The Democrats 'Southern' problem can be balanced by

[dsc]

a New England/ Mid Atlantic sweep.

The eleven states of the Confederacy and Oklahoma have 24 Senators, they are currently divided 20R/4D. Up this year are Nelson (D) Florida, Allen(R) VA, Lott(R) MS, and open seats in Tennessee (currently held by Frist) and Texas (currently held by Hutchinson). The most likely scenario is that we will win 1 of those 5 races. We have around a 1/4 chance of either winning 2 or losing 5, and a very slim chance of winning 3. Thus the likely outcome is a 20/4 division, we have around a 1/4 chance of either 21/3 or 19/5, and a slim chance of 18/6. Best case we have a 10 seat Republican margin, worst case an 18 seat Republican margin. Most likely a 16 seat Republican margin.

In contrast, the 11 states of New England and the Mid Atlantic (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, PA, NJ, DE, and, MD) currently are divided 14D/7R/1I with the I caucusing with Democrats. Up this time are 10 seats 6D, 3R, and 1I. The most likely outcome is that we keep all our seats, the I stays I and stays caucusing with us, and we get one or two R seats. We have an outside chance of getting all three. If we did that the division would be 17D/4R/1I or an effective 18 to 4 split. A margin of 14 seats which would nearly cancel out the South and get us halfway to erasing our Senate deficit. We should have a top drawer candidate to go against Collins and in Rhode Island we have to pressure pro choice groups to cut Chaffee loose (you can bet pro lifers aren't endorsing Nelson in Nebraska despite his pro life record).

By a couple more election cycles we should have only one or two Republican Senators left in New England and the Mid Atlantic. We need to do that to have any shot at regaining the Senate which means that we have to target the likes of Specter, Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, Sununu, and Gregg as well as Santorum. It is that simple. While we are at it Smith in Oregon has to go as well. We must win Senate races in parts of the country which vote with us nationally. I honestly see no chance of us making significant inroads in the South. We might pick up a seat here and there while losing them there and here but the split is likely to remain around what it is today. We must balance this split in New England and the Atlantic region. If we don't, we may never win the Senate again.

[Bluebear]

1. I could not agree more.

Further, I would like to see us expend the extra energy on Nevada, New Mexico, etc. I think we have more hope there.

[dsc]

3. The Rocky Mountains and Southwest provide us our best shots

New Mexico is an evenly divided state, Arizona and Colorado are closing in to being even, and we have made great inroads in Montana with Nevada having always been close. We should get good candidates for both Nevada and Montana which are up this time. Arizona is up as well but it is McCain who we have no chance of beating.

[greendog]

37. With the right candidate we could easily unseat Conrad Burns

Four years ago Brian Schweitzer, who was then a completely unknown farmer ran very well against the uninspiring Burns. Now Schweitzer is a popular Governor and is in a position to campaign for the Democratic candidate.

It's just a mater of finding someone that Montanans would be willing to vote for. We could even get a progressive populist as long as he's pro-gun.

[autorank]

46. Isn't it nice to know that the Montana DEMS are smart enough to pull this

off? I mean really, Schweitzer and the other's out there are hungry and they'll do their thing. Adios Conrad!

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Contact the DNC and Give 'em Hell About NOT Acting on Election Fraud

[stevedeshazer]

97. Um, Conrad is a Democrat, and he's not from Montana

Your post is a perfect example of why we are losing and why Western voters feel ignored.

At least get your facts straight, respectfully.

[dsc]

99. Try getting your facts straight

There is a Republican Senator from Montana whose first name is Conrad and whose last name is Burns. Thus his name is Conrad Burns. You are confusing him with Kent Conrad who is indeed a Democrat from North Dakota.

[stevedeshazer]

105. Sorry, you're right

Last name, first name, whatever. My bad.

[Awsi Dooger]

60. I don't see any indication Arizona is closing in on even

Here is the partisan index of Arizona, based on how it compares to the national average (for example, Bush +2.46% nationally in 2004) in presidential voting margin since 1988. There is absolutely no hint of a move in our direction:

Arizona:
'88: Bush (59.95 - 38.74) = + 13.49% Republican
'92: Bush (38.47 - 36.52) = + 7.51% Republican
'96: Clinton (46.52 - 44.29) = + 6.30% Republican
'00: Bush (51.02 - 44.73) = + 6.80% Republican
'04: Bush (54.87 - 44.40) = + 8.01% Republican

We may hold the gov chair now with Napolitano, but that was simply an example of the recent overwhelming national trend of states voting for the party that has been out of office, if it was an open race.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

5. Definitely New Mexico

I live here and it fells more blue than red. The problem here is the extreme eastern part of the state which we call "little Texas". They always vote rethug.

[AspenRose]

101. I agree

NM is really bluish-purple with the southern part of the state (south of I-40) almost indistinguishable from TX. Oil & ranching.

Taos, Santa Fe and most of the north (except Los Alamos) is wicked blue.

Santa Fe better watch out, though; people from TX are relocating there. When conservative Texans began relocating to Colorado, CO became more red. I never thought I'd see "W" stickers in Santa Fe....for now, though, they're outnumbered.

[Nite Owl]

2. Sounds right

A lot of people think that the New England R's are ok because they are moderates but they aren't. We should be able to get those seats. We need them, we need a Senate majority for the chairs, so investigations can be started. These moderates will side with their party not us when push comes to shove. Does the democratic party have the will to campaign strongly against them though?

[dsc]

6. I don't know

We aren't doing a great job so far. In PA we have pro choice groups bitching about Casey, in RI, where they got their way and forced out a pro life candidate, they backed Chaffee and in ME we haven't even found a candidate. I think Casey will win anyway and Chaffee is likely to lose anyway. That still leaves Collins who should be beatable.

[MeDeMax]

4. thnx for the analysis...

very enlightening.

[Lexingtonian]

7. yep

I've been predicting that the '06 elections are going to be one more intensification of the Red/Blue map. The Blue becoming bluer, the Red staying about the same. The question that remains, as I see it, is about the swing states tipping toward blueish...it doesn't strike people around here as likely yet, but the running Republican deterioration seems to me strong enough and might be progressed far enough a year from now.

With Arlen Specter as ill as he is, there might be an appointment coming Ed Rendell's way.

[PeaceProgProsp]

8. Can't ignore the south, or Dems might win Senate, but never win House.

Do you want the Dems never to win the House (and the preisdency, because electoral votes are weighted by population) ever again. (The population is shifting south and west.)

And Democrats can win the House AND Senate AND Presidency if they run a good Democrat for president who runs a national campaign and who has coattails.

In other words, I think it's shortsighted to pin all your hopes on winning the senate and only the senate based on some theory of attrition of moderate NE Republicans.

[dsc]

9. The House is a different story

Redistricting is key for that. We don't lose Senate races by a 60 to 40 margin in most cases but by more like a 55 to 45 margin. By redistricting we can have majorites or at least strong minorites in House delegations while losing at large races. Until Delay's redistricting we actually had a majority of House seats in Texas despite losing statewide. Presidentially we can only hope to pick off the states where we actually win Senate seats now. But for Ross Perot, the only Southern states Clinton would have carried are Arkansas 2D, Tennessee 2R and Lousiana evenly split. Gore won Florida in 2000 with less than 50% of the vote but probably would have had over 50% had Nader not run.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Clinton wouldn't have necesarilly lost Georgia if not for Perot

Georgia was still pretty reliably Democratic back then and Zell Miller (before he turned to the dark side) campaigned a lot for Clinton.

[dsc]

21. He won by very few votes

and Perot's support was overwhelmingly white. It is very hard to believe his support in Georgia was as evenly divided as it would have had to be for Clinton to still win.

[PeaceProgProsp]

77. I've heard that Clinton would have beaten Bush by a greater margin

if not for Perot. The exit polls are available somewhere on the web.

As for redistricting, Democrats have to win state houses to take care of redistricting, which is another reason the party shouldn't pin its hopes on attrition of popular moderate Repbublicans in Maine and Rhode Island.

[dsc]

87. I fail to see how in the South

Voters are very racially polarized here. Perot's voters were nearly entirely white. It would be very difficult for him to have pulled evenly from the candidates in places like Georgia given that racial profile. I think Clinton would have lost Georgia without Perot in 92.

[ultraist]

26. The South has the fatest growing population,

[dsc]

27. which matters not for the Senate

[ultraist]

53. So, you'd like to write off the South JUST for the Senate?

[PeaceProgProsp]

74. and it writes off the presidency too. Electoral college reflects House

representation. As more House seats come from southern and western states, they'll have more say over who becomes president.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[quaoar]

11. Yet another "Let's write off the South thread"

This is getting old.

[dsc]

22. Go ahead

Tell me who we can run and win. We ran a former Chief of Staff and statewide candidate against a Congressman who was unknown in any metropolitan area in the state and we lost NC. In SC we ran a State Superintendent of Education who had won with over 70% of the vote against a certified nut, we lost. In OK we ran a popular Congressman against a doctor who committed Medicaid fraud while sterilizing poor women and we lost. So go on, tell me who to run in say NC. We have had several Democratic governors, the Democrats control the legislature, yet we lost with a better known, better candidate.

[ultraist]

28. Who will be running for Senator in NC in 06? Not Dole, not Burr.

We have Mel Watt in the House and numerous other Dems in the US House. Democrats need the South to take back the majority in Congress.

How on earth could the Congress be Dem controlled without the South? Do you honestly think that states that went Blue for the Presidential election will produce ALL DEMS in Congress? Not likely.

[dsc]

31. and we won't produce all Republicans either

We need to work on Governor's races where we have a shot of winning. We have a Democratic governor here but we have lost to both Dole and Burr. The fact is we have no person on the horizon to take on Dole in 08 (we also have to worry about an open seat governor's race). Look at what happened in 04. In OK we ran against a doctor who defrauded Medicaid, sterilized the poor, and was a nut and lost. In SC we ran against a man who said all gay teachers should be fired and abortion doctors should be put to death, we lost. In NC we ran a man who was on the statewide ballot in 02 against a man who was unknown in Charolette, Raleigh, Durham, Wilmington, and Ashville and still lost. In FL we ran against a divided Republican party and lost. Again, I would love to hear this strategy of winning senate seats but so far I haven't.

[ultraist]

33. Easley might run for the Senate in 08 and he WOULD win

He won by a landslide. There are others who could take on Dole.

It's tunnel vision to focus only on the Senate and propose to write off the South. For instance, PA is nearly HALF Republican.

There is no way you can count on all Dems being elected to Congress from the states that went to Kerry.

[dsc]

38. I'm not counting on that

I am saying we need to work to make that happen. I think that effort in the NE and the midAtlantic will pay off while effort down here likely won't. Easley has been very bad on gay rights, coy on abortion, and is reputed to hate campaigning. He would be a very hard sell for our national party if he doesn't change his positions and if he does he no longer is able to win in landslides. Ballentine also was a uniquely poor candidate. Easley likely would have beaten nearly anyone but I don't think he would have run up that kind of margin against a more serious Republican challenge.

[ultraist]

54. Easely wouldn't have to appeal on a Nat'l level to win the Senate

His ratings are VERY HIGH in NC.

I'm with Dean: ALL STATES! Cherry picking a couple of states, has not worked for us, has it?

[dsc]

83. And where is he going to get his money

Pro choice groups won't fund pro life candidates and neither will our national party. Dems have a limited number of large donors and they demand certain positions.

[hatrack]

111. And let's not forget Kentucky - Bunning vs. Mongiardo

You had a bright and dynamic Democratic candidate, an MD no less, running against a Republican incumbent Senator who could at best be charitably described as "senescent", who would not appear in public in non-controlled settings and who admitted breaking the rules of the candidates' televised debate by getting coached while phoning in his participation from a DC studio.

Guess what - the Republican incumbent won.

[quaoar]

75. You damn sure won't win any elections

if you don't contest them. And then all that money they raise in SC and Oklahoma and NC and Texas can be spent on contested races in New England and Maryland and Pennsylvania.

We can win DeLay's seat, for one. We can also beat Trent Lott. Mike Moore might run for that seat even if Lott does not retire.

We can stop Roy Moore from winning the governorship of Alabama. Lucy Baxley can win that race. Or would you rather give Roy Moore a major office from which he can leapfrog to a presidential run?

[dsc]

81. I directly advocate going after governorships where we do tend to win

around half the time. As to Moore beating Lott, that isn't going to happen. Moore will be tagged with the national liberal label or he will have no money to campaign with if he sticks to conservative positions.

[quaoar]

88. Mike Moore has won statewide before.

And he is a calculating politician. I highly doubt he would run if he didn't think he had a decent shot at winning.

And Trent Lott has never been a beloved figure in Mississippi, not like Thad Cochran. But I can't ever remember him having any kind of significant opposition. Much like Jeff Sessions in Alabama. Both of them can be beat by the right candidate.

[dsc]

91. So had Musgrove

and he just lost to Barbour. Hunt lost to Helms and that was in the 1980's when we were still winning some of these races. I am sure Moore has some faith he can win but frankly it would be a hugely uphill battle. Barring Lott really imploding I wouldn't give Moore, who is the best possible candidate, a better than 1 out of 10 shot. In contrast, I think a similarly strong candidate would be a slam dunk against Chaffee, have better than 3 out of 4 odds against Santorum, and be favored against Collins.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Arlen Specter is in poor health, he will probably retire soon...

And if he retires before his term is up, Rendell gets to appoint a Democratic replacement. Snowe is in poor health as well, meaning that if she vacates her seat, it's a very likely dem pickup.

Once again, our best chance of unseating Chaffee is if mayor Laffey beats him in the primary. Either that, or the Laffey threat scares Chaffee into becoming a Democrat. Either way, the Laffey challenge presents a serious problem for Chaffee. Bush and Cheney may not be willing to campaign for Chaffee lie they did for Specter against his primary challenge from Toomey, and even if they do campaign for him and he wins the primary, a campaign event with Bush and Cheney could be enough to absolutely destroy him in the general.

[tedoll78]

14. For our own benefit, we need to turn these northeastern senate races..

into representations of North versus South. They do this shit to us all the time down here. All Democrats - no matter how conservative - are depicted as elite, effeminate, indecisive, America-hatin', fag-enablin' babykillers.

We know that caricatures work.

So we need to draw a caricature of the GOP to show to voters. No offense to my fellow southerners, but we need to depict the GOP candidate as sister-humpin', bible-thumpin', cow-molestin', flat-earth-believing illiterates. Conjur-up the classic image of the trailer park voter with the rebel flag hanging on the wood panel wall above the decrepid couch, the broken rabbit ears adorned with tin foil, cheap discount beer cans strewn all about the kitchen and living room, and about thirteen "critters" running around the pink flamingo in the front yard. Then, have those voters complain about issues of the day (lost job? lost healthcare? dead son in Iraq? etc..), and bring-up headlines showing that these stupid folks are voting against themselves.

Then... link the Republican senatorial candidates to these folks. Use plenty of images of Strom Thurmond, Bill Frist, Tom Delay, and Trent Lott in these commercials - complete with absurd quotes from each of them. Stain these candidates with this association, and be merciless about it. Make voters associate SHAME with the idea of being represented by these nasties, just as the idea of being represented by a "librul" has been associated here in the South.

Associate Republicans as enablers of an extremist agenda. Point-out that while these GOP candidates may seem moderate there at home, once they get to DC it's time for a hard-right move. Point-out how other so-called "moderates" in the party have supported radical judges & legislation. Point-out how just having a GOP majority in the Senate can hurt or hinder liberal/progressive causes that are popular at home. Pollution? Choice? Employment non-discrimination? Judges? Interference with personal end-of-life issues? Sending a GOP senator - no matter how allegedly moderate - kills these issues on the federal level. We need to bullhorn this message to voters in the NorthEast.

That's my take on this issue. The northeast is fertile for us to pick-up Senate seats, and the only thing keeping us from this is lack of gonadal fortitude.

[invictus]

23. Exactly! We need a Rovian strategy. Fight fire with fire. EOM

[ultraist]

25. Why would this be offensive to Southerners?

No offense to my fellow southerners, but we need to depict the GOP candidate as sister-humpin', bible-thumpin', cow-molestin', flat-earth-believing illiterates. Conjur-up the classic image of the trailer park voter with the rebel flag hanging on the wood panel wall above the decrepid couch, the broken rabbit ears adorned with tin foil, cheap discount beer cans strewn all about the kitchen and living room, and about thirteen "critters" running around the pink flamingo in the front yard.

I was just in rural PA this past week and saw LOADS of rednecks with W stickers on their cars.

I disagree though that we should insult poor people. MOST of the poor population voted Democrat. It's simply wrong to insult people for being poor. They are not necessarily lazy or stupid, as the Republicans have painted them out to be.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. I still think the imagery is appropriate.

Distasteful? Yes.

Effective?
Could well be.

We MUST win. If effective but distasteful imagery will do that's fine with me.

[ultraist]

55. To insult poor people? Many of our own are poor.

Democrats have traditionally WON the poor vote and will again. It's very Repuke like to have a punitive attitude towards the poor. I don't like it.

I prefer the rich apathetic image. Those who leach off of 90% of Americans.

[Stinky The Clown]

66. Don't be quite so literal ........

its jarring to be sure, but could be quite effective at showing pople what they're doing.

But the bigger issue is that no one will want to identify with the images shown. "That's not me".

[Stinky The Clown]

34. I like the way you think

[QC]

47. Yeah, let's adopt a smug, elitist approach.

That'll really help us win working-class voters. :eyes:

As ultraist pointed out, voters making under $50,000 a year supported Kerry. Bush won every other income demographic. I know it's very popular around here to blame Bush on poor folks, but the truth is that middle-class white people put Bush in office.

[ultraist]

56. LOL! Well said QC! But we know, poor people are dirty, lazy, dumbasses

Right? Stupid bastards whine about classism and racism when they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps! What about personal responsibility?

No such thing as classism in our America---no siree. Those white trash trailer beer drinkers should get off their lazy asses.

[Ksec]

15. I am puzzled over the south

on one hand they seem like good smart people and on the other they are the dumbest idiots known to man. How could they be so ignorant as to vote against their interests? Dont they care what theyre doing to this country?

[ultraist]

30. I am puzzled by the North and CA

On one hand, they have "good smart people and on the other hand they are the dumbest idiots known to man. How could they be so ignorant as to vote against their interests?" California had MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of Bush voters. Far more "dumb idiots" than my state of NC!

:eyes:

[Ksec]

40. Cali isnt in the North.

And we didnt change our parties after the civil rights act.

[ultraist]

58. I said the North AND CA, didn't I?

And this isn't the sixties or seventies anymore, is it? Y'all have some SERIOUS problems with racism in the North too.

From the Southern Law Poverty Center:
http://tolerance.org/10_ways/01.html

When bias motivates an unlawful act, it is considered a hate crime. Race and religion inspire most hate crimes, but hate today wears many faces.

The greatest growth in hate crimes in recent years is against Asian Americans and gays and lesbians, according to FBI statistics.

Most hate crimes occur in the North and West -- not in the South, as many assume.

Pennsylvania hosted more Klan rallies in the 1990s than Alabama.
(FBI statistics)

[bvar22]

51. I am puzzled by the suburbs.

I live in the bluest part of a blue state. I was shocked and awed after the election when I saw a precinct map of my Blue State....ALL the SUBURBS were RED!!!! What kind of primitive, inbred, banjo strumming, ignorant BIGOTS live in the SUBURBS??!!
The Democratic Party needs to abandon the suburbs...we can never win there with those illiterate bigoted stupid voters who vote against their own interests!

MAN, fuck the suburbs. If the Democrats just focus on the urban areas, my ego will feel so much better. We are JUST SMARTER than those idiots in the suburbs. Those ignorant inbreds deserve what they get.

[ultraist]

59. People in the burbs are generally higher income

And vote based on their personal finances. Anyone earning over 200k felt justified voting for Bush.

People in the burbs also have higher educational levels. Check the demographics. It's the rural areas that host the lowest incomes and lowest educational levels.

Dems cannot win focusing solely on the urban areas. We need to take a substantial number of votes from the burbs and rural areas.

There is no way we could win Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, Mo, PA or many other states by taking only the urban areas.

[bvar22]

63. Should I edit my post to include the

:sarcasm: thingy.

It was not a serious proposal;
It was a Modest Proposal.


It was a poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum re: the OP of abandoning the South.

[ultraist]

70. Oh!

:rofl:

It's funny, now that I get it! LOL!

[bvar22]

73. Cheers.

:toast:

[TheFarseer]

108. I'm not puzzled by the suburbs

It almost makes sense even. These are the people making $200,000 or so that might actually get helped by Bush's tax cuts. They love their SUV's which repukes defend, and they want their kids protected from criminals and naughty words and Janet Jackson's breasts which they think repukes will do.

[QC]

50. Do you think Ohioans voted in their best interests this past time?

If you're wondering what's going on in the South, take a good look much closer to home and you'll get your answer.

[Ksec]

57. Ohio sucks too

Im in one of the few solid blue regions of this state.

I dont get it. The republicans have killed this area with their corporate whoring.

Now I do know when the South switched over to the Repubs so its clear why.

[bvar22]

16. Which RED states do YOU think the Democrats should just "Give Up"?

I'm with Dean on this.
"We're not going to concede the South," the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee told an overflow crowd of more than 900 people in a dining room that was set up for 800 in the Clarion hotel near downtown Jackson.

"The South will rise again, and when it does, it will have a D after its name," Dean said to applause from the diverse crowd of blacks and whites."

There are some Southern States that are ripe for the picking. The Party strategy for 2004 (giving up the South) didn't work, and is a BAD strategy for 2006 & 2008.

[dsc]

24. Go ahead, tell me who we can run here

You can see post 22 above.

[bvar22]

52. Bill Clinton...

...Jimmy Carter...and there are others.

Louisiana comes to mind.
A populist candidate with strong Party backing and a well financed campaign focusing on economic justice would stand a chance there. Landrieu (DLC unfortunately) was able to defeat the whole Republican Slime Machine in a run off election for her Senate seat.

Advocating a campaign strategy of conceding over 1/2 of the country just ain't smart politikin. Giving up 1/2 of ANYTHING before the fight begins is NOT a winning strategy. The Democratic Party did that in 2004 and the result was a crying shame.
After the disaster, the Party went to Louisiana and gave Landrieu a little help, and came out a winner. Some LEARN from mistakes, and others keep insisting they are right, and keep making the same old mistakes over and over.

[dsc]

85. The South isn't even close to half the country nor half the Senate

and I specificly state we can win Senate seats in LA. Clearly we have been competative in LA, AK, and FL. In the case of LA, and FL it is due to them having a large non southern aspect to them (in LA it is New Orleans and in FL it is retirees). In AK it is the Clinton machine. Outside of those states we are in deep trouble in the South. Carter did well in the South due to being an Evangelical who other Evangelicals thought would be socially conservative. When he turned out not to be he did poorly in 1980. Clinton only got a majority in AK, LA, and TN two states I directly advocate competing in and the other was Gore's home state.

[quaoar]

89. I suppose you also don't care to try to hold

any of the congressional seats that Democrats hold in the South, many of which are in black districts created by court-ordered redistricting. Republicans have gone after those district lines with a vengeance, trying to gerrymander them. Shall we fight for those? And if so, then who is going to fight for them if we have abandoned the South?

[dsc]

90. that is why, as I have stated now for the fourth time, that we should

FIGHT FOR GOVERNORSHIPS, which we have had sucess winning. BTW, the spate of African American districts have come under Republican redistricting in many cases since they pack our supporters into one or two districts leaving the rest of the districts to Republicans. Senators have nothing to do with redistricting.

[bvar22]

95. Louisisna, Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee,...

so it's not REALLY "The SOUTH" that you think should be abandoned. You are REALLY saying that there are just "SOME STATES" the Democratic Party shouldn't waste money campaigning in.
To your Southern Exceptions, I would add Georgia and Virginia as possible Senate seat pick ups if time and money were spent there.

You also admit that certain types of candidates do well in "The South". I will take that as a tacit admission that its not "The SOUTH" that is the problem. It IS the Democratic Party's campaign strategy and candidate selection that is the problem! Maybe The Democratic Party needs to examine why some candidates are able to do well in "The SOUTH".


Using your campaign logic, the following states should also be ABANDONED by the Democratic Party for the same reasons you want to write off "The SOUTH":

Nebraska
Oklahoma
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah

I don't have my election stats handy, but I believe that the Democratic Party scored as poorly in these states (if not worse)than it did in "The South".

I hope my post causes a moment of reflection. What do some states in "The South" have in common with some states in the WEST, and (most importantly)What can the Democratic Party do to improve their performance in these areas?

If the message of the Democratic Party isn't being heard by the people in these places, there isn't something wrong with "those people", there is something wrong with the message.

I absolutely refuse membership in a Political Party (or ANY group) that embraces an attitude or strategy of exclusion. If the Democratic Party isn't doing well in a specific area, that means MORE money and attention MUST be devoted to those areas, NOT less. To abandon areas where we aren't doing well is the exact OPPOSITE of a winning strategy.

[dsc]

98. We have a Democratic Senator in NE

I do advocate abandoning OK (I included it in the original post) and yes I think Idaho and WY are also lost causes for the Senate. The fact is we ran moderate to conservative Dems in all our Senate races in the South with the exception of Georgia. They all lost badly except in FL where it was a close race. We can't count on the second coming of Edwards or Cleland who were unusually talented politicians (one of whom lost anyway). I would prefer to spend our time and money electing liberals in New England than running but not electing moderates here. If someone can actually win a Georgia Senate seat then bully for them but I will have to see it to believe it.

[ultraist]

29. LOL! Dean said it! We are NOT going to concede the South!

That deserves a YAAAARGH!!! :patriot:

[iwantmycountryback]

17. Very good post

In terms of just 2006, I think Olympia Snowe would be very tough to beat. I've heard rumbles that she may retire, thought it seems unlikely and she's very popular with Mainers. Even if she does win, she's one of the few Repub's who shows a conscience occasionally. I think we can easily defeat Chafee b/c, well, it's Rhode Island. We have 2 solid candidates in Whitehouse and Brown, and even though the first polls didn't look great for them, that will surely change once they become more well known in the tiny dark blue state. And Santorum, I'm sure we all know the book on this guy. He's in for the fight of his life against the very popular Bob Casey in this light-blue state and it is a certain pickup opportunity. Specter won't run again, and that's even if he manages to last the rest of his term. If we find a good candidate to run against one of the NH Senators, we could definitely beat them as they are becoming a more and more blue state.

The Mountain West is a place where we could gain a lot of ground. It seems we are letting Ensign of Nevada go without any real opposition in 2006, which seems to be a mistake to me b/c that state also seems to be turning more blue, but Reid is supposedly friend of Ensign and we probably don't have much of a bench in that state. Conrad Burns of Montana also provides one of our top pickup opportunities. So far John Morrison, the state Auditor, and Jon Tester, the state Senate President have declared they will run against him. I've read that Morrison is more of a DLC triangulator and that Tester is more a populist in the mold of Schweitzer, so I hope Montana Dems pick Tester in the primary. Colorado was a big state for Dems in 2004, as we picked up a Senate and House seat. We also have opportunities to pick up 2 more House seats and the Governor's spot. In 2008, Allard will be up though he may retire, and Dem Rep. Mark Udall has already declared he will run for that seat.

These 2 areas along with the Midwest should hopefully give us our future Senate Majority.

[Rowdyboy]

18. As a southernor, I agree with you 100%....If we can get Democratic

senators in "blue" states, we're home free. Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, Gregg, Sununu, Specter, Santorum and Smith replaced would give us a 53-47% majority in the senate.

Why do liberal states keep empowering the far-right by electing "moderates"?

[ultraist]

32. Why do blue states keep electing moderates?

Because nearly HALF of those Blue states are Republican! Kerry BARELY took PA!

[dsc]

41. He did barely win PA

but we are running against a right wing nut. Kerry won with over 55% of the vote in both RI and ME. Those are the states we are running against moderates.

[ultraist]

61. TWO TINY STATES

[dsc]

82. Which have 4 Senators, three of whom are Republican

[iwantmycountryback]

100. So what?

Both California and Rhode Island have the same representation in the Senate. It's equally important to win Senate races in both states.

[snowbear]

19. Putting forth the right candidate can attract voters in EVERY state...

Northwest, Southwest, Northeast, Midwest, and yeah.. even the Deep South.

First stop... DieBold.

The fraudulent DieBold scheme that Bush Supporter Extraordinaire Walter O'Dell created doesn't have to be exposed (we already learned the media doesn't care) .. it has to be CRACKED and hard evidence produced. And it has to happen before the next major election.

And c'mon. You have to know that sooner or later the truth WILL come out.

I'm sure if you're Wally O'Dell, you're not wondering "if" -- but "when" you're going to be nailed.

Thankfully there's people like Bev Harris who aren't sitting around waiting for the Diebold Deepthroats to divulge the truth --- they're actually doing something about it NOW. :thumbsup:

This is great stuff > http://www.opednews.com/cardinale_060505_hackable_voting_machines.htm

(BTW.. :o it's good to hear that a documentary about DieBold is coming out!)

But aside from that -- we still need to put forth a WINNING candidate!!!

If McCain winds up with the Republican nomination.. he'll be exceptionally tough to beat in the Southwest. Hell, he'll be tough everywhere.

But we CAN do it. :patriot: ..I know we can! (YOU know we can ;) )

It takes analizing our own personal favorites and asking ourselves if that person truly has the ability to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. And if not, then conceding that fact and understanding WHO can reach across party lines and what traits they have that makes them able to do so.

It also takes the ability to ignore the media's bogus polling data and understanding why they salivate at the thought of particular candidates.

We can do it. But we have to start working on it as of.. yesterday! :bounce:

[corbett]

20. You're Right - We Need VIVA!

http://www.commoncause.org/VIVA2005

[Clark2008]

36. IMHO, the only "Southern" problem Dems have is that they write us off

Kerry spent NO TIME here, at all (he might have swung through Arkansas and North Carolina, but he didn't really roll up his sleeves and tour Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, etc.).

I liked Kerry, fine, but he really didn't do much to endear himself to Southerners.

[dsc]

39. This isn't about Kerry

nor any other national candidate, they didn't run and lose these Senate races. I am not advocating that our Presidential candidate ignore the South, but I am saying that in the Senate we need to concentrate on the states we can win.

[Clark2008]

64. I was just giving Kerry as an example, anyway.

I knew you were talking about the Senate.

However, there ARE Southern seats up for grabs that could easily be won by a Democrat, particularly with our boys and girls in the military being slaughtered left and right and/or when they do come home, they come home to gutted benefits.

This should be the Southern strategy: point out the hypocricy in the Republican Party as it relates to their chest-thumping about supporting the military when they do no such thing.

[dsc]

84. There is no easy pick up for us

We have a shot at Tennessee and if Warner runs we have a shot at Virginia. Neither is all that good in my opinion but they have some promise. I don't see anywhere else we have any shot at all for a pick up.

[Ksec]

43. Thats because he knew it was an impossible feat

Im not anti South but you people down there need to get to work. We northerners cant change their veiws but you can. Those are your brothers and sisters and Moms and Dads, get to work.

[Clark2008]

65. Like we haven't been working?

What we need for you Northerners is your help, not your preachin'.

Listen, come on down here and help us spread the word outside of the right-wing media we have (there is NO AAR station, for example, within a 100-mile radius of my city, which did go blue in a red county) so that people would see how truly awful the GOP is for them in their personal lives.

[ultraist]

62. Well, lookey there! We actually agree on something. ;)

Very true. KERRY WROTE OFF THE SOUTH. NO CANDIDATE can expect to win a state he does not campaign in or fails to spend any money in.

Reagan won NC because he visited 12 times during his campaign and mobilized local Repukes to campaign for him.

[Clark2008]

67. We mostly always agree on the Southern strategy.

:hi:

We just don't always agree with who should lead us there. ;)

[ultraist]

71. True!

:thumbsup:

We are Southern neighbors!

:hi:

[KingFlorez]

42. Different Candidates

The key is to field candidates that can actually win in the south. centrist candidates are needed, thats the way we did it for 40 years and we ought to do it that way again.

[dsc]

44. We did that in 04

and went 0 for 5. Only in Florida was the race even close.

[KingFlorez]

45. We didn't give the candidates help

The candidates in the South we're not given the help they needed by the national party Georgia was written off and Alabama wasn't even contested officially. The New England seats should be an easy pickup, but we don't give the candidates the help they need and we only focus hard a 3 or 4 races.

[Ksec]

49. Then you Southern Dems need to get busy raising funds.

Dont blame the party, take the bull by the horns and get busy. This is on you southerners. You folks are the ones who will change the peoples views about Democrats. Cmon man. We are relying on you.

[dsc]

86. I live in NC

and I can tell you Bowles wasn't lacking money. He was practicly ad for ad with Burr. I can see why both Georgia and Alabama were written off, though for goodwill purposes we should have helped Majette in Georgia. On paper we should have had legit shots in FL. NC , SC, and OK and lost all four most not even closely.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. The Republicans "Northern" and "West" problem?

:think:

[Awsi Dooger]

68. The frustrating state is Maine

Two Republican senators even though we've won the presidential vote by 5+ points for 4 straight cycles and the partisan index is moving our way. I think it was slightly more than 11 points in our direction last year, compared to the national average.

Otherwise, the strategy is somewhat flawed because a few of those New England and Mid- Atlantic states are hardly tilted severely in our favor. New Hampshire is basically a moody 50/50 state that can choose either party. And Pennsylvania defaults only about 4 points Democratic, hardly enough to swing a senate race especially versus an incumbent. Those southern states are much more severely Republican, other than Florida which is maybe 2 points GOP at base instinct.

Based on the 2004 presidential vote, the two unfriendly states that moved noticeably our way were Colorado and Virginia. Still many points in the hole but at least in play down the road. Otherwise I agree with Lexingtonian that we're seeing a defiant period with blue states moving nicely in that direction along with deep red states rejecting Democrats by even greater margin in federal races.

[snowbear]

69. Hey there Awsi..

You'd think that a state full of LL Bean Boots and big plump blueberries would elect a Democrat! ;)

:hug:

[Awsi Dooger]

78. I've been to that principle LL Bean

Got me a blue duffel bag with plenty of pockets.

This summer I'll be back in Maine to play golf for a week before heading to Saratoga. Just made the arrangements. Place called Samoset or something like that.

I'll check out the plump blueberries. My last trip to Maine the damn McDonalds were selling a lobster sandwich.

[AspenRose]

104. Lobster rolls

They're in New Hampshire, too (where I'm headed next week)

I saw that advertised outside a McDonalds and thought, "what the...?"

[Hippo_Tron]

72. New Hampshire is trending Democratic

New Hampshire for the GOP is like some of the Dem strongholds in the south that we are desperately trying to hold on to. The state was solid GOP for a long time and the last two Democrats to win it before Clinton were FDR and Lyndon Johnson. Gore would have won it without Nader. In 2004 it was the only red state to turn blue. It still has two GOP senators, two GOP congressmen, and a GOP statehouse, but that will change in a few years.

[Awsi Dooger]

79. Here is the partisan trend chart for New Hampshire in presidential races

Again, this is compared to the national popular vote margin. I haven't used these numbers on DU since last year. Bush won nationally by 2.46%, so Kerry's 1.37% victory in New Hampshire translates into a Democratic edge of 3.83% in New Hampshire compared to the national number.

New Hampshire:
'88: Bush (62.41 - 36.29) = + 18.40% Republican
'92: Clinton (38.86 - 37.64) = + 4.34% Republican
'96: Clinton (49.32 - 39.37) = + 1.42% Democratic
'00: Bush (48.07 - 46.80) = + 1.78% Republican
'04: Kerry (50.24 - 48.87) = + 3.83% Democratic

I agree with you Gore would have carried New Hampshire without Nader. The trend is in our direction but it is now probably a bellwether state, hopefully en route to a small but dependable Democratic advantage like Pennsylvania or Michigan. I was enthused when we knocked out Benson in the gov race last year after a double digit poll deficit earlier in the fall.

[quaoar]

76. Your plan is doomed to fail

You want to regionalize the elections. That will only furhter serve to discredit the Democratic Party in those places you want to write off. If we do that, Democrats will NEVER make any gains in the South or in places like Ohio and Indiana.

Instead, what we need to do is nationalize the election.

Forget about individual races for the moment.

We need one central campaign theme that all or most Democratic candidates can run under. We need a Contract With America.

We need to run against Republican hubris and corruption as personified by Tom DeLay. We need to run against runaway deficits. We need to run against the gutting of Social Security. We need to run against the mess Bush has made in Iraq. We need to run against government interference in our lives, as exemplified by the Terri Sciavo case.

Those 5 elements: 1. Corruption; 2. Deficits; 3. Social Security; 4. Iraq; 5. Terri Schiavo.

Those issues resonate in Alabama just as they do in Maryland.

[liberaliraqvet26]

80. THERE IS LOTS OF HOPE

in the West. These people have a history of being very independent. If we can convince them we wont take their guns away we can get Montana, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. Look at the entire State Govt of Montana.

I like what I see in this senate canidate - http://www.testerforsenate.com/

[nightfox02]

92. a very laissez faire stand on gun control/reframing of abortion debate

like dean said we need to reframe our stance as anti-abortion pro-choice...

i see gun control being one of the platforms our party can take a big hit on and still get about 90% of our objectives met on the whole....

too many voters (god help us all) are single issue abortion voters. the preceding kills us...btw

[liberaliraqvet26]

93. Gun Control

is a losing battle. The West is too crucial to lose because of Gun Contol issues. I really believe NV,AZ,CO,MT and maybe even some others are scared to vote for Democratic candidates on the national level because of this issue. Leave Gun Control up to state & local governments. The guns are out there and will always be. The criminals will get them regardless of what gun control laws we put in place. NY, CA already have stringient gun laws. This is something we can leave up to them. It is not unreasonable for ranchers that have 50 acres of land to have all the guns they want to play with.

[nightfox02]

94. exactly

I think we need to cool it on the guns and we would pick up a lot more of the south and southwest....

[bvar22]

96. Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas....

so it's not REALLY "The SOUTH" that you think should be abandoned. You are REALLY saying that there are just "SOME STATES" the Democratic Party shouldn't waste money campaigning in.
To your Southern Exceptions, I would add Georgia,Virginia, and maybe a seat in TEXAS as possible Senate seat pick ups if time and money were spent there.

You also admit that certain types of candidates do well in "The South". I will take that as a tacit admission that its not "The SOUTH" that is the problem. It IS the Democratic Party's campaign strategy and candidate selection that is the problem! Maybe The Democratic Party needs to examine why some candidates are able to do well in "The SOUTH".


Using your campaign logic, the following states should also be ABANDONED by the Democratic Party for the same reasons you want to write off "The SOUTH":

Nebraska
Oklahoma
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah

I don't have my election stats handy, but I believe that the Democratic Party scored as poorly in these states (if not worse)than it did in "The South".

I hope my post causes a moment of reflection. What do some states in "The South" have in common with some states in the WEST, and (most importantly)What can the Democratic Party do to improve their performance in these areas?

If the message of the Democratic Party isn't being heard by the people in these places, there isn't something wrong with "those people", there is something wrong with the message.

I absolutely refuse membership in a Political Party (or ANY group) that embraces an attitude or strategy of exclusion. If the Democratic Party isn't doing well in a specific area, that means MORE money and attention MUST be devoted to those areas, NOT less. To abandon areas where we aren't doing well is the exact OPPOSITE of a winning strategy.

[Ksec]

103. and dont forget that southern Ohio is

very much a part of the south. If you visited southern ohio you would think you were in the deep south.

[Ksec]

102. can someone explain the Souths hatred of Unions?

[yebrent]

106. We can gain states in the West.

Stem cell research, a medical marijuana bill argued on basis of state rights (Alaska, Nevada, Montana, and Colorado all have medical marijuana laws) and general Republican abuse of power are winning issues in the west. I hope the Dems don't just ignore the medical marijuana opportunity they have staring them in the face. It would be a huge mistake.

[election_2004]

107. Here's an idea....

Instead of targeting Snowe and Chafee (who we'll need when the U.S. Supreme Court vacancies arise), how about giving national support to Southern candidates in the WINNABLE Southern races...

Starting with 2006. Here's a preliminary list:

Claire McCaskill for U.S. Senate in Missouri
Cathy Cox for Governor of Georgia
Mike Beebe for Governor of Arkansas
Charlie Crist for Governor of Florida
Lucy Baxley for Governor of Alabama

plus reelecting Brad Henry in Oklahoma and Phil Bredesen in Tennessee

No more spreading-our-resources-too-thin by trying to eek out some last-minute "surge" for a lame Mongiardo-esque candidate when the race is almost over.

[dsc]

110. Both Chaffee and Snowe voted for every single judge

that Bush has put up save one vote against Owen (incidently he refused to help filibuster her and only cast a worthless vote against her).

[demwing]

109. Add to that a populist approach

in states like Idaho, Alaska, Montana, Nevada, and --some day--even Texas.

That's where national Republicans can be defeated on a state's rights platform. For example, the medical marijuana issue hits Alaska and Nevada, both states that went red in 2004.

Turn the near/south west blue, and the south doesn't seem so presing.

BTW - another approach is to invest all our time and effort in one southern state--like Tenessee, Florida, or Arkanasas. Turn that state bright blue, then send out satellites from the center. At the very least, you'll be able to turn som solid red in to purple.