Howard Dean pours extra money into four red states.

[MissCatholic]

Howard Dean has poured extra cash into

Mississippi
North Carolina
Missouri
Nevada

now did he make the right decision? He has always stated that Mississippi is a democratic target due to the state having the honor of being last in salary, first in poverty, last in % of people with health insurance. He believes that we have to appeal to Confederate republicans in their pick-up trucks. Nevada is a definite target for 08 so i support him on that. Missouri i can uderstand also as it seems to have gone to the right while North Carolina is constantly growing in population but also has had some difficult religion news storeis to deal with.

But would they have been your four red states had you been Howard Dean?

Mine would have been

Arkansas - we have two senators, and a good chance of getting a democratic governor in 06. All we need to do is invest in Northwest Arkansas which is where the Republicans have made considerable ground.

Virginia - the best county result for the democratic county was not in any of the swing states it was in Fairfax County, VA. This is great progress for the party that spent very little cash in the state and with a liberal running agaisnt an incumbent. We need to focus on areas like Virginia Beach before we have any chance of turning the state blue.

Colorado - Howard Dean has penetrated rich white Americans in Conservative States. The typical Dean voter is one of those people that usually gives money to Bush/Republicans. The democrats cant rely on huge turnouts in Denver. We have to make some ground in Colorado Springs, El Paso County.

Arizona - Another state which is growing. Only has 100,000 people less in population than Missouri so will have more electoral votes. Immigration is an issue but the party needs to just win Phoenix (Manicopa County) then focus on winnning the state.

[TheresNoMoney]

They're trying to put money into all states that need it, not just those four. There have already been others and more are on the way.

[elcorazon]

Ohio
Colorado
Virginia
Florida

If Ohio and Florida don't count, how about:

Iowa
Nevada

Somehow I don't see Missouri turning back to the left again, but with cities on either side, maybe it's possible.  I don't know about Arkansas; is it worth the effort? 

I think Dean's idea is to make the Dems popular throughout the nation and try to get away from focusing on "swing states", probably not a bad idea, actually; don't know if it'll work, but it's a reasonable approach.  Mississippi's likely a bit of a guinea pig in that regard; if there are inroads there, then South Carolina, Georgia, etc. will eventually be targeted as well.

[MODU]

He has poured more money into those states, but has brought in far less money than the Republicans (plus he's been irritating his own party).  Not a good 100 days for him so far.  We'll have to see how he does in the next 100 days.

[TheresNoMoney]

He has poured more money into those states, but has brought in far less money than the Republicans

Republicans always outraise the Democrats because they are the party of big business and corporate giveaways.

Democrats will never outraise Republicans.

[MODU]

He has poured more money into those states, but has brought in far less money than the Republicans

Republicans always outraise the Democrats because they are the party of big business and corporate giveaways.

Democrats will never outraise Republicans.

Ahh, but that was one of the reasons behind selecting him as the chairman.  He had that gang-buster of a money raising system when running for President which has all but came to a stop these days. 

[Democratic Hawk]

Pouring money into Missouri and Nevada is probably more worthwhile than pouring resources into North Carolina and definitely more worthwhile than pouring money into Mississippi

Arizona and Colorado seem to good long term prospects worth investing in

Dave

[TheresNoMoney]

Ahh, but that was one of the reasons behind selecting him as the chairman.  He had that gang-buster of a money raising system when running for President which has all but came to a stop these days. 

Not true. Terry McCauliffe was a great fundraiser but he sucked as DNC Chair.

Dean is doing very well fundraising, he just isn't getting the money from the big corporate donors. I think that's a good thing.

[AuH2O]

Actually Democrats outraised the GOP until 1995, and even since then it's often been close.

Dean is a miserable failure at fundraising and so where he "directs" the little money he brings in is meaningless.

[TomC]

Ohio, Florida.

[Sam Spade]

As a rule, Democrats should be more concerned about 2006 before they even start worrying about 2008.  The Republicans will play it that way, I guarantee it.

North Carolina doesn't make any sense because there's not another statewide election there till 2008.  Maybe there are a Congressional seat or two where Democrats might stand a chance of taking over.  Still..

The others are less questionable, though I don't see the Democrats having any shot in Nevada statewide elections in 2006 because the Republican candidates for Governor/open Congressional seats are good and the Democrat bench is very weak there.

[TheresNoMoney]

North Carolina doesn't make any sense because there's not another statewide election there till 2008. 

This is all part of the big picture, the long-term strategy to strengthen each state, even if we don't expect to win in those states for a while.

[AuH2O]

"Ever" is a long time.

[tarheel-leftist85]

It's actually a great idea.
Missouri:  Something has happened.  There's no good reason why this state should turn red...unless we let them.  It has been the ultimate bellweather for over a century.  Clinton and Carter certainly got more than the big cities.  Remember, this is not a out of touch state.  They elected a dead guy over Ashcroft, something that didn't happen in Minnesota.  We cannot lose this bellweather.
Mississippi:  This is actually a very good idea.  The proportion of black people in Missouri is slowly increasing.  Couple that with a disproportionately large  turnout, and you have 48% D.  If you can get the white vote from 15 to 20-25%, this state will turn blue.
North Carolina:  This state is only going to grow and become more Democratic.  Pretty much everything is controlled by Dems. on a state level.  Young people have really been trending Democrat and it's one of the few places in the south where you'll find Democratic white people (Asheville and Chapel Hill especially).  If we can bring the white vote from 27% Dem. to 33% Dem., we've got 49+% and the state is up for grabs.  The state will be larger than Michigan and just a couple 100 thousand behind Pennsylvania.
Nevada:  That might be the dumbest choice, as it will prob. be ours by the next election. (we gain 2+% with every election which will bring us up just a hair under 50% but enough to win), but I guess it couldn't hurt to throw a little money in the mix.
In addition to these four, I'd be throwing resources (people more than money) at Florida, Colorado, and Virginia.  We really need to be building a base in these states, because (w/ the exception of MO) they'll be growing, while the states we're currently winning won't be.  To ignore the south would be fatal, as the Republicans learned a while back.

[Hitchabrut]

Mississipppi: no.
The others seem logical, but Ohio would be a better target than Missouri and Virginia would be a better target than North Carolina. Ohio could be an easy pick-up for the Democrats if they focus on it and the Republicans ignore it.

[TomC]

It's actually a great idea.
Missouri:  Something has happened.  There's no good reason why this state should turn red...unless we let them.  It has been the ultimate bellweather for over a century.  Clinton and Carter certainly got more than the big cities.  Remember, this is not a out of touch state.  They elected a dead guy over Ashcroft, something that didn't happen in Minnesota.  We cannot lose this bellweather.
Mississippi:  This is actually a very good idea.  The proportion of black people in Missouri is slowly increasing.  Couple that with a disproportionately large  turnout, and you have 48% D.  If you can get the white vote from 15 to 20-25%, this state will turn blue.
North Carolina:  This state is only going to grow and become more Democratic.  Pretty much everything is controlled by Dems. on a state level.  Young people have really been trending Democrat and it's one of the few places in the south where you'll find Democratic white people (Asheville and Chapel Hill especially).  If we can bring the white vote from 27% Dem. to 33% Dem., we've got 49+% and the state is up for grabs.  The state will be larger than Michigan and just a couple 100 thousand behind Pennsylvania.
Nevada:  That might be the dumbest choice, as it will prob. be ours by the next election. (we gain 2+% with every election which will bring us up just a hair under 50% but enough to win), but I guess it couldn't hurt to throw a little money in the mix.
In addition to these four, I'd be throwing resources (people more than money) at Florida, Colorado, and Virginia.  We really need to be building a base in these states, because (w/ the exception of MO) they'll be growing, while the states we're currently winning won't be.  To ignore the south would be fatal, as the Republicans learned a while back.

Good analysis

[Adam Griffin]

The sad thing is that the South isn't as conservative as it appears; it's just that many potential voters that would vote Democratic don't show up to the polls or register to vote because they feel defeated by the conservative force here in the south. Georgia has been controlled, until 2002, by Democrats at the state level; what I don't understand is why people here trust local Democrats but not national ones.

[Frodo]

The sad thing is that the South isn't as conservative as it appears; it's just that many potential voters that would vote Democratic don't show up to the polls or register to vote because they feel defeated by the conservative force here in the south. Georgia has been controlled, until 2002, by Democrats at the state level; what I don't understand is why people here trust local Democrats but not national ones.

First of all, welcome to the forum!  I hope you stick around.

With regard to your last sentence, I don't quite understand why you don't understand why voters vote the way they do in your state.  Since you actually live in the state, I assume you would know better than I do. 

I have my ideas on why southerners vote for Democrats for lower local and state-level offices, but not at the national level, which involves the greater emphasis on social issues at the national level (since both major parties are more or less pro-business to most people), which currently best differentiates the national Democratic Party from the Republican Party. 

At the state and local levels, it is by and large state and local issues that determine who people vote for, and since southern Democrats tend to be by and large socially conservative and all-round moderates, southerners simply feel more comfortable voting for them.  Now, apparently things have changed since the 1990s, since Republicans are increasingly more powerful at even the state and local levels in the South, but Democrats still have a much better chance at winning an electoral office at the state and local level in most southern states than they do at winning a national office. 

So, what do you think?  What are your ideas? 

[ian]

I support putting extra money in those states.  I also support putting money into other such "hopeless causes" as South Dakota, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, which, in case you didn't know, the last two have more registered Democrats than Republicans.
I think Dean hit the nail on the head with Mississippi, which also has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

[Smash255]

Mississippi doesn't make much sense.  The hard core social conservatism in the state is going to hurt the Dems chances, even with how bad the state is economically.

North Carolina I can understand.  Raleigh-Durham continues its move leftward (it has been a liberal area for a whille)  & Charolette a very fast growing area is trending leftward.  Mecklenburg Co (where Charlotte is) went from 5.8% more GOP than the Natl average in 96 to 3.3% more gOP than the Natl average in 2000, to 5% more Dem than the Natl average in 2004. Part of it is probably due to the Edwards impact, but their is the leftward shift in a very fast growing area

[Smash255]

I support putting extra money in those states.  I also support putting money into other such "hopeless causes" as South Dakota, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, which, in case you didn't know, the last two have more registered Democrats than Republicans.
I think Dean hit the nail on the head with Mississippi, which also has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

The regristration only means so much.  Many of those registered Dems basically consider themselves Republicans, just haven't changed their regristration.  Much the same is the case in some areas of the Northeast, especially suburban NYC & Philly where the GOP tends to have a regristration advantage, but isl a Democratic area.  However I do agree we shouldn't be throwing in the towel in some of these areas.

[Adam Griffin]

First of all, welcome to the forum!  I hope you stick around.

With regard to your last sentence, I don't quite understand why you don't understand why voters vote the way they do in your state.  Since you actually live in the state, I assume you would know better than I do. 

I have my ideas on why southerners vote for Democrats for lower local and state-level offices, but not at the national level, which involves the greater emphasis on social issues at the national level (since both major parties are more or less pro-business to most people), which currently best differentiates the national Democratic Party from the Republican Party. 

At the state and local levels, it is by and large state and local issues that determine who people vote for, and since southern Democrats tend to be by and large socially conservative and all-round moderates, southerners simply feel more comfortable voting for them.  Now, apparently things have changed since the 1990s, since Republicans are increasingly more powerful at even the state and local levels in the South, but Democrats still have a much better chance at winning an electoral office at the state and local level in most southern states than they do at winning a national office. 

So, what do you think?  What are your ideas? 

Thanks for the welcome, Frodo. I'm sorry that I didn't elaborate more in my first post. What I meant by my comments on the conservativeness of the state is that I recognize that the majority of voters here vote conservative because they are extremely right-wing evangelical Christians; however, I do not believe that the majority of people in the state are of that statute.

I believe that many liberal-minded people see the election results and feel as if their votes won't matter in the swarm of conservative politics and therefore don't register or show up to vote, hence handing the elections to the Christian Coalition and other evangelical groups within the state. I seriously think that if everyone in the state were to vote, we would see more even numbers, somewhere between (45% D/55% R - 50% D/50% R).

The reason I do not understand the difference between state/local elections as opposed to national elections here is because of the attitudes of the people where I live. Essentially, conservative people here view Democrats as baby-killing bible burners, no matter if they are running for city council or president. People here are very judgmental for the most part, whether it be towards Republicans or Democrats.

[opebo]

Missouri:  Something has happened.  There's no good reason why this state should turn red...unless we let them.  It has been the ultimate bellweather for over a century.  Clinton and Carter certainly got more than the big cities.  Remember, this is not a out of touch state.  They elected a dead guy over Ashcroft, something that didn't happen in Minnesota.  We cannot lose this bellweather.

Interesting points.  My state is still pretty evenly balanced.  I think the main reasons it swung to Bush so strongly in 2004 were:
1) 9/11 'patriotism'
2) anti-gay feeling (we had a referendum shortly prior to the election)
3) dislike of Kerry as a northeasterner.

I think it will be difficult for a Democrat to win over that crucial middle swing vote, because they tend to vote based on emotion - like voting for a dead guy out of sympathy or Bush out of anger/nationalism.  This type of empty-headed voter is normally much more amenable to the GOP's 'patriotic' blandishments and simplistic view of social issues rather than the Democrats more moderate, thoughtful positions.

Anyway, I agree Nevada is headed Democrat without the need of much effort or expenditure.

I think Colorado should be a big priority, certainly way ahead of Arizona.

[tarheel-leftist85]

The sad thing is that the South isn't as conservative as it appears; it's just that many potential voters that would vote Democratic don't show up to the polls or register to vote because they feel defeated by the conservative force here in the south. Georgia has been controlled, until 2002, by Democrats at the state level; what I don't understand is why people here trust local Democrats but not national ones.

Most of my family comes from the N. Georgia area around Gainesville, Dawsonville, etc.  They're prob. some the last remaining Dems. in that part of the state

Interesting points. My state is still pretty evenly balanced. I think the main reasons it swung to Bush so strongly in 2004 were:
1) 9/11 'patriotism'
2) anti-gay feeling (we had a referendum shortly prior to the election)
3) dislike of Kerry as a northeasterner.

I think it will be difficult for a Democrat to win over that crucial middle swing vote, because they tend to vote based on emotion - like voting for a dead guy out of sympathy or Bush out of anger/nationalism. This type of empty-headed voter is normally much more amenable to the GOP's 'patriotic' blandishments and simplistic view of social issues rather than the Democrats more moderate, thoughtful positions.

Anyway, I agree Nevada is headed Democrat without the need of much effort or expenditure.

I think Colorado should be a big priority, certainly way ahead of Arizona.

MO, though you live there (and have more expertise), I'm willing to give a shot.  We'll see what happens in the upcoming gubernatorial election as well (the current governor rode to victory on Bush's coattails).
Colorado is definitely a state in which we should focus time and energy (something more important than money, but don't tell Kerry that who still begs for money...ugggh).  Arizona's like GA, I'm afraid is a big state we'll have to let go of.  But FL is not.  We've got to win that state.

[Rob]

Arizona - Another state which is growing. Only has 100,000 people less in population than Missouri so will have more electoral votes. Immigration is an issue but the party needs to just win Phoenix (Manicopa County) then focus on winnning the state.

Heh, good luck carrying Maricopa. It's gone Republican in every election since 1948, and it voted 57 percent for Bush. As for my four "red states" to invest in, they would be:

Nevada
Iowa
Ohio
Florida

A generic list, but those are the most plausible states for the Democrats, along with New Mexico.

BTW, it's hilarious that Dean is wasting money in Mississippi.