On Tuesday, California would hold a special election for the state's 25th Congressional District, representing areas such as Palmdale, Porter Ranch, Santa Clarita, Simi Valley and some of Lancaster.
The election was held to fill Democrat Rep. Katie Hill's seat, who was forced to resign for some pretty crazy reasons, which in itself, is quite the hilarious story.
It's funny. This particular district in California actually belonged to the GOP for decades, and to their credit, the Democrats would have a blue wave and take this district with Katie Hill winning in the 2018 midterms. So, the first time in quite awhile that this district decides to vote Democrat, this is what happens.
Well, lesson learned. To replace Katie Hill, the special election was between Democrat Christy Smith and Republican Mike Garcia, and for the first time since 1998, the GOP would flip a blue district to red in the state of California.
Now you can say what you want about, "you shouldn't make a big deal about this because the Republicans have pretty much had control of this district until 2018," but I actually see this being pretty significant.
The Democrats labeled the 2018 midterms a "blue wave," right?
The Los Angeles Times did in their article about Mike Garcia beating Christy Smith, and it was pretty much a talking point among the entire Left.
And as it should have been, it was a solid accomplishment by the Democrats, but it didn't take long for it to fall apart -- starting with Katie Hill's resignation, and ending with Mike Garcia's victory to give the district back to the Republican Party. And this in despite of President Donald Trump's "rude" speaking that the mainstream media likes to say is a problem, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the economy crashing as a result because of the shutdown.
That particular part of Los Angeles learned its lesson: Don't vote Democrat.
And I guarantee you this district will stay red for a very long time, once again, because of their experience with the Left. And it's also a sign that the Republican Party is there to stay in Los Angeles politics.
Also on that night, the Republicans would win another special election that took place in Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District that was between Republican state senator Tom Tiffany and Democrat Judge Tricia Zunker.
Winning both of the special elections was obviously special for the Republican Party, but let's stay focused on Los Angeles -- not the election itself per se, but the red wave that happened there and how we need to take advantage of this momentum to carry it into other metropolitans.
Yes, I'm talking about big cities. And yes, I'm talking about Republicans taking over those big cities, something that we all know is obviously heavily controlled by the Democrat Party.
But Tuesday night proved that it can be done, and in fact, it's been done before.
I want to go over the history of mayors in some of America's biggest cities, and the reason for the main focus into mayors is because that is the position that directly effects the city, which directly effects the voting blocks in that particular metropolitan. If we take over the mayor offices, that then expands to the congressional districts through said voting blocks. So with that being said, let's focus solely on mayors here.
New York City: Yes, the Big Apple might have a radical leftist Democrat as their mayor right now in Bill de Blasio, but believe it or not, the Republicans had two mayors controlling the city before de Blasio came around -- for 20 straight years to be exact. Michael Bloomberg took 12 years from 2002-2013, while Rudy Giuliani carried the office from 1994-2001. The biggest city in the United States, New York City, is certainly for the taking for the Republican Party, and recent history makes that obvious, and with de Blasio being a failure to a lot of New Yorkers, it makes it even that more obvious. New York City could be ours the next election cycle.
Los Angeles: The City of Angels is a bit more complicated than New York City, but as we saw on Tuesday night, Republican victories can take place in Southern California. For L.A., they've had a stretch of three straight Democrat mayors, with their party having control since 2001, but the Republicans have had their fair share of power in the city quite recently with Richard J. Riordan running the show from 1993-2001. Also, it should be mentioned that the GOP had a large stretch of power in Los Angeles from 1933-1961 -- 28 years of holding the mayor's office through three mayors: Frank L. Shaw (1933-1938), Fletcher Bowron (1938-1953) and C. Norris Poulson (1953-1961). We have some work to do in L.A., but we've already seen one small shift. If we take advantage of the momentum, the Republican Party can make waves in a city that we once had control over.
Miami: In my opinion, the city of Miami is the greatest and most beautiful city in the world, not just in the United States of America, but in the entire globe. I love the city of Miami, and luckily for a conservative like me, the Republican Party has a tight grip on the city -- Miami is ours, ladies and gentlemen. Let's continue that up, as I'm sure the anti-socialism Cuban base will. Out of the past seven mayors in the sunny South Florida city, five of them have been Republicans, and this has been a stretch going back all the way to 1996, which has been a length of 24 total years -- a quarter of a century. Yes, we, the GOP, dominate Miami, and it really is a beautiful thing. We've had control of the city for 11 straight years since 2009, with two back-to-back mayors running the town: Francis X. Suarez (2017-present) and Tomás Regalado (2009-2017). Also be aware of this statistic too when it comes to the Republicans being the powerhouse in Miami: Out of the 43 mayors that the metropolitan has had, 32 of them have been Republicans. Plain and simple: Miami, Florida is our city, and that's the reason why it's not like a San Francisco or has the problems of a New York City or Los Angeles.
Dallas: The Democrats have had such a strong grip on the city of Dallas, but here in recent times, the Republicans have been creeping into the city. Since 1857, the Dems have had control, and there wasn't a single GOP mayor until 1981. However, since that time, the Republican Party has gotten four mayors elected: Jack Wilson Evans (1981-1983), Starke Taylor (1983-1987), Steve Bartlett (1991-1995) and Tom Leppert (2007-2011). Out of the past 10 mayors, four of them have been Republicans, while five were Democrats -- one didn't belong to a party. In a city that's been under consecutive control by the Democrats from 1857-1981, that's incredible improvement by the GOP, and it highlights that Dallas, Texas is now for the taking and could one day be ours.
San Diego: Out of 44 total mayors in San Diego, 25 have been Republicans and 13 have been Democrats. In other words, the Republican Party has clear control of this metro, with four out of the last five elected mayors being out of the GOP, including the incumbent -- Susan Golding (1992-2000), Dick Murphy (2000-2005), Jerry Sanders (2005-2012) and Kevin Faulconer (2014-present). San Diego is another example similar to Miami: Not only can we take over big cities, but we can dominate them.
That's two metropolitan cities that we dominate, two metros that we have a history of winning in and can take back, and one metropolis that we've been creeping in at a solid rate. Another example that you could also throw in there is Jacksonville, who currently has a Republican mayor.
Who said Republicans can't win in big cities? In fact, yes, we can. And we do.
Now don't me wrong, I understand there's some cities out there that seem unflippable at this point -- the San Franciscos, Chicagos and Detroits of the nation -- I get that. But we need to have as much power as possible in big cities, we need to create as much balance as possible.
Big cities effect voting blocks, culture, the education system, a lot of things about our society. There's conservatives that I've seen just brush off the Democratic control of metropolitans and making it seem like it's not a big deal, but it is.
In 2020, a lot of us are aware how insane, radical and full of elitism the Democratic Party has become (not to mention carelessly reckless), and it brings up the question: How on earth can anybody still vote for a Democrat?
Their big control over major metropolitans is why they still have this grip on a lot of votes, which again, leads to voting blocks, seats in Congress and leads in the culture war -- all of which is significant when it comes to general elections. Big cities in America are always considered "liberal," and we need to change that narrative or the Left's power will remain.
So, how can we take the power grip away from Democrats?
People mostly vote with either their wallets or relativity. In regards to metropolitan politicians and voters, relativity would certainly be the direction to go in, and we have some leverage with general populations that we could use with the right candidate.
Going back to a city like San Francisco, there have been grumblings among their citizens about how unhappy they are with some of the conditions there. According to The New York Times, yes, The New York Times, even they reported that the Republican Party could make waves in the Bay Area, reporting that San Fran's citizens were concerned about "a large homeless population, record housing costs and a high rate of property crime."
It wasn't just NYT either, it was also political insiders within San Francisco saying the exact same thing. Citizens are outraged about the homelessness, tent cities, drug abuse and hypodermic needles among the streets, all of which is contributing to declining tourism, and they're actually willing to vote Republican to get their city government to focus on these issues -- this is something that we need to take advantage of.
Instead of banning plastic straws, menthol cigarettes and e-cigarette flavorings, the general population in San Francisco wants a focus on homelessness, drugs and crime.
Another unflippable in Chicago is also desperately asking to be flipped, they just don't know it yet it seems. The Chicago machine has ruled that city for quite sometime, however, the last two mayors they elected might still be Democrats, but they're political outsiders. Unfortunately for Chicago, they still get the same policies and issues that they've been dealing with because, well, "Democrats gon' Democrat."
But it's obvious that there's a crave for change in the Windy City, and can you blame them?
This year in Chicago, there have been a total of 172 homicides, which is an increase from 2019. In the most recently reported weekend, the city had a total of 46 people shot, with four of those cases resulting in death -- and most of it is, overwhelmingly, black-on-black violence.
The Republican Party actually has a huge chunk of leverage with all of the issues going on in big cities, they just need the right candidate (relativity) in order to capitalize on it and get elected.
For San Francisco, you would get someone who is tough on the problems of homelessness, drugs and crime, and makes it the centerpiece of their campaign. They also need to have charisma, meaning we can't have the most conservative Republican on the ballot, we have to have somebody who minimizes the social issues and focuses on just the city needs.
As their political career expands, their platform can expand, but as a mayor (especially over a San Francisco), they need to stay focused on the city, its citizens, the issues at hand and what needs to happen for the Republican Party to obtain power in the metropolitan.
The same goes for Chicago, and with the issue of black-on-black violence being such a hot topic of conversation, the Republicans could take a card out of the Democrat playbook: Identity politics. For the Windy City's mayoral election, the ideal candidate would be an African-American conservative male who grew up on the tough streets of Chicago, and there's plenty of them from a Darnell Macklin all the way to even a Kanye West. (And wouldn't that be a sight to see Ye run for political office.)
With that experience growing up in Chicago, having a strong understanding and focus into the city's issues, being able to connect personally with the community and being a breath of fresh air from the Democrat Party, it could be something to cause the people of Chi-Town to flip from blue to red. It's all about relativity, and if the people of Chicago feel like they can relate to our candidate, they'll vote for them. The same goes for San Francisco and other cities alike, as long as they all focus on the city's issues, particularly the core where the main problems lie.
The complaints are there from the citizens, now we just need to take full advantage.
Owning metropolitans leads to owning congressional districts, which then expands to whole states, which then reflects in the Electoral College for the President of the United States. If the Republican Party plays its cards correctly, we could have sustained power in the federal government for quite awhile, as well as across the entire country with state and local governments.
Having control over big cities also gives us more access into culture (which I'll have a future piece on in itself) including Hollywood and the music industry, universities and the overall education system and, simply put, big city politics and economics -- which would obviously be nice additions to our resume of the Republican Party.
We've got the momentum to do so, the leverage to do so, even the votes to do so in 2020 and beyond. We just need to fully capitalize on the opportunity to take over metropolitans.
If we take over enough of them, the Republicans could have all out power in the White House (and United States Congress) for 50 years minimum, with a massive influence on culture.
And how beautiful that would be.