You're Advising the Democrats....

[JSojourner]

...and your goal is, along with keeping the states Obama won in 2008, to either ADD or at least make inroads in several others.

What do you tell the Democratic Party to do to...

Swing Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Arizona

And to close the gap in West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas and Georgia?


I'm looking for somewhat more detailed responses than -- "dump Biden for Schweitzer" to win Montana.  But if that's all you've got, post away.  But think of message, policy, appearances, surrogates and so forth as well.

And maybe there's nothing.  It's easily possible the Democratic Party has peaked and can only go downhill from the heights of 2008.  If that, say so...  (GOP thread coming...)

[RI]

Well, there are a couple ways that you can go. Assuming Obama has a successful term, he wouldn't have to do much in order to keep all his states and add a few more.

However, if they really want to expand the playing field, you likely have to go more conservative in some areas. They could actively campaign against gun control, moderate on abortion (if they nominated a pro-life candidate, they could effectively divide the evangelical vote, especially amongst the youth. This would result in a the Dems winning most states outside of the core of the Interior Mountain West, the deep south, and the far western plains), come out against certain aspects of affirmative action such as hiring quotas. Perhaps they could emphasize balanced budgets or some kind of economic responsibility.

I see two main routes they could go:

Adopting a more socially conservative, populist, DLC philosophy could recapture Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Georgia, and perhaps Kentucky and/or Tennessee.

Adopting a more western, quasi-libertarian philosophy could gain them Montana, the Dakotas, Arizona, or even if they tried hard enough (highly unlikely for only 3 EV), Wyoming or Alaska.

However, in the long term, either method will likely lose areas currently held by the Dems. Going libertarian could lose them the Midwest and the Rust Belt. Going with the Southern option could lose various areas of the west that the Dems are currently gaining along with the libertarian parts of New England.

Personally, I would advise them to go after the West. That is where the future of the party lies, whereas the South is the party's past.

[Scam of God]

Personally, I would advise them to go after the West. That is where the future of the party lies, whereas the South is the party's past.

This is it, exactly. We must whistle past Dixie by adopting a Clintonian economic plan, but by wrapping it in the rhetoric of flag and freedom to appeal to the oldest of rock-ribbed Republicans, who may not be entirely enthralled by the Southernization of the GOP. In doing so we can move social discourse in this nation left and economic discourse right, exactly where they belong.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Run on economic issues.  Try to avoid talking about social issues like gays, abortion, etc.  Continue to make inroads with hispanics, and focus on the West.  Don't abandon the South; the right combination of candidates and issues can still swing a large part of Dixie.

[Scam of God]

Run on economic issues.  Try to avoid talking about social issues like gays, abortion, etc.  Continue to make inroads with hispanics, and focus on the West.  Don't abandon the South; the right combination of candidates and issues can still swing a large part of Dixie.

No. For the first time in American history (outside of an out-and-out landslide), a Democratic President has been elected who would have won even if he had not carried a single former Confederate state (Obama). We no longer have any need of the South, and ought instead continue pushing, and pushing hard, on the West. In twenty years we must have a total stranglehold on the coastal East, New England, the Mountain West, and California; the GOP must be confined to its bastions in the Mormon Belt and the Confederacy.

[Matt Damon™]

Run as left-libertarians and drop the top-down social engineering. Also drop any support for immigration/increasing welfare. Also drop blacks.

[Matt Damon™]

Basically isolate southerners(I consider blacks and southerners to be the same culture/grouping) and form a coalition of real americans against them.

[Scam of God]

Also drop blacks.

No. If libertarians are so collectivist as to be racist, they're not worthy of the franchise, let alone being pandered to by a major Party.

[Matt Damon™]

Black voters are collectivist(socially conservative populists) and oppose latins, a rapidly growing group. You want to give us latins permanent swing status/GOP alignment? Then keep backing the blacks.

[aaaa2222]

Drop gun control. That alone could win Missouri, the Dakotas, Arizona and Montana.

[Matt Damon™]

Drop gun control. That alone could win Missouri, the Dakotas, Arizona and Montana.

Yes and no. It'd bring marginal GOP-leaning swing states to tossups and make tossups more dem-leaning.

[aaaa2222]

Exactly. All of the states I mentioned are tossups.

[Scam of God]

Black voters are collectivist(socially conservative populists)

That doesn't matter. They'll vote Democratic for two generations now, regardless of what our candidates or positions are, out of thanks for having finally put up - just as they voted Republican well into the twentieth century and long after the Republicans stopped standing for anything remotely resembling civil rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Collectivistic drivel, but that's unsurprising coming from you. They *all* oppose 'Latins' (as if you ought to give a Hell about your 'race', anyway)? To the last man of them?

Moreover, you ought to pluck the plank out of your own racial eye. Hispanics are quite notoriously -- Catholic. Most Latinos I've met come off as being just as socially conservative as blacks, perhaps even moreso owing to a lack of any solid civil rights movement there. You're going to have to work on that before this Party 'drops balcks'.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Well, Demcratic Party has a lock on the NE and West Coast states. The places I would try to get would be VA, NC and FL plus Western States, like AZ, CO, NM, NV. Go after the states that are gain EVs not losing EV. If you drop the south then you are droping over half of the country. The could could net gain up to 7 or 8 EVs and the West could net gain 4 or 5. So the South and West I would try to bring in will keeping states like NY, IL, PA but of course this states are losing EVs.

[TheresNoMoney]

Just focus on getting good legislation passed, ending the Iraq War, creating jobs and improving the economy.

If he can do that, Obama will win Missouri,  Montana, Arizona and many other states that McCain won.

[tmthforu94]

John S. McCain, III Sarah Palin Republican: 58.72%
 Barack H. Obama Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Democratic: 38.86%

^^Arkansas Results in 2008^^
Arkansas was one of the few states that trended more Republican in `08. And by a lot. You shouldn't waste your money there with a black President. Work harder in places like Texas, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia. So my suggestion is, don't waste time in heavy Republican states. Work to make leaning Republican and Toss-Up states leaning Democrat.

[Holmes]

Mmmm. It might be a bad idea to stop working on heavy Republican states, after all that's how Obama made so much new gains for Democrats. I agree that Democrats should (continue to) cede Southern states federally at the moment, but they did win the New South in the past election and should keep pushing there, and the mountain west. The efforts Obama and his team did in registration and enthusiasm in those areas totally swung them, and I doubt they're at their ceiling(though kinda close in states like New Mexico and California imo).

[J. J.]

The appeal has to be made to Hispanic voters, of Mexican and Central American origins.  Consider dropping Biden for a good Hispanic candidate (and don't ask me who).  Consider a libertarian approach to social issues, i.e. some type same sex relationship recognition, a less extremist approach to abortion.

Economics should be one of stabilization.

[Scam of God]

a less extremist approach to abortion.

I beg to differ, good sir, but it's your Party that has the extremist (and fundamentally, deeply anti-liberty) position on this issue.

[jwells12345]

a less extremist approach to abortion.

I beg to differ, good sir, but it's your Party that has the extremist (and fundamentally, deeply anti-liberty) position on this issue.

agreed

[Smid]

The United States seems to be polarising - see this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=74002.msg1889342#new

Large wins, both in the Electoral College but also as reflected by the popular vote, may be something that doesn't occur for quite some time - at least not for another, I don't know, twenty years or so. I think this is because social issues tend to be quite polarising and thus the electorate will be quite split as long as social issues dominate the agenda.

[pbrower2a]

Drop gun control. That alone could win Missouri, the Dakotas, Arizona and Montana.

Yes and no. It'd bring marginal GOP-leaning swing states to tossups and make tossups more dem-leaning.

So far, Obama has said little about gun control. He wisely avoids political third rails.

The wisest thing that a Democrat can do about the issue of gun control is to keep silent. The GOP OWNS the NRA, and about all that Obama can do to win any gun owners is to make America more "hunter-friendly". Damn, I wish the NRA would quit protecting AK-47s and Uzis!

The only guns that anyone can successfully campaign against are gangland weapons.   

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The only guns that anyone can successfully campaign against are gangland weapons.   

The thing is, the vast majority of crime does not involve those weapons. The year the AWB was passed, more people were murdered using pillows than the weapons covered under the ban.

[TomC]

There are only a few states Obama could reasonably add: Ariz, Montana, Missouri. Maybe Georgia. They should focus on these and Texas, plus the close states last time: NC, Fl, Ind, Va. Not that Texas is going Dem in 2012, but maybe 2020 and we should start working there now. Forget Ark, WV, Ky. Don't forget Dakotas, but don't waste to much there.

Aggressively go after newly naturalized immigrants. Pander to women (nobody's saying it but the jobs created by this stimulus are primarily in male dominated "fields." They cut the real education money.)

[DanielX]

1. Create an "energy independence" road map that includes a prominent role for coal. This will help in West Virginia and Kentucky, and some western states with large coal-mining operations.

2. Shut down anyone who tries to push for gun control. Big urban areas are going to vote Dem anyway, while pushing for gun control will kill chances of expanding in the South while leaving current Obama states vulnerable.

3. If you're going to drop Biden for anyone, Sebelius would be a good choice. Lefty enough to satisfy the base, but popular enough in a quite conservative state. Another option would be Napolitano (who would help get Arizona). That may also help "pander to women".