Founded in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus works to advance the principles of limited government, free markets and individual liberty within the Republican Party.

I got into a debate last night with a friend.

I argued that, as a movement, we lack a cohesive and comprehensive strategy to gain Senate and House seats (not to mention seats in state legislatures across the country).

I asserted that most of “the liberty movement’s” tier-one candidates are in races that are simply not winnable due to district demographics and voting trends.

In 2008, for example, RLC-endorsed candidate B.J. Lawson ran for Congress in North Carolina’s District 4 [map]. In that race, Lawson — an extremely energetic and telegenic candidate — received 37% of the vote, or 151,672 votes. Price, the incumbent establishment Democrat, received 63%, or 263,151 votes [1].

The fact of the matter is that it is nearly impossible for a Republican to win in North Carolina’s Fourth District. The most recent Republican elected in that district, Fred Heineman, held the office for just two years, from 1995 to 1997. Notably, Heineman was elected during the Republican Revolution of 1994.  But the district’s demographics have radically shifted since that point.

By looking at the Presidential numbers in 2008, we can gauge just how left-of-center the district is — i.e., how unwilling district residents would be to elect ANY Republican, telegenic or not, to Congress.

In Wake County, Obama beat McCain by nearly 64,000 votes (250,891 votes to 187,000 votes). In Orange County, Obama more than doubled McCain’s vote share — 53,000 votes to 20,000 votes. Worst of all, in Durham County, Obama beat McCain by over 71,000 votes — more than tripling McCain’s vote share (103,456 to 32,353).

So, in North Carolina 4, excluding Chatham County (a small portion of which is in the district), Obama received approximately 407,300 votes and McCain received just around 240,000 votes — a difference of over 165,000 votes [2].

B.J. Lawson is an extremely persuasive candidate, but it would be nearly impossible for any Republican to win in NC 4. In my opinion, Lawson should run for a different (and more winnable) office rather than run again in 2010.

In New Mexico’s District 3 [map], we’ve been hearing a lot about Adam Kokesh, a firebrand running against incumbent Democrat Ben Luján.

It is not clear what party Kokesh plans to run with, but if he runs as a Republican, he certainly has his work cut out for him to make any inroads in this district.

In the 2008 GOP primary for the seat, for example, a tiny number of Republicans turned out to vote in the Congressional primary between candidates Marco Gonzales and Daniel East.  Gonzales, considered the more libertarian-leaning of the two candidates, lost the primary against East.

The Republican primary turnout in 2008 for New Mexico District 3 was a mere 27,400, compared to the 247,910 Democrats who turned out to vote in their primary  — a difference of over 220,000 voters [1].  This information alone tells you that no Republican has any chance of wining this seat in 2010.

Also take into account that New Mexico’s District 3 is over 36% Hispanic and nearly 20% American Indian.  Ben Luján, the incumbent, is both Hispanic and American Indian, so even when we remove party identification as a parameter, Luján would be likely to win the seat based on ethnic identity — especially if his sole opponent in the race is Caucasian.

Obama did even better than Luján (the Democrat incumbent) did in 2008, winning more than 61% of the vote against McCain (171,556 votes to 110,521 votes) [2]. In 1996, a Republican, William Redman, was elected in New Mexico 3.  However, the only reason Redman won is that a Green Party candidate took votes away from the Democrat nominee. Redman was defeated in his next election by ten percentage points.

My point is that this race — New Mexico 3 — is not a good investment for the liberty movement and donors should spend their hard-earned money on a different race.  Even in 2008, with Luján lacking incumbent status and with a third party candidate in the race who received 13% of the vote, the Republican still didn’t come within 20 percentage points of beating Luján.

Finally, let’s look at Oklahoma, District 4 [map], where liberty Republican R.J. Harris is waging a primary campaign against incumbent Tom Cole.

Cole is the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the fourth-ranking Republican leader in the House. Presumably, this means that if he was ever in electoral trouble, he would get a lot of help (read: money) from the NRCC.

The district itself is a safe Republican district, with Bush receiving 67% of the vote in 2004. It is located in south-central Oklahoma and borders Texas (along the Red River, to the south). The district covers a total of 15 counties (in whole or in part).

Cole was first elected in 2002, when he beat his Democrat rival by a fairly small margin for such a Republican district — 15,000 votes.  (As you may recall, 2002 was a year of GOP gains.)  In the last two elections, Cole has received around 65% of the vote in his district [1].

However, Cole hasn’t had to defend himself in a Republican Party primary.  Of the three races I have analyzed, this race makes the most sense for us to target — at least from a strategy perspective.

Tom Cole could be vulnerable because of his vote for the bailouts and his close ties to the NRCC — both of which paint him as an insider.  I don’t know what kind of candidate Harris is or if he has any talent as a spokesman or campaigner, but the demographics of this Congressional district provide a chance of success under the right circumstances and with the right candidate.

Moreover, when compared to the two other districts (NC 4 and NM 3), I think OK 4 voters will better identify with our core message of social and economic freedom.  Of course, it will also be fun to have Tom Cole as our dart board.

Overall, the liberty movement needs to be very careful where we send our money and where we spend our time.  Our resources are far too few to be wasting them on high-profile Congressional races that are being run “to educate voters”.  One Ron Paul in Congress is not good enough!

“The 2010 election cycle is just around the corner,” according to Dr. Paul, so “…[w]e must redouble our efforts to educate our fellow citizens, recruit and support liberty candidates, and marshal our resources for the battle ahead.”

Part of waging a successful battle is recruiting candidates in races where we can win!

The liberty candidates our movement supports must be able to win as our liberties slip away at record pace.

Time and resources are scant.  Careful decision-making, meticulous planning, and sound strategy will make the difference.

Will we do it?