Why did Democrats abandon the 50 state strategy?

[Mr.Phips]

Howard Dean's 50 state strategy helped Democrats win the House and Senate in 2006 and helped them pick up more seats in 2008.  When Democrats ditched the 50 state strategy in 2009, they lost everything they had gained and more. 

Here is what Democrats have lost since abandoning the 50 state strategy:

24 state legislative chambers
12 state legislatures
8 governorships
700 state legislative seats
63 House seats
6 Senate seats

When was the last time a party lost so much, so quickly?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why don't they teach logic at these schools?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well a large amount of that was the result of negative swings against Obama's popularity because of the economy.

[Yelnoc]

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's not as stupid a question as you three seem to suggest, tho the idea that the loss of those seats was due mainly to the abandonment of the 50 State strategy is fairly illogical.  While the Democrats are necessarily playing defense right now, that doesn't require focusing only on defense.  Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.  Plus abandoning areas they are currently weak in will only help to insure they remain weak in them in the long term.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's all Obama's fault. His winning was the worst thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party.

[Ebowed]

It's all Obama's fault. His winning was the worst thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party.

Exactly.  If the Democrats knew what was best for their interests, they would purposely lose the Presidency in 2012 and 2016 to regain control of Congress.

[Wonkish1]

The truth is that casting a wider net is an aggressive strategy designed to do 3 things.  
1) Give up some marginal benefit of today for a higher pay off in the future(most of politics is by nature short term focused so people don't like doing this)
2) Cause the other sides stronger players ditch their weaker ones and worry about themselves(for example when the GOP aggressively widened the field in 94 the leaders that were raising the money for the Dems and distributing it to weaker incumbents stopped and instead pulled back and spent it on themselves).
3) Expand the possible wins in a wave election

So if your in a position where you are trying to limit damage the worst thing you could do is follow a wide net strategy you'll just be beaten down more.


And the notion that the Dems lost seats in 2010 because they abandoned 50 state is one of the dumbest notions I've come across in political strategy.

[greenforest32]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The neoliberals who own the party insisted.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  So at the House level, thinking long term is the smart thing for them to do right now.  The Senate's different.  The Dems have a slim chance of retaining their majority if everything goes well for them, and the Republicans have a slim chance of gaining a filibuster proof 60 seats if everything goes well for them.  That combined with the fact that the Republicans have a decent chance of reaching 60 seats in the 2014 elections means that the Dems need to play short-term defense in the Senate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. 

That's rarely true electorally; often it's the best way to turn a defeat into a rout. Though, obviously, it's an error to totally abandon future prospects...

[Wonkish1]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  So at the House level, thinking long term is the smart thing for them to do right now.  The Senate's different.  The Dems have a slim chance of retaining their majority if everything goes well for them, and the Republicans have a slim chance of gaining a filibuster proof 60 seats if everything goes well for them.  That combined with the fact that the Republicans have a decent chance of reaching 60 seats in the 2014 elections means that the Dems need to play short-term defense in the Senate.

Federalist the problem is that I don't see it being a good idea to run a targeted and focus strategy one side of the election and a wide net strategy in a different side of the election. 50 state was a DNC strategy of boosting the apparatus in traditionally GOP states for a strong GOTV efforts in the future. A DNC strategy like that isn't conducive to Obama's reelection and many Dems would be pissed if the race ended up pretty close and the misdirected funds could have been a deciding factor.

If the GOP was in the position the Dems were today this is what I would do: Since I tend to be long term focused and I have come to the conclusion that the most valuable branch of government is the house of representatives I would go 50 state strategy and cast a wide net for the future of the party because to not do so is to risk relegating your party out of power in congress for a long period of time. And without that you put yourself in the position of the GOP for most of the 20th century and that is that you can elect a president from your party to try to slow the change of the other side, but you will never be able to push through meaningful reform centered from your parties ideals.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Dems aren't going to be able to pass major partisan legislation for quite some time Wonk. It's going to be at least twenty years before they have absolute control all three of the House, Senate, and Presidency. (Assuming the filibuster is kept in the Senate.)  Nor do I see them being able to prevent the Republicans from achieving absolute control at least once in the next twenty years.

As for Obama losing in 2012, unless the GOP nominates an utter incompetent, that would be a good thing.  We cannot afford four more years of gridlock right now unless the alternative is electing a nincompoop as President.

[Wonkish1]

The Dems aren't going to be able to pass major partisan legislation for quite some time Wonk. It's going to be at least twenty years before they have absolute control all three of the House, Senate, and Presidency. (Assuming the filibuster is kept in the Senate.)  Nor do I see them being able to prevent the Republicans from achieving absolute control at least once in the next twenty years.

As for Obama losing in 2012, unless the GOP nominates an utter incompetent, that would be a good thing.  We cannot afford four more years of gridlock right now unless the alternative is electing a nincompoop as President.

Well I would agree on 20 years. But I think Dems are way underestimating how much things will suck for them when they realize that the best you can do is try to slow the change of conservative legislation. Now if I was some sort of party dictator in control of all things strategy the moment that I lose the house that is my primary focus of getting back. Even if I can reduce the time of not having the house by 4 years(lets say 16 years vs. 20 years) its well worth it because it is such an important piece of government.

[freepcrusher]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  

its very possible that if Obama loses in 2012 the dems regain it in 2014.

[Wonkish1]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  

its very possible that if Obama loses in 2012 the dems regain it in 2014.

That is actually extremely unlikely. Dems that say that have no idea what just happened on the redistricting front. While redistricting itself may have led to an equal if not slight Dem advantage vs. current numbers the change in the strength of GOP held districts is huge and unbelievable.

Now its been a while since I've seen this number posted(I believe some GOP benefiting changes have or will take place to it as well) so don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure the PVI for the median house district is about R+3.

What that means is that Dems will have to trudge through a ton of republican territory to take the last marginal district capable of giving them a majority. The hill is just too steep. And furthermore if they want a real governing majority(where very conservative Blue Dogs aren't the deciders of everything) they are going to need at least 10 more seats on top of that(personally I don't want control of the house unless I've got at least a 10 vote buffer) for that to happen you need to win 10 more seats that are R+3-4.

Let me give you a clue from a political perspective not going to happen in the reign the Queen D*ck.

[freepcrusher]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  

its very possible that if Obama loses in 2012 the dems regain it in 2014.

That is actually extremely unlikely. Dems that say that have no idea what just happened on the redistricting front. While redistricting itself may have led to an equal if not slight Dem advantage vs. current numbers the change in the strength of GOP held districts is huge and unbelievable.

Now its been a while since I've seen this number posted(I believe some GOP benefiting changes have or will take place to it as well) so don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure the PVI for the median house district is about R+3.

What that means is that Dems will have to trudge through a ton of republican territory to take the last marginal district capable of giving them a majority. The hill is just too steep. And furthermore if they want a real governing majority(where very conservative Blue Dogs aren't the deciders of everything) they are going to need at least 10 more seats on top of that(personally I don't want control of the house unless I've got at least a 10 vote buffer) for that to happen you need to win 10 more seats that are R+3-4.

Let me give you a clue from a political perspective not going to happen in the reign the Queen D*ck.

people said the same thing about republicans in the 91 round of redistricting. The dems controlled far more legislatures back then then Rs do now

[Wonkish1]

people said the same thing about republicans in the 91 round of redistricting. The dems controlled far more legislatures back then then Rs do now

A key difference is that the Dems held the legislatures in 1980 too there wasn't the amazing change in legislature composure between those periods like there was between 2000 and 2010 for the GOP.

Also major changes in voting behavior had occurred between the assumptions Dems were using in the late 1980s and the mid 1990s. Also wasn't the Dems gerrymander in 1990 aggressive(thin) not defensive(fat)?

Also do you have a source of the numbers for the 1990 state legislatures? That would be interesting to see.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  

its very possible that if Obama loses in 2012 the dems regain it in 2014.

Nah.  Even without the redistricting arguments that Wonk gave, I don't see the Republicans as being able to do themselves sufficient political damage in only two years to reverse the political tide that far.  Not unless the Tea Partiers take far more seats than I expect them to.  Pretty much everyone agrees that Social Security and Medicare need some serious reforms to bring the Federal budget back into whack in the long term.  So long as the Republicans can avoid reforms that are seen as being the next worst thing to eliminating them, they'll only lose some seats as is typical for the party in power during a mid-term election, but not the whole House.  Plus the Dems will have to concentrate on defending the Senate seats they won in 2008 in an attempt to keep the Republicans from gaining enough seats there to get a filibuster-proof 60 seats.

[Brittain33]

How anyone can make sweeping predictions about the next several elections given what we have lived through since 2004 is beyond me.

[Mr.Phips]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  

its very possible that if Obama loses in 2012 the dems regain it in 2014.

That is actually extremely unlikely. Dems that say that have no idea what just happened on the redistricting front. While redistricting itself may have led to an equal if not slight Dem advantage vs. current numbers the change in the strength of GOP held districts is huge and unbelievable.

Now its been a while since I've seen this number posted(I believe some GOP benefiting changes have or will take place to it as well) so don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure the PVI for the median house district is about R+3.

What that means is that Dems will have to trudge through a ton of republican territory to take the last marginal district capable of giving them a majority. The hill is just too steep. And furthermore if they want a real governing majority(where very conservative Blue Dogs aren't the deciders of everything) they are going to need at least 10 more seats on top of that(personally I don't want control of the house unless I've got at least a 10 vote buffer) for that to happen you need to win 10 more seats that are R+3-4.

Let me give you a clue from a political perspective not going to happen in the reign the Queen D*ck.

There will be a TON of Republicans in seats that are R+5 or less, which will be ripe for taking in an anti- Romney midterm. 

[Wonkish1]

There will be a TON of Republicans in seats that are R+5 or less, which will be ripe for taking in an anti- Romney midterm. 

The GOP wasn't able to make much progress in D+ territory in 2010, why do you think the Dems will fare any better?

[Mr.Phips]

There will be a TON of Republicans in seats that are R+5 or less, which will be ripe for taking in an anti- Romney midterm. 

The GOP wasn't able to make much progress in D+ territory in 2010, why do you think the Dems will fare any better?

Most of the seats Democrats picked up in 2006 and 2008 were in low R+ territory.  Here is a list:


2006:

1. AZ-05 R+4
2. AZ-08 R+2
3. CA-11 R+3
4. FL-16  R+3
5. IN-02 R+4
6. IN-08 R+9
7. IN-09 R+7
8. KS-02 R+7
9. MN-01 R+1
10. NY-19 R+1
11. NY-20 R+2
12. NC-11 R+7
13. OH-18 R+7
14. PA-04 R+3
15. PA-10 R+8
16. TX-22 R+14
17. TX=23 R+4
18. WI-08 R+4

2008:

1. AL-02 R+13
2. CO-04 R+5
3. FL-24 R+4
4. ID-01 R+18
5. MD-01 R+13
6. MI-07 R+1
7. NY-13 R+4
8. NY-29 R+5
9. OH-16 R+4
10 PA-03 R+3
11. VA-02 R+5
12. VA-05 R+5

[All Along The Watchtower]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  

its very possible that if Obama loses in 2012 the dems regain it in 2014.

Nah.  Even without the redistricting arguments that Wonk gave, I don't see the Republicans as being able to do themselves sufficient political damage in only two years to reverse the political tide that far.  Not unless the Tea Partiers take far more seats than I expect them to.  Pretty much everyone agrees that Social Security and Medicare need some serious reforms to bring the Federal budget back into whack in the long term.  So long as the Republicans can avoid reforms that are seen as being the next worst thing to eliminating them, they'll only lose some seats as is typical for the party in power during a mid-term election, but not the whole House.  Plus the Dems will have to concentrate on defending the Senate seats they won in 2008 in an attempt to keep the Republicans from gaining enough seats there to get a filibuster-proof 60 seats.

Manufacturing Consent?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

  Pretty much everyone agrees that Social Security and Medicare need some serious reforms to bring the Federal budget back into whack in the long term.

Manufacturing Consent?

No, because while almost everyone agrees there is a problem, there isn't much agreement on the solution, whether it be to increase the taxes that go into the trust funds, scale back the benefit levels, increase the age of eligibility, means test drawing benefits from the trust funds, increase the premiums paid to get Medicare, put money into the trust funds by non-payroll taxes, etc.   However, unless the Democrats lose the ability to filibuster in the Senate, I don't see the GOP being able to pass a plan that could backfire so spectacularly as to let the Dems retake the House in 2014.