tax always is hot, and Paul appeals there. That one is hot with older voters too. Present it like Paul does, eliminate the Income Tax and replace it with nothing---I've got experience with this, doing plebescite work on it, and I've never seen any hotter issue other than the MJ issue. There is a huge appeal out there, among those who regularly vote and those who don't, and it cuts across age groups and gender. No one really likes the IRS.

To be any more specific I'd really need more time and need to know if I correctly understand your basic premise, that you work those districts where there is lowest vote total.

I've been hoping that the campaign would have organized sufficiently to go for every district, but at this point, let's get what we can.

I've got one specific recommendation for So. Cal., IF it fits the kind of district where there will be lower vote totals (I think it will but I don't have numbers handy) and that's in communities like Bell, California. That's a very small city, by geography and it's packed with people, lower income and non-white PLUS they are riled up with the bad government issue. That community is ripe for our side. Because of what they have been thru recently, the well publicized corruption of their city officials, they really hate government right now.

The voters there are ideal for Paul, they are less well off, they are non-white and they don't trust government. They skew Democratic which for us means they aren't going to be eager to vote Romney or Santorum. If we are going to benefit from cross-over, that's the kind of place to do it, Bell and cities like Bell. There are a number of communities all thru there where the same problems exist...where local government has been shown to be very corrupt.

Above list says Ana Eshoo is

Above list says Ana Eshoo is in District 14, but (as you state) has gotten re-districted. Check following link to keep track of what new district boundaries are:


According to this, District 14 is now most of San Mateo county (I believe Jackie Speier is the Rep.) 2008 numbers for Ron Paul from San Mateo county from that district look lukewarm.

New number for South bay district where Ana Eshoo is Rep is now District 18.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!

metalhed19's picture

Bump from Wis. You guys got 2

Bump from Wis. You guys got 2 months to keep talking to people!!!

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"




just to make sure Californian's see this..

on my bump list next weeks...




Received your email