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) |
