Two electoral strategies diverged in a yellow wood...

[WilliamPitt]

Two roads:

1. Attempt to chew into the GOP base in the South and Midwest while having no power in any of the three branches of the national government. This will, in my opinion, cut our ability to defend the states we hold (PA, WI and MN were way too close this time), and will not yeild much success in converting enough people to haul in Electoral College votes from those regions we have lost. The act of attempting to chew into that Southern base will require the Party to take a hard right turn, not only casting off progressives, but also shattering formerly dependable voter blocs, specifically women. In order to make a dent in a lot of Red states, the Party will have to distance itself from its traditionally stout defense of a woman's right to choose, and women voters will be most affected by this. The list of negatives goes on and on.

...or...

2. Concentrate resources on four fronts: 1) Hold what we got - New England, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, DC, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, California and Hawaii; 2) Go hard after states we have a good chance of swinging - West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico; 3) Go absolutely bananas to get Ohio, and pretend Florida does not exist. (All sincere apologies to my Floridian brothers and sisters, but as long as Jeb and Diebold run things down there, it is impossible to justify spending vital resources to make it go blue again - one does not gamble at a table that is known to be crooked - and the money freed up will greatly assist the other items on this list). From the county committees to the state party to the DNC, go after Ohio from soup to nuts; 4) Do not ignore the South and Midwest completely, by any means. Spend some money there to get people out to vote, something the Kerry guys didn't do this time, in order to bolster the popular vote total and avoid a 'mandate' debate.

The states we got in 2004 + some or at least one of the states we can swing + Ohio = victory. I've checked the EC math. And then we begin the attempt to chew into the GOP base in the South and Midwest, with the Executive branch in our control.

Doing this will allow the party to avoid a hard right turn, to avoid stuffing things like the choice issue into a back room, and to keep the progressives on board by not alienating them with a bunch of Jomentum nonsense. The progressives, still on board, can work with the party to attack the electronic vote issue, and can help get Democrats elected to the House in places we can score seats. Both PDA and DFA are already organizing to do this. If the party turns right, a lot of the good people working in these groups would tell the party to get bent.

I was really hoping Dean would get the DNC chairmanship. It would have been the kind of signal I've been hoping to see from the party.

[American Tragedy]

1. Well, needless to say, I favor the second option

Although I don't believe that there is ever such thing as only two choices, the thrust of the latter is far better.

Of course, since it is obviously the most effective strategy, I am sure that the DNC will emphatically reject it.

[Demit]

2. Being one traveler, long I stood...

and looked down one as long as I could
to where it bent in the undergrowth.

I love that poem!

[SW FL Dem]

3. My 8th grader just had to memorize it! n/t

[lynintenn]

4. Robert Frost

lived in New Hampshire and I think in buried in Bennington VT.
I visited his grave this spring. On his grave "I had a lover's quarrel with the world"

[soleft]

5. Did I miss something? Is Dean out of the picture?

If so, who's left in the running who will be on board with strategy # 2.

[Walt Starr]

6. Dean said something to the effect of he's not seeking it last night

I'm not certain what the complete quote was.

Expect Vilsack to be the DNC Chair.

I'm wondering if it's time for the Progressive Party.

[WilliamPitt]

7. madfloridian had a thread on this yesterday

[Walt Starr]

8. Yep, and it pisses me off to no end

I am seriously close to changing my registration.

I think a Progressive Party is in order.

[fujiyama]

33. That sucks

Of all the contenders I saw for the position, Dean was the best.

Vilsack seems like an OK guy but I wanted someone that can get people excited for the position.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. West Virginia Is Now Part Of The Pug Base...

Gore lost it by six percent... Kerry contested it big time and lost by thirteen percent...


If we adopt a defensive mode that allows the Pugs to attack our base which is fragile... We won PN, and MI by two percent and NH and WI by one percent...


I want it all.... A pro choice, pro affirmative action, pro gay candidate who can talk to folks in middle America in a language they understand....


We don't have to win all the heartland votes to be electorally successful .... We just need a candidate who can mitigate our losses in those areas...

[fujiyama]

27. I agree about WV

I don't see it being very competetive in the near future. Maybe someone like Warner would have a better chance there. Is Byrd supposed to be retiring in '06?

I'm not feeling optimistic about MO and AR either for near term future. All were polling pretty close but the margins in all three were near blowouts (lost by ~10 pts).

BTW, isn't Pennsylvania's state abreviation PA?

Yeah, PA and MI were both much closer than I expected. PA was by two I think and MI was by 3.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Theyt Had A Good Article In The NYT About West Virginia Politics...

After reading it I'm concerned that Bob Byrd's seat isn't entirely safe in 08 though I would still make him a huge favorite...

[fujiyama]

45. I don't think Byrd

has much to worry about. He's (literally) an institution in the state. They have schools, roads, etc all named after him. That said, I'm not so confident another democrat could win the state. It's very clearly trending away from us.

I think he's nearing retirement though. I don't expect to see him there for too many more years. Plus, I think it's even more frustrating to be in the minority. I don't blame Schumer, Dodd, and Corzine for considering running for governor of their states.

So, I'm going to be very pesimistic and say that '06 will not be any better. I'm really thinking we're going to lose more seats in the senate. We're going to be on the defensive. I just hope Dems don't lose the power of the filibuster. I have no idea as to what '08 will hold, partly because it's dependant on who the repukes nominate...but the electoral map isn't in our favor.

[Julien Sorel]

10. What a well-written pair of options.

Even handed, presenting both sides accurately. In particular, the use of term "hard right" would seem loaded in most contexts, but here, it's just as right as rain. What can I say?

Here is an electoral map of what was the most conservative ticket the Dems have run since Humphrey/Muskie:





All the trouble states stayed in the Democratic column. It even won Ohio: it's kind of nice to have a ticket with rural appeal, so you don't have to bet the farm, as it were, on the urban vote. And oh yes, the ticket won, but why bother with such trivialities.

Let's run Hillary, and pray we win Ohio, while not losing any of the Gore/Kerry states that we barely held on to this time, despite poor economic situations in Pennsylvania. Rural voters will flock to the polls for Hillary, making Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia either safe or in play for the Dems.

[Walt Starr]

11. And that was the most disastrous administration ever for the Democrats

Say what you will, Clinton single-handedly destroyed the Democratic Party, IMO.

[Julien Sorel]

12. That's a matter of opinion.

The ticket, and the result of the election itself, are matters of fact.

[Walt Starr]

13. Yep, they certainly are

and did more to insure the election of Bush than anything ever previously done.

Clinton's antics did more to insure Democratic loses in '94 than anything previously done.

CLinton is the reason the Democratic Party is where it is today.

Maybe if we stopped idolizing the lech we'd win one or two.

[Julien Sorel]

15. I'm unclear on what the relevance of Clinton's lechery to

electoral strategy is.

We should continue to pursue an electoral strategy that has failed twice in a row, because Clinton got a blowjob?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. lech- that's kind of harsh

As Gene Lyons put it if Clinton was the Maytag man he still would have gotten laid...


It's not like he preyed on his victims but that's what the Pugs would have us believe......

[Walt Starr]

18. "Lech" is actually much nicer than the wrod I had in mind

and he deserves every bit of it. He knew the entire world was watching his ass, but he thought with his prick instead of with his brain.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. What He Did Was Stupid, Immoral, And Indefensible

but I don't want to be judged by my worst act and I am loathe to apply that measure to others...

[Mike L]

71. The main reason for the Dem Congressional losses in '94 was

Clinton's cosmetic assault rifle ban. That was a "left" position. His support of gays in the military might have had something to do with it, but I'm not sure about that.

His approval rating increased after his blowjob.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Clinton Was Fighting Powerful Historical Trends That Favored The Pugs....

Forty years from now after a succession of uninterrupted Pug presidencies you will have learned to savor those years...

[Walt Starr]

16. Yeah, and if the constitution was amended so he could run again

he'd get his ass handed to him.

I wouldn't make the mistake of voting for the guy a third time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. That's Your Opinion...

During impeachment Clinton had approval ratings that would give Karl Rove a chubby .... I would think that was a pretty decent barometer of how Clinton would have done if the Constitution didn't prevent his running...

Bill Clinton's America was an infinitely kinder and more fun place...

[Walt Starr]

21. Yep, and I'm entitled to it

Thankyouverymuch!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. But A Man Of Your Estimable Intelligence

would admit that not every man's opinion is as good as another...

[Mike L]

69. Walt, you are going to have to realize that a candidate can't win the

presidency with a "hard left" platform. Most Americans just don't think like that, and they never will.

[Cheswick2.0]

24. you can thank Perot for that

don't delude yourself that this is 1992 anymore.

[Julien Sorel]

25. Thank Perot for what?

Going to make up some more stuff?

[WilliamPitt]

28. Thank Perot for getting 19% of the vote in '92

I'm not nearly as accusatory towards Clinton as some in this thread, but Perot's damage to Bush Sr. in 1992 can't be discounted.

[Julien Sorel]

32. Clinton would have won without Perot.

This has been analyzed several times, and I've seen stuff posted here on it as recently as last week.

[Walt Starr]

35. Actually, nobody can say how it would have gone w/o Perot

Nobody knows for a fact who would have won.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I Can And Proved It...

As much as anything can be proven on an internet board....

[Walt Starr]

47. Yep, you proved it all right

and TIA proved that Bush stole the election with a similar methodology.

:eyes:

You can't prove shit.

There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. With all due respect to TIA...

I cited a series of polls with Clinton, Perot, and Bush and they clearly demonstrated that Clinton was beating Bush with Perot in the race and without Perot in the race....

It's straightforward and not open to interpretation or spin.....


TIA's methodology is infinitely more speculative and relies on a host of assumptions that one must agree with before one accepts his conclusions....




And sophistry is always the last refuge of someone who has lost a debate...

[Walt Starr]

52. And as we saw this election cycle...

POLLS DON'T MEAN SHIT!!!!!

[Julien Sorel]

38. Not for a fact.

But you can look at evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion. Bush I would have had to win 70% of Perot's vote to win the popular vote. Since many Perot voters were simply voting against Bush I in the first place, and substantial numbers of them were Democrats, it seems highly unlikely that would have happened.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Some Folks Can't Be Bothered With Facts...

Especially the facts that get in the way of treasured arguments...



http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=1255

[Walt Starr]

54. Ahhh, polls

They said Kerry would win this year.

:eyes:

If you're quoting polls, you have no facts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. The Polls Didn't Say Kerry Would Win..

The lions share of pre election polls always showed Bush* with a small lead....


The faith based crowd here ignored them the way the they always ignore inconvenient facts....



And then they found an exit poll they liked which has proven to be demonstrably flawed and they collectively hung their hat on that poll...



If it wasn't a fucken tragedy it would be funny....

[ibegurpard]

51. Clinton would NOT have won Montana without Perot

He got 26% here. Clinton also won Colorado in '92 and Perot got 23% there. So saying Perot was not a factor in '92 is naive.
He was much less so in '96 and Clinton also had the huge incumbency advantage working for him.

[Julien Sorel]

56. Who said Perot was not a factor?

With or without Perot, Clinton would have won the election. You are quibbling over a state here and a state there, but the election itself is the thing.

[dsc]

61. The entire point of this thread is a state here and a state there

and there is no way Perot didn't help in those and the southern states that Clinton won.

[Julien Sorel]

63. Really.

Then show your evidence. There's a poll and some bonehead math supporting my position; you have ... why, nothing at all supporting yours.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. dupe

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Half Of That 19% Would Have Went To Clinton

Even if we are generous to Papa Bush and give him 65% of the Perot vote he still loses...

[Cheswick2.0]

40. I actually love Bill Clinton

But some facts are clear.

1. This is not 1992 anymore, you can't run like it is

2. Perot helped Clinton win

3. It is not the DLC stategy that won for Clinton it is Clinton's personal charm that won for Clinton

4. Clinton did not run as a moderate. He ran on Universal heathcare and the economy being bad for ordinary americans. How he governed later is incidental to his win in 1992.

5. Clinton won in 1996 due to being a very popular personality and because his challenger was a dud....not because of any "brilliant" DLC strategy.

On Edit/ and we can't count on the other side putting up a candidate like Bush one and his famous Winp Factor.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. That's A Cheap Shot Against Clinton

that is usually made from Clinton haters on the right....

Before Perot got back in the race in 92 Clinton was beating Bush by twenty five percent...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=1255

[Cheswick2.0]

55. LOl

yeah, I'm a righty alright 18 thousand posts and DU admins haven't figured it out yet.
It's not a cheap shot to state the obvious. It's also not a judgement against Clinton who I supported fully and still do. However my point was that the DLC is not a winning enterprise and people need to separate fact from fiction.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. The Cheap Shot Is That Clinton Was An Accidental President...

I could give a rat's ass about the efficaciousness of the DLC.


I just want a winning formula...

[rniel]

58. Perot swayed a lot of democrats too...

Actually I'm one of those democrats. Me and my mom and dad all voted for perot the first time.

[Mike L]

68. Julien, thanks for the post.

As usual, you're spot on.

[KittyWampus]

22. Useless Speculation Until We Find Out If Electronic Voting Did Indeed

change this past election's outcome.

[EnfantTerrible]

31. I don't agree that it's useless

I doubt the validity of any recount where the electronic voting is concerned. All of it is too easily manipulated when there is no paper trail. Short of holding the elections over again I don't know how this will ever be resolved unequivocally.

That's not to say that I don't wish it could be. I just have doubts about the entire system.

[KittyWampus]

57. How Do We Determine If Kerry's Strategy Was Successful & Access

the viability of relying on Ohio?

:shrug:

What's the point of even having a strategy if no matter what happens E-voting determines the outcome and it will always be against us?

[EnfantTerrible]

59. As much as I'd like to see

the biggest coup in election history and Kerry be declared the winner while Chim-chim wipes shit from his smirky chin... it's important to expose the problems with E-voting so that these machines can't determine the outcome to be always against anyone... this you probably already know... and bearing that in mind, it's useful to discuss strategy on the off chance that these machines are exposed and removed from future elections. I think WillPitt is trying to look to the future and burning a flame for free/safe/fair elections in 2006 and beyond. Just my 2cents.

[KittyWampus]

70. Well, If Kerry's Strategy Worked Then Those Results Speak For

themselves, in regards to the Prez Race, IMO.

However, there's no reason not to spend small-potato money on very well-concieved billboard, bus-stop and local radio ads that promote local Dem candidates...

[RafterMan]

26. Road two

sounds a lot like this year's strategy, except that you're writing off Florida as well. And the "hard right turn" of road one is a strawman.

With you surrenduring all this ground, where do you think the Republicans will concentrate their resources?

[WilliamPitt]

29. On the states they know they can win + the swings I named

They won't spend to win New York or California. So why should we spend to win Texas or Alabama. If we do, it weakens our ability to keep what we got.

It's a three to four state strategy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. They Lost PN, MI, NH, and WI

by a point or two....


It wouldn't take much for the Pugs to take those states...


I think we can be appealing enough to some heartland voters to mitigate our losses there withouting selling out the folks who are dependent on us...


And we certainly ain't helping them by loosing...

[pmbryant]

72. That's a red herring. No one suggests we spend to win Texas, Alabama.

Running a national campaign based on our progressive values that is framed to appeal to moderate, non-partisan voters is the best winning strategy:

* First of all, it strengthens our hold on states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.
* Second, it allows us to win states like Iowa, New Mexico, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Colorado. If we don't win at least a few of these, we are out of luck in the Electoral College
* Third, it brings us closer in the lost cause states like Texas and Georgia and Alabama, which is crucial to winning the popular vote.

You are needless splitting the country up and suggesting a strategy of playing not to lose.

Instead, we need to be playing to win.

--Peter

[DrGonzoLives]

36. Congress! Congress, dammit!

2006! 2006! Repeat it, over and over, we MUST REGAIN CONGRESS OR WE ARE FUCKED!

If we can regain Congress, force Bush to work OUR way for two years, then we are in better position. If the GOP consolidates and (God forbid) gets a filibuster-proof Senate, we're in for a shitload of trouble.

And check out Mississippi - nice stretch of blue in the NW corner of the state - something to exploit? Could be...

[HereSince1628]

41. Triage in the geographic base is a rational strategy

Certainly many businesses approach their decision making on cost-benefits ratios.

You clearly recognize the risks.

I suspect like myself many would doubt that the percentage differences in Blue vs Red states is so large as to include "total abandonment" as one of the classes of the triaged therapies.

Rational allocations of resources _is certainly_ a necessity along with reasonable expectations of benefit.


Other thoughts about "business-like strategery."

1) While businesses from time to time reassess the gross and net profitability of their positions in certain geographic markets, they also work to build customer recognition of the positive image they want of themselves and of their products.

Democrats need to develop and control a simple, straight forward, image of themselves.

That means developing an identity that is broadly appealing (but not a laundry list of issues).

Something on the order of: "Democrats = Liberty and Justice for All."

I might add that triangulation tactics of democratic campaigns over the past 15 years or so have undermined the possibility of the party having a clear self-identity.


2) Business must on a weekly and daily basis consider which products they are selling or promoting on the basis of their individual profitability and contribution to overall sales or businesses identity.

The Democratic party is currently an eclectic mixture of issues. From a marketing standpoint the party needs to review and cull issues that don't work for the party anywhere. Some of those issues have passionate defenders, but shouldn't be part of the party (I am talking about things that may be look like good products to some consumers, using the allusion of a food store, parakeets and grasshoppers might be used as food--but that are seen as inappropriate as sales items in a general supermarket.)

Decisions must be made on how to support ideas that work in some markets but not others. Which is to say some ideas are national, some regional, and some so contrary to democratic values that they shouldn't be considered.

Democrats need to create an image of a party as an ideological market place where undeniable values and clarity on issues supported by the party contribute to the electorates vision that our party is where they must spend their precious vote.

3) Every business plan is subject to events in the community. Something could happen somewhere which would drive voters to the Democratic Party...think of Obama in Illinois. Those events can occur in any and every state. If the party doesn't have a presence it can't capture those votes.


In short, I'd argue to triage more than the geography.

The image and guiding principles of the Party need much work, before they can be used to guide the party's attempts to win the nation's appreciation of the undeniable appeal of Democratic Values.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. I Like The Triage Concept....

Level 3 Let the Pugs have the hard core fundies...


Level 2 Appeal to the less hard core fundies on an ad hoc basis....


Level 3 Appeal to the persuadables with an intense effort...

[quaoar]

43. I reject this assertion:

The act of attempting to chew into that Southern base will require the Party to take a hard right turn, not only casting off progressives, but also shattering formerly dependable voter blocs, specifically women. In order to make a dent in a lot of Red states, the Party will have to distance itself from its traditionally stout defense of a woman's right to choose, and women voters will be most affected by this.

Appealing to Southern voters does NOT require abandonment of traditional Democratic values. Wesley Clark, for instance, appeals to Southern voters. His problem this year was his inexperience at running for office and his late start.

Issues that Democrats can use to appeal to Southern voters include outsourcing and free trade. There is widespread anger at Republicans over this issue across the South. Kerry barely touched it other than to say he would remove some tax credits. Another issue is the deficit -- more anger, as well as dismay, at Republicans over profligate spending. Kerry's plan was to revoke the tax breaks on the rich. I don't think very many people believed that that alone would do much. Still another issue is strengthening the military. Kerry said he would add troops and double our special forces, but that message was barely heard down here.

And then there is economic populism -- the us versus them issue, regular citizens versus the outsourcing, globe-trotting job-cutting corporations. We let the Republicans take this issue away from us by deciding we were going to be the party of the new economy -- the IT jobs, etc. We abandoned the working class that was the bread and butter of the Democratic Party for generations.

And now Bush is about to hand us yet another issue: privatization of Social Security. This will be a huge and ugly fight if Democrats in Congress don't roll over on it. And if Bush achieves this goal you can bet that the firms chosen to manage everyone's Social Security accounts will be Bush cronies.

[wiggs]

46. The media has an important role...

The media has an important role in determining which option, if either, works.

A generally hostile media trumps strategy, IMO.

[Phillycat]

48. Pennsylvania's not going anywhere.

I am telling you, I live in Philadelphia, and this city (And Pittsburgh) carried this state. Ignore Pennsyltucky--we'll work just as hard next time.

[fiorello]

49. A misunderstanding: Go for the voters, not the states

Voters are not that different in different parts of the country. Ohio has southern, rural conservatives and moderates. Alabama and Montana have cosmopolitan, urban liberals. It's just that Alabama and Montana have more rural conservatives and fewer urban liberals.

The debate would be clearer if we focused on what type of voters we want - not what states we want to win. (Ohio is not magic - it is important only because it reflects the state of the nation as a whole.)

If the debate is re-framed to focus on voters rather than on states, here are the options:

(1) Go after rural, moderate voters by sounding moderate on social issues and more 'church-friendly', but not hard-right. (Will's road #1)

(2) Go after moderate voters by appealing only to economics and foreign policy, hope they'll ignore the social issues. (Will's road #2)

(3) Go for urban, upscale conservatives who support pro-business Republican economics but not the Republican social agenda. (LESS LIKELY TO SUCCEED)

(4) Go for rural conservative voters by being even more anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-civilization than the Republicans. (MOST LIKELY TO OFFEND)

[madfloridian]

60. It will have to be changed locally...top down is out now.

That is the premise of DFA, to start at local levels with local groups becoming and changing the party from the bottom up.

You are right, we must work with what we have now.

[dsc]

62. I like option two better

but it should be tewaked. A hightened concentration on economics would help immensely. We need to stop quibbling over a few percentage points of taxation and really have a big difference.

[Mike L]

67. 3rd Option.

Nominate a moderate like Mark Warner, who is pro-choice. There is no need to make a "hard right turn". There is, however, a great need to bring the national Party back to a moderate stance. Centrists like Carter, Clinton and Gore have done the best in past elections. That can't be disputed. Nominating a Southern governor is our best shot at winning Ohio and winning back Iowa and New Mexico. A moderate will not hurt us in the current blue states, and will probably help us there.

[w4rma]

73. I notice you have not mentioned Gun Control, specifically.

Those states: West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico, will not be won with the current platform that more gun control is needed.

Also, national Dems need to learn from local leaders about how to speak about religion publicly and they need to do it and they need the press to cover it positively. I was disappointed that Democrats made little noticable progress on these two issues before the election.