Important Act Blue Poll

Three weeks ago, Ben Rahn from Act Blue posted a diary on MyDD telling people that Act Blue was expanding so that people could donate to candidates at the state level, rather than just the federal level. While Act Blue has already made this possible for candidates in Virginia, and while the eventual goal is to expand to all fifty states before the 2006 elections, Act Blue decided to look to the netroots to determine which four states it should expand into next. From that diary, a lively discussion of nominations ensued, both here and at other blogs. Now, it is the moment of truth. The list of nominations has been narrowed to twenty states, and an Instant Runoff poll has been created to determine which four states Act Blue will move into next. Here can find the poll here:

Act Blue poll

Please take this poll very seriously. Rank all twenty states. Do not just choose your home state. Since Act Blue will eventually move into all fifty states, select those states that you feel are of the most pressing concern to Democrats nationwide. If you have a blog, please a post a link to this poll on that blog. The voting will Friday at midnight.

Again, I urge you to participate in this poll. This is an important project, and you get to decide where it will expand into first.

Tags: Activism (all tags)

Comments

36 Comments

Poll
Seems like the priorities should be 1) short-term battlegrounds like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and 2) long-term strategic targets, which I see as Western states like AZ, Montana, and Nevada.  Given #2, I was a little disappointed not to see Colorado on the list.
by danielj 2005-10-11 12:46PM | 0 recs
Results
I can understand PA, Missouri, Montana and Florida. But why would California get so much... Given the population and the wealth of democratic supporters in the state, I am surprised peole voted for them.
by yitbos96bb 2005-10-11 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Results
That's why I am urging people to not jsut vote based on where they live.
by Chris Bowers 2005-10-11 12:49PM | 0 recs
My paradigm was...
I meant to post this here but first posted it as a comment on the poll instead.  Sorry for the duplication.

====

...putting the solidly Blue states at the bottom of the list, with my own California dead last.  Next I put Red states that I currently regard as "a bridge too far."   Parsing the others, left me with a gut feel of where money/support can make the most electoral difference.  Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Missouri scored in my top five.  Wistfully, I had states like North Carolina, Iowa, and Minnesota in the next tier.

by InigoMontoya 2005-10-11 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: My paradigm was...
that's pretty much how i voted.  but i put texas at the top of the list because it's the center of GOP power in this country.  if we can crack texas, we can crack anything.
by annatopia 2005-10-12 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: My paradigm was...
oh yes, and in the final round, my vote counted for montana.  odd, but whatever.  i ranked it #2 to begin with.
by annatopia 2005-10-12 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: My paradigm was...
I put basically all of the Midwest states at the top.  These are seats that are right for the picking.  If these states were not some darn gerrymandered, we would basically have an even House right now.  Just between Ohio and Michigan we could gain at least 5-6 seats.
by Eric11 2005-10-12 12:50PM | 0 recs
Why are we bothering...
...with states like Georgia and Tennessee?  Those states are going in the wrong direction.  We shouldn't waste resources there when we have better long-term hopes of making places like AZ and CO ours.
by danielj 2005-10-11 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we bothering...
I completely agree.

Here was my top five in order:  OH, MO, MT, AZ, MN.  AZ doesn't get enough attention and we MUST hold our blue states like MN.

I didn't mention PA because I think that race is already mature.  Casey is outraising Santorum.

by jgarcia 2005-10-11 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we bothering...
Oh, shit, I thought that the question had purely to do with senate races.  Aside from the Senate, here's my top five next blue states with explanation:

  1.  NV - most unionized state in the country (even though very libertarian on social issues), almost blue in 2004, Bush is very unpopular there.

  2.  FL - c'mon, look at demographics, this should be a blue state but for Jeb Bush.

  3.  IA - normally blue, let's get it back.

  4.  NM - like NV, trending so blue, it'll be the next solid blue state after NV

  5.  CO - trending trending trending

*  I did not mention Ohio because it has a very conservative fabric on social issues that may be hard to overcome in the near term.  The states in my top five are not socially conservative.  
by jgarcia 2005-10-11 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we bothering...
Because you are dealing with a virus and you have to eradicate it our it will mutate from its hiding place and hit you harder than ever.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-11 04:38PM | 0 recs
Do you want another Ohio?
Together, Georgia and Tennessee have 22 Congressional districts, and by 2010, they'll have more.  Right now, those districts are divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats.  But if the Republicans keep control in Georgia and gain control in Tennessee, those districts could be redrawn to elect a lopsided Republican majority.  Keeping and returning them to the Democratic column is critical to a Congressional majority.
by Drew 2005-10-11 03:31PM | 0 recs
No New York
no vote.

5 State Senators turn this into an entirely blue state and help set the stage for a few more Democratic members of the House of Representatives. We can do legally in New York what the Republicans did illegally in Texas.

All we need is 5 State Senators in 2006.

by Andrew C White 2005-10-11 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: No New York
If a state wasn't listed, that means either that it wasn't nominated by more than one person, or that it has such complicated election laws that it would not be feasible to move intot hat state so early int he process. I'm pretty usre NEw York falls into the later categroy. Tammeny Hall did a number on state election laws back inthe day.
by Chris Bowers 2005-10-11 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: No New York
State election laws suck here. Byzantine is the word that is most often used to describe them. Another reason to turn over 5 State Senate seats and fill them with reform minded candidates that will push for state legislative overhaul as well as a more citizen friendly redistricting plan.

Ok, ok... I'll go vote now... but setting up a state pac isn't one of the more difficult areas of New York election law. Getting on the ballot is.

by Andrew C White 2005-10-11 01:21PM | 0 recs
I voted Montana, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio....
in that order. Montana and Minnesota have evenly or almost evenly split state delegations in one or both houses. Ohio's swing status and the GOP corruption there made it an obvious pick. Missouri has lots of competitive districts that swung GOP in 2002 and 2004, but Missouri like Ohio is having a lot of buyer's remorse with Republicans and maybe we can retake some positions in both states.
by Keith Brekhus 2005-10-11 01:56PM | 0 recs
My top 3
OH, FL, MI.  OH is just too important and juicy right now, being a swing state, having a large number of EVs and the problems the GOP is having there.  Much of the same for FL.  I mean, the governor's name is Jeb for crying out loud.  With the growing hispanic population and swing state status, it has to be right up there.

MI is a large blue state but is being ill-served by its majority Republican representation in the house and state legislature.  Also, Stabenow and Granholm could both use the help in 2006.

by fwiffo 2005-10-11 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: My top 3
Let me second the plug for Michigan. We are so close to taking back the house and senate next year - even despite our horribly gerrymandered districts. (6 seat difference in the house, 6 in the senate as well. So tip 3 seats..) The ease of fundraising provided by a statewide ActBlue could help us in a few close races, maybe enough to tip the balance.  
by lpackard 2005-10-11 07:34PM | 0 recs
Let me second this
The state legislature in Michigan is very close.  If we can capture both houses, which is very possible in 2006 I might add, two things can happen:  

  1. We can finally give Granholm a chance to get some things done.

  2. We can redraw the districts.  
by Eric11 2005-10-12 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me second this
We can redraw the districts.  

And maybe give our area a chance to be once again represented by a Democrat instead of a Republican who ignores letters and consistently votes against the interests of his constituents.  I wasn't a huge Kildee fan because of his pro-life stand, but Rogers is the pits and against everything that I'm for.

by Denim Blue 2005-10-14 03:20PM | 0 recs
TEXAS!
DO IT!  We have a great man running for attorney general named David Van Os.  He ran for supreme court justice in 98 and 2004.  He outperformed Kerry last year.  He is a real populist.  I want to see David's face on ActBlue.

Also, the state house was won very narrowly in 2002.  i want it back.  

I do not know of a single state besides Texas where (if red) democrats hold NO POLITICAL OFFICE.  28 statewide offices, 28 employed republicans.  2 houses of congress, both are Republican.  Even blue states have republicans in charge.

If Massachusetts can have a republican governor and Kansas can have a democratic governor, Texas should have a democratic SOMETHING!

There is no balance in our state, give us balance!

by Trowaman 2005-10-11 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: TEXAS!
P.S.  How do these states become swing states?  Investment of time and money.  We're 30+ electoral votes, invest in us.  Look at the future and the present (I did Ohio as my #2 and Missouri as #4, forgot my 3ed)
by Trowaman 2005-10-11 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: TEXAS!
Texas is a great LONG LONG term state to try and reclaim, but it will take MANY election cycles.  It seems like Purple states and the Western States are the best choices given the push for privacy we as a party have been framing.
by yitbos96bb 2005-10-11 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: TEXAS!
agreed.  my top five were:

1st    Texas  - it's the seat of power for the GOP
2nd    Montana - obvs! part of the new west, where i think we could do well in the near future
3rd    Ohio - no brainer
4th    Nevada - gotta love the west.  see montana.
5th    Florida - i do not believe it is as GOP as some folks think.  plus i think if we are going to go into the south, it's florida all the way

by annatopia 2005-10-12 09:49AM | 0 recs
Stop voting for OHIO
Stop voting for Ohio!!!  THey are already in if you look at the results.  So save your vote and go with some others.
by yitbos96bb 2005-10-11 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop voting for OHIO
Presumably, they're only in based on current vote counts.  That could change if future voters rank them low.  Also, the way this voting scheme works, a vote won't be wasted, anyway.
by danielj 2005-10-11 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop voting for OHIO
True since they split up the vote... mine was split 45% for Ohio and 55% for Florida, my #2.
by yitbos96bb 2005-10-11 07:10PM | 0 recs
My paradigm was...
...putting the solidly Blue states at the bottom of the list, with my own California dead last.  Next I put Red states that I currently regard as "a bridge too far."   Parsing the others, left me with a gut feel of where money/support can make the most electoral difference.  Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Missouri scored in my top five.  Wistfully, I had states like North Carolina, Iowa, and Minnesota in the next tier.
by InigoMontoya 2005-10-11 03:07PM | 0 recs
My list
At the top was Georgia - and this because the Radical Right uses Atlanta as a safe house.

Then the predictable FL, MI, etc. etc.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-11 04:39PM | 0 recs
Why Montana?
Can someone who placed Montana near the top of their list explain to me why?  This is a question regarding state level elections for the State House and Senate.  When I voted I looked primarily at what states I feel are important for redistricting and taking back the House--Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan topped my list.  With only one Representative and a very small electoral vote count, why bother with Montana until we've already dealt with the bigger states?
by LoganFerree 2005-10-11 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Montana?
I would guess that it is the closest of the states to being where we want to be, along with New Mexico.  So if a winning playbook can be formulated it can be moved to other states
by yitbos96bb 2005-10-11 07:12PM | 0 recs
Why is Michigan so low?
We have a real chance to take the Senate and with a very good push the House...

It's at the bottom!

Control of the state Legislature could allow us to pass some much needed reforms and redistrict to get rid of 2-3 Repug House seats...

by Nazgul35 2005-10-11 07:02PM | 0 recs
Strategy
MT has a hot senate race, could be a good pickup.  AZ, PA, OH, NV, MO, it's chimpy on a stick time!

Hey, if Montana goes Blue, what's to keep Colorado or Nevada or Arizona red, bush's personality and charm?

And if we can make inroads in the Mountain West, why not in the South?

 

by DuckmanGR 2005-10-11 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Strategy
It's simple, really.  Though currently red, the mountain states are very libertarian, whilst the south are a bunch of social conservatives.  Being in a city like Phoenix, Denver, Helena, Abq, and even Cheyenne gives you a way different feeling than being in places in the south or even Ohio.

We won't ever win over the south totally.  Our growth, and thus, the future of the party is in the mountain west.  That'd give us a lock on congress and the WH.

by jgarcia 2005-10-12 10:41AM | 0 recs
Educated voting
I wish there is  like a guide what states are competetive or a need to win  but low resourcesor support.
by jasmine 2005-10-12 06:04AM | 0 recs
I think Texas is important--against Delay
by jasmine 2005-10-12 09:41PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads