MyDD :: Fifty State Strategy

Fifty State Strategy

by Chris Bowers, Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:48:37 PM EST

One relief I have about the 2005-2006 elections is that there will be no Presidential election, and thus as a party we can return to a truly national focus. Of course, we should have maintained a truly national focus in this past election, since the Kerry campaign's twenty state strategy cost him significant ground in the popular vote. The nearly complete absence of Democratic GOTV efforts in California might have cost Kerry half a million votes in the Golden State alone, and New York was not much better. With the focus off the Presidency during the midterms, literally every single state will feature at least one important election for Democrats that will not be easily trumped by the "swing states." Everyone can stand and fight in their own backyard.

For starters, there will be literally hundreds of state legislature elections, the only elections where Democrats made real gains in 2004. This map shows the current balance of power in state legislatures:

2004 was encouraging, but we are still not over the hump. In addition to defending our gains in many states from 2004, there are a large number of legislative branches where we are within five seats or less of control. When it comes to State Senates, we are within five seats of less of control in Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Virginia. When it comes to Houses, we are within five in the Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon.

When it comes to Governorships, our rather dramatic gains from 2001-2002 have slowly eroded in the 2003 and 2004 elections. With Rossi still slightly ahead in Washington, the new Governor's map is a little depressing:

However, in 2006, there will be gubernatorial elections in most states, and there are many excellent pickup opportunities for Democrats. Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio and Vermont are just some of the states where we have a good chance to take over party control.

None of this even mentions the House of Representatives, where I fully expect Democrats to launch our most wide-ranging assault on Republican control since our 1994 defeat. Personally, I want to seriously challenge at least seventy Republican seats, and run a Democrat in 434 (we can leave Bernie Sanders alone). In the Senate, I think we need to mount serious challenges against at least eleven sitting Republicans.

Considering the wide-ranging focus and the absence of swing states, 2005-2006 will actually be a more national election than 2004. In order to make broad gains, the party needs to be built up in every available locality. For the first time since its inception, Democratic Party Meetups are now the most important type of Meet for us to attend. This is also why we need a national chair, someone like Simon Rosenberg or Howard Dean, rather than someone who seems primarily interested in defending the local and parochial, such as Tom Vilsack. This is also why we need to maintain organizations like America Votes more than ever, but they need to be expanded to a national level, rather than just focusing on seventeen key states.

It is time for a real fifty-state strategy.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 39 Comments :: Post a Comment

Utah strategy (none / 0)

I think Utah will be ripe for a flip in a decade. Perhaps I'm crazy, but the Dems there are scratching and clawing their way up. They have a superstar in Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. The Mormons are a different flavor of Christian conservative than the Radical Cleric Falwell/Robertson types. They dislike extreme negativism--it cost John Swallow (R) his congressional race.

In case winning their votes doesn't work, the Mormons are projected by become a minority by 2014. Introducting the mushrooming Latino population there to the Democratic party is essential.

by quoi on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:19:50 PM EST

Re: Utah strategy (none / 0)

Mormons are a different flavor all right. They're not Christians sny more than Christians are Jews.

by Abby on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utah strategy (none / 0)

Err. Exactly, I guess. How many Mormons realize that other "Christians" are completely intolerant of their beliefs? And that the Religious Right hates them as much as they hate gays?

by quoi on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utah strategy (none / 0)

Even Christians are intolerant of Christians. A Christian who believes that baptism is not required for eternal life is intolerant of other Christians who believe it's necessary.

http://www.political-news.org

by news on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utah strategy (none / 0)

Mormons don't hate gay people.
With the organized fundamentalist-right shouting and harassment outside Temple Square and the Conference Center, I don't think utahns have any illusions what the southeastern-Republican base thinks of mormons.

"There is no such thing as a fundamentalist mormon" --President Gordon B. Hinckley

by Newt on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:09:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utah strategy (none / 0)

Shoulda' been clearer. The fundies dislike the Mormons as much as the fundies dislike the gays.

by quoi on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utah strategy...not as much as gays (none / 0)

Not sure if this is true. I knew a California right-winger who worked to pass the man/ woman marriage ballot initiative there. He was quite clear that Mormons weren't Christians, but in politics he was glad to work with them, because they supported all the right "family values" positions.

by Abby on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:46:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utah strategy (none / 0)

Actually, most Mormons I know consider themselves the correct version of Christianity. They consider themselves the next evolution, kind of the way the Protestants did under Luther (which got rid of a lot of the ritual and also decided to interpret the bible literally instead of allegorically). Not an expert on their religion, this is just what most of the Mormons I know have said.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utah strategy (none / 0)

Rocky Anderson is a lightning rod who has made himself massively unpopular outside the central part of Salt Lake City (I did survey data mapping for the 2003 election campaign, so I know the details very well).

He does not help our statewide party at all.

Our superstar is state party chair Donald Dunn, who won that post at the tender age of 32. Our organiztional efforts under his leadership will begin to show in the off year elections of 2006 (turnout was quite high this year even in untargeted precincts, but we'll make a big difference in the off-year).

But Utah is not really about to flip. It's still pretty Republican around here.

by Newt on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utah strategy (none / 0)

Some good points. But, Utah is changing a lot. Compare the culture two decades ago to a decade ago to today. When I left the state for college, the Village Inn was about all that was happening in town after 8pm. (The now-gone Bandaloops, too, for those couterculture coffee nights.)

Most of my irrational hope comes from the Governor's race--look at Bush's margin (71-26) vs Huntsman's margin (57-42). What's happening?

2004-Huntsman 57 Matheson 42
2000-Leavitt 75 Bradley 24
1996-Leavitt 87 Bradley 11

by quoi on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry for MA Governor? (none / 0)

I'm surprised that no one's floated the idea of Kerry for MA governor... we really need someone to rescue us from Mitt Romney (who so far hasn't done much at all with the office since he has his eyes on a 2008 run).

Kerry was Lt. Gov. (under Dukakis) for a brief time right before moving on to the Senate, and as a blue state it's unlikely that the DNC would lose his Senate seat to the GOP.

If he's serious about trying to come back for another prez. run, perhaps a term or two as a governor would help him towards this goal.

by Harvester on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:31:02 PM EST

Re: Kerry for MA Governor? (none / 0)

Unless of course, a recently defeated Romney runs for, and wins, the recently vacated seat of John Kerry in the subsequent special election.

For a state that repeatedly elects Republican governors, MA isn't as blue as all that. I wouldn't take retaining the senate seat to be a given without a strong candidate. That strong candidate might consider running, well, for governor instead.

Bay Staters had a good shot at saving themselve from Romney and failed to take it.

by Guinho on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kerry for MA Governor? (none / 0)

That is a little unfair. Romney looked pretty good going into that election. Just coming off of the Olympics, he had a lot of momentum. I think most people thought he was a different person than he turned out to be.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey Chris, you're in Philly, right? (none / 0)

We had a pretty successful meetup for a new Philadelphia chapter of Young Democrats. We expect to formally adopt a constitution and elect officers and directors in December. Then the Philadelphia Democratic County Chair, Bob Brady, has to offically sign off on our chapter.

We intend to get active as soon as the holiday season has passed. I know the Senate race here is a big priority, as well as the Governor's mansion. We also are going to look at some house races in the area, and the state legislature.

I'm also going to take your book club idea to the whole group, and suggest we all participate online. However, would you be interested in attending any of our meetings to further discuss the books?

by lutton on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:55:40 PM EST

Re: Hey Chris, you're in Philly, right? (none / 0)

Unfortunately, I'm not all that young anymore (turned 30 earlier this year). I'd be happy to come to one of your meetings, meet people and talk, but I am not really a young Democrat.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Chris, you're in Philly, right? (none / 0)

Yeah, me too. I'm 34. But the group technically goes up to age 36. Plus I thought it would be good experience for me, as my polical knowlege is still somewhat young. And I thought the group could use a hand getting up and running.

I'll keep in touch.

And I'm looking forward to the book club.

Thanks.

by lutton on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Indiana 8th and Indiana 9th... (none / 0)

These are two of the most competitive districts in the country. Both were narrowly lost (the 8th by 1300 votes and is subject to a recount) and we are beginning planning for 2006. I believe Baron Hill will be nudged into running against Sodrel again, and we'll have a stronger organization (relatively) here. Hostettler is always weak, so he should be defeatable with work. If we can take those two seats, we'll be better off to take back the house. It won't take much of a Democratic wind to push these back into our hands.

by Guinho on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:39:59 PM EST

Political advertising is a problem and (none / 0)

an opportunity. One of the problems you and others have pointed out is the bizarre consultant fees that give Shrum and others the right to place political ads with their cronies. That's one of the reasons that DNC ads are so useless and ad campaigns are so expensive.

What are the chances of getting the DNC? consultation contract/arrangement changed to give more flexibility and creativity to Democratic ad campaigns?

Who or what entity makes the decision on the structure of consultant/advertising contracts?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:26:06 PM EST

Re: Political advertising is a problem and (none / 0)

Probably the same asBush admitting to making mistakes.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Idaho in '06 (none / 0)

Well, Idaho is still going to be in the red for years to come. Though dems are coming into the larger cities (Boise, Coeur d' Alene)and college towns (Moscow, Pocatello), we still had only one blue county (Blaine). That is the place in idaho where Kerry's wife has a place, Arnold does, Britney Spears does, etc... But we are surrounded by the rural agriculture/ dairy type of people that vote pretty strongly republican.

by Vander on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:06:57 PM EST

Re: Idaho in '06 (none / 0)

I'm too tired to dig it up, but there were a few precincts around Boise that went for Kerry, plus the Idaho Statesman (!).

by quoi on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Structural Problem (none / 0)

As long as the primaries remain so front-loaded it will be hard for the party to run true fifty-state strategy. We need to get the process spread out again. The way it is now set up, it is hard for the state parties grab the enthusiasm a presidential primary campaign can engender. Even if the decision is clear, quick flying visits just before a primary does not allow the presumptive nominee time to connect to the state party infrastructure and work out their message to the broadest number of voters.

This was particularly true this year. Kerry peaked way to early and lost a tremendous amount of positive free press in the spring. If the season was just a bit more drawn out other candidates could have mounted a reasonable regional strategy and kept the excitement going into the spring (and very possibly flushed the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush out before the convention instead of in the money limited dead time making them much less of an issue).

Fear of eating our own is no more valid then forging the candidate in a longer campaign.

by Judeling on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:17:17 AM EST

Maine -- Snowe can go (none / 0)

It kind of makes me sad to say it, because Snowe is one of about three R Senators I actually respect, but it's time for Maine to dump its conservative Senate delegation. I'd be much happier to have an immediate opportunity to take out Collins, but all things in their time. Meanwhile, we've got a shot at taking Snowe's seat in '06.

Maine has trended stronger D lately, with a Dem governor, state legislature, and Congressional delegation. The Senate is the only place left where Dems don't own Maine's politics -- and this is arguably only because we've got two of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate.

It's time to drop our Democrat-lites and get some actual Dems in there. Maine Democrats were very fired-up about the '04 elections. It remains to be seen if that turns to despair and apathy (or to a stronger Green Party, which is already stronger here than most places), or if the energy can be turned to better party building. Maine Dems are going to have to find someone who can appeal to both Greens and moderate Republicans.

by rusty on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:14:13 AM EST

Re: Maine -- Snowe can go (none / 0)

Another tactic might be to try and bring them over from the dark side. I have a feeling the moderate GOP is going to be squeezed the next 2 years...The cabinet shuffles and the CIA memo should be enough to convince people that Bush wants people who won't disagree with him. I don't call them Yes men, because I think they are pulling the strings but you get the idea.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]