What Should The Democratic Party Do To Be More Competitive In The Red

[DemocratSinceBirth]

States?

[Selatius]

1. You wanna win?

Go back to the party's progressive roots. If we had a party that had a steady, cohesive message on health care, public education, the environment, jobs, foreign policy, etc. we could turn things around. The problem is that the leadership has allowed the debate to be framed by the opponents.

Rather than NCLB, why not advocate better teacher pay and more qualified teachers? Higher pay would probably lead to higher retention rates, and that would probably lead to smaller class sizes, and that could mean higher quality education in that students who need help the most are more likely to get one-on-one interaction with the teacher.

Rather than Bush's plan for health care, why not hammer home the fact that our present system leaves 45,000,000 without health care? Why not advocate universal health care and keep hammering away at it? Are we that bad at appealing to people's humanity on this issue?

Why not campaign to raise the minimum wage and peg it to the rate of inflation, so that it's buying power will never decrease ever again because of inflation?

Why not advocate tax reform by shifting the burden off the shoulders of the lower and middle class back onto the upper class where they are best able to shoulder it? It'd mean tax cuts for the middle class and working poor in this country.

Instead of our current foreign policy, why not have one that is not only sensible but also green and uncorrupted by the power of corporations?

Why not invest in alternative fuels and diversify our energy dependence not just on oil but also on hydrogen, wind, and solar power? Why not also advocate cutting back consumption as well?

Wrap this together into a party platform and be consistent on it. Keep repeating it until the cows come home.

[IndianaGreen]

32. I fear the bozos in the DLC are more interested in the packaging

than in the product, hence the latest DLC buzzword of "narrative."

Apparently they are not interested in the core values that you listed in your post.

[Starlight]

42. One thing that's missing in all this discussion of winning red states:

Republicans basically *buy* many of their red state votes by giving huge monetary grants & tax breaks to special interest groups in those states.

[auburngrad82]

44. Exactly. And keep hammering the GOP's faults and lies

Eventually people with brains might listen. Then we can take some votes from the GOP.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. The Hell with pandering to the Red states!

The religious reich extremists will never vote for us anyway. But there's enough "Blue" cities and counties in some "Red" states to flip them over, if they feel like they have a damn choice.

Honestly, look at this year. Bush says he's gonna stay in Iraq indefinitely. Kerry says he's gonna stay in Iraq indefinitely, BUT he has a "plan" to do it better?

What kind of choice is that??

Maybe Iraq's not the best example, but that was pretty much the whole fucking campaign.

Dean was right in the primary when he said you can't beat Bush with Bush lite. There's gotta be more of a contrast between the parties next time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. If You Include Florida The South Has 170 Electoral College Votes....

That means the Pugs can troll through the other states with 370 Electoral College Votes and only need to win 110...

We lost ground in PN, WI, and MI; 50-49 states all....


Those could easily flip the wrong way....

Throw into the equation the last northeastern liberal to get an absolute majority of the pop vote was FDR* and we got a losing hand going in to every election...


*JFK got 50.8%

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. I wasn't including Florida , but as long as the BCE is running that state.

...it's pretty much off the table anyway.

[Awsi Dooger]

25. We lost ground nationally, but not in those states

Maybe I make too much of this, but in relation to the national popular vote margin we actually did extremely well in the states we targeted. Winning states like Pensylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Michigan while Bush took the national vote by 3.05% is on the edge of remarkable. Wisconsin was several points better than 2000 while Pennsylvania and Michigan were close to the same.

In fact, in relation to 2000 we also did better in Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, and many other states, when our results there are compared to how the nation voted in general.

Of course, it can also be argued those states are simpy moving red slower than the nation itself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. But We Did Worse In EC Vote Rich PN, MI, and NJ....

We lose those and you can turn off the lights at the DNC headquarters...

[Awsi Dooger]

28. Here is a chart indicating the partisan shift from 2000 to 2004

We can turn out the lights permanently if we keep losing the popular vote by 3.05%, or anything close to that. However, this is what I was trying to emphasize in my earlier post; we actually gained ground in relation to the nation as a whole in most of the battleground states, including Pennsylvania and Michigan. New Jersey is strangely absent from this chart, but I believe we slightly lost ground. It was +15.33 DNC in 2000. If Kerry won by 10%, roughly my memory, that would make New Jersey +13.05 DNC in 2004, or slightly more than a 2 point move in favor of the GOP.

The trend is distinct and amazing. We improved in every battleground state outside the south, other than Arizona, and lost ground in every southern state other than Virginia and North Carolina. As I mentioned pre-election and yesterday, a 3.5-4 point improvement in North Carolina is due to Edwards on the ticket, and not necessarily indicative we have gained ground there.

Note: this is not my work. It comes from Chris Bowers of MyDD.com. In May of this year he put together a statewide partisan index, similar to something I've used since '96. I'm going to wait, as always, for at least a month post-election to update my chart so I'm using the final numbers.

How to read this chart: the partisan index is a relationship between the national popular vote margin and the state itself. Bush won nationally by approximately 3.05%. Therefore, Louisiana, first on the chart, was 11.5% more Republican than that, favoring Bush by 14.5%. The number at right is the change from 2000. We lost 3.2 points in Louisiana, for example.


Southern Battleground

Partisan Index and Shift from 2000
Louisiana -- RNC +11.5 (RNC +3.2)
Tennessee -- RNC +11.3 (RNC +6.9)
West Virginia -- RNC +9.7 (RNC +2.9)
North Carolina -- RNC +9.5 (DNC +3.8)
Arkansas -- RNC +6.8 (RNC +0.8)
Virginia -- RNC +5.6 (DNC +2.9)
Missouri -- RNC +4.3 (RNC +0.5)
Florida -- RNC +2.2 (RNC +1.7)

Non-Southern Battleground

Partisan Index and Shift from 2000
Arizona -- RNC +7.6 (RNC +0.8)
Colorado -- RNC +3.4 (DNC +5.5)
Nevada -- DNC +0.5 (DNC +4.6)
Ohio -- DNC +0.7 (DNC +4.7)
New Mexico -- DNC +1.7 (DNC +2.2)
Iowa -- DNC +2.1 (DNC +2.6)
Wisconsin -- DNC +3.6 (DNC +3.9)
New Hampshire -- DNC +4.5 (DNC +6.3)
Pennsylvania -- DNC +5.3 (DNC +1.6)
Michigan -- DNC +6.2 (DNC +1.6)
Minnesota -- DNC +6.6 (DNC +4.5)
Oregon -- DNC +7.0 (DNC +7.1)
Maine -- DNC +10.1 (DNC +5.5)
Washington -- DNC +10.4 (DNC +5.3)

[BlueInRed]

31. Except

there were almost no Kerry staffers in the South this year, so I question that part of the trend. They didn't try to win it. As I understand it, in TN there was only ONE official Kerry staff member, and TN is a state that had a D governor with over a 70% approval rating, a D Legislature and 5 of 9 Ds in the House delegation. TN was not a lost cause, but was just blown off as a battleground.

The trend reflects (at least in part) Kerry's own strategic choice to not campaign in the South.

[Awsi Dooger]

37. I completely agree; emphasis is always part of the equation

Every state we ignored would likely have trended several points in our direction with cash, TV time and staffers. Both parties embrace all or nothing strategies based on electoral need and/or state polls.

I can understand it from the GOP standpoint, because they have so many deep red states locked up, and we don't even pretend to contest them. I really wish we would look more to the future and try to inch up in so-called red states little by little. States like Colorado, Virginia and even Ohio, for example, might be closer to blue if we had put more effort in previous cycles. Now we're dumping West Virginia and Missouri.

It's not just the top of the ticket. Emphasis has downballot benefit or forfeit. We won the Colorado senate seat and made gains in the state legislature this year. But in Louisiana, we ignored the state and allowed Vitter to avoid a senate runoff by 1%.

[libertad]

29. Amen!

[catbert836]

3. Most of all, we need a populist. n/t

[Tweed]

18. Damn straight, we need a populist, look at Senator Dorgan

[unfrigginreal]

4. Nominate a candidate that believes what he's selling

[oscar111]

6. DNC, AFLCIO totally subsidize AAR into Alabama,etc

When we can spend years "reframing" the debate, we can get some voters in the red states.

Need moneylosing stations in those red states i suppose.

include AAR in your Will.

ClearChannel subsidized Limbaugh for the first years, as he lost money then.

We must do similar sacrifice to grow.

Reframing debate, expands it to the LW. Then a dem can run and win the votes.

AAR must till the soil before a candidate can harvest.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

41. Abso - freaking - lutely!

Find the lowest-rated radio stations in Cincinnati, Dayton, and Toledo and buy the damned things. Columbus already has an AAR affiliate (those lucky bastards) and Cleveland is already solidly Democratic. You've have all the largest population centers in Ohio blanketed with our message. Yes, I know that it's an investment of several million dollars, but think of how much the Democrats spend on TV advertising in these same markets every four years -- and to what avail?

Better to invest now in the long term and create an atmosphere where voters are more receptive to our campaign advertising than to keep wasting money. Perhaps the solution is for AAR to go public -- how many Democrats (this one included) wouldn't jump at a chance to invest a few hundred or a few thousand dollars in the venture? No dividend? No Problem! If it wins us an election, that's a hell of a return on my investment.

[Zynx]

5. 1&3, though a southern populist might work.

[King Coal]

7. What about stopping the cheating?

[alittlelark]

14. that's the obvious answer to me too

:shrug:

[WI_DEM]

8. be true to democratic principles for one

[Francine Frensky]

10. Take out RIGHT WING TALK RADIO!!!!!

Folks, it's simple...the heartland looooves limbpaw and all the other right wing radio nuts, and until they are removed from the airwaves, we will NEVER win the south/midwest.

Six years ago, I had a guy wallpaper my house and he listened to right-wing talk radio ALL DAY, and this is someone hanging wallpaper, who should be a dem, but he listens to that garbage all day, and of course, now he will never vote for a dem.

I have a cousin who was a life-long dem, a SOCIAL WORKER, she started listening to rush, "just for fun" and now she will NEVER VOTE FOR ANOTHER DEM...

We were stupid to ignore those guys in the 90's, and now they are an empire unto themselves.

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. Now there's a Catch 22

Can't regulate the media without political power and can't get political power because of a lying fascist corporate whore media.

[Nevernose]

15. We can get more media on our side w/o regulating it

If we make it profitable, left-wing radio (or TV, print, internet, whatever) will be every bit as appealing to the big media corporations as RW media is.

[Francine Frensky]

40. Take it to the courts

I don't see why right wing talk radio shouldn't be held accountable for the lies they spew.

It's like the tobacco lawsuits: we need to prove three things: that right-wing talk radio tells lies, on purpose, and that they spread ignorance among the electorate, ruining elections.

[Dukkha]

36. Give out guns to all of them

It can result positively for us in TWO ways :evilgrin:

[Mizmoon]

12. I said 2 & 4

Just cause I thought it was funny.

[Mike L]

16. Get 200,000 Democrats to move to Ohio.

[Tweed]

17. The first thing we could do is stop using the term RED STATES

That already handicaps us.

[Tweed]

19. The second thing to do is to focus on LOCAL elections

Try to get Democrats into every elected position. Some people have never voted for a Democrat in their life. If they vote for one Democrat and have a slate of local Democrats they can vote for, then they might just starting Democrat as a whole. Plus if Democrats are in power, they can use their previous positions to launch them for higher positions. With power also comes redistricting which will be vital for us to get back into power.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. What Would You Call Them?

nt

[Tweed]

34. States that went for Bush in 2004

Bush 2004 states, anti-Kerry states, etc. Here's an example: "What could we do to win back some of the Bush2004 states in 2008?" That way you aren't keeping them a 'red' state and calling them a Republican state. I feel that once you brand a state, people will fall into that mindset much eaisly and when people are talking about voting, others can say "Well you know, we are a red state..." no matter what election. It just doesn't seem healthy.

[JVS]

21. 1 and 4

[Carl Brennan]

22. Before anything, "fix" the voting system

}(

[robbedvoter]

23. Fis the voting system and go on the way it started this election: WE WON!

The Moral Values BS is from exit polls showing that W LOST!!!!!
Once the electoral system cleaned, a candidate like this doesn't hurt either
http://clark04.com/speeches/039

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Wes Clark Would Be Fine...

If this is another fear election he's our best choice...

[idiosyncratic]

27. The Democratic Party will never win until the election process

is FIXED!!

Kerry won this election

He was the candidate that won. We don't need a different type of candidate.

[BlueInRed]

30. Nominate someone with the common touch, enthusiasm,

& the ability to "frame" issues. The problem is not the platform, but how we talk about it. We need to beat the Republicans at their own word games.

The common touch is also critical -- a down to earth person of the people -- to reach rural and semi-rural voters. Warm would be great too, but down to earth is most important.

The Republicans didn't abandon their platform to start winning; they just reframed their existing issues like a master PR person (and then bought the voting machines, but that's another story....).

Oh, and someone who won't cave in at the first sign of trouble.

[tedoll78]

33. As far as winning goes,

I take this view:

my pet issue is the US Supreme Court. It covers so many other issues that I am pleased if a candidate of ours says things like, "Souter is my favorite justice." (or Breyer, Ginsburg, or Stevens)

Our ideological spectrum ranges from the Bayh/Dean end to the Kucinich end. And I pretty much make a base assumption: no matter where on that spectrum, a candidate will at the very least hint to me that he/she likes those four liberal justices.

Once this is established in my mind, I switch to the next question: who can win?

For this, I don't look at ideology at all. That was addressed in the first issue. I look, rather, at the Electoral Map. If the candidate can switch a Red State over into our column, he/she gets BIG points from me. But the candidate must be able to give me good reason to believe that he/she can indeed carry his/her home state.
(The same goes for VP nominees as well, btw..)

This would lead me to look at Clark, Warner, and Easley for the President and VP nominations. If they were to win the 264EVs won by Gore + NH, they'd only need their home states to win. No Florida, no Ohio, no Colorado, no Nevada. It'd be a much simpler game. Much more probable for our victory.

That's my perspective, in a nutshell. After determining acceptablity of probable court nominees, I look purely at the Electoral Map. Weird, I know..

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I notice "Boycott them until they come begging for forgiveness"

isn't an option. Oh well.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

38. Learn to be quiet and effective

We are too loud and blaring with some of our messages. If we get the presidency, we will have power at that time to do progressive things.

[erniesam]

39. I agree with Molly Ivins

four more years of Bush will cure this country of voting for Republicans.

[JNelson6563]

43. Advocate slavery.

As sanctioned in the bible. That oughta do it.

While you're at it abolish corporate taxes, social security and every government expense besides the military.

We'd have it sewn up. :toast:

Julie