Do Democrats need a Western strategy?

[Figueira]

I feel like this would help a lot if the loss of Midwestern states is locking Democrats out of the Senate.

[Figueira]

That's a better Presidential strategy.  Texas and Arizona are great electoral prizes but in the Senate winning in Texas wouldn't make up for losing in a Midwestern state.

I'm not talking about Texas and Arizona. I'm taking about Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah.

[Figueira]

They aren't going to win Montana and Idaho any time soon (and probably not Utah either).

Not any time soon, which is why I put it in the trends board. But the Midwest is not going to be Safe R any time soon either. I'm talking about what Democrats should do if/when that happens.

Of course, it's possible that winning back the Midwest is easier than winning those Western states.

[Figueira]

They aren't going to win Montana and Idaho any time soon (and probably not Utah either).

Not any time soon, which is why I put it in the trends board. But the Midwest is not going to be Safe R any time soon either. I'm talking about what Democrats should do if/when that happens.

Of course, it's possible that winning back the Midwest is easier than winning those Western states.

Yes, but I'm not sure what that strategy would look like. I mean, how are they going to win MT and ID? These states aren't suddenly going to become blue or swing states just because Democrats choose to target them.

I remember people saying in 2008 that Montana would become another Colorado or even a "mini California". Look how that turned out.

Probably moderating on guns, for starters.

I don't necessarily endorse this strategy though; I'm just floating it. I would much rather win back the Midwest while improving in the Western states that already vote somewhat Democratic, as well as Mississippi when demographics allow it.

[Figueira]

That's a better Presidential strategy.  Texas and Arizona are great electoral prizes but in the Senate winning in Texas wouldn't make up for losing in a Midwestern state.

I'm not talking about Texas and Arizona. I'm taking about Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah.

That would be a bad strategy apart from Alaska.

How is focusing your resources on a tiny remote isolated state a good strategy?

Every state is equally important in the Senate.

Are Native Alaskans reproducing at a crazy rate, or are we all operating under the Atlas assumption that any White person who can read and doesn't watch Duck Dynasty will soon - or at least eventually - become a loyal Democrat?  LOL.

IIRC there are a lot of Asians moving to Alaska.

[Figueira]

At the presidential level, no. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah have what, 20 electoral votes? Don't get me wrong we should compete in every state, but not thinking about the Electoral College is what cost us the last election.

At the Congressional level, absolutely.

People seem to be increasingly unwilling to vote for two different parties for different offices.