Election season is the one time during a two-year cycle when the legislative caucuses (House and Senate) and the State and County Party align with a singular purpose: to get Republicans elected. Period. Full stop.
For the rest of the cycle, legislative caucuses focus on representing constituents in the legislature, while the State and County Parties are tasked with voter outreach, voter registration, volunteer and candidate training, and intraparty affairs such as fundraising, organizational leadership, and counteracting Democratic strategies. Their mission is to build a robust party structure that serves its members’ interests and values.
By this standard, party and caucus leadership should be judged. Nowhere does it state that party officials should waste resources or cannibalize fellow Republicans over personal disagreements or intraparty politics. It is unacceptable for elected party leaders to undermine the Republican Party’s strength as a political force—especially by using donor dollars to oppose Republicans they personally dislike. The choice of who represents the people and the party should be left to “We the People.” The power of the party, like the power of government, must always rest with the people. After all, that is what a political party fundamentally is: a group of people united by shared values.
The State and County Parties, along with legislative caucus leadership, must manage donor dollars responsibly, directing resources to viable candidates in winnable races. Gerrymandering has divided every state and district into safe (unwinnable) and contestable (winnable) zones, and this principle applies to federal and state races alike. Campaign resources should be prioritized based on competitiveness: the most competitive races should receive the bulk of resources, while less competitive races receive minimal support until victory in high-priority races is assured. This is foundational strategy. It’s Campaign 101.
Yet it seems Representative Stokesbary (the HROC caucus leader), Senator Braun (the Senate caucus leader), and Chairman Walsh (the WSRP chairman) may have missed the “campaign fundamentals” lecture. This oversight isn’t surprising, given that each of these gentlemen represents a safe district—Stokesbary’s district is a 60/40 split, Braun’s a solid 96/4, and Walsh’s another 60/40. None have ever faced a truly competitive race, aside from Walsh’s first two elections in 2016 and 2018. Senator Braun has never had a Democratic opponent in his career—his first race was against another Republican, and it wasn’t competitive. As a group, they are “peacetime generals,” ill-equipped to lead in a wartime scenario. Allow me to illustrate.
Washington State has 49 Legislative Districts. Of these, twenty-eight (28) are uncompetitive for Republicans, solidly under Democratic control. Eighteen (18) are uncompetitive for Democrats, dominated by Republican control. Only four (4) districts (LD-10, LD-17, LD-18, and LD-26) are genuinely competitive: two (2) with a Republican majority (LD-17 and 18) and two (2) with Democratic majorities (LD-10 and 26). The balance of legislative power is more precarious now than at any other time in recent Washington State political history.
The 2024 election was a momentum election; if Republicans were to lose further ground, falling dangerously close to a super-minority in either chamber—or both—the prospects for 2026 would be bleak, with Democrats emboldened to seize these competitive districts entirely. And yet, that is precisely what happened.
Not only did the House and Senate each lose a seat, but under Chairman Walsh’s leadership, the State Party squandered a chance to block out Democrats in a crucial statewide race during the primary—by a mere 52 votes. Every partisan statewide race and every non-partisan statewide race, was lost. Fundraising plummeted to a fraction of what was raised in prior years, leaving competitive candidates statewide, as well as in legislative contests, stranded without support. Republican leaders were thoroughly outmaneuvered by their Democratic Party counterparts; it wasn’t even close. Every Republican and conservative-leaning independent should be outraged.
Worse yet, Chairman Walsh failed on nearly every front: no organized statewide voter registration effort, no statewide ballot harvesting initiative, no coordination of eastside safe counties to assist westside counties in grassroots GOTV, ballot harvesting, or ballot curing. Every chairman on the westside, facing relentless attacks funded by Democratic resources, was left to fend for themselves. Walsh essentially sat in his office, threw up his hands, and said, “I’m rooting for you, sport! Let me know how it goes out there.” The result? The party got decimated. Not only did Chairman Walsh demonstrate the bare minimum effort—showing up just to collect a paycheck—but he also failed to bring in any significant fundraising dollars to back the election effort. It seems he left the fundraising responsibility entirely to the House and Senate caucuses.
According to PDC reports, under Walsh’s leadership, the WSRP raised only $1.198 million in their non-exempt account and $567,141 in their exempt account. By comparison, under Caleb Heimlich’s leadership in 2020, the WSRP raised $1.398 million in non-exempt and $1.927 million in exempt funds. In 2022, they brought in $1.808 million for non-exempt and $3.343 million for exempt accounts. Although funds generally supported candidates, the lack of substantial fundraising severely limited the WSRP’s ability to counter Democratic efforts effectively. This shortfall is a direct consequence of Chairman Walsh’s lack of fundraising experience. The most fundamental job of a State Party Chairman is to generate funds through grassroots efforts and large-dollar contributions. Walsh failed in his most basic duty, and the downstream effects of that failure contributed directly to the Republicans’ disastrous performance in 2024.
While Representatives Stokesbary and Senator Braun did manage to raise respectable funds for campaign efforts, the caucuses ultimately mishandled these donor dollars through a clear lack of prioritization and race analysis. Instead of focusing resources on critical battlegrounds, significant amounts were allocated to safe districts where Republicans were virtually guaranteed victory or to unwinnable districts where a Republican win was unrealistic. This misallocation drained resources that were crucial for defending key seats needed to prevent a fall into super-minority status.
Consider HROC’s spending in LD-42, an uncompetitive district with a 55-60/45-40 split. They allocated $85,000 to a candidate who ultimately lost by 7 points and another $14,000 on a candidate who lost by 11 points. In District 2—a deep-red area with two Republicans in the race—they funneled $91,000 toward a candidate who lost by over 14 points to my client. My client managed to raise $33,000 compared to his opponent’s $159,000, bolstered by $69,000 in outside spending. Despite being outspent 8 to 1, my client won by a wide margin. These funds, if redirected, could have made a tangible impact in defending genuinely competitive districts like LD-10, LD-17, LD-18, and LD-26, where Democratic advances posed a real threat. The focus should have been on securing these pivotal races. Instead, caucus leaders squandered resources by attempting to pick winners and losers based on personal preferences rather than strategic necessity.
This example is only a glimpse. Numerous other cases of caucus mismanagement highlight the same reckless behavior, the full extent of which will be detailed in an upcoming report. Similar patterns of reckless spending and poor decisions plague the Senate under Braun’s leadership, underscoring a broader issue of fiduciary negligence. This fiscal mismanagement will be explored further in a future exposé, shedding light on the impact of these misguided decisions across both chambers.
The time has come to hold our leadership accountable. Chairman Walsh, Representative Stokesbary, and Senator Braun have shown they’re unfit to lead the Republican Party through the challenging battles we face. Their lack of foresight, mismanagement of resources, and inability to rally support left our candidates stranded and our values undefended. In every metric that matters—fundraising, strategy, voter outreach—our leaders have failed us. They couldn’t prioritize competitive races, couldn’t energize a statewide base, and, above all, couldn’t secure a single decisive win.
Republicans deserve leaders who can rally our party and defend our values. If Walsh, Stokesbary, and Braun can’t prioritize our fight, it’s time to replace them with leaders who will. Our victories, our values, and our future are on the line. Let’s not just watch as they fumble another election—demand accountability and change now. Reject complacency and demand real leadership—before it’s too late.
Christopher P. Gergen, Founder, Dark Horse Political
About Christopher Gergen
Christopher Gergen is a highly skilled and experienced political strategist who has dedicated his career to conservative political organizations and candidates. He stands out from other political consultants by embracing unconventional political thinking. His unique ability to bring order to chaos through innovative tools and methods has proven to be a valuable asset to his clients.
Christopher’s journey in politics began as a grassroots volunteer for Senator Bob Dole’s Presidential campaign in 1995. Since then, he has been involved in numerous political campaigns ranging from local races to presidential elections. After serving in the United States Navy in response to the 9/11 attacks, Gergen went on to build a successful financial planning practice with a Fortune 500 company. However, he saw an opportunity in the political arena and left his growing practice to establish Dark Horse Political in 2015. The following year, he was hired as the State Political Director for the Trump for President organization in Oregon. Since then, DHP has continued to provide advisory services to various campaigns, most notable in Washington state is Culp for Governor, at all levels of government.
Op-Ed DISCLAIMER: The views and comments expressed are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the Lynnwood Times nor any of its affiliates.
Author: Lynnwood Times Contributor
