Well, 2016 is in the history book. The summary history report is somewhat delayed, due to a host of other responsibilities consuming chunks of time. How it flies.
We put the 2016 candidates onto “the list,” and are pleased that the candidate class of 2016 did outstandingly well. In fact, to date, it is the single best candidate performance of any group of CP-Idaho candidates in our state party’s history.
We looked at the total ballots that CP-Idaho worked out of our fellow citizens by our dutiful candidates through the years in each election. One thing bears comment. We’ve said in a recent article that national has been a drain on CP-Idaho’s work. And that drain is somewhat evident in the chart.
For example, in two recent presidential election years–2008 and 2012–a clear (and we’d say precipitous) decline in total CP-Idaho ballots cast is evident. Precipitous as in…a decline of 61.4% in 2008, and a harrowing drop of 68.5% in 2012. That’s hardly motivational.
In the presidential year 2000 a decline of “only” 53.2% occurred. The only positive gain evident of the much presumed albeit little proved “coattails” effect–this claim that national CP candidates benefit a state’s down ballots–was in 2004, after the state party had withered to nearly nothing.
Listening to national tell the story, however, you’d think their presidential choices would be raining down ballots onto the state parties, a veritable cornucopia of benevolence. We see little evidence to verify any such claimed largess.
What of 2016, you ask? Well, as is well known, the national presidential social club was shown the door in Idaho in 2016. The state party refused to acquiesce to an illegitimate national anointment, or cave to their demands that we give up principle and surrender integrity (even though that term has been high-jacked in the national webpage redo).
CP-Idaho basically threw off the yoke of national’s siphoning all the oxygen out; our state’s net results are rather stunning. Our ballot total skyrocketed.
So the theory that national somehow, by siphoning all monies, time, interest, purpose and work out of the state parties, is somehow beneficial to the ballot qualified sovereign state political parties does not look true, once analyzed.
It has been CP-Idaho’s experience that the national party exists for the national party (meaning those in the private club controlling the thing). Yes, it does indeed depend on what your definition of “us” is. Unfortunately, their definition of “us” has gotten narrower and narrower. A classic, “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine” routine.
In any case, 2016 is in the record book. CP-Idaho did exceedingly well, considering the headwind this state party endured throughout.