Campaign 2006: National campaign or locally based?

[rockymountaindem]

Poll question: Campaign 2006: National campaign or locally based?

As we look toward the 2006 midterm elections, I think we can all agree that a shakeup in our campaign strategy might be a good idea. With this in mind, I see two strategies that we might consider.

The first is to run a nationwide campaign and sell our ideas (whatever we decide they are) to the national audience. This would be somewhat of a Democratic party style "contract with America". This option would give us national exposure and a consistent message. It would allow people to understand just what Democrats are and what we stand for.

The second option is to run a segmented, regionalized and/or localized campaign. To do this, we would find and run candidates that would be well received within their communities and states, and who would run based on local issues. What might make this idea harder to accept for some Democrats is that our message might seem fragmented and inconsistent, however to voters in individual Congressional districts, this could give the impression that our party is in tune with issues which affect their neighborhoods, cities and counties.

Of course, neither strategy is complete on its own, and a blend would probably be necessary to some extent. However, let's make this poll about which strategy we'd prefer to use the most.

Please explain your reasoning in order to keep this kicked! Thanks!

P.S. please don't make this another thread about BBV. This is just about campaign strategy.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

1. Race for PA Senate against backdrop of Republican ethics/pork

Santorum in PA is up for reelection and has recently been revealed as living in VA but taking money from a Penn Hills school district to send his kids to a PA-resident-only cyberschool. He ran his first House campaign race accusing the Democrat, Walgren, of not living in PA. Hypocrite.

Also, the fact that the deficit is out of control with huge spending bills passing at will under the Republican House/Senate...not to mention a President who never vetoed a bill yet. This has to be played upon nationally.

[rockymountaindem]

2. Your remarks on Santorum are a local issue.

Whereas your criticism of Bush is a national issue. I think these are good examples of the different levels we can campaign on.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. Local, yes, but tied to the greater hypocrisy

Looking at the House vote by Repubs. to protect DeLay in case of indictment is a national example of how the REpubs were willing to "hold their party to a higher standard" only when it is against Dems.

[sportndandy]

4. Without National coordination we will be swamped

by the conservative media machine. Maybe a national strategy that emphasises the power of the grass-roots?

[zulchzulu]

5. Anyone have that list of candidates up in 2006?

I could google, but maybe someone has that at the ready.

[NewJeffCT]

7. I'm in Connecticut

I know we have Lieberman up, but I don't think any in-state Democrats will challenge him.

Also, a big governor's race as well.

[NewJeffCT]

6. How about a "Return to American Values" campaign

somebody that is better than words with me can put together something like:

1) helping the poor (use Clinton language - a hand up, not a handout)
2) helping the elderly
3) helping the children (judge a society on how it treats its most vulnerable - the children & the elderly)
4) supporting civil rights for everybody (try to frame this as Economic Rights or the RW will clobber us on Affirmative Action)
5) standing up for the middle class
6) expanding health care
7) supporting head start & other early education programs
8) strong public schools
9) protecting the environment (frame it as Big Business vs Science)
10) support a woman's right to choose
11) enforced trade agreements (Big Business vs the Middle Class)
12) fiscal sanity (protect our children from our debts)

[Obviousman]

8. It's tricky

In Montana, the state Dem party did fine in spite of the national party. However, running several disjointed local races would assume that we would have a DNC capable of doing such a thing. I could see Dean pulling something like this off.
On the other hand, to fight another national campaign is tempting, but I just don't see the charisma in the party. Pelosi might have it, but the House is an uphill climb. Looking at the Senate, Reid seems incapable.
I'm for local candidates looking out for local issues, but being unified by the Democratic Party, and not abandoned. We need to win big in 06

[rockymountaindem]

9. The David Sirota interview on AAR

right now suggests that a local strategy might be a good idea. He's talking about Schweitzer in Montana and our very own Salazar brothers in Colorado who spoke the language of the people in their states and won. I think that's a good route.

[janx]

10. The Speaker of the Colorado General Assembly was on

AAR just before Sirota was.

His opinion was the same...EXCEPT he did acknowledge that Colorado got plenty of generous donations.

I know that DFA supported Colorado Dems.

[rockymountaindem]

11. Kick for the evening crowd.

[BrightKnight]

12. Balance vs. the Rabid Right

The battle must be faught on both the local and national levels. The general message must enforece the local campaigns. The party leadership should talk to Martin Frost about this.

[InvisibleBallots]

13. We need a local campaign, at the county level

That's what we need in 2006. Hopefully we can take back the Congress then as well, but we need to think long term and that's the county level.

[Radical Activist]

14. We need campaigns that appeal to rural voters

in the South and Midwest. I don't think we can do that and have a national campaign. Many Democratic leaders in DC and the Northeast wouldn't like what that kind of campaign would look like.