Strategy, Media, and the Future of Rural Washington

Communication is a powerful tool, and controlling communication is almost infinite power.

When social media first launched, I had high expectations that it would democratize the internet, giving individuals the same strength of voice usually reserved for deep-pocketed corporations or governments. To some degree, this did happen. We now have influencers with millions of followers. However, if you consider a scantily clad person on social media doing silly dances to be a strong and influential voice, the definition has shifted.

By and large, the power of communication still lies in the hands of the few, and its importance can be clearly seen in how it has shaped American ideology. The far right has shown its astute planning for the future by playing the long game. This is further reinforced by the rush of MAGA-leaning billionaires buying communication networks, such as Larry Ellison’s company acquiring CBS and Paramount, Jeff Bezos purchasing the Washington Post, Elon Musk acquiring Twitter, and Mark Zuckerberg shifting the significant influence of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. And let us not forget the family rivalry of the Murdochs, where patriarch Rupert is fighting a court battle to keep his media empire firmly in the hands of his MAGA-aligned son.

One of the biggest statements on the change and influence of media came from Mark Zuckerberg.

Facebook dropped third-party fact-checking and replaced it with community notes written by the people, like you and me, on the site. This may seem friendly and social, except Mark Zuckerberg's stated premise for doing this was that people are no longer interested in facts but in what they want to believe. He used the election of 47 to support this, suggesting that because 47 is a firehose of false narratives, lies, and deception yet was still elected, people now prefer a relative version of the truth rather than objective facts.

How does this affect a candidate running for office in districts such as Washington’s 4th and 5th congressional districts?

I was at lunch the other day and, as not too typical, was asked if I would run again. Without hesitation, I said that if the right people asked me, I would, and much to my surprise I already had the list ready in my mind:

• Local 598 out of Hanford

My father retired from Local 598 plumbers and steamfitters. When I ran, they treated me like a stray cat dragging a dead rat around in my mouth. This goes far beyond a point of pride to have them “accept me.” It is about union support, and if 598 steps up with an endorsement and significant cash, the other dominoes will fall into place. This is significant.

• The Tamaki family

They bring a substantial amount of credibility and monied resources to the table. I was told that unless they were confident I was going to win, they were only mildly interested in the race. Having their backing demonstrates a commitment to winning this race that it has, if ever, rarely seen.

• Either the Washington State Democratic Senate or House

We saw during the last Legislative District 14 race with our three strong candidates what west side Democrats can do if they give a damn. They pumped large amounts of money and support into the district, which changed the game in many positive ways. My guess is that only about two cents out of every donated dollar for Democratic politics from deep-pocket west side donors makes it east of the mountains, Spokane aside. This needs to change.

• Mainstream Republicans (I would still run as a Democrat)

With a large number of voters identifying as Independent and leaning right, there could be no better endorsement of a centrist, both-sides-of-the-aisle candidate than to have an influential group provide an endorsement—or at least a nod.

• Methow Valley

Our deep-pocket Democrat transplants from the west side. They are thoughtful, invested, and passionate. But are they really committed to the east side in the same way they are to the west side and big marquee races around the country? It is time to prioritize our neighbors and our own backyard ahead of others.

There are, of course, other influential groups, but these five represent the different pillars that must be addressed to truly have a winnable race. And they all point toward raising enough money. As I understand it, I raised more money than any candidate in Congressional District 4 history, and it was still not even close to enough. Why? Simply put, it is impossible to make your name common in every household in a district as large as 4 by either going to every fair, rally, parade, and knocking on twenty thousand doors—or by spending your entire media budget in the last 4 to 6 weeks of the race.

The sad reality is that between low voter turnout, the power of the Republican brand, and most voters being seriously unaware of important facts about the candidates—relying instead on name recognition or party alignment—it cannot be done that way. If I were to run again, hypothetically speaking, I would require at least a ten-month media campaign saturating Congressional District 4 with unique, frequently changing, highly relevant, and personal messaging.

That is why I started talking about the media and its importance and followed with my criteria of which organizations are needed to make it all happen.

I do believe that a good candidate can win without all of these things, but that would be the difference between winning the lottery and operating off a strategic business plan. We only have to look at all, for good or bad, that 47 has accomplished. He has effected more change in less than a year than most presidents accomplish in two terms—all because he had a strategic plan: Project 2025.



Here is to our victory.