Point taken 2
Matt Singer posts over at leftinthewest, following up on Luis Toro’s post at 5280 and my post below about how various parts of the West are different.
It is quite valid to say that Montana and Wyoming are different from Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. In fact, I’d guess that similar distinctions can be drawn in every region of the country. Heaven knows there probably are distinctions between Connecticut and Massachusetts.
But, the differences between Mass. and Conn. are way less than the difference between New England and the Interior West. Matt also comes up with a great breakdown of the current state of Democrat strength in the Interior West:
* Tier 1 - Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico - These four states have large urban areas, are more populous and are less affected by the West’s unique Mormon strain of cultural conservatism than the rest of the region. They represent the Democrats’ best chances in the short term for electoral votes.* Tier 2 - Montana - Montana is more rural than these states and lacks any true urban centers. But Billings is getting there and Montana is becoming more urbanized. Montana does not have nearly the Mormon presence of the other three states. Montana presents real Congressional and statewide opportunities in the coming years and, with work, the opportunity for electoral votes in the future.
* Tier 3 - Idaho, Utah, Wyoming - These states also tend to be less urban. The urban centers of Boise and Salt Lake do still tend to be bluer and may present Congressional opportunities, but Senate seats and electoral votes are fantasy at this point.
I would add a Tier 0 that is California, Oregon and Washington. When we talk about "The West" we should be sure to include these Democratic dominant states, because as Dino Rossi has shown us, a smart Republican surprise us sometimes. This is because, if you take Washington for example, if you take out Seattle and King County, you basically have a "red" state. Much of Washington, even Democratic leaning rural counties like Jefferson, Grays Harbor and Pacific, are more politically parallel to the Interior West than they are to King County, or where I'm from, Olympia.
I also might move Wyoming up into Tier 2 with Montana.
Anyway, this is the kind of conversation we need to have to really make a strong argument regarding the Western strategy.
Emmett O'Connell | January 26, 2005 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
This is an excellent analysis of the lay of the land; I think looking at our opportunities through a tiered scheme like this is very useful.
Like Emmett, I would caution against counting the coastal West as a political lock. I think it deserves a Tier 1* categorization. Despite our presidential blueness, Washington and Oregon remain incredibly competitive at the state and local level. Control of both state legislatures, top state offices and even federal offices sway back and forth between the parties. The national Republican platform rubs against the political sentiments of the urban centers, which is what keeps these states blue in presidential years. But everything else is fair game -- including the US Senate seats and a couple of Congressional seats.
Any long term strategy to take the West has to include holding the Western front of Oregon and Washington. I would stress that our strategic thinking and political analysis ought to include these states -- we have a lot gain from a unified Western strategy. The issues and opportunities are similar through out the West. And I'd argue the future Democratic West we are all committed to building will be driven by gains in the interior and anchored by success on the coast.
Posted by: eagle | Jan 26, 2005 5:44:34 PM
W was very sensitive to the LDS vote. Kerry was tone deaf to religion and ignored the LDS. Utah has a viable two-party system stretching back to the beginning of the state. Independents are numerous in Utah and the rest of the Intermountain West. Democrats need to understand and appeal to the LDS. Calling them Southern Baptists or bashing religion in general is definitely the wrong thing to do. A few points
1. Many of the ministers in the religious right are foes of Mormonism, and Mormons don’t identify with James Dobson and Pat Robertson or Southern Baptists in general. Many on the religious right don’t even consider Mormons (officially members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to be Christians.
2. Unlike many churches on the religious right, the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that churches, member lists, etc., are NOT to be used for political purposes. The Church is very strict about this.
3. The LDS are not comfortable with federal funding of churches, i.e. Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Federal money used in this way is seen as potentially corrupting.
4. There is a very strong feeling among the LDS that deficit spending is very unwise. The huge Bush deficits are potentially very worrisome to them and a sign that something is wrong.
5. A weak dollar and an unpopular America abroad are not good for Mormon missionaries serving overseas.
6. Stem cell research is not anathema to the LDS.
7. Family values are strong among Mormons, but that means that they want families, not the federal government, and certainly not Tom DeLay, handling end-of-life issues.
8. Harry Reid is the highest ranking Mormon public official, and right-wing attacks on Harry won’t go over well in Utah.
9. Mormons strongly prefer civility in public discourse. If the 2008 contest were between Reid and Romney, the contest would be very gentlemanly.
10. Mormons have a strong honesty in government ethic. Tom DeLay won’t play well in Utah.
Instead of complaining about the Mormon vote, the Democrats should court it and win a bigger piece of it. If they succeed, then Utah and Idaho turn purple if not blue, and several purple Intermountain states definitely turn blue. The Republicans actively seek votes in traditionally non-GOP groups. The Democrats need to learn this lesson if they want to win in the West. Find Mormon Democrats and work with them. Meet with LDS leaders and be comfortable with them. Governor Napolitano has learned this. See
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=28696
“the Democratic governor’s meetings with Mormon world leaders revealed the church’s core values — family and education, compassion and self-reliance, volunteerism and sacrifice — don’t have to clash with her policy agenda, she said.
"It is very consistent with the focus on children, with the focus on taking care of those who are homeless," Napolitano said. "Even the focus on self-reliance and helping those who don’t have jobs become self-reliant. All of that is very consistent with what we are trying to do at the state level."
Posted by: Leo Brown | May 4, 2005 4:55:37 PM
More thoughts on the same subject:
The “Mormon vote” represents a huge opportunity for Western Democrats. Two-thirds
of all LDS in the U.S. live outside of Utah. If Western Democrats can carry Utah,
they can carry the whole West, shoring up the D vote in every Western state.
Kerry's numbers in Utah were pitiful: 26% or 227,286 votes. The Democratic candidate for governor got 42%. One of the three Utah Congressional Districts is Democratic. No major D candidate in Utah did worse than Kerry. Even the opposition to the marriage amendment did better. Kerry could have hardly have done worse. Gore did just as bad. Perot got 27% in 1992 while Clinton got 25%, so the vote is not just pro-GOP. There is an independent streak here.
Assuming all of this reflects, albeit imperfectly, the total Mormon vote, the question is: How do we change this? A little old fashioned politics, like putting a Mormon in the cabinet when the Democrats get the White House back, would be a good idea. Appealing to Western voters in general will help a lot. Understanding the LDS and making a serious appeal to them based on their values will help a lot, too. Think: independence, honesty, responsibility, education, and a sense of community and fair play. If Romney gets the GOP nomination, there is no way Utah votes Democratic. But what if the religious right savages Romney and Harry Reid or someone like him (think: Jim Matheson or Tom Udall) was on the Democratic ticket? This would open up a lot of possibilities. Thinking out of the box can help win elections. A leftist Utah is a fantasy, but a moderate Utah is doable. To the extent that the Democratic Party defines itself as or let's itself be defined as the party of abortion and gay marriage, it will be futile to try to carry Utah and the Mormon vote. Once you get beyond those issues, then the prospects for carrying Utah and the LDS in general are much better. I hope the Western Democrats can do this, for the sake of the whole country.
Posted by: Leo Brown | May 7, 2005 1:42:34 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
