DNC: 50 states, just not the West right now
Howard Dean and the DNC launched the 50-state campaign this morning:
Every four years, a few months before the presidential election, the Democratic Party puts staff and resources on the ground in a few battleground states ... and then they're gone. After November the whole operation disappears.Then, four years later, we do the same thing all over again.
That hasn't worked. And I ran for chairman on a promise to do it another way.
So a few days ago I met with the state party chairs, and we made a decision together. For the first time ever we're going to build for the future by putting staff and resources on the ground early -- starting in 2005, not 2008. The first four states: North Dakota, Missouri, North Carolina and West Virginia.
Every single one of those states makes sense to me. All are states that Bush won last time and that arguably, can be won by national Democrats in the future, and all for different reasons. Stephanie Herseth proved, twice in one year, that Democrats can still win in the upper plains. West Virginia used to be a Dem stronghold before Karl Rove got his mitts on it, and Al Gore all but ignored it. Missouri was almost a showdown state last year, and North Carolina is quickly following Virginia as a winnable southern state.
None of these states, though, are west of the 100th Meridian! The DNC isn't impressing me with this list. It’s already been proven in Montana and Colorado that Western Democrats can win statewide elections in red presidential states, we need to pay more attention to what is going on out here.
Which leads me to another question. Is the point of the 50-state strategy to change the nature of politics in the individual states? Or is it to change the nature of the Democratic Party to better address their politics? There is a big difference.
We're never going to make Colorado into Boston, nor should we. A major problem facing the Democratic Party is that it has become stagnated in certain regions that are either losing influence or don’t relate that well to the rest of us. This isn’t all about policies, but rather tone, culture and simply accepting that someone from Grand Junction has as much influence in the party as someone from Manhattan. The best hope for the DNC and the Democratic Party is to learn the lessons of the West.
Emmett O'Connell | April 12, 2005 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
The process for determining this money is being a little ignored here. The DNC is sending a "team" into each state and territory and working with the State Party leaders in each state to ensure that the money given by the DNC will be applied to areas where the state needs it most (as opposed to a "cookie cutter" approach). The teams are scheduled to visit states between now and June, and Colorado is scheduled to get its visit in May. The only western state to have been visited yet (the process just started) is Nevada, and you can probably expect an announcement from the DNC regarding Nevada relatively soon. The west won't be ignored in this initiative, I assure you.
Posted by: Dan Slater | Apr 12, 2005 2:24:55 PM
My sense, totally guessing here, is that these states were picked in part because their state parties need the most work.
Posted by: desmoulins | Apr 12, 2005 8:02:21 PM
Note that he said it's the first four, not the only four. A 50-state approach necessarily includes all 50 states, so I don't think we have to worry about Dean going provincial on us.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 13, 2005 9:38:23 AM
This is encouraging news! I'm pleased to see some field building.
Posted by: AustinInMySoul | Apr 17, 2005 11:32:38 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
