I favor a 50 state strategy for 2008

[bluestateguy]

I have been spending awhile thinking about this since the election, and I have concluded that the Democratic presidential campaign of 2008 is best served by running a nationwide, 50 state campaign.

Writing off entire states (Indiana), or entire regions of the country (the Great Plains, the Deep South) only allows the Republicans to start the campaign with an inherent advantage. It allows them to mostly play offense, while we mostly have to play defense. Such a strategy constricts the campaign and makes the developments of the campaign unfold in a much more predictable way. Why should the Republicans simply be allowed to win Alabama, Indiana, Utah and Montana without any campaigning being done? They should be forced to make their case to the residents of those states before their electoral votes are awarded into the Republican column.

Now money could be an issue here, but if there was one successful aspect to the Kerry campaign it was money. We matched the Bush Money Machine dollar for dollar, and in some cases exceeded it. Unlike him, our nominee first had to fight off a primary field before the general election. In 2008, the Republican nominee will have to do the same, which levels the playing field considerably. The Democratic nominee should be encouraged to bypass the matching funds for the primaries (which imposes spending limits) AND bypass the general election matching funds as well. In doing so, the nominee will able to continue using money raised during the primary season and he/she can solicit donations once again from people who donated during the primary season. We can do it.

I want to see the Democratic nominee campaigning in OCTOBER of 2008 in Neshoba County, Mississippi, Collin County, Texas and Forsyth County, Georgia. The exurbs, the rural countrysides, the places that are full of fundamentalist Baptist churches, SUV's and conservative white people.

[mandyky]

1. We can't wait until 2007 to start, either

We have to start building now. And once the DNC Chair is chosen, he needs to meet with Democratic Governors and encourage them to try to at least gets kids medical care insurance. It could be tried in a variety of ways. States with Democratic Governors should be testing grounds on fixing No Child Left Behind, etc., too.

From now til 2008 we need to run a Dem or Progressive in as many local races as possible.

Here's something I posted -
Democrats, Communication and Outreach

I hope whoever is chosen as DNC chair does the following -

Get a decent web server and simulcast all Democratic meetings, including things like Saturday's selection of DNC Chair proceedings.

Offer a feed to outlets like Democracy Now and Air America Radio.

Support independent liberal talk radio, like Guy James Show. And buy commercials on AAR and other commercial liberal talk radio. Support independent loacl TV stations if they exist too, if they cover Democratic issues.

See what cities have city govt TV and see if time can be bought when there is no city business to cover. Put Dem outreach type programming on.

We need a weekly or monthly publication - newspaper or magizine - filled with Democratic issues and viewpoints.

You get the idea - we need to create our own alternative media to get our message out, all over the country. This is especially important in red and purple states. Where is Al Gore with his TV station?
We cannot depend on any TV news outlets anymore. Even CBS has taken a hard right. CNN and MSNBC are pathetic and don't balance out FOX unfair and unbalanced at all. We have to communicate with the people we want to vote Dem, and motivate aand activate our base.

[merbex]

2. Activate Democratic precinct captains IN EVERY PRECINCT

in America STARTING NOW.

Start knocking on Dem and Independent doors NOW. Introduce yourself,handout info on upcoming meetings,websites,blogs,AAR,etc

Establish personal contact with people without pushing a candidate at first so that later you can push your candidate.

[BamaBecky]

3. I agree, and we have to stop the cheats from getting to the "tabulators",

or it will be a lot of hard work all for naught.:bounce:

[forgethell]

4. I agree that without

a 50 state strategy, the Democratic Party is doomed to the dustbin of history. But campaigning in states such as Alabama is not enough. Somehow, our message has to appeal to them. It doesn't now. John Kerry could have spent every day in the state of Alabama and not carried it. These voters reject our message.

So, what do we add to our message to get their votes? What do we promise them? And just as important: what do we subtract from our message that destroys any chance that they will vote Democratic, regardless of ourpositive promises? Gay marriage? Opposition to unilateral use of American power? Immigration?

And how do we do it without giving up our progressive principles?

[Mirwib]

5. A 50-state strategy would be a waste

of time and money. There are some states that regardless of the amount of money and time spent in them would simply not turn into the Democratic camp. Kerry didn't even get 30% of the vote in some states (for example, Idaho and Wyoming).

[bluestateguy]

8. It's not about turning every state Democratic

I don't think the Bush team really thought they could win in Minnesota, but they forced Kerry to campaign there. That was that much less campaigning that Kerry could do in Ohio or Florida.

Let's make the Republican nominee earn Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Force them to personally campaingn in those states and put ads on the air before simply giving away those electoral votes.

[mandyky]

9. If we wait until the presidential election, yes, but

having a 50 state strategy is more than having presidential candidates visit during the election cycle. It requires mobilizing state and local Democratic organizations NOW. Getting local and state Democratic office holders elected from now throughout the presidential races. Some states like Alabama and Mississippi will take longer, more work, more trials and errors type learning.

[fujiyama]

32. Well said

I think many of us dismissed the gains the GOP made in the mid term elections as an aberration and that they were only temporary.

This is a long term agenda. As you said, we may not, and likely will not, have luck in certain states, but we've made gains in places people didn't expect. After all, we have Dem governors in MT and WY, two very republican states, and have made tremendous gains in CO as well.

[Dream of the Flood]

21. Strategic "Selective" Southern and Midwestern Strategy

Just weighing in with my two cents:
Just modify the strategy as follows-- Begin campaigning heavily in "purple" states or traditionally red states that could go blue with the proper message. For example, I read that Virginia, once a solid conservative state, is becoming less "red" and is trending progressive. While it was fairly solidly red in the last election, it could become a battleground state if the proper effort was made. Look also at the Carolinas, especially North Carolina. We need to look at states the president won by 10% or less. These are the states to start with. We also need to look at so-called red states that show progressive tendencies at state and local levels--reinforce those. Work to further solidify counties that went for Kerry in all states, but actively campaign in the states that were closest. Not to say ignore the rest, but concentrate strategically on the states and parts of states that could start to redraw the map. I'm too new to hardcore politics, paying for years of apathy now, to know all the ins and outs of what should be done, but maybe someone with the political smarts to do so could carry the ball from here. But I think this makes sense if carried through correctly.

[Zynx]

23. We need to up our vote in every state for the state and local candidates.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[StopTheMorans]

7. define "your land", and would you only get rid of "white settlers"?

can people of asian, african, and other various ethnic backgrounds stay :shrug:

[brentspeak]

12. Don't feed the trolls/freepers (n/t)

[JI7]

10. it's not that simple

i think we have to start earlier, before the presidential election time.

that's what the republicans did. they started working on GOTV right after 2000 elections were over. so they had over 3 years while we started ours after the primary was over so we had under 1 year.

another thing they did was test some of their strategies in election years without presidential races. and it's not just about winning and losing. for example, we could lose a certain election, but we might also find that certain strategies used in the election did work. perhaps we did well in getting a certain turnout among a specific type of people such as people who live in a certain area based on certain issues. this means we can put that strategy to use on a wider bases. we might find we WON a certain election but a strategy to get out certain voters failed. a good example are safe senate races. we know we will win certain senate races for sure. but lets use certain strategies to see if we are able to get an increase in turnout among certain voters who are not likely to vote democratic.

Bush's campaign stops were in pretty much the same states as Kerry's but the Republicans had a strong organization and tested strategies in place to help them.

doing all these things means that we have a certain thing to start with when it comes to the general election. one of the biggest problems with Ohio is that Republicans control it statewide. i think if we had even one person at a statewide level on our side it would have been much easier for us to do something about assholes like blackwell.

another thing is that the Republicans have the media on their side so we need to work on getting our message out. not just getting it out but dealing with the media spin and distortions. a majority of the people who voted for Bush think we found wmd in Iraq and that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

[brentspeak]

11. Very much in agreement - and we can't rely on blogs

There are some on DU who think that the most they can do is campaign via blogs, that physically "setting up shop" in a "red state" is beneath them. The Republicans have people in the "red states" all year round; Democrats only seem to surface within the last couple weeks before Election Day.

No wonder we've lost the south and midwest.

[XemaSab]

13. The heaviest support for Gore

was in the county that the Tuskeegee Institute is situated in. There were also a few counties in Texas that went heavier for Gore than San Francisco.....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Those Few Counties Had Huge African American Populations

I live in Seminole County, Florida where Bush* won over 60% of the vote but there were heavily African American precints where Kerry won 90% + of the vote...

[XemaSab]

30. Well yeah...

....but the idea is that there is huge support for democrats in some areas of the South. It shows that there's nothing about being Southern and being Democrat that's antithetical. Even if this huge support is in a minority population (with smaller support in the white population), acting like the south is uniformly republicans and dixiecrats/DINOs is really unproductive.

I'm basically saying we need to run a 50 state campaign. :-)

[Julien Sorel]

14. The problem with a 50 state strategy is a 50 state message.

Where is it? We've done the jobs and healthcare thing twice in a row, and it didn't reach the South or the Plains.

[LimpingLib]

15. economy/jobs wasnt an issue in 2000 , Gore/Liebermann did healthcare?

Man , you really are bad at history arent you.Gore made his primary campaign on his opposition to Bill Bradleys modest health care coverage plan hence he was anti-health care.

By picking the most anti health care Senator (though tied with 50 other Republicans and about 25 Senate Democrats)he could.

And this whole 50 state strategy is b.s.

Kerry did worse in the North East and Mid Atlantic states than Gore in terms of percentage of the vote , despite the fact that Kerry got 48.4% like Gore nationaly. Its just a bunch of propaganda saying we need to move right to win. We did run in all 50 states , check the ballot records.Kerry did a little worse in the South too exept Virginia.

Kerry improved over Gore in every place it counted.He ran in all 50 states , did worse in the heavy social liberal areas than Gore because Kerry's economic liberalism (relative to our tickets since 1988)turned off some voters who prefer ocial liberal moderates. Kerrys strong stance (relative to our last 3 tickets)also made him slightly weaker in the South but any Democrat would have done as bad there anyway.

[Traction]

16. Give up, no Democrat could ever win all 50 states

A super-popular Republican MIGHT be able to do it (as Reagan came extremely close in 1984), but no Democrat can ever win Idaho, Utah, Alabama, or Mississippi. Not even Clinton came close in those states.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. You Forgot

Alaska, Texas, Oklahoma,and probably three or four others....


The Fifty State Strategy is a nice cliche but a naive strategy...


I guess the only thing that will prove me right is time....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Before I Am Put Into A Neat Little Categorical Box

I favor a hybrid strategy...


I reject the Fortress Blue Strategy that we protect our base and try to win OH and FL and I also reject the 50 State Strategy where we invest resources in states we have no reasonable expectation of winning...

[Julien Sorel]

17. Yeah, I really suck at this history thing.

I was going to actually post a response, then I re-read your post and noticed you said Gore was "anti-healthcare."

Even by the standards of this place, that's a hell of a statement you made there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Solution

"anti-healthcare"


maybe Gore was a Christian Scientist....


That might be the solution to our health care dilemma.

[zulchzulu]

31. BS Alert: Gore's healthcare policies in 2000 were pretty darn good

Perhaps you can defend the view that Gore was "anti-health care"... this should be amusing.

Here's a list of Gore's stated healthcare policies:

Claim that drugmakers spend more on ads than R&D isn’t true. (Oct 17)
Physicians, not HMO should make medical decisions. (Oct 17)
Drug companies spend more on ads than on research. (Oct 17)
Opposes Medical Savings Accounts; they segment out the sick. (Oct 11)
Claims Bush puts Texas oil interests before healthy children. (Oct 11)
Claims of Bush’s choices & benefits are underestimated. (Oct 11)
Stronger penalties for HMOs who drop seniors. (Sep 25)
Foster competition in drug research; companies misspend R&D. (Aug 28)
Curb excess pharmaceutical profits made at consumer expense. (Jul 1)
$30B over 10 years to help families with elder care. (Jun 6)
Against assisted suicide; but leave it to the states. (May 13)
Get generic drugs to market quickly & cheaply. (Mar 31)
Let FDA regulate cigarettes; fight teenage smoking. (Mar 22)
Focus on prevention to limit costs. (May 1999)
No discriminating based on genetic information. (Nov 1998)
Remove stigma & treat mental illness like physical illness. (May 31)

Insurance coverage

Step by step, fill in the gaps in health care. (Oct 17)
Wants some form of non-government universal health care. (Oct 11)
Cover 12 million uninsured at a 10-year cost of $157 billion. (Sep 30)
Move toward universal health coverage, step by step. (Aug 18)
All children should have health care by 2004. (Apr 28)
Expand Children’s Health Insurance Program for working poor. (Mar 14)
$146B over 10 years to insure 90% of adults & 100% of kids. (Oct 1999)

Medicare & Medicaid

Medicare Rx plan: you choose, Medicare pays. (Oct 3)
Put Medicare in lockbox so seniors can afford prescriptions. (Oct 3)
Protect Medicare’s funds with “lockbox”. (Sep 23)
Modernize Medicare with choice, efficiency, competition. (Sep 23)
Too many seniors have to choose between drugs and rent. (Sep 23)
Senior prescription drug benefit with $4,000 cap. (Sep 23)
Allow 55-65 year olds to buy into Medicare. (Sep 23)
Free preventive cancer screenings for Medicare beneficiaries. (Sep 23)
$253B for Medicare prescriptions & subsidized premiums. (Sep 6)
1997 Medicare cuts went too far-put back $339B. (Aug 31)
Health Care Trust Fund to expand coverage. (Jun 14)
$300B over 15 years to keep Medicare solvent. (Mar 1)

Patient Rights

Patient Rights: power to doctors; right of appeal. (Oct 17)
Supports Dingell-Norwell Patient Bill of Rights. (Oct 17)
Encourage competition, ensure choice, stop abuses. (Sep 23)
Private medical information should not be bought and sold. (Sep 19)
Enforce HMO coverage of women’s cancer treatment. (Sep 18)
Patients have right to more access, protection, recourse. (Jul 11)
25% tax credit for health insurance; HMO appeals. (Mar 14)
Patient rights: emergency coverage & performance disclosure. (Jan 8)
Patients and doctors should decide who gets what care. (Oct 1999)


http://www.issues2000.org/2000/Al_Gore.htm#Health_Care

http://www.amia.org/public_policy/chip/9-21-00.html

[LimpingLib]

36. Easy to defend.

Bradley had a plan that would take the 43 million (at the time) uninsured and buy insurance for them. He said it would cost about $65 billion per year. Gore said it would cost far more and even it it only costed $65 billion per year , that it was simply too expensive. A risky scheme. A good guy (Gore said of Bradley) with a bad plan.

Gore only offered up a $12 billion per year plan if you look at his best offer , frankly he spent the entire campaign changing his accent depending on his audience. Like you show there , he had nice little bits and pieces for every crowd. He threw plenty of scraps at the dogs at every stop.By the time he picked Liebermann , all dogs were put in their place.

Bradley said that if we couldnt afford to take the MODEST step of full health care coverage (even using insurance companys and the same broken system)in strong economic times then when?

Liebermann 4 years later showing exactly when he and Gore (2000 Gore , mind you Gore admits he was wrong to oppose full coverage for every American now , he strongly supports single payer which is miles beyond Bradleys first step)intended to cover everybody:NEVER (and frankly , it shows today when you look at the Clinton/Gore/DLC healthcare legacy in our nation).

Bottom line---------------Bradleys plan was the first step. Your regurgitating 4 year old DLC scraps . Aim it at the trash can next time please. Or at least put it somewhere where it can be flushed.

[quaoar]

24. Dean would not write off any states as DNC chair

Early on during his primary campaign he ran ads in Texas.

He doesn't believe in conceding anything to the Republicans.

I also believe strongly in a 50-state campaign. But that doesn't mean the candidate has to spend time in Juneau or Fargo in October. How damn difficult would it be for the Democratic candidate in 2008 to spend one lousy day in Jackson, Mississippi in April or May? And why not have a whistlestop train or bus trip up and down the Great Plains or across the South in June?

And I also agree with the strategy of refusing all matching dollars in 2008.

[robcon]

29. If that's true about Dean...

I hope he never becomes DNC chair. That strategy is totally wasteful, and utterly unstrategic. Rove, or his descendants, will whip his ass if he doesn't concentrate our resources.

[dmkinsey]

25. Sounds like the Donnie Fowler plan

Donnie's seeking the DNC Chair and he is adamant that we concede nothing to the other party. He also wants to establish four regional headquarters to get closer to the state and local parties.

See Donnie Fowler's web site www.changetheparty.com
Also a good video of Fowler on Washington Journal www.cspan.org

[Sgent]

26. MIssissippi

Lets talk about Mississippi, since I'm a native.

Govenor: Republican (Haley Barber), but previous Govenor was a Democrat, and most likely this one will be thrown out of office for cutting state Medicaid funds (popularity rating is very low).

State Senate: Majority Democratic
State House: Majority Democratic

Other statewide offices: Majority Democratic (about 50/50)

House of Rep: 50/50
Senate: 2 Republicans

So lets see, here we have a viable, functional Democratic party -- in a heavy Bush state. Instead of writing the state off, we need to ask what makes them electible on a local level, and why people like Gore/Kerry lose.

[QC]

40. Good post! n/t

[zulchzulu]

27. It sounds easy, but the reality of overspending and logistics make it...

...pretty unrealistic.

If you are looking at the reality of a campaign, you need headquarters. It's not all just done over the net. You need literature. You need phone banks. You need office equipment and furniture. You need a ground force. You need events staged in locations where the message will be seen and heard. You need staff that has some experience running campaigns successfully and know local Democrats and others that know the lay of the political land. And then you need a lot more reliable staff to support the operation at the usual $8/hour.

Then there's the very expensive media expense..TV ads, radio ads...and getting the candidate and surrogates to be at all these places all over the country.

Don't forget yard signs, buttons, bumper stickers, lapel stickers, t-shirts, rally signs, large event signs, campaign literarure...and the money to ship them and the space to store and manage them.

To deploy this kind of needed operations everywhere would be very expensive. There would have to basically still be strategies where you deploy more in the time-tested Blue zones and arm them with the needed campaign necessities first.

This is basically how most campaigns run anyway. From my experience working with campaigns since 1992, the hardest part is getting good people that are reliable, passionate, willing to work long hours for lousy pay and saavy enough to be great personalities to work with all kinds of people in all kinds of conditions.

Finding that kind of talent pool in all fifty states would be a challenge in itself, let alone the expense of having headquarters in hard-core Red states where the resources would be wasteful.

If you've been in the trenches of a campaign, you know what I'm talking about. When I think about how Dean spent nearly $39 Million in Iowa during that caucus and if you multiply that by 50, you see that the amount of money needed would be nearly impossible if you're not going to accept corporate money, etc.

[robcon]

28. The limited campaign is essential.

The Democratic Party need not campaign in NY, Vermont, etc. The Republican probably don't have to campaign in Texas.

It would be very inefficient and wasteful to campaign where the decision is very unlikely to change.

[Silverhair]

33. That is spreading your candidate too thin.

You really get clobbered doing that. The Republicans would simply concentrate on the battleground states and weak blue states. They would know that the Democratic message just won't sell in the deep red states. It would only make them a bit less red, but still safely red. And the lack of attention would allow them to concentrate on where they could gain the most ground.

Kerry tried to go on the offensive, but when Bush had the bump from his convention, he was forced onto the defensive. If Kerry had been leading in the polls, he would have had the room to be able to go on the offensive.

It is like war. You have to concentrate you forces on vunerable spots to win.

[ShaneGR]

34. Afterwards get ready for "You blew it for not spending more in X State"

Because you wasted money in Idaho.

I would recommend a 30 state strategy though, with very brief visits to about half those, medium visits in about 10, and heavy rotation in 5.

[FrenchieCat]

35. I believe that with the right candidate.....

a national 50 state campaign is possible, doable, and winneable in 2008 (as it could have been in 2004, with the right candidate).

I suspect that Kerry was not invited into many of the southern states....as quite a few Democrats running for office in certain "red" states were not always interested in Kerry representing them. In fact, many (e.g. Chandler of Oklahoma disowned John Kerry). It's unfortunate, but it is true. To win in many of these states.....one cannot be seen as "liberal"....or getting the support of someone perceived as such. Though some might recoil...it's all about political strategy....and regional politics.

But will the Democrats understand that and select the right candidate, meaning "Full Service" candidate in 2008? that will tell us whether we go 50 states or just blue and purple states.

What I sincerely hope is that Democrats won't allow the media to dictate their primaries in 2006 or 2008. The problem lies in too many of us wanting the "dream candidate"...and not thinking further than that. We need the "dream candidate" that can also win.

[zann725]

37. My plan is 'get a paper trail'...and fire "Diebold."

n/t

[radfringe]

38. 50 state plan could work if

it's done as "Uniting America"

True or not -- the perception is we are a divided nation. Both bush* and Kerry played into that. bush* did it with a divide and conquer campaign, Kerry did it by concentrating on rallying "the base"

All this did was to solidify the "divide"

Whether the dominating issue is foreign policy, economy or "moral values" -- whoever is sitting in the White House will impact us all (red and blue). Terrorist don't care which side of the aisle you are on, nor does a company lay off people based on their party affiliation.

---sietrack---

regarding "moral value" issues -- need to get the repugs pinned down and make them define their vision of moral values and how they plan on forcing THEIR values on the rest of us. Since Reagan -- family/moral values has been a warm/fuzzy/blurry term. What exactly are the moral/family values? Are my "values" the same as the repugs? Are your values the same? What are the moral/family families that repugs are pushing?

The Taliban imposed their moral values on their population based on their religion. Iran does the same. North Korea's values are determined by it's leaders. Bin-laden's values steer Al-qeada's actions.

Yeah, I know -- the counter-argument will be "ohh, but that's differnt -- those values are wrong..." uhhh-huh -- Who has the ultimate wisdom and knowledge to determine who's values are right or wrong?

[Krocksice]

39. Idea!!!

Maybe we could spend some of that multimillion dollar surplus leftover from the election to create some payed positions around the nation! We could get a huge grassroots campaign started with that.