Which (D) pres. candidate would be likely to pursue a 50 state strategy as the nominee?

[bluestateguy]

Who would be most likely to pursue a 50 state strategy if he/she were nominated by the party? This will have an impact on who I support in the primaries.

[dysfunctional press]

1. Al Gore- the energy/environment is going to be THE issue.

and it affects all 50 states.
Al Gore is THE candidate with credibility on this issue.

[Monkeyman]

10. Yep

[Kelly Rupert]

17. Gore's my choice.

He's the only one I'm actually excited about.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. I think it depends on who they hire as advisors

anyone who hires James Carville or any other washed-up Beltway snob isn't going to care about the health of the overall Democratic Party.

[blm]

31. It's not the nominee's decision anyway - it's a DNC, Dem PARTY strategy that is developed

over 4 years. The nominee taps into the structure that is ALREADY built and running once they become known.

[EdwardM]

3. No Democrat could win all 50 states.

Do you think there is any Democrat who could win Utah?

[William769]

5. doesn't have to win all 50, but use the 50 state strategy

A win win situation.

[bluestateguy]

6. Exactly

No Republican could win all 50 either. It's about competing, and not simply ceding whole states to the other side on a silver platter.

[wisteria]

4. Kerry n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

11. Not a chance.

Kerry ran the polar opposite of a 50 State Strategy, and he didn't have 50-state appeal. Look at the election returns maps--we won the coasts, the Northeast, and the Upper Midwest. They won everywhere else. Kerry virtually surrendered the West and South, and while he more or less had to...that's not the kind of strategy we want to be limiting ourselves to. We shouldn't surrender half the states before we even start the campaign season.

[MH1]

15. Yeah, but he's learned a lot. n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

16. Maybe. I know he's learned not to take any shit.

I don't know if he's learned how to appeal to most Americans, and judging by his nationwide disapproval ratings, I don't think he has.

[blm]

30. DNC had targetted state strategy in place for a decade - Kerry would've won with a DNC

like Dean's who worked for two years straight to rebuild what Terry McAuliffe and his predecessors had COLLAPSED.

Why on earth do you think that the NOMINEE who is only known by spring of the election year is the one who develops the NATIONAL STRATEGY? The election PROCESS needed securing and RNC efforts to suppress and steal Dem votes needed COUNTERING. That is where the election is won or lost.

The NATIONAL STRATEGY needs to be built and worked on for YEARS - Dean still has work to do to repair the over decade of neglect and collapse of previous DNC's that had used the targetted state strategy since 95.

[skipos]

7. I am more interested in someone who is naturally going to appeal to more than just

the blue states. It's all about finding a candidate who can appeal to progressive voters as well as voters who do not consider themselves progressive. Clark is such a candidate, and perhaps the folks in my signature.

But to answer your question... I am not sure who will pursue that. Kerry sure didn't, but as a senator from one of the bluest states in the country, it was obvious he was going to have an uphill battle in most red states.

[Kelly Rupert]

8. President isn't the time for 50-state, IMO.

50-state building is fantastic for the Congressional and local races--it's all about fielding appropriate local candidates--in every district, running candidates who can win their district--and building a Democratic infrastructure in every state. For president, though, we're going to have to nominate someone that's simply not going to be able to win every single state, because no such person exists.

If you mean which candidate would stand the best chance of picking up Southern and Western states, that would probably be a charismatic moderate like Warner was, before he preemptively dropped out.

[LeftCoast]

9. I'm not sure I understand how you can translate the strategy to a presidential run?

The election of representatives is very different from a presidential election.

[rocktivity]

12. Any Dem candidate with at least two functioning brain cells, LOL!

The fifty-state strategy WORKED, remember? And with the MSM mandated to put us down at every turn, it will be more important than ever in '08--so much so that we should reorganize the party under Dean if the DLC keeps acting out!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Ned_Devine]

13. Clark and Gore

[xultar]

26. Yup! That's my team too!

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Hillary

She'll suck the air out of all 50 states, like her husband did - leading to many years of Republican Congresses - just as happened under her husband.

[pscot]

18. Warren Buffet

Or Bill Gates. No-one else could afford it.

[Bombtrack]

19. "50 state strategy" is just a buzzword

or buzz-phrase rather.

it isn't particularly acurate about what it implies relative to previous strategies.

[JNelson6563]

20. I agree with those who say Gore

:toast:

[VaTF1]

21. Edwards, and

OBAMA !

[ThomWV]

22. Gore

From sea to shining sea ....

[xkenx]

23. 50 state strategy means that if we compete everywhere,

some of those red states will flip. And the candidate to do it is Wes Clark. 2008 is ALL about flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary certainly can't do it. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

[JNelson6563]

24. And never been elected to anything

If Clark were on the ticket I'd like to see it as Vice-Pres. candidate. We really need someone who's not going to depend heavily on consultants. I should think a candidate who's never been elected would be very likely to be in that situation.

There's a lot to be said for campaign experience. A short stint in the 04 primary doesn't goa very long way.

Julie

[xkenx]

28. Clark has come a long way since '04, but who do you have in mind

with a lot of campaign experience and wouldn't rely on consultants? BTW I have heard Clark say that that he wouldn't make the reliance-on-consultant mistake if he were to run again.

[JNelson6563]

34. Gore/Clark

The only real flaw I see is that they are both from the South, that whole "balanced ticket" thing, but I don't see that as any kind of deal breaker.

:toast:

Julie

[xkenx]

39. I really like Al Gore, yet

he did not run a good campaign in 2000. With the record of the Clinton Administration to run on, Gore should have blown Bush out of the water.

[JNelson6563]

40. It's a different world now.

Al's faced death (metaphorically speaking) and no longer fears it. Throw in the fact that he actually won in 2000, has come roaring back like a lion (I've tried to catch every speech and each one has been magnificent) and would win again. Also figure in he's had lots of time to reflect on his own mistakes and enjoy the luxury of being an observer in 04, and being better able to view the thing objectively (i.e. see the mistakes), I'd wager Al is in prime position for 08.

Now we wait and see if he runs.

Julie

[Clark2008]

29. So?

Do you think being elected to something means you can do the job? Hardly... look at Shrub.

Besides, Clark campaigned - in the most red areas, I might add - all throughout the 2006 primaries, so he has more than a "short stint" from the 2004 primaries under his belt.

[JNelson6563]

35. If one wants to govern, one must first get elected.

Surely you can agree that extensive campaign experience might be a good prerequisite to running (and hoping to win) the highest elective office in the land.

One can be as equipped and able to govern but if one cannot get elected it is meaningless. Also, if one is not able to govern but able to get elected, the people of the world can pay a steep price. That is why it is good for us to strive to nominate a candidate who we know can do both IMO.

And while Shrub is an idiot but had been elected before, what he had was a lot of the experience. Not only did he run and win but he'd been in the game for many years, of course. Stupid, evil, inept, on it goes, but he had seen and played the game long enough to know how to play it to win (including cheating, obviously). Your example serves to demonstrate my point in regard to political experience and the large role it plays.

Julie

[Clark2008]

37. But that still doesn't mean that Clark COULDN'T be

elected.

I think he would - by a landslide - if the media would just throw him a bone occasionally.

[JNelson6563]

41. You are mistaken

You see things as likely because you want them to be so. You have assumed a screen name that incorporates Clark's as your own. You obviously have a hero thing going on there so yours is not the advice I would be taking if looking for an objectively informed opinion.

No offense.

Julie

[CTyankee]

27. You are absolutely RIGHT! Also he is from the South

I have heard from Independents and Republicans alike who I think would vote for Clark. But that is only if McCain didn't run. Right now, McCain hasn't been too tarnished but as his ass gets more and more in the wringer over Iraq, that might change. I could also see him running with a female governor of either a midwest or western state. Isn't Sebelius governor of Kansas?

[LWolf]

25. Are there any presidential candidates yet?

Has anyone actually made it official?

That leaves the field wide open; many might be likely to follow the 50 state strategy.

The first candidate that pops into mind is Kucinich; I don't know that he intends to run, but he certainly followed that strategy in the '04 primaries, sticking in until the end, making sure that people who hadn't had their turn to vote yet weren't stuck with fewer choices because early primaries and caucuses said so.

Many of us on the west coast appreciated that.

[blm]

32. The DNC develops the strategy for 3 1/2 yrs BEFORE the nominee is even known.

The nominee taps INTO the structure the DNC has built.

You don't CREATE 50 state strategy in 6 months - it's an INFRASTRUCTURE not an endgame plan.

[cadmium]

33. Kerry and Clark have demonstrated that they

support the 50 state in 2006

[WI_DEM]

36. I think Clark would--he certainly would make a bigger effort in the south

[WilliamPitt]

38. Look for the candidate with 'Born to Lose' tattooed on their forehead.

It's a nice idea and all, but utterly incompatible with any kind of winning strategy.

Me? I'll be looking for the candidate who looks to win Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, DC, Delaware, West Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Missouri and Ohio.

[LeftCoast]

42. I notice you're going for the non-southern state calculation?

I've been feeling this may be the way to go next time around. I don't like to abandon any region, but at the same time it's better to spend money where it'll win you a state!

[Sparkly]

43. West Virginia and Missouri? Hmm...

Depending on who runs, I think there might be a better chance for Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa, even North Carolina perhaps. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

46. I agree about the 50 state strategy thing being a bad idea,

But I would hope we've also learned from putting all our eggs in one or two baskets. I'd like to see someone on the ticket who can at least make one or two red states competitive that were not so in 2004. Giving up on Tennessee was a bad idea in 2000. Why let the entire election hang on one state again like Ohio or Florida if we can find a candidate capable of expanding the base? Giving up on North Carolina was a bad idea in 2004. We miss opportunities if we focus on a list as short as the one you just made.

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. Anyone who only campaigns in the states he needs to win is a fool

And should never go into gambling, card games or math as a profession.

Will Pitt, this almost sounds as if you agree with Carville on the efficacy of Dean's tactics.

[WilliamPitt]

49. House and Senate races are different, especially in the midterms

It is far easier to run a 50-state strategy when there are so many local races going on, because each of those campaigns is raising its own money and has a far better grasp of the local issues. A national campaign can't possibly have the nuances down of a 435-district election. National elections also cost more. Finally, victory in the midterms can mean one district in a state that has 25. In a national, you have to win the whole state.

We aren't going to win that way. Dean's plan was perfect for the midterms, but it is a doomed exercise in a general.

And, PS, please excuse my tone above. I was volcanically angry about something that had nothing to do with this thread, its subject matter or you. That kinda bubbled through, and it was not intended to.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. Rahm Emanuel.

[Radical Activist]

45. Only an idiot.

Speaking to the nation is important but a Presidential campaign needs to target its activity, especially its field organization. A 50 state strategy is what the party organization is supposed to do, not an individual campaign.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. Presidential campaigns do not work that way.

It's the job of the DNC and similar national and state-leve organizations to maintain the grassroots. Presidential campaigns will add to this effort in places where they think they can do the most good, but they do not have the resources or the organizational capacity to run anything like the "50 state strategy" as described and implemented by Dean. That's not their job. Do not confuse message work with organization work. Rove in particular has been very clever with integrating these two things into the campaign with a large degree of success. I suspect much of it is modeled on Nixon's latter campaigns. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Generally speaking, it is the job of the candidate's campaign to deliver the message, and the job of the national Party organizations to organize the ground troops.

[Katzenjammer]

50. Dennis. He did last time, so why wouldn't he again?

Probably Cynthia, too.