Dean: Democrats Could Take the West

[Rob]

Of the 9 political groups, 8 support a higher minimum wage, and 8 support universal health care.

Then why don't the Democrats win landslides in every election? Loser liberal ideas are going to kill the Democratic Party.

[Rob]

In his eight years, Clinton did a lot of things to piss off Rocky Mountain states: logging restrictions, wilderness road restrictions, snowmobile restrictions, the Staircase-Escalante land grab, etc.  This isn't libertarianism.

Correct, which is why Gore did so much worse than Dukakis in those states.

[opebo]

Of the 9 political groups, 8 support a higher minimum wage, and 8 support universal health care.

Then why don't the Democrats win landslides in every election?

Because a lot of people don't know their own economic interests, and/or priortize their hatred of gays, blacks, their irrational nationalism, and so forth.

[Cubby]

I'm as happy as any other Dem about Schweitzer winning last year, but we should see if we can defeat Burns in '06 before we can spread our resurgence to other Western states besides Montana. On the whole though I agree with Dean's statements, and Bob's last line in the post above this one.

I have a question for any Westerners: Why is Idaho so much more heavily Republican than Montana, or even Wyoming? The entire state can't be filled with Ruby Ridge types, so is Idaho more conservative than normal, or is Montana more centrist? 

[Frodo]

I have a question for any Westerners: Why is Idaho so much more heavily Republican than Montana, or even Wyoming? The entire state can't be filled with Ruby Ridge types, so is Idaho more conservative than normal, or is Montana more centrist? 

I am guessing it is partly due to the fact that Idaho has the largest Mormon population outside of Utah.

I am sure Immy can elaborate further........   

[Cubby]

I have a question for any Westerners: Why is Idaho so much more heavily Republican than Montana, or even Wyoming? The entire state can't be filled with Ruby Ridge types, so is Idaho more conservative than normal, or is Montana more centrist? 

I am guessing it is partly due to the fact that Idaho has the largest Mormon population outside of Utah.

I am sure Immy can elaborate further........   

Yeah I knew it had some mormons but I always seem to associate them with Utah and no where else. I guess they're more widespread than I thought. But I wonder if mormons are the only reason.

[Frodo]

I have a question for any Westerners: Why is Idaho so much more heavily Republican than Montana, or even Wyoming? The entire state can't be filled with Ruby Ridge types, so is Idaho more conservative than normal, or is Montana more centrist? 

I am guessing it is partly due to the fact that Idaho has the largest Mormon population outside of Utah.

I am sure Immy can elaborate further........   

Yeah I knew it had some mormons but I always seem to associate them with Utah and no where else. I guess they're more widespread than I thought. But I wonder if mormons are the only reason.

well no, they are not the only reason, but they are a decisive factor when you are comparing Idaho with Montana and Wyoming.  All three of these states are largely rural, with vast stretches of uninhabited land whose main industries are timber, mining, ranching, and farming, with a population that is profoundly conservative.  In Idaho's case, with the Mormons, they take that natural conservatism that is native to all three of these states an extra step, making it more conservative than its nearest neighbors. 

[Cubby]

I have a question for any Westerners: Why is Idaho so much more heavily Republican than Montana, or even Wyoming? The entire state can't be filled with Ruby Ridge types, so is Idaho more conservative than normal, or is Montana more centrist? 

I am guessing it is partly due to the fact that Idaho has the largest Mormon population outside of Utah.

I am sure Immy can elaborate further........   

Yeah I knew it had some mormons but I always seem to associate them with Utah and no where else. I guess they're more widespread than I thought. But I wonder if mormons are the only reason.

well no, they are not the only reason, but they are a decisive factor when you are comparing Idaho with Montana and Wyoming.  All three of these states are largely rural, with vast stretches of uninhabited land whose main industries are timber, mining, ranching, and farming, with a population that is profoundly conservative.  In Idaho's case, with the Mormons, they take that natural conservatism that is native to all three of these states an extra step, making it more conservative than its nearest neighbors. 

Got it. That sounds like a reasonable explanation. Although it is ironic that the highest profile mormon in the government now is a Democrat (Harry Reid). I doubt this will affect their voting patterns though

[12th Doctor]

AZ. NV, NM, and COLO. That's the best the Dems can hope for any time soon (plus the coast).

And lose Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and probably Minnesota in the process, plus they would basically be conceding Ohio and Iowa to the Republicans.

[Frodo]

AZ. NV, NM, and COLO. That's the best the Dems can hope for any time soon (plus the coast).

And lose Wisconsin and probably Minnesota in the process, plus they would basically be conceding Ohio and Iowa to the Republicans.

granted, but aren't these the states that are losing population and electoral votes? 

[12th Doctor]

AZ. NV, NM, and COLO. That's the best the Dems can hope for any time soon (plus the coast).

And lose Wisconsin and probably Minnesota in the process, plus they would basically be conceding Ohio and Iowa to the Republicans.

granted, but aren't these the states that are losing population and electoral votes? 

I added Michigan and PA too, as you can see.  I see it as a decent long term strategy, but we are talking very long term before those states out-wiegh the ones they would be losing, and the Dean would be gone in 8 years if they kept losing, anyway, thus taking them back to the tried and true.  the only thing they would acchomplish is losing credability with voters in the states I mentioned.  Let's face it, both parties are in a box right now.  Its just that the Democrats box is a bit smaller.

[12th Doctor]

Well, I think that the Republicans have more manuvering room, though.

[MaC]

the Rocky mountain west may be kind of a reach, but it's far closer than the solid south, which Dean originally went for while campiagning.  At least this strategy is a bit smarter.

[Democratic Hawk]

If the Democrats go right economically and support a muscular foreign policy, I could see them sweeping the Mountain West.

Except for Utah.

I'm not with you on the move to the right economically but I'd more than embrace a muscular foreign policy

Dave

[Blue Rectangle]

the Rocky mountain west may be kind of a reach, but it's far closer than the solid south, which Dean originally went for while campiagning.  At least this strategy is a bit smarter.

There's other Bush states besides the Interior West and the Deep South.  Democrats should have an easier time in MO, AR, and VA than in AZ.  Anywhere is better than MT.  It's far too remote and too small to consider spending real campaign resources on.  Dean just says these things to look like an optimistic visionary.

About the ID vs. MT and WY thing: the higher number of Native American voters in the eastern two probably has some effect too.

[angus]

a further indication of the increasingly libertarian bent of the Democratic Party:

Dean: West Fertile Ground for Democrats

By SARAH COOKE
The Associated Press
Saturday, June 4, 2005; 11:23 PM

HELENA, Mont. -- The Rocky Mountain West, long a Republican stronghold, is fertile ground for Democrats hoping to take back Congress and the White House in coming years, Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean told supporters here Saturday.

Democrats have more in common with Westerners than the GOP, the former Vermont governor said.

They appreciate the free-spirited, independent thinking that dominate states like Montana, and understand the wish for a balanced budget and a strong military, as well as treating soldiers well when they get home, something Dean said the Bush administration has neglected.

"I think we're going to have a very appealing message in the Rocky Mountain West," he said. "We want to be everywhere. We don't think just because George Bush won this state by a lot of votes means that Montana is going to be a Republican state forever.

"I think our values are more consistent with Montana values than Republican values are."

link

Nothing like sue-happy lawyers hiring a foul-mouthed physician to brag about taking Marlboro Country away from the GOP.  Still, stranger things have been said.  e.g., the Connecticut Cowboy's famous "Mission Accomplished!" bravado.  Youze guys still not having second thoughts about Dean, eh?  amazing.  Gotta admire the kid's spunk, though.

[Beet]

AZ. NV, NM, and COLO. That's the best the Dems can hope for any time soon (plus the coast).

And lose Wisconsin and probably Minnesota in the process, plus they would basically be conceding Ohio and Iowa to the Republicans.

granted, but aren't these the states that are losing population and electoral votes? 

I added Michigan and PA too, as you can see.  I see it as a decent long term strategy, but we are talking very long term before those states out-wiegh the ones they would be losing, and the Dean would be gone in 8 years if they kept losing, anyway, thus taking them back to the tried and true.  the only thing they would acchomplish is losing credability with voters in the states I mentioned.  Let's face it, both parties are in a box right now.  Its just that the Democrats box is a bit smaller.

Exactly. All those states together have 29 electoral votes, which is just 2 more than Florida. According to that logic, the state of Florida should have equal weight to the entire Western region.

Nevertheless, going for the West is important for symbolic as much as direct reasons, and arguably offers the Democrats the best chance to exploit that fact that the GOP base has moved from the sunbelt to the bible belt.

[Shira]

Every state where Bush got 55% or over, should not be touched by the Dems. Its a waste of money.

[WMS]

Remember, the West is not monolithic - Bush was fortunate to take all of it. What plays well in libertarian NV won't play well in populist NM or conservative UT, or what plays well in NM won't play well in NV or UT, or what plays well in UT won't play well in NV or NM. There's diversity underneath all the blue on that map...

[J. J.]

Every state where Bush got 55% or over, should not be touched by the Dems. Its a waste of money.

That is possibly the wisest thing you've ever posted. :-)

I would qualify that when a nominee is named.  If Bayh is the nominee, by all means, spend money in IN.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Every state where Bush got 55% or over, should not be touched by the Dems. Its a waste of money.

That is possibly the wisest thing you've ever posted. :-)

I would qualify that when a nominee is named.  If Bayh is the nominee, by all means, spend money in IN.

Good thing the Democrats gave up on NH, which went 62.49% for George HW Bush (9.12 points better than his national average).

[J. J.]

Every state where Bush got 55% or over, should not be touched by the Dems. Its a waste of money.

That is possibly the wisest thing you've ever posted. :-)

I would qualify that when a nominee is named.  If Bayh is the nominee, by all means, spend money in IN.

Good thing the Democrats gave up on NH, which went 62.49% for George HW Bush (9.12 points better than his national average).

Shira has it right, on this one.  You don't pour money, at this point, into Utah, hoping that in 2008, Utah might be competive.  It is a good idea to try tp use "party building" money in close states, like OH, or CO, NM, NV in the west.  Spending money now in UT or WY might not be money well spent.

[Beet]

Every state where Bush got 55% or over, should not be touched by the Dems. Its a waste of money.

That is possibly the wisest thing you've ever posted. :-)

I would qualify that when a nominee is named.  If Bayh is the nominee, by all means, spend money in IN.

Good thing the Democrats gave up on NH, which went 62.49% for George HW Bush (9.12 points better than his national average).

Shira has it right, on this one.  You don't pour money, at this point, into Utah, hoping that in 2008, Utah might be competive.  It is a good idea to try tp use "party building" money in close states, like OH, or CO, NM, NV in the west.  Spending money now in UT or WY might not be money well spent.

We're all assuming now that the political map has "solidified" a lot more from the landslide years of 1932-1988.