Should we run a national campaign in 2008?

[ZombieNixon]

Poll question: Should we run a national campaign in 2008?

I think we should. Just think how much difference a little time in Virginia or Arizona might have made. We really need to stop acting like we have any sort of base at all. We need to campaign like we'll never rest until we get 100% of the vote in every state. If we write off entire sections of the country, we write off ever winning an election again.

[Cobalt Violet]

1. Yes, most states are purple.

[Wapsie B]

2. I still say that we'd have the votes

even in a number of Southern states if we had the involvement down there at the grassroots level. I think we could topple a number of Southern states next time. What I'd like to know is what was the Democratic voter turnout south of the Mason-Dixon?

[ZombieNixon]

3. I'd be interested to hear from the "No" voter.

If you're not a FReeper, I'd like to know your reasoning.

[RafterMan]

14. Will Pitt is a proponent of Fortress Blue

with the odd pickup and definitely not a freeper. I'm too lazy to root around for one of his threads, but they're out there.

I disagree with him, but his argument is logical -- if the Red states are irreconcileable we can only win them over by good governance, and the only way we can get to govern them is to win the election. So focus on the possible rather than shooting for the moon. Sorry to Will if I misrepresented his argument.

[ZombieNixon]

15. Yeah. Now that you mention it, I think I remember reading some of his

posts on this matter. Definately not a freeper; he can actually make a coherent and logical argument.

[zulchzulu]

4. Travelling campaigns are very expensive and take time logistically

I've seen it firsthand.

It is a massive effort, especially when it comes to security. Security issues are probably the biggest logistical nightmare facing a campaign.

While I think in an idyllic world a candidate could visit everywhere, it can be utterly not cost-effective or even logistically possible in some regions.

Unfortunately, it gets down to polling and focusing on large "targets". Unfortunately, it's all about TV now. No one reads newspapers or care about the issues enough to really learn about the differences between candidates.

Democracy is now a product like Pepsi. Oh...you like Coca-Cola? We have that too. Instant nostalgia and grafication pronto!

[Radical Activist]

12. The candidate doesn't need to visit everywhere for a national campaign

There were times when non-swing states would beg Kerry or Edwards to stop for 1/2 hour in a place they were driving through anyway. If you're driving from New York to DC you can make a campaign stop in New Jersey. If you're flying into Iowa you can make a stop across the river in Illinois.

But what's just as important as candidate time is resources. If the DNC had spent a little time and money in the South we may not have lost five Senate seats. The Kerry campaign and the DNC spent almost no money or other resources in the South. We could have carried one or two Southern states or held onto one of those US Senate seats had the effort been made. When non-swing states are ignored it hurts us at the Congressional, state and local level as a party. The DNC especially should be a national organization, not a regional one.

[Placebo]

5. Until the Electoral College is gone, what's the point?

I mean, seriously, why spend much needed time, money and energy in a state like Alabama or Mississippi when there are bigger more substantial prizes in your grasp like Ohio or Florida which can really help deliver the presidency.

There was an interesting talk on C-SPAN last night, sponsored by the PPI (Progressive Policy Institute) and they were talking about this difference between smart policy and smart politics. Sure it might be smart policy to try and seem like a "uniter" going out into the presumed "solid red states", but is it smart politics? I'm not so sure.

[ZombieNixon]

6. OK, fair point (this is a response to zulchzulu, too).

I will concede that Alabama or Mississippi would be damn hard to carry, but remember that the "South" includes some states like Virginia and Arkansas, which, with a little work, could tip over. Bush** "won" the southwest (I live in NM and signs of fraud are so glaringly obvious, they make your eyes hurt)), but if put some effort into outreach into the growing Hispanic community, we could make good work of Arizona or Colorado. I guess my point it, why narrow the battleground so much that there's no room for error?

[zulchzulu]

7. I agree that VA and AK should be visited more

There has to be a better way to get a candidate's message out that is outside the bounds of media control on TV. Perhaps more people will have broadband in 2008 to make a difference in wanting to see more online media events out of the hands of corporate-controlled media.

I do know that Kerry did go to Virginia a few times...maybe Arkansas as well. Surrogates were all over the place...that's one way to do it too.

It has to be easier for people in zones outside of big markets to get grassroots materials and guidance on how to set up events and be able to present the message. With enough grassroots efforts being successful, candidates would see the value of visiting those areas.

By grassroots materials, I mean downloadable brochures/issue papers/sticker designs/video/audio etc. that can be accessed and made easily available.

[XemaSab]

16. "Swing states"

The only states that the democrats have never won since carter in '76 are Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Virginia (and we came VERY close to getting Virginia this time). (But together, this is 36 electoral votes we'll probably not be looking at anytime soon.)

The only state the Republicans haven't won since '76 is Minnesota (and they came VERY close to getting Minnesota this time).

This makes 40 "swing" states.

Carter in '76 got the South solidly, but missed California!

Clinton got Georgia and Montana!

Most of the voters in these 40 "swing" states have seen the state turn red or blue in their lifetimes. We can do this, but we need to learn to connect with these people on issues that matter to them, 'cause the republicans have done it, and the states swing both ways.

[Radical Activist]

13. How many Senate seats did we lose in the South this time?

When the DNC, which is supposed to help Democrats in general, decides to write of the South or other states it hurts us at all levels. It means Democrats lose state legislatures, Governors, Congressional and Senate seats, and it hurts at the local level. We could have avoided losing so many Congressional seats in the South if the Kerry campaign and DNC had made an effort there. We need to support the farm team so that we have at least some kind of Democratic Party in the non-swing states. A swing state strategy is smart for one election but it hurts us as a party in the long run.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. To a greater extent, yes...

For example, perhaps spending more time in states like Missouri and Colorado may have been beneficial. But spending time in Idaho, Utah, Mississippi, and Alabama does us very little good.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Abso-fucking-lutely!

We were very close in many states. And with the right message and candidate we can win even in some that weren't close.

'08 will be wiiiiide open.

[ZombieNixon]

10. Vanity kick n/t

[mandyky]

11. We can't wait until 08

We have to start now!

[Padraig18]

17. Bingo!

:thumbsup:

[Sympleesmshn]

18. Oh Virginia

Kerry won my part of the state and several other counties. I have joked with some of my friends we should secede from Virginia and form our own "blue" southern state.

But our party needs to run a true nation campaign in '08. Although I was a Kerry supporter, we need to find someone next time who isn't just a "lesser of two evils" but a great all around candidate.

[struggle4progress]

19. Of course we should run a national campaign. eom