Think Western Exurbs are for Republicans?
No, Trix are not for kids, and the rapidly urbanizing West, especially exurbs can be a place for Dems to flourish.
From AFP:
The "exurbs" have become a key electoral factor in states such as Ohio and Colorado, as they have overwhelmingly become support bases for Republican presidential candidates over the past two decades.But Jefferson County, like similar "exurbs" across the country, could change its colours and support Democratic candidate John Kerry and not Republican President George W. Bush in Tuesday's election, Democrats say.
"Jefferson County could be a big surprise in these elections," said Steve Haro, communications director for the Colorado Democratic Party.
"There has been a big urbanistic change, more minorities are spreading out to the rural fringes of the city of the region," he said.
This story was from Oct. 31, apparently some kind of pre-election spinning by Dems to fight the apparent success Republicans have had in the exburbs. Interesting what actually happened, though.
Kerry lost in Jefferson County, pretty handedly, 52 to 46 percent. But, Ken Salazar won over Pete Coors, 51 to 48, and Congressman Mark Udall beat the Republican 58 to 40 percent. In the other two house races, Republicans were favored.
Also, two of the three state senate seats voted on in Jefferson County went to Dems, but ten state house races, Jefferson County voters like six Republicans and four Democrats.
So, it’s a pretty mixed bag in Jefferson County, but not an entire loss.
Emmett O'Connell | November 30, 2004 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Cooperative Environmentalism and the Radical Center of Ranching
This is something Western Democrats seem to do well, compromise.
Environmental issues especially, where you have natural resources that can't fight or present policy on one side and resource dependent communities on the other, compromise is a good thing.
One New Ranch innovation involves concentrating livestock into small plots on a short-term, rotating basis. This technique, thought to mimic elk and bison grazing behavior, has several benefits. Studies show that in many ecosystems short-term, intensive grazing stimulates plant growth without killing vegetation. High livestock concentrations also break up and turn the soil, which encourages the sowing of seeds, prevents erosion, and recharges groundwater by increasing rainwater infiltration. Concentrated herds also deter predators, and the system of short-term rotation allows individual plots to rest for long periods of time.Another New Ranch technique is resting ecologically important areas adjacent to streams, rivers, and seasonal ponds during the growing season. Traditionally, livestock is turned loose on vegetation-rich stream banks year-round. They strip plants that hold stream banks in place, causing erosion and water pollution. Resting ecologically sensitive areas during the growing season keeps adjacent streams healthy and conserves an important source of forage for later in the season when herds need it most.
"Radical center" ranching is still in its infancy and New Ranch principles have been greeted with apathy and suspicion by many mainstream ranchers and sometimes with scorn by hard line environmentalists. In addition, the idea that some lands can serve livestock and simultaneously be restored to their native state simply does not apply to the most ecologically sensitive Western lands.
As anyone who has read Wendell Berry has heard, and I've read a lot of him lately, so I've heard it more than some, it isn't possible or even a good idea to separate communities from the landscape around them. Not that I'm saying any environmentalist is actually trying to do that, but rather than focusing our Dem policies on black/white environmental arguments, we can frame them in as a way of defending small, resource based communities.
Another example from the Great Rocky Barker.
Emmett O'Connell | November 29, 2004 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
"Real Dems" from Leftinthwest.com
Interesting discussion from my favorite Montana blog, but a question that just has to be asked by real Democrats in Washington State. Questioning the liberal credentials of Western Democrats and "Republican Lite" name calling is bound to happen, so lets just get it out there as soon as possible.
Now, there are a number of good responses to this question. One is “Go fork yourself.” No one asks those questions after a Democratic sweep in California. No one asks that in Washington. And I’m just guessing that Ken is one of those people wondering why Kansas gets to claim to be real America. Well, I’m wondering why Ken gets to claim to be a real Democrat and question that validity of our membership in the Democratic Party.Here’s what the Democratic Party I know stands for: protecting opportunity for all Americans, by protecting affordable education and ensuring its quality, by creating good-paying jobs so that work is more rewarding than welfare; making sure no one is left behind, by making sure more Americans have quality health care, and that adequate social safety nets are in place so that the richest country on Earth isn’t also the poorest country on Earth; and protecting people from criminals here at home and from international threats, because people who follow the rules shouldn’t have to worry about their own safety.
Honestly, as soon as Schweitzer won, I started seeing random blog comments about how it didn’t matter, because he was a pro-life Democrat. One problem with this statement: it isn’t true. Schweitzer is personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice. That’s a reasonable position, especially for a practicing Catholic.
Do you think Republicans go around calling Olympia Snowe a "Dem Lite." Well, maybe some do, but this kind of ho-ha is pretty darn petty if you ask me. Enough.
Emmett O'Connell | November 28, 2004 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Interesting note from the New Democrats, way back in 1998
From a column by Jennifer Veiga, a Colorado state senator, in the New Democrat, the DLC magazine:
As White House pollster Mark Penn and others have noted, the New Democrat message provides our best hope of staying competitive in suburban areas. We've had tremendous population growth in Colorado recently, much of it in the suburbs. If Democrats don't do well there, they can't do well statewide. Our rural base has all but vanished. In the Colorado House, 20 of our 24 Democrats are from metropolitan areas. The next reapportionment after the 2000 census will only intensify the importance of the suburbs in the Colorado legislature. We must have a message that sells in suburban districts.Democrats have a real opportunity. The right wing of the Colorado Republican Party is becoming very powerful. Almost every moderate Republican legislator is drawing conservative opposition in the primaries. The state GOP is imposing a litmus test -- in their words, a "moral contract" -- on all its candidates.
Moderate, centrist Democrats appeal both to the conservative wing of our party and to moderate Republicans who do not buy into their party's new right-wing agenda.
Two things of importance to be taken from this piece.
One, it reiterates what is happening all over the West (except maybe the Washington State Republicans have learned this lesson) the more the Republicans feel their oats, the further right they will go, leaving the middle open. More crazy Republicans, more sane Democrats winning elections.
Also, if losing the so called exburbs wasn't warning enough, Democrats need to be competative in the burbs and the new urban areas. Thats pretty much all there is out West. Like Sen. Lautenburg will tell you if you ask, those old dusty cities don't cotton to no Republicans, so we have to get with the new growth.
Emmett O'Connell | November 28, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
A realistic story about the West and Democrats
Less of the Yeah! We won in Montana and Colorado, We're the best thing since sliced bread out there! And more of some real perspective from, of all places, USA Today.
While recognizing the real victories we had in the West, the article also notes that national Democrats have a hard time coming out West and sounding like serious candidates, especially on the environment. In the West, people still see the need to cut down trees, especially if the reason you're cutting them down is to prevent forest fires.
Also, while an active government isn't always seen as a problem, in immigration and education for example, Democrats have been staked out as the party of big government. Does that really surprise anyone? The way we've gotten around this is by being the party of government, period. Adult, grownup responsible government, as opposed to the tax slashing, deficit increasing government of Republicans (see Colorado).
The story ends on an interesting note:
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., earlier this month questioned whether Senate Democrats should choose Nevada Sen. Harry Reid as their leader because he wasn't from their traditional base in the Northeast."The question I raise is: Are the interests of the party served best by a leader who comes from a state that doesn't have the same urban flavor that we have in our industrial states?" said Lautenberg, who later voted for Reid.
Reid, who hails from tiny Searchlight, Nev., said while Democrats must do better in the West, their focus should be on winning the hearts of rural Americans.
In Nevada's two urban areas, Kerry carried the Las Vegas area and ran only slightly behind in Washoe County, he said.
But Vice President Dick Cheney visited rural Elko twice before the election, helping Bush capture a majority of voters in rural eastern Nevada.
"Rural Nevada beat John Kerry," Reid said. "I believe where the Kerry presidential bid failed was in not selling itself to rural America."
This is an important question for Democrats to answer. If we really want to see the party refocus Westward, we have to realize that focus is much different from the urban and industrial of the Northeast and Midwest rustbelts that Lautenberg is talking about. Even though the West is quickly becoming an urban area, it is a different urban than the Northeast urban. Sounds like a topic for another post though.
Emmett O'Connell | November 27, 2004 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
An Introduction: My Western Philosophy, What I'll be Writing About, etc.
To the reader,
Hi, this is Stephen Yellin, better known to some in the blogosphere as "Mr. Liberal". For those of you who don't know who I am, allow me to introduce myself. I'm a 16-year old blogger who's written for Mydd, The DailyKos and several other sites, as well as being one of thirty bloggers invited to the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Oh, and I'm from New Jersey.
What's that? Why would a New Jerseyan be interested in a Western Strategy? After all, wouldn't it mean a "loss of influence" for Eastern, "Establishment" Democrats where I come from? Well, considering that we don't have much influence in the nation, period, no matter what area of America we're from, I don't see how any Democrat can be close-minded anymore. Clearly, the old method of Democratic victory-win the Northeast and Midwest plus enough Southern and Pacific states-won't cut it anymore, as the Northeast and Midwest are bleeding electoral votes and the South has largely turned into a solid block for the GOP in elections (for example, the number of Democratic Senators from the 13 "Southern" states has gone from parity in 1994 to just 4 currently-two from Arkansas and one each from Florida and Louisiana). Where do we turn next, I wondered, as I poured over the 2004 election results. I soon looked, as Horace Greeley did in the 1840's, westward.
"Go West, young man, go West!" That was the message Greeley gave to Americans during the age of the pioneers a century and a half ago. While this nation no longer has open land like we did in the 1840's, the West remains far more rural and open to development that the Eastern half of the country. Towns and cities from Las Vegas to Albuquerque and from Boise to Pueblo are growing rapidly thanks to an influx of new settlers, from across the Mississippi and from California. In fact, the West now has 143 electoral votes, up from a little over 100 just a few decades ago. Arizona, which in 1980 had six electoral votes, now has ten, and Colorado went from six to nine in the same period of time.
Who are the new Westerners? They are from every part of America-Latinos, White Evangelicals from California, Surburban Soccer Moms and Office Worker Dads from the Northeast, and plenty of young men and women looking for a fresh start in a fresh land. In general, most Westerners share a refreshing philosophy-live and let live. No need for either government or religion to intrude on their daily lives, no need for either being cared for or left alone on the economic seas-indeed, Westerners are "small l" libertarians. Fiscally conservative, Socially libertarian, they are exactly what the Democratic Party is becoming, as the GOP continues to take the authoritarian route in the South to make its gains. I say, let them.
This is not to say, "To hell with you" to the South. The idea of "Westernizing" the Democratic Party is to give it a national identity, by embracing a cultural and ecomomic philosophy that most of its supporters already have. By appealing not to the South with regional candidates, but to the West with nationally-based, moderate-to-liberal thinking on issues that most Americans can relate to, we WILL be able to take our country back.
In many ways, voters out West are slowly turning towards the Democratic Party. Montana and Colorado saw some of the most massive Democratic gains in 2004, from pickups in the Governor and Senate races in each state to complete control of the state legislatures there (although Montana may go down to just two votes in a single district in giving the GOP a 1-vote majority in its Statehouse, it's more likely the seat will flip in a recount, giving the Democrats the Speaker's chair in the state). Governor-elect Brian Schweitzer and Senator-elect Ken Salazar can tell us a thing or two about winning races in the West, along with Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Max Baucus of Montana and our new Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. While John Kerry carried only the four Pacific Coast states, he tied George McGovern in the Partisan Index Meter for the entire West, which is the highest level for the Democrats since, well, McGovern.
Here is a list of ideas the Democrats need to emphasize to win in the West, and thus nationwide. Please note that these are not just regional issues, but ideological platforms that the entire nation can accept with a good national ticket:
1)Individual Liberty-It's time to embrace responsible gun ownership. The NRA won the fight over strict laws, but most Americans like having the right to have a gun if they can protect it properly. It's time to give up the idea of fear from gun owners and replace it with respect-that gun owners are not dumb, but just as responsible as bb gun owners in NYC and Philadelphia. It also allows us to continue our emphasis on individual liberty- such as freeing ourselves from the Patriot Act, embracing environmental freedom from big business polluters and deemphasizing abortion and gay marriage as state issues. This would free us from any potential hypocrisy on social issues, and put us firmly on the side of freedom on personal issues.
2)Economic Liberty-Here's where we embrace our moderate side. There's no reason why the Democratic Party should support massive governmental increases when the GOP does an excellent job already of doing that. Indeed, if Democrats can promote health care reform on the scale of public incentives and not national health care (as John Kerry did), as well as protecting through progressive, not regressive reforms of Social Security and Medicare, we will break the idea of the Democrats being the party of big government forever. Clinton got us halfway there with the elimination of the deficit and his welfare reform bill (which was badly needed)-now we have the opportunity to go all the way to economic liberties and show Westerners that we care not just for the needy, but for all hard-working Americans. We can't turn back the clock to 1925 (as the GOP would do), but we can't turn it back to 1945 either. We need to keep the clock here in the 2000's and work on a modern-day level to change the economic picture of our country.
3)Fiscal and Moral Responsibility-Westerners are no different from Easterners here. They care a great deal when their governments mess up their finances, raising property taxes in the process. They care deeply (as in Montana) when their goverments are corrupt. That's why they vote for reform-minded candidates, from Schweitzer to Richardson to Republican Dino Rossi in Washington State. They are just as offended with Tom DeLay's antics as Easterners, and are ready for some responsible leadership, from their statehouses to Washington, D.C. If Democrats can promote a solid program of fiscal and ethical responsibility, they will win in the West. No one likes having the Mommy and the Daddy fighting over values while the kids ruin the house-they would much prefer having both Parents cleaning up the mess. That's what the Democrats need to do-to show the GOP as the "kiddie party" and the Democrats as the "Adults party". People really do want responsible leaders, and so we need to show that Democrats are more than capable of cleaning up the GOP mess.
While Democrats in D.C. and the East are clueless as to what to do next, Western Democrats already know what to do. I've listed their ideas above. I'll be covering their political side-the 2006 races and the Western Democrats in D.C.- in the months to come. With Congressman Mark Udall already planning a run for Governor in Colorado, and with Bill Richardson considering a Presidential bid in 2008, the Western Democrats have a plan to take the country back for the Democrats. Let's get on board with them, and together we'll get the job done.
Tommorow I'll begin to discuss the political situation for 2006-what's up for grabs (a lot), who's in charge (you'll be suprised as to how strong we are already), and what the Democrats are doing out West (a great deal already). Until then, thanks for reading, and I hope to hear from all of you soon.
Stephen Yellin | November 26, 2004 | Comment on This Post (6 so far) |
Writes on the Range on our man Sen. Reid
Leave it to High Country News and their great Writers on the Range Program (via tidepool.org) to hit the nail square on the head. Sen. Harry Reid may not be the sparkling personality of Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Harry Frist or Rep. Tom Delay, but he is our boy, a real political pro and he has one thing over all of the other Dems right now.
He understands the West.
Right now that is the most important thing for the Democratic Party, to have a renewed focus on the West and understand why this region is where we will find our rebirth. Remember what Diane Feinstein said about Reid: "I like the fact that he is a Westerner, frankly, because I am convinced we have to build the West here."
This idea of the West as savior for the party isn't something new since the Salazars won in Colorado and Schweitzer in Montana. Ever since we lost the South (seemingly for good) the Western Democrats have sitting out there, waiting to lead the party.
The rest of this piece is simply a good rundown of Reid's biography, something that other major papers weren't able to get their teeth into. A must read.
Emmett O'Connell | November 26, 2004 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Washington Race Decided by Only 42 Votes.
If anybody ever doubts that one vote can make a difference, seriously, let us look west – to the farthest northwest corner of the lower 48.
The Washington state governor’s race was just decided by 42 (not a typo) votes. That’s slightly more than one vote per county. Unfortunately, ending a 24-year Democratic reign, Dino Rossi is the tentative victor. I say "tentative" because, as was expected no matter who won (lost), another recount has been requested.
No need to rehash the news report - CNN.com has already done that.
This poses some serious questions -
Are we really that divided or do the parties simply seem too similar? Can people not see the difference between us anymore and all a Republican has to do to tip the vote is throw the “L” word around?
If we really are that divided, how can we ever find common ground?
If we’re not that divided – if we really have become the other GOP, how do we start to move away from the center again? Do we compromise ourselves based on what the country seems to want? Or do we restructure and reinforce our platform and hope that people are paying attention?
This Blue Oregon article shows that we’re not necessarily that divided – it really is that the candidates don’t look that different. Not different enough for people to elect somebody other than a Republican mouthpiece who managed to get us stuck in a war that we really don’t know how we’re going to get out of and, at the same time, run this country in to the worst economic condition it’s been in since the Great Depression.
The other interesting thing that has been pointed out by Kari and others is that coat tails obviously aren’t what they used to be. People aren’t voting along party lines nearly as much as they have in the past – especially not in the west. Kerry took Washington, but Gregoire didn’t. Bush took Montana (handily) but Schweitzer did, too. I’d throw California in there, but we all know the Governator won on name rec. ;-)
All of these things point to what we’ve been saying all along – (even though Gregoire didn't win) the Western Democrat is the wave of the future for the party and for this country - the rural D who understands the farmer’s plight as well as tough social issues that concern the urbanites. The fact that suburban voters may be pro-choice, pro-school, and pro-environment, but they don’t want their property taxes to go up AGAIN – at least not without any accountability. They’ve got kids to raise! Nowhere else in this country is there such a contrast between rural and urban than in the west (OK, perhaps the mid-west, but we’re not talking about them). So nowhere else in the country will we be able to solve this problem – this problem that has resulted in a Republican winning the state of Washington for the first time in 24 years by only 42 votes. Kitzhaber? Richardson? Schweitzer? Who knows… but I really think we’re on to something (Hey, I thought it long before Kari had an editorial printed about it and then started a blog. Really. I swear).
Jessie Smith | November 24, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Montana Recount
The Helena Indpendent Record reports that Montanans will know by Monday which party will control the state House of Representatives:
The official state canvass conducted Monday showed Constitution Party candidate Rick Jore of Ronan with the same two-vote margin over Democrat Jeanne Windham of Polson that was found in the unofficial results from the Nov. 2 election. Jore has 1,559 votes and Windham has 1,557. Republican Jack Cross has 1,108 votes.
On Tuesday, Windham filed a petition with the secretary of state's office asking for a recount. The law required her to wait until after the canvass to submit the request.
If Jore remains the winner after the hand counting of the 4,224 ballots, Republicans will hold a 50-49 edge in the House. If Windham wins, Democrats and Republicans will share control of the chamber with 50 votes apiece.
If the GOP has the advantage, Republican Rep. Roy Brown of Billings will be speaker and his party will have a majority on all the committees. If the House is evenly split, a Democrat will be speaker to reflect the party of Gov.-elect Brian Schweitzer and committees will be divided equally between the two parties.
Siedentopf said the recount will begin at 8:30 a.m. Monday and should be finished that day. The work will not begin before then because staff will be gone for the Thanksgiving holiday.
Nate Tobin | November 24, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Part Democratic Success, Part Republican Failure
Following up on Kari's post regarding the article in The Nation, I found the quote from former Montana US Representative and Democrat Pat Williams an encouraging observation concerning the Republican contribution to the success of Democratic candidates in the West.
"The Republican far right has overplayed its hand in the West for more than a decade," says Williams. "I heard a lot of people say that the Republican Party seemed to be more concerned about legislating mores than creating jobs. In Western states, where wages are low, that doesn't make sense."
Since it doesn't appear the the national Republican party will change their message anytime soon, this leaves a great opportunity for Democrats to make further progress in states like Montana and the Dakotas, that are suffering from poor economic conditions.
Nate Tobin | November 24, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Nevada killed the Western Primary in 1999
The Nevada legislature, led by the Democratic majority committee, killed "...(t)he dream of an eight-state Western presidential primary that would attract candidates who would talk about issues important to Nevadans and other Westerners" way back before the 2000 election. Seemingly killed because of budget issues, the real reason the primary went down was because Harry Reid didn't want to hand a big primary day to Bill Bradley and because of opposition from the national party.
Some also cited a lack of interest in promoting Western ideas, saying that the primary would mostly promote Mountain West policies, while Nevada was more closely associated with issues similar to California.
All in all, these aren't bad reasons to have not participated in 2000, actually they seem to be very good reasons. Bradley would have (and seemed to anyway) weakened Gore in 2000, and I'm not about to do any hindsight cheerleading for him.
Things are different now, though. The Democratic Party isn't coming off of eight years of a centrist President with a strong VP ready in the wings. We need the Western Primary, and Western Democrats in general, now more than ever
While the Western Primary didn't take hold before the 2000 election and obviously not before 2004, there does seem to be increased interest in it leading up to this year. We need to do this, we need a Western Primary. This should be the first concrete step we can take to re-centering the party back West.
This should be done before we elect a Western President. Actually it would likely help the fortunes of a Western candidate by focusing issues out here.
Emmett O'Connell | November 24, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
We need a Tony Blair?
Now, here's a different way to look at it.
The Times of London makes some interesting observations on who we should choose to run in 2008. Basically, we need a Tony Blair, a likeable fellow (or lady) that won't turn off people who don't belong to our party. They make some interesting notes on Democrat victories in the West:
Others point to contrasting lessons from the few Democratic successes in local elections last Tuesday. In heavily Republican Montana, the governor’s race was won by the Democrat Brian Schweitzer. His victory was attributed to his decision to choose a moderate Republican as his lieutenant-governor running mate.In the western state of Colorado, which also voted for Bush, Ken Salazar pulled off an even more startling victory in a Senate seat. The Democrat candidate not only held off Pete Coors, a billionaire beer magnate, but won what had seemed a safe Republican seat.
At least part of Salazar’s success was attributed to his folksy campaigning style — he toured the state in a cowboy hat, driving an ancient pickup truck that endeared him to rural conservative voters.
The so-called “moral” issues that were supposed to benefit Republicans proved mostly irrelevant to Salazar’s carefully crafted bid for the political middle.
To Chuck Dolan, a Democratic strategist who guided Kerry to a narrow win in the northern swing state of Wisconsin, the message was clear. “We have to look at how we are doing in the south and how we are doing in rural areas,” he said.
Part of the challenge is for sophisticated urban Democratic candidates to find a way of talking convincingly about key heartland issues — God and guns. When Kerry dressed up in camouflage fatigues and went goose-hunting in Ohio, he was at least making an effort to woo the rural vote, Dolan said. But another strategist noted: “There has to be more to our message than waving a shotgun at voters once every four years.”
Emmett O'Connell | November 24, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Bill Richardson: A Western Primary?
There's a great article by the Miami Herald's Andres Oppenheimer over at HispanicBusiness.com. In the piece, he shares the news that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is working to develop a Western primary (as suggested by Emmett here).
Richardson is leading an effort by four Western states -- New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona -- to hold a regional primary in the first week in February 2008, shortly after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. Most of these states have large Hispanic populations and can be won by either party.
Beyond that, Oppenheimer - who usually writes about Latin America - points out that Richardson would help drive the Democrats to the West; and would help the Party regain its footing among Latinos.
Oppenheimer called Richardson and asked him the magic question:
When I called Richardson earlier this week and asked him whether he would run, he told me, "My main concentration is the New Mexico Legislature in January, and my re-election as governor in 2006. Beyond that, who knows?"
My translation: He's running like crazy.
Kari Chisholm | November 23, 2004 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Democrats Score in the Rockies
From John Nichols, writing in The Nation, come these excellent thoughts:
Western Democrats tended to abandon the national party's template and focus on local issues, they relied far more heavily on volunteers than paid staff and they worked much, much harder--and with considerable success--to attract rural voters. ...
If there is a single lesson that Democrats and their activist allies need to learn after what was for the most part a 2004 electoral debacle, it is that rural America is still winnable. And they can start by looking west.
Nichols does an excellent job of recapping many of the positive outcomes in 2004 - as well as drawing common threads of campaign strategy among the winning Western Democrat campaigns. Read the rest of Democrats Score in the Rockies.
Kari Chisholm | November 23, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Utah's Salt Lake County: Good for Democrats
From the day-after post-mortem at the Salt Lake Tribune (though archived at the Utah Dems' site)...
While the nation and most of Utah tilt further to the right, Salt Lake County is solidifying as a bastion for the left.
Consider: County Democrats nabbed the mayor's post, arguably one of the highest profile offices in the state, snatched another County Council at-large seat and even picked up a Utah Senate and House slot this week.
If wannabe blue-staters are crying in their beer over John Kerry - and smarting over Scott Matheson Jr.'s lopsided defeat - they can toast Salt Lake County, which belied Utah's Republican trend.
"It's one of our better years," says Democratic Chairwoman Nichole Adams, stressing the party's mantra that one-party government is not healthy resonated with voters. "There's a good Democratic base here."
It's not likely that Democrats are going to take Utah anytime soon, but consider this: Utah's vote to ban gay marriage was the sixth lowest of the 13 states that had a measure in 2004.
Kari Chisholm | November 23, 2004 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Colorado: Mark Udall for Governor
This is good news. Fresh off the victories in Colorado, it seems like the Democrats are loading for bear, aiming at Governor Bill Owens.
It also just so happens that High Country News did an entire issue on the Udall family.
Emmett O'Connell | November 23, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Jim Matheson of Utah
More little nuggets of Democratic success from November 2 across the west in High Country News' review of the election in the west. (Thanks Ralph).
My biggest surprise in this list was the re-election of Jim Matheson in Utah. I'm no Utah expert, but in addition to looking at was Schweitzer did in Montana and the Colorado Salazars have done, we should take a close look at this guy.
It looks like the Republicans overplaying their hand with negative advertising had something to do with the Dem victory, but Matheson still seems like a hell of a guy:
Matheson beat Swallow 65 percent to 32 percent in Salt Lake County. Of the 16 counties contained wholly or in part in the 2nd District, Matheson won just five.r of the LDS Church. "You just can't attack the church," Jones said. No Democrats did, Dunn said.Swallow didn't apologize Wednesday for how he ran his race. "Some things in campaigns we can't control," he said, speaking about Utah Republican Party fliers and ads by the National Republican Congressional Committee. However, Swallow's own campaign criticized Matheson along the same themes as the fliers and NRCC ads.
"But to be frank about it, three weeks ago my own polling showed us 34 points behind," Swallow said. "We got that down to 5 percentage points" behind in a survey taken for him just before the election. "It's hard to beat an incumbent when there is such a large gap."
Swallow added: "If I'd gone up with TV advertising when (both Jim and Scott Matheson were running early TV), I'd have been closer in the home stretch, and then I could have gone with a different type of a message. The (30-point) gap required us to talk strongly about issues and (Jim Matheson's) record."
Jones said he doesn't like negative campaign advertising, but he noted how Swallow closed on Matheson in the time the NRCC spent more than $1.1 million in the last month of the campaign, much of it in ads criticizing Matheson.
Jones said 19 percent of Jim Matheson's votes came from Republicans. But his brother couldn't come close to that in his gubernatorial race, where Huntsman beat Scott Matheson 56 percent to 43 percent, unofficial results Wednesday showed.
Jones said religion may have played a role in that race, as it does in many Utah contests. Huntsman is the grandson of the late LDS Church Apostle David B. Haight, who died this year. Many people knew that connection, Jones said, and "the active LDS went overwhelmingly" for Huntsman.
A candidate can win a major office if he's not a faithful membe
Emmett O'Connell | November 23, 2004 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Our own Super Day
One of the most effective ways Southern Democrats solidified their hold on being the conservative soul of the party for the past 15 or so years has been Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday, like the Iowa Caucuses, focused the attention of Presidential candidates on issues that are now generally outside the range of most urban Democrats. The West can do the same thing in 2008 by creating a regional primary
One of the best ideas this year to help build Western influence in the Democratic Party has been the Western Primary.
On the surface it would seem like Republicans just as much Democrats would benefit from a unified Western primary, but the point is not necessarily building the party in the West. While that is an important goal, I think we should focus on the primary now in order to build the region in the party.
The Democratic Party needs Western Democrats and one of the best ways to influence the party is through primaries. If we want the Western Primary, now is the time to act: "Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is expected to appoint a committee over the next few weeks to discuss the primary calendar in 2008."
Emmett O'Connell | November 22, 2004 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
They just don't seem to get it back there
On the Chris Matthews Show a couple weekends back Gloria Borger theorized on the future electoral strategy of the junior Senator from the Yankees.
Ms. BORGER: Pretty soon Hillary Clinton will be moving to a red state to run for the presidency.
MATTHEWS: Where will she move to, do you know?Ms. BORGER: Ah, maybe she could move back to Chicago.
MATTHEWS: You mean, you move another Senate seat?
Ms. BORGER: I have no idea.
MATTHEWS: No, she can't move.
Mr. DONALDSON: I was going to say...
Ms. BORGER: No, I don't think she's going to run for re-election. I don't think she needs the platform.
MATTHEWS: You d--you d--you just told me something I don't know.
Ms. BORGER: I don't think she's going to run for re-election.
I'm not sure if Ms. Borger seriously thinks that the shallowness of a Senator Clinton move from New York back to Arkansas or Indiana or any other state would work, but that she suggested it at all says something. Borger and a lot of folks liker her know the Democrats "need a twang," but they seem clueless about it should be gotten.
Most of America is not stupid enough to swallow someone moving to a red state as a sign that that politician is a political moderate.
Yes, the Democratic Party needs, in a way, a twang. But, for the sake of Pete, you just can't go out to the Whistle Stop and buy yourself some twang. You don't move to Nebraska and suddenly your all full of twang.
Twang does not come free with three oil changes from Jiffy Lube.
Emmett O'Connell | November 22, 2004 | Comment on This Post (11 so far) |
Montana Exit Polls
From Left in the West comes this excellent analysis.
Schweitzer won 87% of Democrats and 15% of Republicans. He also earned 64% of the vote of Independents. If Montana had the same partisan makeup as the country, this combination of support would have gotten him 54% of the vote.
Sure, Dems and GOPers are plenty polarized. But a candidate that can land 64% of independents, well, that just has the look of a winner...
Kari Chisholm | November 22, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Blog Merger...
Here at WesternDemocrat.com, we're excited to announce that we've merged with Win The West, a blog started after the election by Emmett O'Connell. All of Emmett's posts over at WTW have been ported over here, your one-stop resource for the effort to turn the Democratic Party to the West.
Welcome, Emmett!
Kari Chisholm | November 21, 2004 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Derek Kilmer as our own Brian Schweitzer, Dave Freudenthal
Derek Kilmer is one of the few reasons why Dems up here in Washington can have some sense of victory after coming way too close to losing the Governorship and losing the Governorship and AG's office to Republicans. We won back both houses in the leg, and Derek did his part by beating Lois McMahan:
...he convinced voters in a relatively conservative swing district to vote their economic interests.On Nov. 2, voters in a rural-suburban district in the south Puget Sound elected Kilmer, 30, to represent them at the Washington state legislature. He beat an honest-to-God right-wing Bible-thumping Republican incumbent - a Church Lady type named Lois McMahan. You may have heard of McMahan before. She got her 15 minutes in the spotlight in 2003, when she stalked off the legislative floor while a Muslim cleric delivered the day's opening prayer ("It's an issue of patriotism," she explained).
How did Kilmer do it? Part of it was sheer hard work, knocking on 15,000 doors over the campaign. Part of it was natural talent. Kilmer's a bright, credentialed young man: Princeton grad, Oxford Ph.D. He knows, and is known, in his district: he grew up in the region, and spent the last several years working at the local economic development board. Kilmer won support from both Chamber of Commerce types and left-leaning organizations like the Progressive Majority PAC and Howard Dean's Democracy for America.
He avoided ideological labels, but he put forward a positive message of progressive change, in the best sense of the term.
That sounds an awful lot like that "positive pragmatism" put forth by the chair of the chair of the Colorado Dems. In Derek's case it was a little easier, McMahan did her absolute best to look like an intolerant crazy. Even in a legislative district that is famous for a racial taunting incident at a high school basketball game, McMahan didn't seem to be the right person for the job.
Emmett O'Connell | November 21, 2004 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Washington Post on learning from Colorado
While they're at it, they should also learn from Montana '04 and Wyoming '02.
Colorado Democrats say their success carries a lesson for the national party. "We campaigned on pragmatism," state Democratic Chairman Christopher Gates said. "We set ourselves up as the problem solvers, while the Republicans were hung up on a bunch of fringe social issues like gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance."The notion that moral issues won the 2004 election was disproven in Colorado," Gates continued. "We offered solutions, not ideology, and won almost everything."
They carried themselves as the adults in the group, the grown up politicians who could run government well, not use it as a bully pulpit for their moral sermonizing. This strategy works in the West, home of small "l" libertarians.
Emmett O'Connell | November 21, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
The Blue State Republican
Dino Rossi is to Republicans as Brian Schweitzer and Dave Freudenthal are to Democrats. Republicans shouldn't celebrate too much here in Washington though. Gregoire ran a pretty bad campaign and it was really close.
Emmett O'Connell | November 19, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
How we can Win the West, as told by the MassInc maps
In Beyond Blue and Red, which as a concept I think it a damn good idea by the way, MassInc divided the country into ten section prior to the last election, with each section containing about 10 million voters. It’s noticeable that the Northeast section of the country is way more detailed than other parts, but that’s likely because
El Norte -- This is the most important section for our equation. The states dominated by El Norte are the most noticeably swinging right now between Democrats and Republicans. These are Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. These are states that can be had, but alot depends on what we do in the next four years.
I'm tempted to say that to win these states we should do whatever Bill Richardson tells us to do, but that is a little short sighted. We should listen to Ken Salazar too.
The thing that should scare us right now is that just because this section of the country is defined by its growing Hispanic population, that this isn't a lock for us. If that surprises you, or that you just can't believe that George W. Bush got over 40 percent of the Hispanic vote last time, you either aren't paying attention or your... well, I don't want to think about what else you could be.
Gov. Richardson is getting heat because he couldn't deliver New Mexico, but with the anti-Western Kerry we were asking people to vote for, I'm not sure how much Richardson could actually do.
From NM Politics:
Big Bill's White House hopes were also under the microscope in Washington, where one Prez watcher said the failure of Big Bill to deliver NM, a state with 42% Hispanics, will sting. "How can he tell the national D's he can deliver the Hispanic vote nationally, if he can't carry his own state," said one Capitol Hill insider.Dems raging at Big Bill were passionate. They felt Bush was one of the weakest targets ever. In the heat of the moment, some slammed operatives by name. But it will be Big Bill, the public symbol of the Dem party, who will take the hit. "Poor Bill Richardson," Senator Domenici cockily cooed Wednesday morning as he gloated over the Bush victory.
Others claimed the Kerry loss will reduce the fear factor of the Guv and make opposition more likely in the Legislature, if only among emboldened R's. Other insiders told me the coalition of R's and D's in the state senate has a better chance of surviving in the aftermath of Tuesday's Democratic debacle.
But most D's, while enraged, were also fearful." We need candidates and a message voters can connect with," said one. Meanwhile, at the Oval Office, Karl Rove was relishing the triumph of his NM campaign strategy, in which Bush lost big Bernalillo County but boosted conservative turnout elsewhere. It was a bold gamble and he won. "Maybe we have new math, or maybe we just need new blood,' mourned an Albuquerque D badly in need of Prozac.
The best advantage I think we have in El Norte is that George W. Bush and other smart Republicans still have to deal with the "lock the boarders" wing of the party.
(left) Upper Coasts -- What would a Democrat have to do to lose the left Upper Coasts? Be lazy.
Be like the Gregoire for Governor campaign. She lost two out of the three biggest counties in the Washington section of the left Upper Coasts and it looks like we're going to have the first Republican Governor in 20 years. Dino Rossi did a good job of defining himself as a centrist, hit Gregorie as incompetent, and she didn't do either.
The left Upper Coasts, which are literally the west coast urban archipelago that the Stranger/Mercury so loves, is not an impregnable wall of urban liberalism. Yes, there are places such as San Francisco, Multnomah County and Seattle that will likely go Green before Republican, but the region as a whole is take-able for a moderate Republican. Just be warned.
Sagebrush -- Is this region so impossible or do we just cross our fingers, aim for the middle, talk with a twang, carry a shotgun, talk about our dog Gus and hope for the best?
Well, yes and no. We can do all that, but we can also win.
In the same way that the left Upper Coasts can be gotten by a smart, hustling Republican, recent history tells us a smart, hustling Democrat can do the same here.
There are some demographics breaking our way that will make it easier for us in coming years. In this region I will begrudgingly use the Stranger/Mercury Island Theory. The Sagebrush is two things, it is moderately urban and its growing fast. The region is growing very, very fast and most of that growth is happening in moderate size cities.
Sagebrush is also very open and empty, with a lot of the land is owned by the federal government. This region is the home of big government subsidies, and around the time these subsidies come home to roost, hopefully we'll be there to help Sagebrush residents out.
Randy Barker in a great piece from Headwater News:
The reality is that government has gotten larger under Republican control. At the same time the Bush administration has run up the budget deficit again, that will eventually force one of two things: budget cuts or tax increases.At some point, someone is going to have to pay the piper. Conservative strategists like Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, are urging party leaders to starve government with tax cuts and deficits that force Congress into thrifty habits.
At some point, Republicans are going to have to begin cutting government. That means Western states, who are today more dependent on government than ever, will lose. My guess is the day of reckoning will be when the farm bill comes up again for reauthorization in 2011.
Republicans out in the Sagebrush actually help us out by being extremely weird. By positioning ourselves as not necessarily anti-government anarchists, with a black helicopter fetish, rather as the grown up party, we can get some votes. Think back to that good old Bill Clinton line of having government there as a helper, not a lord.
Also, Sagebrush, even though it has been solidly Red longer than the South (about four years longer) it is not the South.
Repeat after me: The Sagebrush is not the South.
Sagebrush conservative are small 'L' libertarians, and religion plays a much smaller role in Sagebrush politics that it does in the Deep South. So, take that values vote and shove it.
Emmett O'Connell | November 19, 2004 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Part 2: The Coastal Caucus and Shoreline Rules
The state reps and senators on the coast of Washington make up the "Coastal Caucus." When the caucus was presented with the new shoreline rules, which would later prompt cries of "Environmental Communism" from Pacific County farmers and citizens, the legislators first response was "WHAT WHAT??"
But, according to this Aberdeen Daily World story, they were more concerned with issues of legislative oversight and budget issues.
"There's no doubt that there's a wrestling match going on here. The way we handled it last session was we never allowed funding for the new guidelines," Doumit said. "That way concerned organizations like the Washington Association of Cities and the local cities and counties could say "We're not going to implement these rules without money,' under the law prohibiting the state from passing unfunded mandates on to local jurisdictions.
The first reaction from the caucus of almost entirely Democrats from rural coastal Washington was not akin to the cries of a Sagebrush Rebellion, but an understandably pissed off "Why didn't you ask us, and how the hell to you expect to pay for all this??"
After the rebellion did rise, led by farmer Doug Camenzind, the rules as written were torn up and DOE was thrown back into Olympia. Everyone down "on the Harbor" at the time thought it was a success, but some knew otherwise.
"This was a pleasant surprise for us," said state Rep. Brian Hatfield, D - Raymond. "In the past, rulings like this haven't been in our favor and this allows rural counties to go to the department and their urban allies and say that the regulations went too far. This is good news, but from here on out, we need to stay vigilant as to what the department's next move is."
Eventually, a compromise between big business and big environmentalism was struck.
The Coastal Democrats led the early charge against the shoreline regs, fighting against a Democrat governor and his Department of Ecology. Eventually, they helped their constituents push the first draft of the regulations back and worked in Olympia to draft new ones.
They didn't stop when bad regulations died, that wasn't a victory by itself. They knew that some sort of regulation was needed.
Emmett O'Connell | November 18, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Brian Schweitzer and the Montana "Miracle"
I made a reference in the original Look West editorial to what happened in Montana, but didn't really get into the specifics.
For a very well-written article on how the Democrats took control in Montana, despite a Bush/Kerry score of 60-39, be sure to read Top Billings by David Sirota. Sirota had a front row seat as a member of the Schweitzer campaign.
I've argued that the Western strategy is partly geographic, and partly cultural. Cue Sirota:
The story begins with the man himself. If you look in an encyclopedia under Montana: Self-Image of, you'll find a picture of Brian Schweitzer. He is the grandson of Montana homesteaders and looks the part: He is a burly six-foot-two, always clad in jeans with a gilded silver belt buckle. Schweitzer put himself through college by mopping floors at sororities, got a master's degree from Montana State in, of all things, soil science, and then worked for eight years on irrigation projects in the part of the world that's hardest to irrigate—the Sahara Desert. When he returned to Montana in the late 1980s, he built a farming and ranching business from scratch—no small task at a time when corporate agribusiness was swallowing huge swaths of America's heartland. He is gregarious, tough-talking, and utterly without self-doubt.
Can the Western Strategy be the path to victory? Again, David Sirota...
When I arrived back in Washington after the election, I found Democrats despondent, furious and desperate to find a way to reach out to red state voters. Despite the national disaster, one message from this election is clear: Just head to Whitefish, Mont., and follow the gregarious mint farmer with a smile on his face—he's already out of the wilderness.
Learn more at the Schweitzer campaign site.
Kari Chisholm | November 18, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
WesternDemocrat.com Kicks Off
So, welcome to WesternDemocrat.com. What's this all about?
It's time for the Democrats to recognize that the future of our party lies here in the West. To be successful, we must truly be a national party - and the greatest hope for expansion lies in the battleground states of Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. And, yes, perhaps even Montana, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Even within Blue states like Oregon, Washington, and California, Democrats must look beyond the cities to the sagebrush, rangelands, and mountain country.
This site will tell stories of the West - and serve as a place to gather for conversation about a new Democratic Party, a Western Democratic Party.
There's not much here just yet, but just you wait. We've only just begun to fight.
Kari Chisholm | November 18, 2004 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Is Harry Reid the leader Democrats need?
From the Chicago Maroon:
Yet there is one question that we can answer with little reservation: Does Harry Reid have the vision that the Democrats sorely lack and so desperately desire? Unfortunately, he does not. The future of the Democratic party does not lie with a conservative grand-father from a desert, Western state. This is not Senator Reid?s fault. But we would be kidding ourselves to think that he is or has the answer to that question. Nevertheless, what the Democrats need most is a unifying vision and a narrative, one that will let America claim to know where the party stands and one that will let the party reclaim America. And Harry Reid does not have that.Therefore, we Democrats can remain confident that Minority Leader Reid will lead that minority with tactical skill, but we won't find that vital vision that could lead the Democratic party out of minority status and into electoral success. For that, we?ll just have to keep looking.
In arguing against Harry Reid as some sort of leader/symbol of the Democratic Party, Andrew Hammond makes a very valid point about the narrative of the party. Harry Reid may not be the walking embodiment of our story. But Andrew is too quick to seemingly dismiss the entire West, implying that grand-father from a Western desert state couldn't possibly be the soul of the party. By dismissing Reid, is Andrew thinking of Barack Obama?
Harry Reid may not have what it takes to expand beyond the role of Senate leader to soul status, but Western Democrats do.