Blue State vs Split South Strategy for Democratic Presidential Victory

I'm beginning to think Dem strategists are too split to actually come up with any sort of "plan" for winning.

 

The Dems are clueless which is why they nominated Kerry. If the Dems want the White House, they won't nominate someone from the Northeast.

 

The American public is generally very reluctant to switch Presidents at a time of war. Kerry would have to had done an amazing job in order to defeat GWB; he did not.

 

Don't switch horses mid-apocalypse eh? Kerry did a craptastic job and still nearly won. Incredible unitentional comedy in the last days of the election with his canned line about having bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora and "outsourcing" the job to Afghani warlords. If Kerry had simply had a consititent message and gone after Bush rather than floundering, the Dems would be in the Whitehouse.

In my opinion, I think the Republicans are going to have to go more moderate next election cycle. A fiscally conservative and more centrist republican a la Hagel or McCain is the most likely nominee. I think that Democrats may be more open to poaching Southern states because there won't be the same right wing religious fervor about the next Republican candidate.

 

It is funny that the Blue State strategy is the Lincoln Strategy.

 

I don't think either of those strategies are the ones the Democrats should be pursuing. IMO the best chance for the Democrats is a Blue State plus Southwest strategy. The demographics in many of the Southwestern states are changing and AZ, CO, and NV though considered Republican bastions for years have in recent elections seen Dems win in statewide elections along with having Kerry do better than had been expected at the start of the 2004 campaign. If the Dems can hold onto the NE, West Coast and Great Lakes Blue states and add the three Southwestern states the Southern States won't matter.

 

Good point. And I think Florida and Louisiana will be in play. Democrats have a real opportunity. They have to pick the right candidate. Another idiot like Kerry, and I may fling myself off a bridge.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

Because the Northeast isn't America, you tool.

 

That might produce a winner but ...

Look at what the Republicans are doing. They are trying to convert battleground states into Red States and trying to convert borderline Blue States into battleground states.

And what is with this 2008 sh*t? The 2006 elections are a midterm election where the Dems can indict a great deal of pain on the Republicans.

BTW I don't see a major difference between a moderate Dems and Repubs in the WH 2009.

 

be civil

 

I'm well aware of that considering I worked on the Kerry campaign in MN and MN and WI have suddenly become battleground states. At the same time though CO, AZ and NV have become battleground states that the Repubs can't just leave alone to concentrate on trying to win MN over to the Red side. Both parties have opportunities and challenges for capturing or maintaining the WH but this is a thread about what the Democrats should do.

True but the strategy is different due to redistricting the Repubs are in far better position to defend holding the house. The Senate is more up for grabs but the Dems have more seats to defend. Its hard to apply a national strategy to Congressional races in an off Presidential year.

I would disagree with that but you're entitled to your opinion. As for Democrats winning I don't believe extremely liberal candidates have much of a chance of winning a national election or statewide elections. While Feingold and Wellstone won they won more on strength personality than stances. Keep in mind that part of the time Wellstone was in office MN also elected Rod Gramms who was one of the most conservative senators.

 

Contract With America (tm).

GWB has never issued a veto => GWB and the Republican Congress are in lock step. GWB 's high negatives are Congressional Republicans high negatives. Now is the time for Democrats to hold the elected Congressional Republicans accountable.

If the Dems can not get this done in the 2006 elections, why is there any hope that they can get it done in 2008?

 

I agree Congressionally the Dems have a lot to work off of but that still doesn't change the fact that Congressional races are inherently local or that redistricting has made the district map in many states much more favorable to Rebups. If the Dems don't get control of Congress in 2006 I wouldn't read that as a sign that a Dem presidential candidate is in big trouble for 2008. The strategies are two different since you're dealing with 100's of Dem. candidates versus 1.

 

I only skimmed your post but what I agree with the analysis that I saw. The main problem with the last election I think was primarily Kerry and that another Dem. candidate who either had more charisma or wasn't so overtly an East Coast Liberal might've had a shot at winning the SW and Mountain states. THe fact that someone like Kerry was at least competitive in CO and NV shows that there are potential opportunities for winning over those states. While many of the Midwest states were battlegrounds the Dems still have their own lock on the upper Atlantic states and CA.. With that though I agree that the Repubs have a southern advantage but as 2000 and 2004 showed the strategy of just trying to hold on blue states is very risky since the defection of just one state loses it.

 

Well...that

And suppressing and rigging the vote in other states...



I loves me some electronic voting!