It was a mistake to abandon the 50 state strategy

[struggle4progress]

Trying to squeak in, using clever electoral college math, failed us

[democrank]

1. A huge mistake

Hope Democratic Party leaders learn something from all the states we did not carry. I'd like to see our party broaden our appeal to red state voters.

[dubyadiprecession]

128. We can't offer unrealistic things to voters in those states like 2,000 mile long walls....

and deporting 11 million people. When Trump can't deliver on his pie in the sky bullshit in 4 years, the republican's will have lost all credibility with those voters. He won't get reelected.

[TexasProgresive]

2. That's my take.

Recognizing that we are a country of 50 states as opposed to blocks of EVs does exactly what Sec Clinton wanted, to bring us together as a nation. We, as a party, need to return to our roots, the people, and get more local. Texas has been abandoned for years which has been disastrous for us who live here.

[Dustlawyer]

5. Here in Texas it was the first national election in many decades that I saw a political ad by

a Democratic presidential candidate. Not many of course, but they were there.

The problem is when you only have Republican ads you only hear their message. We made great gains in Democratic support in Texas when Howard Dean was the head of the DNC. Hopefully we can have the 50 state strategy again and push Texas blue!

[NewJeffCT]

31. that would be great

they also need to increase voter registration and turnout on the Democratic side.

[Dustlawyer]

51. Registration of all of the Hispanic population in the Rio Grand Valley

and and elswhere in the state. Adding more registration for the other minorities in Texas would do the trick assuming they then vote. We could overcome the Tom Delay gerrymandering and take over the state! To be out from under these heartless bastards would be a dream come true!

[TwilightZone]

53. Not sure where you live, but Clinton ads were running almost constantly here the last month or two

of the campaign. The Clinton campaign made a lot of ad buys in Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, etc.

Unfortunately, so were Trump ads.

[TexasProgresive]

55. I would like to see some support from the DNC for local races.

It is like we are written off.

[still_one]

3. and that is why I cannot understand why Howard Dean didn't continue as DNC chair

[Demsrule86]

6. Pres. Obama seems cold towards Dean....I don't know why.

[still_one]

9. I know, it is a mystery to me also

[Demsrule86]

10. I mean Debbie was a disaster long before 16

We lost in the states, the house and the Senate on her watch.

[metroins]

38. Debbie and Pelosi were disasters

Not sure what good it does to look back at the obvious.

I really think it's the guns, bibles and conspiracy theories that are getting us.

To look forward, we should look back and see what helped progress during and after the Salem Witch trials, communism round ups and the hippy bashing type fiascos.

[Demsrule86]

50. Pelosi had nothing to do with it.

In fact, thousands of people are alive because she got health care through...we need her experience. Her job is not about elections...that is the DNC...she needs to fight Trump. I am tired of the term hippie bashing. We all have our ideas...time to work together to stop Trump.

[Ken Burch]

103. Pelosi was re-elected leader today.

n/t.

[Demsrule86]

113. I heard that. My son was not happy but I think it is for the best.

As I said, I like Tim Ryan...he is my guy. He was very helpful (as much as he could be) when a local company screwed their workers out of a pension...not us thankfully. He is however in a state that went for Trump by a significant amount of votes...horrifying and embarrassing! Ryan has to worry about re-election. He won't fight Trump. I hope Nancy will...there is too much' let's work together' for my taste...I want obstruction. Nothing the GOP wants is any good.

[MADem]

76. Unnnnh.....Pelosi is still our minority leader in the House, and she's likely to keep that gig.

And you might not want to hear this, but DWS might get that gig, one of these days.

See, YOU don't vote for these postings. Democratic legislators vote for their leaders, and the party elites, absent a sitting Dem POTUS, make the call on who runs the DNC.

Our candidate won by north of two million votes. What we need to work at is getting a better distribution of those votes. I'm not in favor of pandering to mouth-breathing racists to make that happen. There are better ways to grow our base.

I suspect the War On Seniors may help us enormously in the outyears.

[Me.]

80. Pelosi Got Done

everything Obama asked of her. I read Obama didn't want DWS but she threatened him with something but I don't know what. Perhaps the Jewish vote but that's just conjecture.

[MADem]

85. I agree that Pelosi did everything Obama asked, but I never once heard any

whiff of a suggestion that he interfered with the selection of a Speaker/Leader for the House--not once.

That would be bad form, really. Too much Executive Branch interference in the workings of the Congressional Sausage Factory.


Do you have a link?

[Me.]

90. That Particular Bit Had To Do With DWS

Who was referred to in tandem with NP in post #38. It had to do with Obama wanting her out as DNC chair but is so far back I have no link.

[MADem]

95. I think that little story might be a "Some people say" conflation.

I do know that people were worried about her having the TIME to run a re-election campaign and the DNC, but that had nothing to do with her performance.

Alot of that "WAAAH-DWS sucks" shit came straight out of the Kremlin. They did a real good job shitting all over this board (and the entire internet, frankly) for a long, long time.

They aren't done yet, either.

I'd love to see the admins here require people to provide an address, and then snail mail them a password to join this site. Charge 'em a buck or two, for the cost of the postcard and stamp. It would cut down on a LOT of the bullshit.

[Me.]

96. A Bit Of Background

“John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman — and a former top adviser to Barack Obama — broached the idea of replacing Wasserman Schultz as early as last fall, only to be rebuffed by the president’s team, according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversation.

“It came down to the fact that the president didn’t want the hassle of getting rid of Debbie,” said a former top Obama adviser. “It’s been a huge problem for the Clintons, but the president just didn’t want the headache of Debbie bad-mouthing him. ... It was a huge pain in the ass.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100

“By 2014, the critics, still mostly anonymous, had formed a more substantial critique: More than three dozen Democrats, almost all of them still anonymous, told Politico that Wasserman Schultz was more concerned with her political ambitions than she was with the good of the party. The story was loaded with the kind of devastating anecdotes reminiscent of Republican staffers’ griping over Sarah Palin following John McCain’s loss in 2008. Former DNC officials claimed that on more than one occasion — for both the 2012 Democratic convention and Obama’s second-term inauguration in 2013 — Wasserman Schultz tried to get the party to pay for her clothes, requiring intervention from Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett. And Obama loyalists complained she was using meetings with DNC donors to try to pressure them into donating to her leadership super-pac. Her working relationship with the president seemed icy at best: When Wasserman Schultz joined a photo-op line at a Democratic fundraiser in an attempt to get face time with the president, he reportedly turned to her and said, “You need another picture, Debbie?”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/everyone-hates-debbie-wasserman-schultz.html

[MADem]

97. Take everything you hear from POLITICO, especially shit from "former" operatives on the D team,

with a HUGE (or is the new word YUUUUUUUUUGE nowadays?) grain of salt.


It's owned by a member of the "to the right of Attila the Hun" Albritton family--they've no love for us, and while they purport to be "non-partisan" they are a fox in our henhouse.


Notice how even with NY mag, no one's going on the record. And they're "characterizing" Obama's conduct, when all he has EVER been is supportive of Dem candidates and hasn't ever been shy about lending his "oomph" to downticket candidates. Talk about "two birds with one stone" -- shitting on Obama AND DWS with one fell swoop.

About the only POTUS who can compare to Obama in his willingness to help downticket candidates on our side is Clinton, who never said no if asked to help. GW Bush on the GOP side was also a happy campaigner for the contenders on his side, too.

Let's look at the paragraph that follows your quoted one, recognizing that NYMag has a POV, while they try to (cough) appear even-handed:

Wasserman Schultz and her allies fiercely denied the clothing story and insisted her relationship with the White House was positive. She managed to hang on through the first half of 2016, in part because the White House was reluctant to generate the bad press that would come with replacing her. And she was genuinely good at fundraising, one of the most important parts of her job. What was almost never said by her detractors in the stories slamming her is that serving as party chair is almost always a thankless job: part partisan warrior, and part rule-maker for your own party. It’s difficult to tell how much of those early criticisms of her tenure were valid expressions of concern about her leadership style and how many of them were unfair, gendered complaints. But in retrospect, she was particularly ill-suited to helm the party through a heated battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Wasserman Schultz was never particularly well-liked among the progressive wing of her party. As a Florida Democrat, her views conform more closely to the more conservative Democrats who make up her home district. She’s long been opposed to medical marijuana, calling it “a gateway drug.” She angered feminists last year when she said young women born after Roe v. Wade were “complacent,” in an attempt to answer a question about whether there was a generational divide in women’s support for Hillary Clinton. And she earned the ire of the left when she and other Florida politicians co-sponsored a bill to slow reforms intended to curb predatory payday-lending practices.

If you need to guess where the shit-flinging came from, there's your answer.

This is a perfect illustration about how one wing of the party wants to dictate how EVERY politician must conduct themselves, even the DWS's and Testers and Kaines and others who know their constituencies far better than these podium-pounding demanders do. Given that DWS won her district, despite buckets of internet shade by couch surfing detractors and tons of money to her loser-asshole "All Over The Damn Map" opponent, I think that wing over-estimated their clout and indeed, contributed to some of the mess we find ourselves in (ironically, they'll feel the pain the worst as a consequence of their fit of pique).


Now that she's out of the DNC job, look to see her move up rapidly on the House leadership ladder. Since Pelosi prevailed in her leadership effort, she will turn to those in her caucus who have a strong reputation for actually doing the work, and like it or not, DWS is not one of those all-talk/no-walk scolds who have never held a House leadership/admin position.

[Me.]

98. I Didn't Like The Whole Bernie Situation And The Way She Was Treated

and felt she was a convenient scapegoat. That said, I'm not a fan and didn't appreciate the way the DNC was run. I felt it was very ineffective. But of course, I felt the same way about Kaine and wondered why he was chosen in the first place.

[MADem]

99. Kaine was part of a team that beat the Orange Anus by north of two million votes.

Imagine if all the voters who were disenfranchised by the GOP, hundreds of thousands in each state, were allowed to vote.

The margin of victory would be even more impressive. And we would have locked the EC, too.

[Me.]

100. Yes, I Will Say

I was so disappointed when he was picked but warmed to him as it went along. Again, that said, maybe the solution is to pick someone who is not a currently working member of Congress.

[MADem]

105. I thought he was a swell guy. Surprised at his command of Spanish.

A decent fellow, and a smart one too. I am too old to give a crap about "charisma" and I don't really go for drama. I am in favor of extreme competence, myself.

[Me.]

106. I Too Want Competence

And am hoping we have reached a turning point in that regard. Of course, it will depend on the DNC chair, so fingers crossed that we get someone who is willing and able to buckle down.

[MADem]

109. We need competence, and that's Dean.

Nothing wrong with fucking with the committee structure, though, and giving more clout/weight in terms of outreach and organizational work to highly visible and active deputies (urban, rural, different interest groups, etc.) but the person at the helm needs to know the lay of the land down to the precinct level NOW, and needs to know how to pull off some serious fundraising efforts early on. We need to develop an OBSCENE war chest--why? Because we're not going to see any campaign finance reform in the next four years. So we need to fight rubles with dollars, and lots of 'em.

[Me.]

111. On That

I totally agree with you, he did it before and can so again

[awoke_in_2003]

43. He was told to pick her

She is who the Turd Way wanted.

[Demsrule86]

48. Oh bull shit.

You have no idea why he picked her or send a link if I am wrong. I will say this only...when Bill Clinton ran in 92 he saved us from another four years of Bush...he ran as a centrist because he could get elected...no progressive had won since Roosevelt...unlessYou count Johnson as progressive and I think he was mostly...Kennedy was not progressive if you look at his policies. And looking at the last election...I don't see a leftward movement even now. Dean was successful...Debbie not so much...she is in Florida, and she is 'third' way..whatever that means because she wins elections...look at what happened to her primary opponent. This is why I want Dean and not some ideologue who will base the selection of candidates on his personal views and not on who can win in various states.

[MADem]

75. No, she is who HE wanted. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

77. Then we know where to lay it. nt

[MADem]

83. I say we "lay" it right where it belongs--at Putin's feet. nt

[Demsrule86]

117. Obama got to choose...and it is probably not fair to blame Debbie for all our losses.

But she did nothing to stop the losses in states...and that is how the house was gerrymandered...and we better get some states by 20 or the gerrymander will continue. I don't see how this country survives ten more years of this sort of thing...the system was made for the house to react to public opinion...now we have a body that fears primaries more than elections.

[MADem]

119. She was chosen because she is one of the BEST fundraisers in the USA.

She can kick ass and take names.

At the time, as most people don't remember, we all thought JEB BUSH was going to be our likely opponent, and the people who appreciate him have deep pockets.

We were anticipating a game of dollars, not a hack by a foreign government to install a Puppet Prince of Putin.

DNC chair IS a thankless job, and everyone who has held it has been HATED. I can remember the vicious excoriation of McAuliffe here despite the fact that he was one hell of a fundraiser and gave us--for the first time--a building of our own so we didn't have to worry quite so much about break - ins a la Watergate. Unfortunately, Putin figured out how to break in via computer.

Then, when McAuliffe started pardoning non-violent drug offenders as VA governor, he was suddenly restored to hero status. "Come home, dear, all is forgiven!"

Gotta look at the whole picture.

DWS is a tough and smart woman, of a minority faith in this country (and the "alt right Nazis" love to get all bigoted over that fact), who has overcome a shitload of obstacles, to include cancer and brutal sexism, to say nothing of heaps of lies about her. She's not evil. She's a decent person who represents her constituents (How DARE she reflect THEIR views! She should reflect the views of the most far left assholes who wouldn't give her a quarter to make a phone call!!!). That's why she cleaned the clock of her "bro" primary challenger, who whined and cried and demanded more and more out-of-state donations to bolster his aimless campaign.

Last, but not least: Obama endorsed her DURING her primary--so anyone who says that he was dissing her is talking from a playbook designed to crap on her, but has no basis in political reality.

[jalan48]

58. Wasn't she Clinton's campaign chair in 2008?

Maybe the DNC was planning ahead for 2016.

[MADem]

11. Probably because Dean didn't favor him in 2008.

Obama's team was very insular and demanded loyalty. Dean was never the sort to measure his words.

I do think Dean is the guy for the DNC gig. No fresh faces, we need experience at this juncture.

[Demsrule86]

49. Maybe.

Well it cost Obama in 10...whatever the reason.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

66. Howard Dean understands rural voters

And he works very hard. They NEED him to lead.

[MADem]

74. I agree with you there. He understands, but he doesn't pander.

He's also a city boy, so he covers the waterfront, to mix a few metaphors!!!

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

91. Yes, Dean doesn't get nearly enough credit

He worked hard to make Democrats competitive everywhere and it worked. Why they didn't keep the good thing they had is beyond me.

[MADem]

94. I'm from MA....but I preferred Dean to Kerry as a candidate.

There wasn't a ton of daylight between them, but Dean, despite being born into a very wealthy and privileged family, was no stranger to the words "Oh, fuck off!" Kerry did not lack toughness, but he lacked the perception of same--he was almost too civil for his own good, and the mouth breathers take that as weakness.

Funny how that steel spined persona is so valued in males and often denigrated in females--that "Oh, fuck off!" attitude is one of the things I liked about HRC, too.

[BlueMTexpat]

131. I am 100% in agreement

with your post!

[Dr. Mullion Blasto]

64. Jealous of his skills? Maybe Dean never" kissed his ring?"

Obama remains a mystery, even after 8 years in office and observing him here in Illinoiis - I still don't understand so many of his moves.

Offering so much help to Don the Con, for example. They've had several phone chats "over 45 minutes long."

I know he has to be polite to him but, once more, it seems to me he's the one who's reaching out across the aisle much farther than he needs to.

[Qutzupalotl]

92. I don't fault Obama for advising Trump.

Trump has so many crazies talking in his ear, a sane voice is needed.

After their first meeting, Trump signaled he wanted to keep two important aspects of the ACA: the ban on exclusions from pre-existing conditions and kids staying on their parents' plan until they are 26. What Trump doesn't realize yet is you need a mandate to make that work in the current model.

Trump truly does not know what he's doing or the first thing about governance. If Obama can bring him around even a little on any other issue, I'm all for it.

[Demsrule86]

116. I agree...can't stand the 'let's get along bullshit.

I don't want to get along.

[Me.]

78. Rahm

He was furious at Dean because he was in charge of getting house members elected and wanted Dean to focus all the money on Rahm's pet candidates (all blue dogs btw) but Dean refused and ran the 50 state strategy instead. The irony is that the 50 state strategy helped get Obama elected. Rahm got his revenge by basically ostracizing Dean.

[Demsrule86]

115. I did not know that ....thanks for the information.

I always thought Obama made a mistake in choosing Rahm.

[Ken Burch]

120. So did most of the party, by the end.

And frankly, I thought it was telling that Rahm didn't stand down as chief of staff until AFTER his tactics and his insistence on treating the progressive/insurgent wing of the party as the enemy cost us the House in '10.

[Me.]

124. I Simply Never Understood Why Obama Did That

Could it be as simple as both being from Chicago? Whatever, it had disaster written all over it as did the hiring of Daley.

[RelativelyJones]

126. I think in the beginning he was understandably nervous

And gave too much power to Rahm, who knew DC from the Clinton days and had a BS reputation of being a tough guy.

[Me.]

127. Could Be

[Gore1FL]

19. The Clinton team (at the time) didn't like Dean.

He was a thorn in their side in 2004. James Carville was calling for him to resign as DNC chair in 2006 AFTER the huge seat gains.

[BlueMTexpat]

130. Dean wanted the job at HHS.

Rahm Emanuel - who hated Dean - put the kibosh on that and President Obama, who was still a bit wet behind the ears as to the wily ways of Washington, listened to Rahm. Prez O also named Tim Kaine to the DNC. Kaine is a good guy. BUT he did NOT continue with the 50-state strategy. Then the DNC Chair was Donna Brazile - then DWS - then Brazile again - and the 50-state strategy was allowed to lapse.

Listening to Rahm Emanuel about Dean was one of Prez O's first and biggest mistakes.

Fortunately, Dean is NOW running again for the job. Dems should give it to him, if they really want to be contenders again. Dean built up the state networks to nurture and encourage local candidates at the grassoots level.

[brooklynite]

4. You realize that's not why we lost, right?

In the states that matter with "electoral college math" we had powerful turnout operations. People still didn't turn out. Having a well organized Party in Idaho wouldn't have changed that.

[Demsrule86]

7. Running the right candidates in all 50 states will help.

But you can't be an ideologue for this job.

[MADem]

82. That won't be popular here! But you are ENTIRELY correct. One must cut the cloth to the measure.

I remember when Max Cleland was "too conservative" to suit--until he got Swiftboated (or SwiftHelo'd) by a chicken hawk. Then he suddenly was transformed into the disabled hero who was unfairly maligned, by the VERY same people who once trashed him.

There were (many have departed, tada, now!) a lot of people here who liked to squawk about Jon Tester as well--but no other Dem from Montana could have won like he did. Both times he won, it was a close race. Tester knows where the 'line' is.

Same deal with Tim Kaine. He knows JUST what the traffic will bear in VA.


If anyone thinks any of the moderates in our party will be "moving left" to suit the agitators on that end of the spectrum, I have a bridge for sale. Cheap.

[Demsrule86]

114. The country seemed to take rightward turn to me...hope I am wrong.

But no matter what...we can't elect the same kind of Senator in Georgia that we do New York or California.

[Ken Burch]

121. There's no place, though, where it helps us to run Dems

who choose to base their own political identity on trying to stop the majority of the party from getting its agenda through, or on only letting it through in watered-down or sabotaged form(as was done with the ACA, for example).

We should at least get an agreement from Democratic Senate candidates that they won't put holds on any appointments or use filibuster threats to block legislation from getting a floor vote(it should be enough for them to vote against bills on final passage).

We simply don't need to reconstruct a nominally non-racist equivalent of the "Southern Democrats".

[Demsrule86]

122. Ken I disagree and the ACA is a bad example because

we never had a majority. We got what we could get...maybe in retrospect, we should have broken the filibuster...and gone for broke...but that was never Pres. Obama's style. You can not expect the elected to vote against their election chances...it won't ever happen. But had we kept the conservadems, we would have had infrastructure and we would have already had a justice on SCOTUS...if we want the majority than we have no choice.

[Ken Burch]

123. Card-check on union elections is another example.

Were there really any states where a Dem could only get re-elected by blocking that and by making sure nothing was done to make it easier to organize unions?

[DonCoquixote]

8. but one in places like Michigan and PA would have

Nice "blue Wall" idea that the party bigwigs thought of.

[awoke_in_2003]

44. At least the MI vote

was taken for granted. Arrogance played a part in this loss.

[tavernier]

12. Who?

Whites? Blacks? Latinos? The young? The old? People who thought it was a done deal?

I'm curious because my friends and I would have walked through glass to vote, and I'm wondering what caused such apathy?

[Lotusflower70]

32. Campaign

The election itself caused apathy. And so did the divide in the party as well as the DNC mess. The candidate didn't help either. She just did not resonate with a lot of people beyond the base.

[uponit7771]

13. We had a powerful turnout machine and they had a 3.5% increase in voting population across the

... board which I don't believe for a second

[democrank]

17. ALL the states should matter. They dont. Thats the point.

You`re right that people didn`t turn out. Think about that. Hillary was running against the likes of Donald Trump, President Obama`s legacy was on the line, people around the country were desperate, and voters didn`t turn out. I say many more would have if we had appealed to a wider segment of voters. Instead, we picked fights here and elsewhere with Democrats who were saying ALL lives matter, even white rural ones.

[Chakab]

23. "Powerful turnout operations" that had people showing up to the doors

of Trump supporters 20% of the time.

Clintons's ground game and "analytics advantage" were grossly overrated.

The party was also hamstrung in the rust belt by running a candidate whose husband passed NAFTA.

People need to come to grips with the fact that Trump actually did win the first debate by beating Clinton up on NAFTA AND trade for 20 minutes before he went off the rails.

[NWCorona]

24. Hillary didn't visit Wisconsin once and only refocused on

Michigan and Pennsylvania late in the primary. In fact Bill Clinton warned the campaign but was rebuffed.

[KittyWampus]

25. But getting resources to the Rust Belt would have. It didn't happen. Democrats on the ground there

are saying that.

The DNC and Clinton ignored them, took them for granted and their arrogance and stupidity may have irreparably damaged our Democracy.

[struggle4progress]

67. Could be -- though I'm not so sure as you about "why we lost"

We managed to snatch defeats from the jaws of victory in 2000 and again in 2016 with strategies that won the popular vote and still lost the election

The fifty state strategy has the advantage that it aims to put more people in motion -- and they may be connected with others through a larger and non-geographical network

[Auggie]

86. Plus 1

[Drunken Irishman]

14. I think people like to use buzzwords to describe things they don't get.

The 50 State Strategy had nothing to do with the presidential election. You do realize Hillary Clinton invested more resources in more states than many modern Democratic presidential candidates, right?

In the final month of the campaign, she was actively putting an effort into trying to win Utah, a state that hasn't gone Democrat since 1964. In fact, I'd wager MAYBE her biggest problem was that she TRIED to extend the map, falsely believing she could put more states into play than Obama in 2012.

How many on DU were cheerleading the idea of her fighting in Texas and Arizona?

Democrats got cocky in the electoral map and should have shortened it like Obama did in 2012 (mind you, Obama received the EXACT same criticism here on DU when it was announced he was scaling back the map compared to 2008...and it worked). The focus from the start should have always been the swing states + Virginia + keeping the most Republican-leaning blue states blue ... not campaigning in Georgia or Texas or Utah or Arizona.

So, your point is actually 100% wrong and actually the opposite of what Hillary should've done.

She should've spent less campaign resources in Arizona and more in Pennsylvania. Less in Texas and more in Michigan and Wisconsin. She should have flooded the traditional swing states instead of trying to stretch the map in the final months. Had she run a 15 state campaign, she'd be president-elect right now.

Had she further run a 50 state campaign like you suggest, she would've lost by an even wider margin.

[mountain grammy]

16. No, I can't agree that this point is 100% wrong.

How can you not see what's happening in the states? There's a reason they're mostly republican, and ultra conservative at that. We are losing millions of voters, not just to right wing ideology, but to voter suppression and apathy. When you only hear one message and don't like it, many tune out.

[Drunken Irishman]

33. Everything I said was 100% true.

Hillary tried to stretch the electoral map, campaigning in states Democrats don't generally campaign in - it hurt her. That's a fact. Not opinion.

[Grey Lemercier]

41. I agree 100%

I constantly warned that hubris was getting the best of us, so many people on here were tossing up insane 400 plus EV totals for Clinton and then hammering anyone who disagreed as a concern troll.

[mountain grammy]

42. I wasn't talking about this election

I'm sorry, you missed my point. The damage was done long before this one. While the GOP pours resources into organizing media, business, religious, and civic groups to pound their message out, our little group of county Dems are left to fend for ourselves. My town is deep red, like a lot of Colorado and America. It's not blatant hate they're selling, but that's the undercurrent, and, if the preacher and the local mayor say it, it must be ok. Outside of the cities, only one message is heard.
Also, I'm not excusing this crap..bottom line, Americans who buy into extremist bullshit are lazy and stupid. So depressing to see neighbors I've known for years, who were open minded and accepting of all, turn into right wing bigots... how does that happen? I'm ready to move. Sorry for the rant, but, like global warming, I'm afraid we crossed the point of no return and missed many opportunities along the way to stop both.

[Nay]

73. Thank you. Indeed, the damage WAS done over decades, and the Dems

continued to believe that they didn't need to have much of a presence in the states. The Pubs are EVERYWHERE in the states and have been for 30 years. It was their plan, and it worked marvelously for them. Those of us who screamed that we needed a national TV station, progressive voices on the radio, progressive churches to step up their outreach, etc., were essentially ignored. For 8 years, Obama did little to improve this situation.

IMO, the Democrats seem happy to be the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters -- they always lose, but get paid the same anyway, so who cares who wins?

[Exilednight]

63. That's not what stopped her.

There is an advantage to a 50 state strategy: The House of Representatives. That is providing the nominee has coattails. Just because a party owns the presidential vote doesn't mean they own the every House seat.

Here's another reason: future races. Anyone who can read and has basic comprehension knew she was not going to win Texas this year, or in 2020, but if we EVER want to win Texas we have to make an effort. And there's a good possibility by 2028 we can win Texas. But we can only win it if we put in the effort a decade ahead.

States that get ignored, or as some people put it: taken advantage of, is like waiting to find out if your boss is going to pay you once every four years. When you fail to continually go unpaid, in this case by visits, eventually you stop showing up to work and find a new boss who will pay you.

[democrank]

18. A 50-state strategy has everything to do with a presidential election.

Take a look at a map of the United States, broken down in red and blue states. Why do you think people are talking about Democrats and their "coastal elites" instead of Democrats and the base we used to have? Take another look at the rundown of how many Senate and House seats we`ve lost, how many Governorships we lost. Does that concern you? I don`t think we`re going to find the answers to red state inroads if we concentrate solely on the same old message that allowed all those states to stay red.

[Drunken Irishman]

35. Take a look at Obama's map in 2012.

This isn't up for debate. Hillary went away from it. She instead focused on states that were not going to go blue and only went hard at Democratic-leaning blue states like Wisconsin/Michigan and Pennsylvania when it was too late. A big reason Hillary lost was because she focused on too many states instead of shoring up the states that got Obama elected in 2012.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. In this case what you wrote

She should've spent less campaign resources in Arizona and more in Pennsylvania.

As a resident of PA, I guarantee you that we were completely FLOODED with Clinton/Kaine - both in ads and visits by the candidates and surrogates, including both former and current Democratic Presidents and their former/current Vice Presidents - which supposedly was "unprecedented". It was to the point where I think there was overload and I wouldn't be surprised if some on "our side" threw up their hands and completely tuned it out and some on the "other side" who so hated Obama after 8 years, decided to actually go vote.

I can't speak for what effort was done in MI or WI, but in PA, it was (at least on my side of the state here in Philly), over the top. As an example, when I was at a doctor's office for an appointment and the office TV was running a local station airing "Judge Judy", the 2 episodes during the 1 hour I was there before being seen, had the typical 20 minutes for each episode and 10 minutes of commercials. So 20 minutes of commercials in the 1 hour and during that time, I would say that no more than about 5 minutes of that was taken up by local promos and business ads and the rest (15 minutes) was nothing but 30 second or 1 minute campaign ads.

And this -

not campaigning in Georgia or Texas or Utah or Arizona.

This I disagree with. Although we were treated to an electoral loss (for whatever reason - apathy, rigging, suppression, energized white demographic who probably never voted before this election), expanding the map based on demographics, is actually good for the long game. Utah, perhaps not, but Texas and Arizona should definitely be on the radar, as should GA & NC. The gain of a VA in the blue column the past 3 Presidential cycles has helped to bolster against the loss of previous D states like WV & KY. The one thing that kept WV on the map at one time was Robert Byrd and his "earmarks" to the state. But once he was gone, that pretty much sealed the fate of that state, despite a Joe Manchin.

The difficulty with many of these states revolve around their being unwilling or unable to "diversify" their industries (e.g., MI, OH, WV). So when their "industries" disappeared, they collapsed. Here in PA, a place like Pittsburgh, having had its steel mills collapse over the past 40 years, was able to recoup it's lifeline by bringing in a hospital/clinical industry. But for some of these coal states (including the rest of SW PA and parts of upstate PA), it will be a difficult and tough sell pushing an "energy industry" using alternatives.

Basically, there needs to be quite a bit of think-tanking going on, bringing in folks from those regions to contribute (not ivory-tower stuff).

[Drunken Irishman]

36. She didn't campaign much at all in PA.

Surrogates only partially help. She didn't campaign much at all, in fact.

[BumRushDaShow]

57. Hate to say but that is a bit of bullshit

You forget that she was here during the month of the primary that we had in April - at least 7 events in the state alone (not counting fundraisers and surrogates). She was in Pittsburgh in June, and the DNC convention was held here in Philly in July, in addition to 3 PA events the week after that that she and Kaine went to. She had 2 more events in PA in August, 1 in September, 4 in October, culminating in a huge rally here in Philly the night before the election in November. So she was here and she had to be everywhere else too.

She won the popular vote by > 2,000,000 and counting. She couldn't do the Ghouliani strategy of putting all the eggs in a Florida basket (or in this case, Pennsylvania) and hope for the best.

[mythology]

22. I agree at the presidential level

But a 50 state strategy would help make winning easier and provide us with a better ability to compete at all levels.

[KittyWampus]

29. It would put Democratic offices/resources in areas we could monitor elections for fraud.

As it stands now, the Republicans can do anything in rural areas where there is no Democratic office/staff/volunteers cause nobody is watching.

[KittyWampus]

28. She didn't invest much of anything into the Rust Belt. And Democrats there asked for resources.

So we agree about the inability of Clinton's team to do BASIC electoral math.

HOWEVER, in all 50 states during national election years, there needs to be Democratic field offices in rural areas in all 50 states with a lawyer who can help prevent election fraud/theft.

Even if you can't win in a rural area in Alabama or wherever, you still find reliable Democrats there and give them basic resources and train them how to monitor what's going on during elections.

[Drunken Irishman]

37. You have to pick and choose your battles.

She chose wrongly. She should've invested heavily in the rust belt, midwest, maybe even at the expense of North Carolina.

[KittyWampus]

87. Not arguing that point. But we need to have rural Democrats with some basic training/organization

Because as time goes on... more and more rural districts will have 100% turnout against the Democrats unless there's someone to push back against the corruption.

[zipplewrath]

54. 8 years ago

I think the larger point is that the DNC needs to run a 50 state strategy, constantly. As you suggest, the candidate doing it in the last 2 years prior to an election isn't what makes it work. It is that long term ground game that builds the structure that ultimately helps the candidate "bring it home".

We had the wrong candidate in the states that ended up mattering. Having the spouse of the guy that passed NAFTA, and showed early strong support for the idea of TPP was a losing strategy. And that may have come to light YEARS before if the DNC had a more state based approach.

[Drunken Irishman]

110. We had some good candidates. People like Russ Feingold.

Who was a known quality and a firebrand liberal.

Didn't help.

[Garrett78]

68. Yep. As I wrote below, "50-state strategy" is just a catchy phrase. Not a reality.

No candidate from either party is going to spend substantial time and money in all 50 states. Not even close.

[struggle4progress]

71. Here's what the state legislatures look like

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/United_States_state_legislatures.svg

We've shot ourselves in the knee

[certainot]

15. all of the tweeks together would not total half the monumental mistake of

ignoring talk radio for 30 years.

until that is fixed all the rest is a waste of time, in a talk radio vacuum

[BumRushDaShow]

27. THIS

The RW bought bundles of low-powered stations in rural areas (may of which have radio as the only sustainable "news" outside of maybe satellite TV), and they programmed these stations with 24/7 syndicated RW talk.

We had "Air America" for a brief time but did not own the stations that would run it, so it died.

The left needs to consider radio - not as a "dying medium", but as a way "in" to some of these remote spots, and also be willing to take a monetary loss (consider it a "donation&quot for some time just to get a message out.

[certainot]

45. left has to go on offensive -no more university sports on RW radio

and boycott ALL advertisers on ALL rw radio stations

here's a letter for these universities but admin won't pay attention - it has to be the uni papers and groups that nee to get on it

Your school is on a list of 88 universities at republiconradio.org that broadcast sports on 255 of Rush Limbaugh’s 600 radio stations. They could also be called Trump radio stations.

Your university is not only mocking it’s own mission statement, it is undermining the interests of most of its students, faculty, employees, and surrounding communities.

That makes your own school a legitimate place to protest any issue related to the Trump agenda.

Many of those relationships began prior to the 90’s, before they all began broadcasting propaganda for one party. There is no reason for those schools not to start looking for apolitical alternatives immediately.

The school administration will claim that it does not make business decisions based on politics.This is a question all those schools need to ask: If a radio station went to KKK programming would the university still let its mascot be used to sell a KKK agenda?

Those stations weigh in on elections for university regents and selection of administration including presidents and chancellors - is there a conflict of interest?

All of those stations will continue to deny global warming, deny reproductive rights to women, excuse racism and homophobia, and promote and excuse the Trump agenda. Republicans want to privatize public education, social security, and the post office. Their policies will raise college tuition. They want to reverse gains in health care reform. They want to end net neutrality. Those stations will be cheerleaders for the next war, as they were for the last one.

The station pays a licensing company a fee and the school gets a part of that. The station then gets to use the school logos, mascot, and community standing to attract advertising revenue. It gets to declare things like “850 KOA, home of the Buffs,and Rush Limbaugh!” Compared with TV licensing revenue talk radio stations pay very little.

Advertising revenue is used to fund station operating costs and pay for the national and local talk show hosts that broadcast from them most of the day.

Except for occasional innocuous programming all of those stations operate exclusively for the benefit of the Republican Party. They are coordinated with national and state GOP and their allied think tanks

If Trump would pay $1000/hr for a radio ad, 1200 nationwide stations x 15hrs/day x 5 days/week are worth about $5BIL/yr FREE for Trump. 255 x $75,000 = $19,125,000/WEEK FREE for Trump, or about $1BIL/yr endorsed by institutions of higher learning.

Those stations, licensed to operate in the public interest, are heavily dependent on the schools they parasitize and they all:
- deny global warming and science
- use public airwaves to sell voter suppression legislation
- use and excuse racism, misogyny, homophobia, and hate to divide communities
- work to deny reproductive rights for women and access to contraception
- fight environmental regulation, push fracking, and always support fossil fuel solutions over renewables
- fight to defund and privatize public education, attack teachers and work to lower their salaries, attack their unions, push voucher solutions and standardized testing, and obstruct efforts to lower student debt
- fight efforts to increase minimum wage
- undermine the economic and environmental interests of their communities
- use public airways to repeat propaganda that is demonstrably false and continue to lie after being corrected
- use public airwaves but use call screeners to exclude dissenting callers

How much revenue does the licensing company pay for radio broadcasting portion compared to the TV portion? Could donors make up the difference if there is a monetary loss? If there is a loss, how does it compare with the harm it is doing to its own principles, funding, students, and surrounding communities?

Are they violating their 501c3 tax exempt status? Here’s the IRS rule for political activity:
“Political activity. - If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.”

No university has a good excuse not to reexamine it’s relationship with partisan radio stations and look for apolitical alternatives. If an existing contract cannot be voided without penalty, can donors be found to cover it?

Any university, state or private, supporting Republican talk radio is shooting itself in the foot, demeaning its mission statement and professed goals and values, and harming its students’ futures.

Here is that list of universities ($1000 x 15hrs/day x 5days = $75,000/week):

ALABAMA 8 $600,000 Auburn 3, Alabama 2, Southern Alabama 2, Troy 1
ARIZONA 1 $75,000 Arizona St. 1
ARKANSAS 3 $225,000 Arkansas 3
CALIFORNIA 5 $375,000 San Jose State 2, USC 2, Fresno St. 1
COLORADO 4 $300,000 Air Force 2, Colorado 1, Colorado State 1
CONNECTICUT 1 $75,000 Connecticut 1
FLORIDA 20 $1,500,000 Florida 10, Florida St. 4 Miami 2, South Florida 2, Central Florida 2
GEORGIA 14 $1,050,000 Georgia 7, Georgia Tech 5, Georgia Southern 2
IDAHO 7 $525,000 Boise St. 4, Idaho 3
ILLINOIS 7 $525,000 Illinois 7
INDIANA 11 $825,000 Notre Dame 6, Purdue 4, Indiana 1
IOWA 5 $375,000 Iowa 4, Iowa St. 1
KANSAS 4 $300,000 Kansas St. 2, Kansas 1, Wichita St. 1
KENTUCKY 3 $225,000 Louisville 2, Kentucky 1
LOUSIANA 3 $225,000 LSU 2, La.-Monroe 1
MARYLAND 2 $150,000 Maryland 2
MASSACHUSETTS 1 $75,000 Boston College 1
MICHIGAN 19 $1,425,000 Michigan St. 11, Michigan 7, Western Michigan 1
MINNESOTA 4 $300,000 Minnesota 4
MISSISSIPPI 6 Mississippi St. 3, Mississippi 2, Southern Miss 1
MISSOURI 6 $450,000 Missouri 6
NEBRASKA 6 $450,000 Nebraska 6
NEVADA 1 $75,000 Nevada 1
NEW JERSEY 2 $150,000 Rutgers 1, Seton Hall 1
NEW MEXICO 3 $225,000 New Mexico 2, New Mexico St. 1
NEW YORK 7 $525,000 Syracuse 6, Army 1
NORTH CAROLINA 16 $1,200,000 North Carolina 8, North Carolina State 3, Duke 3, East Carolina 2
OHIO 10 $750,000 Ohio St. 6, Toledo 1, Dayton 1, Bowling Green 1, Xavier 1
OKLAHOMA 5 $375,000 Oklahoma St. 3, Oklahoma 1, Oral Roberts 1
OREGON 12 $900,000 Oregon St. 7, Oregon 5
PENNSYLVANIA 14 $1,050,000 Penn St. 11, Pittsburgh 2, Temple 1
SOUTH CAROLINA 4 $300,000 South Carolina 2, Clemson 2
TENNESSEE 7 $525,000 Tennessee 4, Memphis 3
TEXAS 16 $1,200,000 Texas A&M 9, Texas Tech 4, Texas 1, Texas Christian 1, Baylor 1
UTAH 1 $75,000 Utah St. 1
VIRGINIA 6 $450,000 Virginia Tech 5, Virginia 1
WASHINGTON 6 $450,000 Washington 5, Washington St. 1
WEST VIRGINIA 2 $150,000 West Virginia 1, Marshall 1
WISCONSIN 3 $225,000 Wisconsin 3

There is no excuse for any school to support Trump radio.

[BumRushDaShow]

62. As an interesting but sad sidenote

With the advent of the RW taking over so many independent stations, the old fashioned "talk" shows that focused on things other than politics, have all but disappeared, although some stations have finally started resurrecting some of those "home" and "public interest" type shows (mainly due to the boycotts of the RW talk formats that are finally taking a toll).

One show that I listen to (streaming/podcast only because it doesn't run on any major urban station) is a Saturday morning gardening show originating on a small VA station that is syndicated on other tiny stations like its home station. And that home station has the usual RW dreck with the lineup that includes Hugh Hewitt & Hannity & Levin, etc. And during the broadcast from the week before last, some idiot called up the show to say that he was completely against anything related to climate change and insisted that the host explain to him why such and such was happening with some plants due to abnormal weather events without invoking what to us is obvious. The poor host (who is a famous published horticulture author, 2nd generation running a huge greenhouse and landscape business, has been on the air with a garden show for 20 years, and has a son in the business with him with his own show) was trying to be diplomatic and apolitical by explaining about cyclical weather, etc, to assuage the rage from the guy.

It was just disgusting to hear and the first time in years that I heard someone call up a show like that and rant on. FFS it's friggin' GARDENING. But because the audience for that station hear RW shows most of the rest of the time, they are completely brainwashed and refuse to accept anything but that doctrine. And it's sad that these loons have now been enabled and emboldened to unleash their vitriol into every aspect of life including something as innocuous as gardening.

[Nay]

79. Agreed. It was a stroke of genius for RW to use the radio to the max. It's how

propaganda saturated every area of the country for decades. It basically changed the whole mindset of a whole nation. As Goebbels was fond of saying, if you repeat something often enough, the populace will believe it no matter how outlandish.

This does not reflect well on the general brain power of the basic human being, but that's what we have to work with. It could easily mean that the human race is essentially self-destructive, that the behaviors of small low-tech human groups and the DNA that runs most of it cannot ever translate into the success of the large high-tech groups we have built.

[mopinko]

21. we need 50 state elections!

imho, the ec must go. it distorts our democracy, our campaigns and just leads to divisions, still north/south like it was intended, after all these years.
it had a purpose, but we have seen it fail miserably.

[SomethingNew]

59. That would have the opposite effect

Removing the EC would make many states totally irrelevant. That's the opposite of "50 state elections."

[mopinko]

60. there is nothing about it that negates a 50 state strategy.

it make it one man, one vote. it is pretty hard to win an election where your voters only get 3/5ths of a vote and worse.

and state and local elections are what the 50 state strategy is really about imho. dean's old org still lives, and believes in working all the way down the ticket to build the bench.
to the extent that this affects these races, they are either untouched or restored to one man, one vote.

again, this favors us in a big way.

[SomethingNew]

61. At the presidential level

It certainly helps us. However, it also further entrenches the "costal elites" attitude since winning 70% of the vote in big costal cities would then win the election.

[mopinko]

112. and there is a problem with that why?

we are the majority.

[NWCorona]

26. Yup!

[TonyPDX]

30. We failed to address the needs of those at the bottom who have suffered the most,

even during the eight years President Obama has been in office. Those folks did not dread President Trump. They dreaded another four-to-eight years like the last eight. Any change was welcomed.

And they're in all fifty states.

[Lotusflower70]

39. I would agree with that

I think you hit the nail on the head. Some people saw four more years of Obama and didn't want that. Plus she talked about the move away from coal but didn't offer any reassurances to workers in that industry. They were left wondering what was going to happen to their jobs. You won't win a vote that way.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. I think that we SHOULD have a 50-State Strategy

as long as we can all stomach/support (even grudgingly) some of the "Blue Dogs" that will inevitably come out of it. I remember that back in 2010 there were lots of complaints about Blue Dogs and that losing them was preferable to maintaining our majority in Congress. There was discussion about trying to find more progressive Democrats to replace them with but, in most cases, there either weren't more progressive challengers or the states were too red to even hold out much hope that a more progressive challenger could be elected.

[alarimer]

93. Winning comes first, especially on the state level where redistricting happens.

We have got to change the maps. We cannot have more people voting for Democrats, yet winning fewer seats. That's messed up.

So, in the short term, it doesn't matter if the Dems are Blue Dogs. Win with them on the state level, redistrict to a fairer map, then we can talk about more progressive candidates.

I think redistricting has to be non-partisan and based SOLELY on population numbers. Not demographics, not party affiliation. Districts equal in population (and none of those weirdly shaped ones). If more House races were competitive, instead of "safe" for each party, we would stand a better chance at control of the House. I would prefer that it never be safe for either party, rather than one having control because they have made the rules regarding redistricting in an unfair way.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

108. I agree with you 100% on redistricting.

It needs to be a fair competition based on numbers, not party.

[sweetloukillbot]

125. My experience has been that those who yell loudest for the 50-state-strategy

Are the ones who wanted to get rid of Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu, and John Tester, and other Blue Dogs who were elected as a result of the 50-state-strategy. I'm in a reasonably blue district in Arizona and even our rep had to tack center to get elected. That's how you play the game. Keith Ellison couldn't get elected in red states, but there are Blue Dogs who will support us 90% of the time that will.
And that's where Nancy Pelosi's strengths come in - she was able to whip the caucus to provide cover for those blue dogs who have to vote with their constituents on difficult issues, so that we wouldn't lose votes because of that 10% of votes against the party.

On Edit: I whole-heartedly support the 50-state-strategy, just want to make sure that its implications are understood.

[Lotusflower70]

40. Sad but true

You can't neglect the Midwest. You just can't do that. It's supposed to be a government representative of the people. You have to go to all areas to get the message out.

[WhiteTara]

46. Yep. I wish for Howard Dean as DNC chair

but, he's old and we want shiny new instead of proven experience.

[hollowdweller]

47. We aren't ready for 50 state strategy

Remember Howard Dean's statement that we wanted guys with confederate flags on their trucks to vote for us.

Also he was all for having pro gun democrats run in red states and de emphasizing gun control.

Bernie LOST the democratic nomination by basically saying something similar but far less explicit. He was attacked as racist for wanting to emphasize issues that went across racial lines and he was also attacked for his votes against gun control even though he was from a rural state.

Right now the democratic base is not willing to run on economic issues. We have a lot of rich democrats who are more interested in cultural issues than economic issues.

I have read people right here on DU push free trade and knock unions while wanting to ban guns and denigrate workers because they aren't pulling themselves up by getting retrained.

The democratic party in Dean's era was a difft party. I'm not sure if we could get support for 50 state strategy.

[zipplewrath]

56. I think you can

A large part the strategy is pushing specific issues down to the state level. It allows individual states to pick their own candidates and establish their own priorities. It's when these races and choices get elevated to the DCCC/DSCC/DNC that the trouble starts. How many losses did we score over the last 8 years because Obama/Clinton/DNC endorsed candidates in PRIMARIES that ended up losing either the primaries, or the general? And it is exactly that kind of local knowledge that can then be leveraged by the candidates in the primaries, and in the general, for creating the message they need to win.

State level operatives were warning the DNC in Michigan and Wisconsin that there was serious trouble brewing. But that message wasn't getting through the donor/DC filter. I suspect it has now.

[hrmjustin]

52. I think Howard Dean should come back as DNC chair. We had our strongest showings with him

at the helm.

[Garrett78]

65. 50-state strategy is a catchy phrase but never has been a reality.

No candidate from either party is going to spend substantial time and money in all 50 states. But Dems should do more outreach in rural areas of purple states, and do more outreach in some red states like TX, AZ and GA.

[struggle4progress]

69. When we don't aim at the whole map, we lose: Obama's adventures with Congress

in recent years ought to make that point

[Garrett78]

70. No candidate from either party has aimed at the whole map.

Yet candidates from both parties obviously win elections.

The only way a "Democrat" is going to win in many areas of the country is by not being a Democrat. The same goes for Republicans.

[struggle4progress]

72. We need a better machine

[Nay]

81. Even more to the point, having a Democratic president is useless if he is

faced with a wall of RWers who refuse to deal with him in any way.

Part of why Clinton lost was that she wouldn't have been able to push anything through, either. That's why so many voters said, "eh." I don't agree with that attitude, but I can see why people felt that way.

[vi5]

84. After 2008 the DNC ceased in it's main function...

Which is to focus first and foremost on getting Democrats elected all across the country in as many offices as possible.

They abandoned that purpose and instead became a moving ground for political chess pieces and favor payback with seemingly only one goal in mind. A goal that cost us all dearly.

[question everything]

88. Agree. And this is why we need Howard Dean back as the DNC chair (nt)

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. Yes. One of several. n/t

[elleng]

102. Dem PTB have run from Dr. Dean's plans for a long time,

and we've all suffered as a consequence.

Attending a book promotion for his book, in DC, one of the Dem's PTB, few years ago, refused to address my question: Will you (Dems) make use of Dean's 50-state strategy? The guy (I forget name now) refused to answer my question.

[LisaM]

104. Yes, it was!

I never understood why we abandoned it, frankly.

[PatsFan87]

107. Yes to 50 state strategy, no to Howard Dean

I agree, we need to spread our message, once we agree on one, to all areas of the country. We need to worry less about fancy fundraisers in the Hamptons and in Hollywood and more about going to the county fairs, food festivals, etc. We need strong candidates (this includes teachers, police officers, veterans, laborers- NOT just lawyers/politicians).

50 state strategy is great but I would vehemently oppose Howard Dean becoming DNC chair. A corporate healthcare lobbyist and Newt Gingrich coworker is not who I want having that much influence. We can have the 50 state strategy without having Dean.

[Justice]

118. Totally agree. Obama ousted Howard Dean, Obama kept DWS on - two big mistakes.

[BlueMTexpat]

129. I don't know how many times

I have repeated that - online, in person, and everywhere I can.

The only one who really KNOWS how to do it is Howard Dean. Please let him be DNC Chair again. He is our last best hope.