r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/whenyoucantthinkof • 25d ago
Would Howard Dean/Obama’s fifty state strategy work now? US Elections
During 2005-2009, Howard Dean as DNC chair tried to attempt a”fifty state strategy” and invest Democratic Party resources in too all 50 states solid red states like Idaho.
Obama also tried it out in 2008. It turned states like Indiana and Virginia blue. It also made states like Montana and Missouri go into super close margins.
Would this strategy work in 2022 and 2024?
Edit:I just want to say that Dean didn’t use this strategy personally in a campaign but used it as DNC chair nationally.
179
u/85_13 25d ago
My view is that national elections are unpredictable enough, and the stakes are so high, that Dems are unwise to not pay the table-stakes to have credible candidates to take advantage of unpredictable events.
At various times in the last six years, the margins in the Senate have been determined by the success of Democratic Senators who won in:
Alabama
Georgia
West Virginia
Montana
North Dakota
Etc
The sensible thing would have been to tell Jones, Heitkamp, etc. "Don't bother, your state is too red." But strange conditions emerged and they were able to take advantage of those because they were credible, sufficiently-funded candidates.
It's especially worthwhile to remember that the media markets in places like MT or ND are extremely cheep, whereas a campaign in TX or GA is very expensive.
117
u/jaytehman 25d ago
From a normative perspective, every candidate should have a 50 state strategy. I've lived in Alabama before, as a democrat. It's not a great state to be a democrat, but when the opportunity arrises, it's important to have an infrastructure. That's how Doug Jones won in Alabama, albeit against an absolutely despicable candidate whose party abandoned him.
37
u/way2lazy2care 25d ago
I think people also forget that there are people with different values in the states you do care about too. Campaigning in a given state doesn't mean the impact is limited to that state, and at least in my case I like knowing that my president cares about all the states not just the ones they need to win the election.
252
u/dpforest 25d ago edited 24d ago
As a Georgian democrat, it’s frustrating to see candidates just completely ignore our rural areas. Stacey Abrams came in 2018. She asked me about my mental health and my lack of health insurance and we talked about that for a bit. Stacy knew she was going to lose my county, but she still showed up. Still lost by a landslide but I can say firsthand paying more attention to this area worked very well.
Edit: to clarify, she lost by a landslide in my county is what I meant. But she still won a lot of votes.
Edit again: as per my comment below this one, I was half asleep and should not have used the word “ever”. I’ve removed that sentence until I can get a more accurate date, but i for sure know it was the most dem votes in decades.
29
u/ImInOverMyHead95 24d ago
This. I remember Obama poignantly saying a couple days after the 2016 election “I won Iowa not because of the demographics of that state but because I was at every fish fry and county fair so I lost certain areas by 20 points instead of 50 points and that all adds up.”
8
u/sabinmightyfist 24d ago
Margins matter. Any improvement Democrats can get in rural areas improve their chances significantly
39
u/whenyoucantthinkof 25d ago
I wouldn’t say she lost by that big of a landslide. However, it’s nice to see Stacey Abrams working her incredible election magic.
71
u/dpforest 25d ago edited 24d ago
I meant for my county. It was like 80% kemp voters. She got 20% of my county’s vote, which is the highest number of votes any democrat has got here in decades. Doesn’t seem like much but it’s a big deal for this county.
Edit: Sorry folks, was half asleep when I wrote this comment. I should not have used the word “ever”. I’m still researching the last time someone got that many dem votes here but I know it’s been decades. Will come back later with an accurate date (hopefully).
20
u/kittenpantzen 25d ago
Every county counts in a statewide race. It's good to see candidates that recognize that.
30
u/whenyoucantthinkof 25d ago
But she was able to secure extra votes which helped her out in total vote count, it also helps Democrats in rural areas have a more open voice in the future, so I actually see this as a net positive.
11
u/droid_mike 24d ago
That's what Obama did in 2012. 8k the swing states like Ohio, the campaign would send volunteers to find sometimes as few as two or three Democratic voters in blood red areas Just to try to secure their vote. It took a lot of resources, but it worked.
0
u/Lemonface 25d ago
Wait I'm confused, you've gotta be mistaken here. Georgia was one of the most solidly democratic states in the country for over a century...
As recently as 1986, democrats won literally every single county in the Georgia governor's race.
Between 1880 and 1962, every single county was won by a Democrat in every single governor's race...
Are you talking about sheer number of votes rather than percent? Or are you framing "ever" to be just the last 20 years?
7
u/dpforest 24d ago
I can see how that was confusing, my apologies. I was almost asleep when i wrote it and am on the way to work now so I’ll have to come back later and edit my comment.
13
u/tomanonimos 25d ago
Are you really arguing the Democrats that supported segregation are the same Democrats today? lmfao.
2
-1
u/APrioriGoof 25d ago
The “party switch” narrative is really overrated. The parties “switched” on civil rights for black people and not much else. And even then, you know. The parties are not as different from their positions in the 1920’s as some folks would like to make out.
8
u/Tarantio 24d ago
The parties switched on civil rights for black people and not much else because it wasn't the whole parties that switched.
Former Southern Democrats suddenly favored cutting taxes for the wealthy and anti-union legislation, because racial politics was always the primary driver of their loyalty.
It could be argued that the Dixiecrat switch also followed limited government as it moved between parties, but it may be more accurate to see both parties as having abandoned limited government when both business interests and the general public wanted more federal intervention, and then the republican party followed the desires of business as advocated for less regulation over greater direct support.
5
u/droid_mike 24d ago
Southern Dixiecrats were always anti-union. It's because of them that we have the taft-hartley law. They helped Republicans override Truman's veto.
3
u/Tarantio 24d ago
Thanks, you're absolutely right about that. Unions were weak in the south, and they didn't want black workers to gain any more power through unionizing.
Is there a better example of positions that changed as southern democrats switched parties?
2
u/dpforest 24d ago
I just wanted to jump in (OC of this comment chain) and say I did not word my comment correctly but am trying to get ready for work so I’ll have to edit it later.
2
u/tomanonimos 24d ago
The technicality may be the same but politically and effectively they're not the same. The "party switch" is appropriate and not overrated. Especially in the context of Lemonface's comment
2
u/Lemonface 24d ago
My comment had nothing to do with party polices, so the party "switch" isn't relevant to my comment at all lol
I'd also recommend framing what you're calling the "switch" a realignment instead, because most people/ political demographics did not just switch parties. Your comments will attract less argument and will be more accurate if your call it what it was.
7
u/Living-Complex-1368 25d ago
They are talking about real Democrats, not Southern Democrats. The pseudo Democrats who voted with Republicans and left the party because LBJ made it harder to be racist are Republicans now, but really didn't change politically.
Republicans under Nixon were happy to embrace the racists and now the party is dominated by them.
16
u/sailorbrendan 25d ago
the dixiecrats didn't "vote with republicans" and then become repubicans.
The political map in the mid 20th century was much more regional rather than national and you could make a fair argument that it was a 4 party system crammed into a two party system.
5
u/Lemonface 24d ago
A lot of dixiecrats very much did vote with republicans, at least in opposition to New Deal and other liberal legislation.
Look up the conservative coalition that dominated congress from 1937-1963
7
u/sailorbrendan 24d ago
Sure, but then you also find a fair number of northern republicans voting alongside northern democrats with some frequency.
I'm not saying the dixiecrats weren't conservative. I'm just saying it wasn't as polarized at the national level as it is today, and so the game was very different
5
u/Lemonface 24d ago
Totally agree, with the caveat that I think it was actually more polarized than today, just a lot less partisan than today.
4
u/sailorbrendan 24d ago
I think that's probably a fair distinction. I woke up at 330 am and am admittedly not firing on all cylinders yet.
It really just comes down to the fact that the political map was a lot more complicated. In the 50's political science folks were worried because party politics wasn't differentiated enough at a national level.
What a quaint concern
4
u/Call_Me_Clark 24d ago edited 24d ago
Exactly - and if you look at the votes for the civil rights act, a higher percentage of republicans voted for it than democrats(~80/20), but more democrats voted for it in total as they were the majority party (~60/40)
Also worth looking at the elections past the 60’s and into the 70’s and 80’s - the south was still a democratic stronghold.
“Not real democrats” doesn’t really capture what’s going on here, any more than “not real republicans” captures the 80% of congressional republicans who voted for the civil rights act.
3
u/sailorbrendan 24d ago
we really want simple stories to tell but they're not usually correct
5
u/Call_Me_Clark 24d ago edited 24d ago
Yep - and I’m not here to tell anyone that blue is red and conservatives are really progressive or any nuance like that. I’m firmly on the side of progress here.
But it really boils my biscuits when people treat the complex and fantastically interesting political history of our country as if it was harry potter with the bad guys all clearly marked. History gives us very, very few mustache-twirling villains who consider themselves unironically evil - in fact, most people who commit evil acts have a reason which is not the same as absolving them by any means.
Because if you only believe in white-hatted heroes and black-hearted villains, then the historical fact that for just one example, the heroic general Sherman fought for the preservation of the union and the freedom of slaves but also committed genocide against native Americans following the war… that won’t compute for you, and depending on your perspective you’ll just ignore one rather than learning how someone could believe such inconsistent actions were consistent.
That’s where the “party switch” thing comes in - so many people treat as a convenient club that says nothing more than “democrats are the good guys now, but the good guys and bad guys switched names a while back.” And that’s such a fantastically shallow description of what actually happened that it’s not much better than saying, I don’t know, “Mitch McConnell marched with MLK (which is actually true) so he’s actually not racist and never has been.”
1
u/Living-Complex-1368 24d ago
Tell me that Rockefeller Republicans are still welcome in the party...go on.
Liberal Republicans became Democrats, Conservative Democrats became Republicans.
Anyone to the right enough to be accepted as a Southern Democrat in 1959 would be a Republican today. Anyone to the left enough to be a Rockefeller Republican in 1959 would be a Democrat today.
Conservatives were pro-monarchy in 1776, pro-slavery in 1860, and pro-Jim Crow in 1960.I understand the disinformation of saying "but look at what party it was" as though parties never change, as though they don't evolve. As if the liberal abolitionist party can't eventually decide to take in the racists and kick out the folks who push for equality because the political calculus gives them power.
→ More replies2
u/APrioriGoof 25d ago
Absolutely gonna start yelling at people on here to read theory. By which I mean please at least read Master of the Senate about LBJ
0
u/Serinus 25d ago
1986 was 35 years ago.
And you're aware the parties flipped.
→ More replies3
u/Lemonface 24d ago
The parties did not just flip, that would be a ridiculous oversimplification
There was a major realignment on many issues, namely civil rights.
Regardless - that has nothing to do with what I said lol
2
u/Djinnwrath 24d ago
It's so sad that something as simple as, actually campaiging, just going around and listening to people and then acting on it, is magic now.
2
u/AgoraiosBum 23d ago
This is actually critical; if the average candidate loses in the rural areas 80 to 20 and the "investment" candidate makes that 65-35 and holds all other numbers the same, that can lead to a win if the city and suburb numbers are good enough.
Obama lost rural areas too, but Hillary lost them by much more, and it made all the difference.
16
u/rationalcommenter 25d ago edited 25d ago
Mate, democrat policies are quintessentially at odds with rural areas.
Right wingers are ‘hands off’ because when you have a rural or barren area your first priority is getting people to move there. The freedom to do whatever without zoning, ordinances, or reoccurring municipal bills is the draw.
When you develop into a metropolitan area—you have other benefits that compensate for the surface level drop in ‘freedoms’. People living really close to each other is a boon to any logistics position. Public Transit, healthcare (hospitals), shipping goods—all of these things exist to both solve problems that arise and give a benefit to urban communities that you can’t get in rural areas due to the cost. For example, fiber optic cable—really expensive if you have 1 person per square mile. Really ‘cheap’ if you have 800+ per square mile.
You want a flat rate for health insurance premiums/a flat fee to see a healthcare professional? You need a ton of people going in and out of an institution every single day. Since only some variable x% of the population is ever affected with some disorder or disease in some year and at some point in time, you need to make total payments equal to xpopulation#fee=doctor’s annual salary.
And that’s just to play ball with attracting doctors to your area.
13
u/captain-burrito 24d ago
In some countries, urban and rural vote for the same party and block. It's possible. Look at the legacy rural votes for democrats. Why did that happen? Democrats paid for infrastructure for them.
People are voting more based on identity now and policy second.
0
u/rationalcommenter 24d ago edited 24d ago
Yeah, and the end reality of it was that the infrastructure we promised them was an unsustainable policy going forward. Infrastructure policy in rural areas is fundamentally pointless unless you intend specifically for that rural area to become a dense metro—in which case you would not be building highways, but rather rail lines.
All the rural areas that truly benefited from our prior infrastructure deals are now urban. There’s no point to doing it again because the first round was to test the waters—that maybe free enterprise would etch out some niche we couldn’t foresee; however, most of inland USA is just a logistics nightmare. You have to ship via aged rail lines or use large trucks to drive from ports to hubs. Now, you could make the argument that we should improve those rail lines and that the highway interstate system is really useful, but you still have to ask to what end do you intend to keep up infrastructure bids when the states with predominately rural counties can’t generate enough tax revenue to fix their own infrastructure?
Most of the US was aptly dubbed “The Great American Desert” for good reason.
33
u/adidasbdd 25d ago
Honestly, democratic policies are quite popular even among republicans. Its the party and the politicians that get smeared and lose the vote. If the votes were purely on policy, there would be no republican party.
9
u/semaphore-1842 24d ago
I wish that were true, but it isn't. Poll numbers for policies are famously unreliable. You can produce any kind of outcome depending on how you ask the question. Because most policies have vaguely upbeat, positive names and most voters don't pay enough attention to politics to know the details.
That's why when partisan messaging campaigns start up, public opinion will seemingly turn on a dime.
7
u/rationalcommenter 25d ago
I’m sure somebody living in a rural area would really love all the amenities and policies that you’d see in a metropolitan area, but the fact remains there’s a material aspect to the policies in the first place.
Consider a sliding scale of civilization.
You have the height of urban development on one end and a guy living in the woods on the other. Promising the guy in the woods that they can get the same level of healthcare and responsiveness as a metropolitan citizen is a lie.
3
u/adidasbdd 25d ago
I'm not even talking about amenities. Just basic national party platform stuff. If it was a vote on platforms, there wouldn't even be a gop.
5
u/rationalcommenter 25d ago
The platforms guarantee the amenities.
Low taxes > incentive to move to that area
Higher taxes > ensure the amenities
Etc. etc. you can even relate prolife versus prochoice in this way. Prolife relates to the material need to generate wealth. Rural areas would benefit mostly by increases to the size of the labor force. Metropolitan areas tamper population growth because they’re mainly service sector based economies.
Nationalized internet and municipalities make sense when you have a city right there. But in a rural area it’s a huge toss up.
At times dem policies could just ensure nobody ever develops some area indefinitely. A national minimum wage had some modicum of negative influence on certain budding manufacturing towns in the US after all.
2
u/droid_mike 24d ago
"The freedom to do whatever without zoning, ordinances, or reoccurring municipal bills is the draw."
Pennsylvania build housing developments with extremely restrictive HOAs. That seems to undercut your argument.
1
u/rationalcommenter 24d ago
Yeah, and it’s a bad policy to do that when your priority should be to get people to move there first.
This is literally validation for my argument. Centralized planning and top down oversight doesn’t work in rural areas. There’s an order to these things. Step one is get people there. If that’s assured, then you can go onto planning.
4
-2
u/SwimsDeep 25d ago
The main success of a 50 State strategy is to mobilize democrats to actually show up and vote. With the continuing shift in demographics, entire states are much more polarized. The divisions in this country geographically are as profound as during the Civil War.
The South and Midwest are virtually completely Red. It is getting more and more difficult to live in a State that doesn’t share one’s political outlook.
9
u/34TE 24d ago
The divisions in this country geographically are as profound as during the Civil War.
They absolutely are not. From the nation's founding until the civil war, there were constant real threats of succession from states in both the north and the south.
Despite some sensationalized sources, there is not an appetite for civil conflict amongst the vast majority of Americans, despite their political differences. Pre-Civil War politics in this nation were almost medieval or barbaric compared to our current political affairs.
0
u/SwimsDeep 24d ago
You misread. I didn’t say we were nearing civil war—I compared the GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS to that time in our country. Look at a election map. The country is split politically by region and deepening. Nobody said anything about the verge of civil war.
22
u/yesiwouldkent 25d ago
100% is a great idea. No state is an island (except Hawaii) gaining votes in Missouri will help fortify Wisconsin and perhaps win Iowa. As the voter demographics and profiles are similar. Gaining votes in Wyoming may help you win Montana. This also helps with house races and state legislatures
11
u/oath2order 25d ago
No state is an island (except Hawaii)
Well maybe Alaska as well. Not in the literal sense but in the sense that it's not part of CONUS.
4
23
u/CCHistProfWest 25d ago
It's good PR but historically it backfires. Most famously, Richard Nixon in 1960 pledged and followed through to visit all 50 states, including brand-new Hawaii.
While Nixon was in foregone conclusion states, JFK out-hustled him in the swing states.
More recently, Beto O'Rourke did an all-county pledge in Texas 2018, and there was some critique that his visits to where Democrats are not popular actually REDUCED his vote in those counties. Instead he should have focused on where there was room for him to grow.
18
u/droid_mike 24d ago
That's different than the 50 states strategy. The 50 states strategy is to make sure that there's candidates resources and infrastructure to both improve vote totals and get surprise candidates elected to smaller offices.
5
u/CCHistProfWest 24d ago
I'd say the big red states is where this has really hurt Democrats. Particularly Texas.
3
12
u/captain-burrito 24d ago
Interestingly, around 30 states back in the JFK race were within 5% margins.
112
u/oath2order 25d ago
I feel like it wouldn't even be worth making an effort for the Democrats, at the moment. The Democrats just took back both chambers of Congress and the White House. They control a minority of state legislatures, and a minority of governorships. I think they absolutely need to focus on rebuilding their brand in their former Blue Wall states, and instead of playing "can we win Indiana", they need to focus on taking purple states and continuing their base.
Spend money in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, and much to my chagrin, Florida (though this comes with a caveat of "good lord the national party needs to take over the state party and fucking fix it"). If there's money to spare, continuing solidifying New Hampshire and Minnesota, and if you want to grow, Texas.
I just don't think it's worth trying to invest in some of these red states at the moment when the Democrats have such a tenuous grip on power. Maintain the base, and then work on growth.
17
u/34TE 24d ago
Abandoning areas the democrats might find "hopeless" is how we got into this mess.
The GOP is running their candidates everywhere, in every election, regardless of how "blue" the area is. If nothing else, this helps spread and fortify their messaging across the whole nation.
Large swaths of this nation truly believe democrats are just commies trying to destroy American, because the only Democratic messaging they receive is a perverted version through right wing media outlets.
People like Jon Tester, or Sherrod Brown, these people are actually appealing to "conservative" voters because they come from those areas and understanding how to deliver the messaging to them. I promise you there are more people out there capable of being democratic representation from rural areas.
72
u/YamSad3324 25d ago
Democrats ran competitive governor’s races in Mississippi and South Dakota in just the last 2.5 years. They won in Louisiana, Kentucky and Kansas. They won the Senate in West Virginia, Montana and Alabama. They should invest in all states so that the infrastructure is there when an unexpected situation arises.
33
u/oath2order 25d ago
I don't know how to explain South Dakota or Mississippi.
West Virginia and Montana had incumbent advantage in a blue wave year. Alabama a Democrat against a pedophile.
I'm not saying drop these states entirely. I'm saying focus elsewhere.
16
u/stt2m 25d ago
Jim Hood (the Democratic candidate in the 2019 Mississippi gubernatorial election) is basically a centrist Democrat in the same vein as Joe Manchin or John Bel Edwards. He’s pro-gun and pro-life. That’s how he was able to give Tate Reeves a run for his money.
4
u/whenyoucantthinkof 25d ago
Do you think that had Democrats invested infrastructure beforehand, he would have won?
6
u/captain-burrito 24d ago
He lost by around 5%. He can't win by simply winning a slim majority. He has to win by a clear majority because MS still had that Jim Crow electoral college system whereby statewide executive races need to be won by a majority of the popular vote but also a majority of the house districts. I think if neither win a majority (due to third parties) the state house decides.
I think we all know how this story ends. Jim Hood had won AG before several times but his margins were clear majorities, however they've been whittled down every cycle.
That relic was repealed in 2020. TX republicans want to instate such a system now as per their state party platform.
MS could be somewhere to invest in but a tier below AZ, GA & TX. They are bleeding support faster than demographic change is helping them in MS.
13
u/YamSad3324 25d ago
Obviously each state was won due to unique circumstances. But Democrats need to have the infrastructure in place to be able to take advantage of it. And they can focus on both at once. It really doesn’t cost that much to throw some $$$ to low-populated states like MS, KS and SD. I believe the combined population is 4m, or half of NYC’s population
5
u/tomanonimos 25d ago
But Democrats need to have the infrastructure in place to be able to take advantage of it.
Democrats do have the infrastructure in place. The framework. I think you're advocating infrastructure in personnel (i.e. candidates, native volunteers at the ready, documentation for meet-and-greet events, etc.). That requires a lot of resources which provides a return equal to winning a gamble.
2
u/oath2order 25d ago
But the problem is "why spend extra money in MS when we can continue shoring up Rust Belt support and maintaining our tenuous grip instead of spending money on a gamble".
2
u/shockopod 24d ago
The problem is it isn't either-or. $$ in one place don't transfer 1:1 to somewhere else. And if a place gets too little support it tends to be really hard to get going again.
It's much more like a national brand and spending money on advertising. Pepsi would never go "oh, we keep losing the market in Mississippi to Coke and RC so let's just not spend money there.
25
u/Apracadapra 25d ago
Alabama a Democrat against a pedophile.
And still closer than anyone would hope, I might add.
6
u/oath2order 25d ago
They won in Kentucky because blue wave, the Beshear family is popular, and the previous governor fucked up by pissing off teachers, which was apparently enough to help Beshear.
→ More replies12
u/weealex 25d ago
Kansas has a habit of swapping the governor's house party but the state legislature is never in question. The only way for Democrats to actually make inroads in the state is for 60% of the population to die of covid.
5
u/None-Of-You-Are-Real 25d ago
If virtually any other Republican had won the primary than Kris Kobach, Kansas would probably have a Republican governor right now. Instead they got Laura Kelly, and thus a Democrat in charge of leading the state's handling of COVID. If she drives home over and over and over again just how much worse the state's response to COVID would have been if a Republican had won, she might just win a second term.
2
u/baycommuter 25d ago
Kansas is about the most Republican state. The main issue when the Republican Party was formed was whether Kansas Territory would be slave or free. It became very Republican when that was the liberal, anti slavery party. It stayed very Republican when that became the Conservative party. Its arch rival Missouri switched sides but never Kansas.
10
u/TheFlawlessCassandra 25d ago
Kansas is about the most Republican state.
It's a solid red state but "most Republican" is maybe pushing it a bit. It's a simplistic metric but just by Biden's vote % Kansas was 8th highest out of 25 states that went for Trump. Kansas is closer to swing states like NC or Arizona than it is to the true ruby red states like Oklahoma, Wyoming, Idaho, and a few others.
3
3
u/Clear_Percentage8097 24d ago
Kansas shifted really left this past election, by around 6-7 points. It's the first time in a century that it voted to the left of Missouri.
Kansas is more educated than its other Midwestern neighbors, and with dem gains in the suburbs, it should be within play in a decade or so
4
u/adidasbdd 25d ago
They need more local and state positions. They need to spend money there as well
2
u/calumin 25d ago
I don’t think it works to say to invest in Red States later when we have a better chance of winning there. You have to keep at it so that when you get an opening you can capitalize. Otherwise you give them up for another generation.
Also there are a lot of races in these states, including state seats, governorships, and local races. Democrats need to represented up and down the ticket.
58
u/Atrocious_1 25d ago
Well, look at 2016, where Hillary essentially ignored several states, never considering them as part of the election strategy.
As close as these elections are becoming, it seems necessary to have a 50 state strategy, and not take for granted certain states are "safe".
28
u/Apprentice57 25d ago
Which was bad for optics but not responsible for her loss. She didn't ignore Pennsylvania and lost anyway.
15
u/Atrocious_1 25d ago
I live in Pennsylvania. She wasn't here that much and saw zero ads.
Coupled with the fact the Clintons are still hated here because of NAFTA, she had little chance of winning. Same played out in other rustbelt states.
31
u/Apprentice57 25d ago
She didn't advertise much, but she visited extensively. Tied for the most.
17
u/Atrocious_1 25d ago
Yes. Mostly in Philly and Pittsburgh. Doubling down on the usual Democrat strategy of focusing on those two core areas while ignoring everything else.
Trump, meanwhile, mobilized the rural areas and small cities that dot the state. These are the places that carried him.
Truth be told, there just wasn't much enthusiasm here for her. Less than Sanders, and far less than Obama and Biden. There wasn't even much enthusiasm in the larger cities.
She may have had a better platform and policies. But enthusiasm is what gets voters to polls. The only way to do this is by a 50 state strategy.
19
u/Apprentice57 25d ago
...which is where the people are. The point is that Clinton didn't lose the upper midwest in 2016 because she ignored the states (aside from Pennsylvania).
I'm also not necessarily arguing against a 50 state strategy. It's good downballot.
5
u/Atrocious_1 25d ago
Yes. And you can see how the comparisons between 2012, 2016, and 2020 are here played out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania
Clinton didn't even get much support in the western suburbs. There were other counties she lost compared to Obama in 2012. She really only did marginally better here than Mitt Romney, a thoroughly unlikable creep.
This illustrates my larger point that these elections are becoming more and more pitched in an increasingly polarized landscape. Without having a 50 state, and shown here a full state, strategy can quickly play to a candidate's detriment.
The only way this won't be the reality is if we do away with the electoral college. Then you can focus on the larger areas and win via popular vote. But i think there's a bigger chance of ending the filibuster than getting rid of the electoral college.
9
u/Apprentice57 25d ago edited 25d ago
I feel that you're talking past me. I'm making a limited point about how 2016 wasn't a failed strategy on the presidential scale by the Dems. With Pennsylvania compared to Michigan/Wisconsin as an example about campaigning.
1
u/Atrocious_1 25d ago
Ok then. What's your explanation that Hillary lost? Is Trump the better candidate?
4
u/Apprentice57 25d ago edited 25d ago
2016 provides a natural experiment: Pennsylvania is a substantially similar state in demographics and geography to Wisconsin and Michigan. Clinton campaigned quite a lot in Pennsylvania and didn't in the latter two. She lost all three. That implies the campaigning made little difference to the outcome.
I have my thoughts as to why she lost overall but I don't wish to expand the conversation there because it's orthogonal.
On the point of why campaigning might not be significant at the presidential level: This isn't the 1900s where ground game might make substantial inroads as otherwise you must rely on print/radio/television. Most people now have the internet and there's a 24/7 news cycle, people are going to make up their mind on big ticket races on their own. It's important to campaign widely for optics nationally, but won't sway any specific state/region just by visiting there.
That argument is flipped downballot, especially for state legislature races and down. In those races campaigning might very much help reach people who don't know about the race, or might not go out to vote in the first place.
-1
u/rationalcommenter 25d ago edited 25d ago
The national popular vote interstate compact is the only way that’s happening—and if you’re attentive, you’ll see that it eliminates the electoral college once the GOP has practically lost their last red state and fallen into political irrelevancy. It rubber stamps “THE GOP HAS LOST” onto our political landscape.
At the end of the day, I gotta just tout the chomsky line of reasoning. Democratic institutions are a formality of moving past representative governments. Any major legislation merely serves to consolidate the attitudes and opinions of the time. Banking on the electoral college going away is foolish because the electoral college going away means the non-reactionaries have won and can take a big leap forward—shunning them entirely. It’s the finish line.
Consider slavery as an institution. You can’t democratically move your slaver society away from slavery. Slavery as an institution disappeared once the institution became unsustainable. So once there were enough slave uprisings because slavers breed slaves to save money and the non-slavers sufficiently advanced technologically, slavery ended. And the take away from this is you can’t just have more people. You have to win by an order of magnitude greater than the opposition. It’s unfair and exhausting, but that’s how it works. We’re arresting power from the GOP and we have to win by an order of magnitude.
Edit:
So that’s why the game plan is to focus on purple states in budding metropolitan areas. Those are the primary drivers of dem political affiliation because that’s what they can actually influence.
→ More replies9
u/TheFlawlessCassandra 25d ago edited 25d ago
Modern elections are about turnout more than anything else. Trump went where his base was, Clinton went where her base was. Clinton going to rural towns to have a scant audience and/or get booed wasn't going to win her anything in PA or anywhere else.
Truth be told, there just wasn't much enthusiasm here for her. Less than Sanders
She beat Sanders by double digits in the primary. However you're measuring "enthusiasm" it clearly doesn't directly translate to votes.
The only way to do this is by a 50 state strategy.
I'm not sure how campaigning in Wyoming or Alaska was supposed to help Clinton more in Pennsylvania or Michigan than actually campaigning in Pennsylvania or Michigan, but I'm open to hearing your thoughts on why you think that's the case.
In fact, your insistence that the didn't devote enough resources to Pennsylvania -- which was probably on net her 2nd most heavily campaigned in state after Florida -- would indicate that you think she needed to do the exact opposite of a 50 state strategy and pull even more resources out of "safe" and "reach" states to really lock down the "blue wall" with states like PA.
1
u/Apprentice57 25d ago
Modern elections are about turnout more than anything else.
This is a digression but, it's always both. Honestly if I have to give the tiebreaker between turnout and persuasion... I'd go persuasion.
Persuasion takes an existing voter and has them vote otherwise. Often from R->D or D->R, already that's a two vote swing instead of a one vote swing like turnout. Biden was able to win the upper midwest swing states by persuading voters in the suburbs to switch R->D. In some states he persuaded exurb and rural voters a little that he was better than Clinton (for ex: in PA and MN but not OH).
Turnout is still very important, and has to be done in conjunction with the above. Had Dems not pushed turnout there would've been a GOP wave result in 2020 (and vice versa).
7
u/TheFlawlessCassandra 25d ago edited 25d ago
The problem with persuasion as a campaign strategy is that it's impossible to just... achieve. You need both a preexisting environment amicable to that (now more than ever with how polarized the country is) and a strong message and earned media strategy. Obama didn't just "persuade" voters in traditionally red states by running a bunch of ads there and giving speeches: the GOP brand was in the toilet due to Iraq and the recession and he was able to successfully tie McCain to Bush's policies (McCain made that part pretty easy, tbqh) and set himself up with an optimistic message for the future. Trump didn't win a lot of those voters back just by giving rallies; declining industrial cores that didn't rebound post-recession as the U.S. continued shifting to a service-sector economy were primed to hear his messaging about how everything was the fault of illegal immigrants from NAFTA and he was the only one who could get them their jobs back, while Clinton told them to their faces that coal was dead and never coming back.
Then Biden turned around and won a lot of those guys back because... Trump didn't get the jobs back. Also Biden did great with seniors because Trump said he didn't care if they died from COVID as long as, you know, the economy, and Biden made gains with military voters because Trump called them suckers and losers and whatnot. Trump gained ground in some areas, such as latinos (particularly Cuban-Americans), largely due to Biden being tied to pro-socialism messaging from other Democratic candidates.
If you don't have that favorable national environment and coherent strategy tactical resource allegation geared towards persuasion is just shouting into the wind. Clinton made major appeals towards more establishment, GWB Republican types about how Trump was a national security menace who couldn't be trusted with nuclear launch codes and would be catastrophically dangerous as soon as he was faced with an armed conflict or major natural disaster (or global pandemic). She managed to convince a WSJ columnist or two and that was it. Wasted resources at the end of the day; someone on her team should have made it clear to her that voters don't care about foreign policy until and unless there are photos in the newspaper of coffins with American flags on them (which is what killed the GOP in 2006 and 2008 and arguably played a role against Clinton herself in 2016 with Benghazi).
And even when it works persuasion has a dark side: ticket splitting. If a lifelong Republican is disenchanted with Trump and waffling between voting for him again or maybe just staying home, and you successfully reach out and convince him to vote for Biden, that's great, either +1 or +2 votes depending on whether he was going to stay home or not... but if he checks every R downballot you're suddenly in a worse position than if you'd just made a few extra phone calls and connected with a couple of college kids who 100% agreed with your party's policies and already told you a week ago they planned to vote for your guy, but accidentally had their ballot mailed to their parents, and needed someone to explain to them how to request a new ballot or vote provisionally or whatever.
Obviously a great campaign is going to find the opportunity and resources to do both but sometimes you have to make tough decisions and going hardcore into GOTV is something. Clinton going hard in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh instead of visiting small rural towns in PA to win over hearts and minds was probably the right call. Yes, she lost but I think she'd have lost by more if she wasted time and money doing that (and maybe cost the Dems another Senate seat or something in the process, though not in PA specifically). There are certainly other mistakes her campaign made (and, I would argue, even more things that were out of her control, or that couldn't have been reasonably foreseen, that made the national environment a lot more difficult for her than most people are willing to give her credit for), but I don't think they're really relevant to the broader question here about "50 state" strategies or tactical resource allocations.
2
u/kenlubin 21d ago
Did Biden actually win those guys back? My understanding is that the Obama-Trump voters stuck with Trump in 2020. That category of fiscally liberal, socially conservative, motivated by racial resentment, authoritarian voter is the core of Trump's support, regardless of which party they supported in 2012.
Instead, Biden made the gains with suburban voters that Hillary was targeting in 2016. She was unable to persuade them that Trump was unacceptable in time for the 2016 election, but four years of Trump did the trick.
-1
u/Apprentice57 25d ago
I agree that persuasion is difficult, but again it's worth (almost) twice turnout. Both Obama and Biden won in part due to persuasion. And yes they both won because of the failure of their opponents, but that was part of their plan too. Biden in particular went after those groups he knew were sidelined by Trump.
Most of this I don't disagree with, I just think the conclusion drawn from this is too strong. Turnout matters, and matters more than it used to in the less polarized 20th century, but it doesn't dominate our elections.
And even when it works persuasion has a dark side: ticket splitting.
It's not a dark side, it's a lost opportunity. If someone decides to vote Biden but all R downballot who otherwise would've voted all R that's still a net good (for the democrats). I think you're assuming that you have to go for either turnout or persuasion but clearly 2020 shows that you don't. Democrats went for both and succeeded on both (Republicans also succeeded on turnout, to the Democrat's chagrin, but also lost on persuasion).
Clinton going hard in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh instead of visiting small rural towns in PA to win over hearts and minds was probably the right call.
I don't disagree, I just think going to visiting rural towns doesn't win over hearts and minds in the first place. You can look over this thread to see my other comments calling out OP for exactly this.
Oh also:
Trump gained ground in some areas, such as latinos (particularly Cuban-Americans), largely due to Biden being tied to pro-socialism messaging from other Democratic candidates.
Not necessarily. One hypothesis is that Trump gained in part as an incumbency bonus with a good economy (even with covid involved). Though I do think the socialism message was part of it for Cubanos, less so for Tejanos.
2
u/TheFlawlessCassandra 25d ago
Yeah, I think our disagreements are more just a matter of degrees than any foundational rift. Good discussion at any rate, thanks :)
2
u/FourForYouGlennCoco 24d ago
Re ticket splitting, it can be genuinely damaging if you convince someone who was too demoralized to vote at all to vote for you, but also the other party downballot. Democrats did underperform expectations in the Senate in 2020, and some amount of that must be due to ticket splitting considering we have states (like Maine) that voted for Biden but sent a Republican to the Senate. How much of that is due to Biden’s strategy vs the Republicans in that state having a distinct brand is up for debate. But I think you can find a strain of “Trump is uniquely bad, unlike other Republicans” in Biden’s messaging, which is effectively encouraging voters to ticket split.
→ More replies2
u/whenyoucantthinkof 25d ago
I laughed when it said she visited Ohio the most but lost by a 8 point margin.
5
u/Apprentice57 25d ago
It's a bid sad of a fact, yeah. Shows you how surprising it was (and is) for Dems to see Ohio shift so much to the right.
3
10
u/TheFlawlessCassandra 25d ago
I live in Pennsylvania. She wasn't here that much and saw zero ads.
PA was literally her most visited state and her 4th most heavily advertised state.
Coupled with the fact the Clintons are still hated here because of NAFTA, she had little chance of winning. Same played out in other rustbelt states.
This is more accurate. Trump told voters what they wanted to hear (before going and pretty much immediately reauthorizing NAFTA with only minor changes once he took office); Clinton told them uncomfortable truths (the benefits of the free trade heavily outweigh the drawbacks, although it can be a tough sell since the benefits are distributed across the entire population and the drawbacks are often very localized and very visible). Pretty easy to see one of them is way better at winning elections.
3
u/docmedic 25d ago
That’s absurd. She was neck and neck with Trump. No Comey letter and she’d easily carry it.
3
1
u/thebsoftelevision 24d ago
She had a pretty good chance of winning... she only lost by less than 1%.
2
u/MathAnalysis 25d ago
To me, that doesn't contradict that only some states are worth worrying about. It just means that Hillary picked the wrong ones.
1
u/Atrocious_1 25d ago
Problem is guessing which states are worth it and which aren't. It's also a useful down ballot measure, and as the current congress is showing, majority there is more important than the presidency
6
u/socialistrob 25d ago
Before we get to whether it would work today we should first ask whether it worked when it was originally implemented. The DNC then, and now, isn’t a huge organization and neither are state parties. Most of the funding and staff comes from candidates raising their own money and then funneling it into the parties to run operations. If resources are to be spread over 50 states from an already small organization that effectively means each state is getting very little.
Sure 2008 was a huge year for Dems but we need to remember that Obama was also an amazing candidate, the white working class support for Democrats was still there in 08 and wouldn’t really start to erode until 2010, Katrina was a fiasco, Iraq was unpopular and of course the recession was a huge deal. Basically of all the things that led to the blue wave in 08 I’m not really sure the 50 state strategy played a huge role. That’s not to say the DNC did nothing, early investments into VAN and neighborhood team model of organizing certainly helped but I don’t think the 50 state strategy really built the wave.
42
u/TrumpForPrison2021 25d ago
A populist could do it. Someone who had a concrete vision for the working class that they could sell effectively. And who could brand themselves as a Change candidate.
4
u/whenyoucantthinkof 25d ago
What about if this strategy was used in the midterms?
12
u/PoliticalNerdMa 25d ago edited 25d ago
It’s hard. Right now biden has not carried out his promises yet , the economic promises are the most important evidence voters would need to come out and vote for Dems. But there always is an excuse why they don’t do something, expecting voters to come out again despite not following through.
Are some of the excuses valid? Yes!
That’s why it’s important to show effort in areas where Democrats have unilateral authority (budget reconciliation and executive orders).
If they show they will try to use their power to fight for people even in the event they lose (over ruling the parliamentarian and including the 15 min wage into the bill), that’s really good evidence for them to pitch a message to voters to come out
-5
u/TrumpForPrison2021 25d ago
Biden’s not going to fight for an increased minimum wage, student loan forgiveness, unemployment extension, universal health care… all the stuff that would make most of our lives better. As a midterm strategy, I don’t think the Dems could do it unless Biden totally pivots towards these policies.
So the GOP is going to keep winning the mediocre white vote with scare tactics and dog whistles. They’re going to win by advocating towards the dark side of populism, since the corporate masters of the Democratic Party won’t allow the Dems to use the power of the light side.
5
u/whenyoucantthinkof 25d ago
Ima progressive myself but let’s say for example we time travel back to the 2016 senate race in Indiana,do you think if Evan Bayh campaigned on progressive politics, would he win?
-2
u/TrumpForPrison2021 25d ago
Yes. If messaged correctly to show the benefits of those policies to the masses. And to question how those policies line up against the status quo.
But more importantly, the groundwork would be laid to make these policies acceptable to future progressive candidates. Because the way the Democrats win elections now, we slide further to the right every couple years. We need a beachhead. These are progressive policies, these work, and start building to win elections with those policies. Otherwise we get what we have here now. And we keep sliding right.
-2
u/mobydog 25d ago
As the wealth gap gets wider, the Dems' decision to obey the donors above all others only makes it appear like it's a slide to the right. They're not sliding that way, that's where they are. The Democrats are never going to shift what they stand for to appeal to the people versus their donors (except to lie about it, i.e. "I can pass a public option immediately, immediately"). Let's not forget that the For The People Act includes language that makes it harder for third parties to raise money. Wonder why.
6
u/unitythrufaith 25d ago
student loan forgiveness does not belong on that list, only like 12% of americans have student debt
3
u/hagy 24d ago
Exactly! I think Biden recognizes that blanket student loan forgiveness would harm our political future because it’s a highly regressive government program with the majority of the benefit going to relatively higher earners. It would be grossly unswise to aggrieve non-college-educated citizens with such major benefits for more affluent citizens. Instead, it would be much better to just give money to financially worse off individuals and allow them to pay off their debts as they see fit. Here are some details from an earlier comment of mine on the highly regressive nature of blanket student loan forgiveness.
I find that this is well explained and quantified in Sandy Baum's book, "Student Debt: Rhetoric and Realities of Higher Education". From her 2016 NPR interview
A third of college students who earn a four-year degree graduate with no debt at all. Zero.
A fourth graduate with debt of no more than $20,000.
Low-income students hold only 11 percent of all outstanding [student] debt.
Almost half of the $1.3 trillion in student loan debt is held by 25 percent of graduates who are actually making a pretty high income.
This is an investment that pays off really well. The median earnings for young bachelor's degree recipients is about $20,000 a year higher than the median earnings for high school graduates.
2019 data confirms that most of this debt is still held by high earners.
The highest-income 40 percent of households (those with incomes above $74,000) owe almost 60 percent of the outstanding education debt and make almost three-quarters of the payments. The lowest-income 40 percent of households hold just under 20 percent of the outstanding debt and make only 10 percent of the payments. It should be no surprise that higher-income households owe more student debt than others. Students from higher-income households are more likely to go to college in the first place. And workers with a college or graduate degree earn substantially more in the labor market than those who never went to college.
Likewise, education debt is concentrated in households with high levels of educational attainment. In 2019, the new Fed data show, households with graduate degrees owed 56 percent of the outstanding education debt—an increase from 49 percent in 2016. For context, only 14 percent of adults age 25 or older hold graduate degrees. The 3 percent of adults with professional and doctorate degrees hold 20 percent of the education debt. These households have median earnings more than twice as high as the overall median ($106,000 vs. $47,000 in 2019).
1
u/captain-burrito 24d ago
Regarding the min wage, I don't understand how they aren't increasing it at all. The $15 was to be phased in so why not go for the first phase like $11 or something, there's probably enough republicans that could go for that. If they can show some progress and tie each incremental increase to trifecta control that would get me to vote.
13
u/Prestigious-Alarm-61 25d ago edited 25d ago
Very true. It could be done with the right candidate.
Of course, the voters cannot do what they did with Howard Dean. They cannot skip the voting and go straight to the victory parties.
9
u/adidasbdd 25d ago
Bernie and Trump had a lot of overlap in their rhetoric and talking points. A lot of the Trump voters would have gone for Bernie, maybe not a lot, but enough.
2
u/bigdinghynumber3 24d ago
This talking point has been debunked several times
6
u/adidasbdd 24d ago
Idk, they were both rhetorically staunch anti war, anti corruption, anti establishment etc. I would like to see thevdebunking, but anecdotally I know several folks who voted for Trump over HRC who would have voted Bernie
-6
u/Yasurvivor 25d ago
Bernie would’ve won 600 electoral votes
19
u/V-ADay2020 25d ago
He would've also immediately unveiled a working fusion reactor design and a Star Trek replicator.
Since we're clearly just stating impossible fantasies now.
→ More replies2
u/captain-burrito 24d ago
I think he likely wouldn't have done worse than HRC. He may not have lost all 3 of WI, MI & PA. If he kept all 3 he would have won. I don't see any landslide.
-1
u/Lemonface 25d ago
Bernie would have crushed Trump in 2016 had he gotten the nomination
Bernie would have been crushed by Trump in 2020 had he gotten the nomination
2
u/aarongamemaster 24d ago
Not really, we've got actual freaking evidence that Trump was backed by Russia. Literal evidence (although, much of it blacked out due to then-and-now still ongoing court cases) that Russia was backing Trump to the hilt.
If Sanders won the nomination (oh extremely fat chance of that happening, without the Super Delegates getting involved), Putin will just publish whatever information that the KGB had of him via Wikileaks (which is a Russian Collaborator).
4
u/Call_Me_Clark 24d ago
Yep - Bernie spent a long time hanging out around actual communists… even if there’s no wrongdoing there, it’s still not a good look.
2
u/aarongamemaster 24d ago
Remember, most of our intelligence words are loan-words from Russia. There is likely a file in what used to be the KGB all about him like they have one for Trump.
2
u/Call_Me_Clark 24d ago
They would have to be incompetent not to.
1
u/aarongamemaster 24d ago
Combine that with their memetic weapon deployment and 2016 doesn't look all that impossible.
-14
u/mobydog 25d ago
You mean like the guy that the Dems had to sideline by rushing Biden to the front of the pack?
7
u/Tooth_Worm 25d ago
It’s been over a year now why are we still on this type of primary bs? Biden got more votes. Simple as that. Bernie didn’t get “sidelined” - he won 2 out of first 3 primary elections then got swamped by Biden in Super Tuesday and afterwards.
12
u/monkeybiziu 25d ago
Yes. In fact, if you're leading the DNC and you don't have a fifty state strategy, then I'm not sure what exactly you're doing.
There are Democrats in Idaho and Alabama and Mississippi and Kentucky and Arkansas and West Virginia and everywhere else that have been seemingly written off. They have different values and priorities than Democrats in LA, San Francisco, NYC, Chicago, etc.
Elections aren't just the Presidency, or control of the House and Senate. They're mayors, governors, and state legislators too, that are too often ignored by national parties because they don't get results. Well, it's hard to get results when you're chronically underfunded and understaffed.
The legislator that gets elected today becomes a House member or Senator tomorrow, and a governor or the President after that. But they never achieve that if they never win.
6
u/DisastrousBarnacle60 24d ago
For the DNC, elections are just the presidency. I know it confuses a lot of people, because DNC seems similar to GOP, but the DNC is a fairly small organization whose main function is organizing the primary debates. That’s about it. They are not synonymous with “the Democratic Party”, and they don’t get involved with any races below the presidential level. For the senate and house there are other groups, the DSCC and the DHCC, that perform similar functions.
The head of the DNC has very little power and not that much money to play with, so it’s always been a little puzzling to me what the “50 state strategy” was even supposed to be.
3
u/donutholster 25d ago
It would improve some things, but overall it wouldn't work for the time, effort, and money put into it.
3
u/Unconfidence 25d ago
There are shitloads and I mean shitloads of people in rural areas who wager a large amount of their votes on who actually shows up to speak to them in person. If we never push the line then we'll never change the battleground states, and if we won't the Republicans will, as they seemingly have been until recently.
3
u/dennismfrancisart 25d ago
The current DNC Chair Jamie Harrison said that the 50-state strategy was the only way to go if they wanted win. I haven't gotten much from them on where things stand other than the usual sky is falling emails.
3
u/SwimsDeep 25d ago
Not very well. Between intensified gerrymandering, voter suppression measures, the deepened divisions between “red” and “blue” states, further manipulation of the electoral college vote, it has become a straight numbers game. Democrats win because of large turnout in blue states.
Looking at the electoral map from 2020 with only color and no electoral vote tally, it looks like it was much closer that it actually was.
3
u/aurelorba 24d ago
Between voter suppression laws and states that have given the legislatures the right to overturn results: It wouldn't work at all.
6
u/CrotasOnlyFans 25d ago
In the current climate, I don’t see any way it could be possible in 2022.
However, the right person at the top of the ticket in 2024 could make the strategy work. It would have to be someone with a left leaning, working focused populist platform. Imagine Bernie and Jon Tester having a baby type of candidate.
9
u/malawax28 25d ago
It would have to be someone with a left leaning
Why left leaning?
4
u/CrotasOnlyFans 25d ago
Well, the simplest explanation is that it seems like the question was specifically asking about Dems using the strategy, hence the Dean and Obama references.
1
u/malawax28 25d ago
Makes sense. I was thinking OP was talking about a candidate regardless of their political party.
0
u/sonographic 25d ago
So they could be credible agents of change with a look towards helping those other than the rich
2
u/oath2order 24d ago
However, the right person at the top of the ticket in 2024 could make the strategy work.
Hopefully Biden is up to the challenge!
3
u/Salty9Volt 25d ago
New Hampshire checking in. Democrats have no bench players here. Maggie Hassan is a sitting duck, Gov. Sunnunu is gonna beat her in 2022. It's way harder for Democrats to run against the national party, mostly because of the power of right wing media. However, it's not impossible. For instance, gun control just ain't gonna fly in NH. There are AWD Prius' here with Coexist stickers and 3 guns in it. Focus on the bread and butter issues of your state, STOP TRYING TO PLEASE TWITTER!
8
u/oath2order 25d ago edited 25d ago
Gov. Sunnunu is gonna beat her in 2022
If he runs.
STOP TRYING TO PLEASE TWITTER!
I can agree to this, to an extent. Bill Maher did some coverage about why Democrats keep talking about supporting things like "we'll fund prisoners' gender transition surgery if they need it!" and "felon voting rights" and it all summed up to "why are you even making this a headline talking point. Focus on winning moderates who care about the economy, because the people who care about those issues aren't ever voting for the other side".
10
u/MaNewt 25d ago
because the people who care about those issues aren't ever voting for the other side
If the other side is Republican, sure, but if they might vote green or not at all. Which is definitely a risk for some candidates in major metro areas but almost certainly overblown anywhere else.
2
u/oath2order 25d ago
I agree that it does cause a turnout issue, to an extent. I doubt there's many people who have "government-funding prisoner gender transition surgery" as their make-or-break issue.
2
u/FourForYouGlennCoco 24d ago
Yup, Democrats are much worse than Republicans when it comes to focusing on the unpopular parts of their agenda.
I think this is because Republicans are generally self aware that their policy views are unpopular, so they just don’t campaign on them.
Imagine that in 2016 Trump said “I’m going to cut taxes on private jet owners and fill the judiciary with anti abortion judges.” He would have gotten wiped out. Instead he talked about jobs and Medicare. Enough Independents were duped, and his Republican voters correctly assumed he was full of shit.
If only Democrats understood this, they’d spend more time talking about minimum wage and less about, say, reparations. That doesn’t mean you can’t do the unpopular stuff once you win, but it shouldn’t be part of your National message during the campaign.
But Democrats have a perverse fixation on saying the unpopular stuff loud and clear. The base demands it for credibility. That’s why you hear so many Redditors griping that Biden isn’t a “real” progressive — because he doesn’t talk like one. Which is probably why he won a national election.
5
u/captain-burrito 24d ago
Imagine that in 2016 Trump said “I’m going to cut taxes on private jet owners and fill the judiciary with anti abortion judges.” He would have gotten wiped out.
He actually did say he'd appoint pro-life judges and wanted abortion to be decided by the states.
2
u/MachiavelliSJ 25d ago
This strategy had nothing to do with those states turning blue. It was demographics
8
u/oath2order 25d ago
I'm sold on demographics for Virginia, but what on Earth do you mean by demographics for Indiana? Since 2008, it's voted by double digit margins for the Republican candidate.
1
u/thebsoftelevision 23d ago
Indiana used to lean a little conservative but Dems still controlled the legislature and frequently held a majority of their congressional seats prior to 2010. It just seems like after 2 years of Obama they left faith in Democrats and there was mass rural flight against all sorts of Democratic candidates in the state.
1
u/oath2order 23d ago
The state House flipped a bit. The state Senate was a solid GOP majority since 1977.
The state congressional House delegation was majority Dems from 2006 to 2010. Before that it was majority GOP since the 90s.
I ain't buying the "demographics" argument as to why Indiana was blue in 2008.
1
u/thebsoftelevision 22d ago
I agree that it's not related to any demographical evolutions(which Indiana hasn't had much of since then, to my knowledge). Rurals just stopped voting Democrat and in a state like Indiana that hit Dems particularly hard.
2
u/GotMoFans 24d ago
The answer is yes, but in a post Palin, Trump, and Tea Party world, many Repub voters have embraced the irrational and they don’t get angry with poor Repub politicians/officials like they did with George W. Bush.
Obama’s strategy benefitted from Dean’s efforts, but more importantly he went to red states because that was the way he could beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries. He wasn’t trying to move these states to blue in the general, but Clinton’s efforts in red states during the primaries were weak because she was so strong in the blue states.
Virginia turned blue because of demographic shifts (the same has been predicted for Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas) more than Dean’s 50 states strategy. Indiana had previously voted for Evan Bayh for governor senator so it wasn’t odd for a Democrat to win statewide even if it wasn’t frequent. George W. Bush and the bad economy should be credited with Indiana voting for Obama in 2008. Montana has voted for Democratic governors and senators.
Missouri was considered a swing state fifteen years ago and it has become more and more red as it seems to go from politically behaving like a rust belt state to like a sun belt state.
1
u/whenyoucantthinkof 24d ago
Missouri went to Bush in 2004 by a 6 point margin
2
u/GotMoFans 24d ago
Missouri elected Claire McCaskill senator in 2006. McCain won Missouri by 0.13 points in 2008.
Missouri was considered swing then and now it is not.
2
u/thebsoftelevision 23d ago
Yeah, Missouri was quickly fleeting it's bellwether status but it was still competitive. By 2012 they kinda were where Ohio and Iowa are now.
1
u/oyveyanyday 25d ago
I don't think so. I keep seeing questions from the left about gerrymandering, campaign strategy, and making voting even easier. Those are NOT what candidates should be focusing on. They need to focus on substance, policy, a message for ALL people, not just special interest groups.
2008 was different because people wanted change after 8 years of Bush.
Unless democrats do something quick, they are in trouble. I think most people want change from endless mask mandates, school closures, and money printing for what are effectively special interest groups.
The focus is going to be on substance and not empty messaging and strategy. Those work during boring years when there is nothing substantial to address.
→ More replies
1
u/seanosul 25d ago
They should do it as a matter of principle. Every voting American should have the right to vote against a Republican.
-7
u/PoliticalNerdMa 25d ago
If Democrats were running on economic policies that the majority of voters want in polling (m4a, 15 minimum wage; paid for at the point of service college) they would win a supermajority. Obviously they need to begin showing in Congress that they will fight and not back down, but if they did, it would be an easy win.
11
u/TheFlawlessCassandra 25d ago
The vast majority of Democratic candidates in 2020 supported a public option -- which consistently polls better among the public than M4A -- and a $15 minimum wage.
Where's the supermajority, exactly?
→ More replies
1
u/Trygolds 25d ago
I think yes but not just for winning the white house. It could help give them a wider majority in congress to get things done , If all the presidential democrats did so it just might swinge a few states seats as well over time.
1
u/captain-burrito 24d ago edited 24d ago
It wouldn't work. You don't win anything in a statewide race if it is winner takes all. That means you must win outright. As such your resources are best directed at close states. Trump got less votes in 2016 in DC than the combined 3rd party vote. There's no point in wasting resources there (he did anyway and ran into money trouble later in 2020) because if you won DC, you'd have won a freaking landslide anyway.
In a national popular vote it might be a good idea because every vote counts towards the national total. With the electoral college and winner takes all you need to win outright for it to have been worth it.
States within 5% are contested in. Some within 10-15% might be worth it. Beyond that you will seldom see returns. There are exceptions but generally that holds true. Trump campaigned in CT in 2016, he might have moved it a few % but it was still safely blue.
VA was a good target as it was 8% margin in 2004 and trending blue due to demographics.
IN was definitely a surprise as that was 20% margin in 2004 but by the 2008 race it was single digits. Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate with great ground game, already had high name recognition in parts of the state and internet outreach.
As a longer term strategy the dem party definitely does need to expand into more states. Republicans have taken the long approach for some states like FL and it has paid dividends.
Dem need to really go for it in AZ, GA & TX. Once they capture those, there is no route to the whitehouse for republicans. That alone will not bode well for the senate though. By the time they gain those they will probably lose states like WI, MI & PA, maybe even MN. So that is a net loss of senate seats. OH & WV's seats are likely to be lost too. The senate is a bigger problem for dems than the whitehouse.
Another thing to do is ban gerrymandering so that there are more competitive districts. That would move democrat party infrastructure out of the metro core into the inner ring suburbs where dems are also spilling out to. That would benefit the party overall.
Red states turning super red and having red trifectas with super majorities in the legislature is quite terrifying as they could basically rewrite state constitutions and change elections. The Texas Republican party wants to cancel statewide elections for the statewide executive positions like governor as they saw their margins eroding for some of the races over time. They want an electoral college system where each senate district basically has 1 vote based on who wins the district popular vote. Democrats are concentrated into fewer districts. MS just got rid of their electoral college system for this in 2020 and TX wants to add it. So dems retreating almost entirely from certain states is troubling as republicans just disenfranchise groups like native americans with little pushback.
A different approach is simply to use federal grant money to build or expand cities in lean red states. Let immigration from blue states do the rest. Some red states are actively trying to woo millennials from other states and a particular class of them that lean democrat.
1
u/Geneocrat 24d ago
Here in Illinois we zero attention from presidential candidates, except fundraising.
Personally I think it would be a lot healthier if Republicans and Democrats tried selling to the people. Might flip us red one day, but it make make the red candidates less polarized.
1
u/LubbockGuy95 24d ago
I'd say a bit but not in a strictly campaigning way. It would be a huge voter registration push. Go to every state and have a well know politician who is not in office go hard on voter registration.
1
u/identicalBadger 24d ago
A huge issue for the dems is they win (sometimes) the national elections but lose so many state level and lower elections. They/we need to create more party infrastructure and have credible footprints everywhere. Doug Jones and Stacey Abrams bring the most recent examples of why dems need to support their party in even the reddest states
1
u/[deleted] 24d ago
Candidates should always try to invest time in every state, even if it's simply to help promote downballot races.
That said, given limited resources its not the best strategy of spending. Political and statistical analysis can give you the 10-15 states most likely in play and that's where 75% of your resources should be spent.
Just because you "could" get TX as a Dem doesn't mean spending time and money there is worth an increased likelihood of losing WI or OH or GA.
1
u/CCHistProfWest 24d ago
Texas is probably more winnable for Dems than Ohio these days.
1
u/[deleted] 24d ago
Things trend, but TX hasn't been won by a Dem Presidential candidate since Carter. That's a state with good downballot potential though
1
u/CCHistProfWest 24d ago
In 2020 Trump won Ohio by 8 points, Texas by 5.5 points, down from 9 in 2016.
That technically makes Texas a purple state. It was the 3rd closest state Trump won, after North Carolina 1.4 points and Florida 3.4 points. FL and NC are considered purple.
Texas is moving in the right direction, Ohio the wrong one. If the Democrats are losing their grip on the upper midwest than Texas's 40 electoral votes that are only 5.5 points away is the most logical place to start looking to replace them.
1
u/[deleted] 24d ago
You also have to look at the candidates and the infrastructure there. There's going to be a ton of variables at play each cycle, which is why I mentioned trends but didn't fully put everything into them. Again, TX is going to be better for downballot, but more difficult for POTUS in 22/24. I'd still say OH can be more easily flipped given the politics of the state and it's geographic neighbors and the differences between 24 and 20.
1
u/MoCo1992 24d ago
I don’t accept the premise that the “fifty state strategy” turned Virginia and Indiana Blue. Virginia for example has most it’s expanding population in the DC metro which is very very blue. Existing socio-economic trends were turning those states blue.
1
u/PigeonMan45 24d ago
To me the idea that each state is campaigned in would be refreshing, as if the politician actually cares about everyone, including people who might not vote for them, and isn't just cynically regarding the electorate as a means to an end.
1
u/SecretMuslim08 21d ago
Are there any cases where it a ruby red or sapphire blue state flipped to decide an otherwise close election?
Georgia recently is the closest example in recent memory, and a good lesson against stereotyping states. But that was the culmination of preexisting trends to some extent? So I'm not sure its the same as funneling ad money into Idaho.
The better use of it might be for Senate and House elections.
•
u/AutoModerator 25d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.