The 35 State Strategy
Over at the Distance Blog - comin' at ya from Georgia - blogger Stockton is espousing a "35 State Strategy" (as opposed to the Dean-led 50 State Strategy".
Basically, he argues - give up on the South:
In 2004 we heard, ad nauseum, that Democrats needed to compete in the South. Everywhere we turned, "Democrats can't win without stealing a southern state or two," or "Democrats have abandoned the south..." To this I humbly reply, B---S--t! ...A fifty state strategy will lead to wasted resources. A democratic candidate is not going to win Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas....in our lifetime, absent a total Hooveresque-like collapse under a Republican President. This will hold true even if state democrats make great strides in statewide politics.
Instead, he argues, let's focus on the West:
Winning Ohio is a temporary solution. The real Democrat hope lies in gaining strength in the west (or Rocky Mountain states). Democrats should concentrate on New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado. Arizona and Colorado will require much hard work, but it can be done. We would do well to cultivate Western governors and senators of presidential timber. A western Democrat and a running mate from the Industrial Midwest would be a tough ticket to beat.
The message is getting out there, folks. Keep on spreading the word.
Kari Chisholm | August 15, 2005 | Comment on This Post (9 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Last time I checked we have a really good shot at taking the state houses in georgia, alabama, and mississippi. We also have a good chance in winning Virginia in November. We also have a good chance at taking the senate seat in Tennessee, where there is a Democratic governor and keeping the Florida senate seat. There are also Dem governors in North Carolina and Louisiana and 2 dem senators in both Arkansas and West Virginia. So we are not exactly dead in the south. By moving out of an entire region we are proving Zell Miller right by not being a national party anymore. We need to go into every state and every district to get our ideas out. Im for the 50 state strategy, not regional majorities.
Posted by: ketu | Aug 15, 2005 3:01:20 PM
I agree that resources must be allocated appropriately and that the west offers a great opportunity to re-establish the democratic party outside of its current base. However, I also think that it would be unwise to ignore the south entirely. There are areas where advancement can be made mentioned by Ketu above and letting those opportunities erode will create problems in the future. Part of a winning strategy is to weaken your opponent and some money has to be spent on their home turf.
Posted by: J.Kent | Aug 15, 2005 4:58:08 PM
It breaks my heart to read posts like this. I grew up in Kentucky, a mountain state just south of the Mason Dixon Line. We like to say that we (eventually) chose the right side of the war, and then the wrong side of Reconstruction. So it's oddly, self-consciously Southern.
The Commonwealth's long string of Democratic governors was only recently broken, and not because of Bush coattails or a conservative sea change, but rather because then Democratic Governor Patton was involved in a sex scandal that made Clinton's look like an episode of "Three's Company." Democrats still control one chamber of the legislature, and a lead candidate for the 2007 gubernatorial race is one of the most compelling and well-qualified Democrats I've ever heard speak: State Auditor Crit Luallen.
Yes, Mitch McConnel is from Kentucky. And yes, so is Jim Bunning, the poor addled Senator who had to use the "my opponent is a homo" strategy to win his last race. And yes, five out of six congressmen are hard right Republicans.
But the hold on Kentucky, and many other Southern states, is recent and not so strong as has been supposed.
Kentucky is part of a vaguely drawn region sometimes called the Old Southwest. To me, the name suggests the mountainous region that covers some or all of Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and some others. The reason I read WesternDemocrat.com is that I think so much of what it has to say could be applied to the people who live in these states: independent live -and-let-livers who are tired of national Democrats more because they don't seem to fight than because of any cultural markers. At the very least, there are enough such voters in Kentucky and other states that, in concert with an effort in the West, we could surely win enough electoral votes to elect a president and enough congressional races to win back the House. Maybe even a few Senators!
The major difference between the South and the Southwest (and it's major!) is the saga of race politics that is petering along towards an ending that seems to disappear beyond the horizon every time we come close to putting the demons to rest.
But the Republicans are busy trying to bury the hatchet with blacks, and soon Southern state-wide races won't be fought over the battle flag. The issue of gays is a challenge, but perhaps not so much now that so many states have passed their marriage bans.
I'll leave off with a link to a tpmcafe.com link.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/11/153651/357
It's revealing to discover that so many Southern states still work on the "local government is for Democrats, national government is for Republicans" model. I have a feeling that the state dems can, with the same kind of national consideration that the Westerners in this blog are asking for, break through and get elected to national offices.
Posted by: Duncan | Aug 15, 2005 10:23:34 PM
Thanks for linking to us. We are not based solely in GA, since we have bloggers from Ohio, NY, GA and SC. What you found is a post that is part of a much larger discussion about which way is better: a fifty state strategy (which i personally endorses) or a 35 state one (which Stockton endorses).Nice looking blog. We are linking to you!
Posted by: Steve | Aug 16, 2005 2:58:37 AM
whoops! Should have been: "Which I personally endorse"
Posted by: Steve | Aug 16, 2005 5:23:44 AM
I am a firm believer in a 50 state strategy for at least three reasons. 1. Each and every state and locality deserves a good two-party system. 2. Each and every state and congressional district should be contested lest the GOP export too much money from its strong states and districts to other contested states and districts. I am willing to make a few exceptions for tactical reasons, but not many. 3. A national candidate who can run fairly well in almost all states is likely to be a better candidate and president than a more narrowly defined candidate.
That said, for the next few election cycles, the West looks like the region that could most dramatically trend blue, and a Western candidate could have broad national appeal. Our Senate and House Democratic Leaders are now from the West. The Democratic Party has never fielded a presidential or vice-presidential candidate from west of the Central Time Zone. Let us look west.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 16, 2005 8:09:00 AM
I didn't realize that. Is that true? Interesting.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 16, 2005 9:38:57 AM
Yes -- it's true. I blogged on this last week:
http://www.demnotes.com/archives/2005/08/the_future_of_d.html
However, I appreciate the "time zone" analogy -- very descriptive, and much better conceptually than how I've been describing it.
Posted by: Dan Slater | Aug 16, 2005 2:35:01 PM
Dan,
I very much enjoyed reading what you blogged in DemNotes. Great ideas in that post. The linked http://talktomecongress.blogspot.com/2005/08/hidden-democrats-of-interior-west.html
is also very good.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 16, 2005 4:40:12 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
