The importance of Clinton’s 50-state strategy

[OKNancy]

HILLARY CLINTON ROOM POST

I missed this yesterday - another from the Rachel Maddow blog

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-importance-clintons-50-state-strategy?cid=sm_fb_maddow



--- snip----

But when Howard Dean, in his capacity as DNC chair, first threw his support behind a 50-state strategy in 2006, he faced fierce resistance, most notably from then-DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel. The pushback wasn’t necessarily absurd – parties have limited resources, so they have to take advantage of opportunities where they exist. When Democrats invest resources in uncompetitive areas, practically by definition, they’re denying resources that could be put to use in competitive races

Dean, however, largely ignored Emanuel, and the former governor got the last laugh when the 50-state strategy proved effective – Democrats rode a wave to the congressional majority in 2006 and fared even better in 2008, thanks in part to the Obama campaign’s embrace of a very similar strategy.

Nearly a decade after Dean’s ambitious gambit, the Huffington Post reports that Hillary Clinton is on board with a 50-state strategy of her own.

-------- snip-----------

Remember, eight years ago, Obama and his team adopted a 50-state strategy for multiple reasons: it was intended to help during the nominating process; it would create the grassroots infrastructure for the general election; and it demonstrated the campaign’s commitment to party building.

The concern has been that Hillary Clinton, lacking a credible Democratic rival, wouldn’t have an incentive to focus on grassroots Democratic organizing, especially so early in the race. And therein lies the point: the former Secretary of State and her team are proceeding as if the nomination weren't already in the bag.

There’s no intra-party challenger pushing Clinton to take grassroots organizing seriously and recruit an army of volunteers, but to its credit, the campaign is doing it anyway, duplicating a recipe that’s worked for Democrats in the recent past.

[Scootaloo]

1. There are a few states that could turn straigth blue if only we got out there

Alaska, for instance. The only reason republicans win there is because the shit-talk government (while expanding it) and democrats don't really bother.

[misterhighwasted]

2. Smart team she has working for her. As I see it, the REAL challenger is the RW and everything they

have done to discredit her, and all they have yet in store for the year ahead.

The RW is the real threat to whomever is in the campaign. Hillary or someone else.
They have the billion dollars Koch war chest at their disposal to take down anyone who challenges them.
They are just ONE election away from total control and they aren't about to lose in 2016.
They will throw everything they can find or make up as need be to win this election.
The RW is a dirty corrupt bunch.

They are already showing their colors.

God bless whomever survives the RW Fascist march toward total government control.

Call it what it is.

[okasha]

3. Which is why we must have a take-no-prisoners candidate

with long, strong coat-tails. Losing with a warm-fuzzies nominee or one whose recognition factor is "Whossat?" is not an option. An all three branches Republican regime will do incalculable damage.

[Gothmog]

4. The 50 state strategy is a great idea

I am glad that the Clinton campaign is going to use this model

[mvymvy]

5. Only A paid staffer until end of May

The "Ramp Up Grassroots Organizing Program" will have paid staffers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the territories through the end of May.

They only seem to be committing to having A paid staff member in all 50 states and the territories at the START of the campaign

As the Salt Lake Tribune pointed out: "President Barack Obama had a staffer in Utah during the 2012 election, who largely helped organize trips to the nearby swing states of Colorado and Nevada, where volunteers knocked on doors."

Analysts already say that only the same 7 or 8 states will matter in the 2016 presidential general election. -- Florida, Ohio,Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Where you live determines how much, if at all,your vote matters.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit,advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters.

There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.
80% of states are conceded by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states,and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.They decided the election.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

[mvymvy]

6. For a Truly Nationwide Presidential Campaign - the National Popular Vote Bill

A truly nationwide presidential campaign of paid polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits (funded all the way to Election Day, rather than just May 2015) with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9). The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com