Dean: Democrats Could Take the West

[Frodo]

a further indication of the increasingly libertarian bent of the Democratic Party:

Dean: West Fertile Ground for Democrats

By SARAH COOKE
The Associated Press
Saturday, June 4, 2005; 11:23 PM

HELENA, Mont. -- The Rocky Mountain West, long a Republican stronghold, is fertile ground for Democrats hoping to take back Congress and the White House in coming years, Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean told supporters here Saturday.

Democrats have more in common with Westerners than the GOP, the former Vermont governor said.

They appreciate the free-spirited, independent thinking that dominate states like Montana, and understand the wish for a balanced budget and a strong military, as well as treating soldiers well when they get home, something Dean said the Bush administration has neglected.

"I think we're going to have a very appealing message in the Rocky Mountain West," he said. "We want to be everywhere. We don't think just because George Bush won this state by a lot of votes means that Montana is going to be a Republican state forever.

"I think our values are more consistent with Montana values than Republican values are."

link

[Rob]

If the Democrats go right economically and support a muscular foreign policy, I could see them sweeping the Mountain West.

Except for Utah.

[muon2]

If the Democrats go right economically and support a muscular foreign policy, I could see them sweeping the Mountain West.

Except for Utah.

Howard Dean may say it, but it remains to be seen if the Dem Congressional delegation will take substantial actions to back that up. The urban members make up tha majority of the Dem legislators and neither of the above points are in their agenda.

[TomC]

AZ. NV, NM, and COLO. That's the best the Dems can hope for any time soon (plus the coast).

[WalterMitty]

yeah, sure.

dems couldnt win (or even come close) in wv, which has a huge democratic registration margin.

dont the dems have more urgent matters than starting up quixotic adventures in the mountain west?

[Platypus]

I think they're in circumstances that demand they look into every region of the US, Walt.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

AZ. NV, NM, and COLO. That's the best the Dems can hope for any time soon (plus the coast).

That together with the Kerry states gives 281 EV, and you know IA and OH will be close again, and FL as long as they don't $20 billion of federal money to buy their votes ("hurricane money") right before the election. Montana voted for Clinton in '92, and the Democrats control the state government, one of its Senator positions, and are giving the other Senator a fight.

[A18]

That took a lot of help from Perot.

[opebo]

AZ. NV, NM, and COLO. That's the best the Dems can hope for any time soon (plus the coast).

Actually NV, NM, and CO would be enough to win the election.  AZ is a bit harder.

[Platypus]

MT isn't important in Presidential elections for the Dems, but the Senate seats are, and so is the state legislature to a lesser degree. Basicaqlly, they're not non-existant in MT.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

MT isn't important in Presidential elections for the Dems, but the Senate seats are, and so is the state legislature to a lesser degree. Basicaqlly, they're not non-existant in MT.

If Schweitzer can win a governor race, a Democrat can win them in a Presidential race.

[TheresNoMoney]

Muon, I agree. The Democratic platform needs sweeping changes- namely, support of tax cuts (at any level), opposition to gun control, and support for a limited federal government.

Tax cuts are great. But the way the Republicans do it, they support tax cuts at all costs. This is bad policy. You cut taxes when you can (when you've balanced the budget) and you raise taxes when you must (when you have the largest deficit in history). You eliminate unneccessary programs and departments when needed, but keep the essential programs (Social Security, Medicare, WIC).

Many Democrats already oppose gun control. There's no real clear position on gun control in the party, it depends on the candidate. More and more you are seeing Democrats who oppose gun control.

As for limited government again, you keep the essential programs and make new regulations when there is abuse in the system. Besides that, you let it alone. This is the best policy in my opinion.

[opebo]

Muon, I agree. The Democratic platform needs sweeping changes- namely, support of tax cuts (at any level), opposition to gun control, and support for a limited federal government.

Tax cuts are great.

You're both wrong - tax cuts are not 'great'.  They are great for a very small minority of people, who are going to vote GOP anyway.  Taxes should be significantly raised for the upper classes, and reduced for the lower - but since the lower classes have no money and cannot pay significant taxes, the solution is to give them government payments which redistribute income.  I think this idea was called the 'Negative Income Tax' during the Nixon administration.

[TheresNoMoney]

You're both wrong - tax cuts are not 'great'.  They are great for a very small minority of people, who are going to vote GOP anyway.

I essentially agree with you.

I am saying that you cut taxes when the situation is right. You should never cut taxes just for the sake of cutting taxes (like Republicans do). You cut taxes when you have a surplus or can safely reduce spending without hurting essential services/programs.

Bush gave everyone a tax cut. For the lower and middle class, we got a very small tax cut (a couple hundred dollars at most). Yet, with the increases in gas price, health insurance, and stagnant wage growth, we are doing much worse than we were under President Clinton (when taxes were a little higher). The tax cut has been greatly offset by huge increases in essential items. Bush's mishandling of the economy has greatly contributed to these price increases.

So essentially, although we paid more taxes under President Clinton, we all had a hell of a lot more spending money in our pockets.

[A18]

If the Democrats go right economically and support a muscular foreign policy, I could see them sweeping the Mountain West.

Which won't happen.

[TheresNoMoney]

Which won't happen.

There is no reason to go right economically. Poll after poll shows people support us on economic issues.  If anything, we should oppose further free trade agreements (CAFTA) and work to lower health insurance costs so more businesses stay in the country.

[A18]

Yes, they really loved Hillarycare, and Democratic opposition to CAFTA won't help the GOP win more Hispanic votes.

[opebo]

If the Democrats go right economically and support a muscular foreign policy, I could see them sweeping the Mountain West.

Which won't happen.

There is no reason to go right economically. Poll after poll shows people support us on economic issues.  If anything, we should oppose further free trade agreements (CAFTA) and work to lower health insurance costs so more businesses stay in the country.

Very correct Scoonie on economic issues.  As for the 'muscular foreign policy', in other words invading nations for no reason - it is highly destructive of the national interest.  However the electoral purpose of GOP imperialism is to win over the irrational, emotional, nationalist vote.  I don't see how the Democrats can win over this particularly brainless and vicious type, since it would be difficult to be more violent and xenophobic than the GOP.  

The only hope we have for the GOP to loose this support is if the general view becomes one that US foreign policy is a disaster.  While it already obviously is that, I don't think this could be brought home to the semi-concious average American untill and unless it caused massive casualties of some kind, as in the Vietnam boondoggle.

[TheresNoMoney]

Yes, they really loved Hillarycare, and Democratic opposition to CAFTA won't help the GOP win more Hispanic votes.

CAFTA will results in more jobs being shipped to other countries (like NAFTA).

How is losing American jobs a good thing?

Big business will eventually demand universal health care, since it will greatly lower their health insurance costs and increase profitability.

[TheresNoMoney]

 As for the 'muscular foreign policy', in other words invading nations for no reason - it is highly destructive of the national interest.  However the electoral purpose of GOP imperialism is to win over the irrational, emotional, nationalist vote.  I don't see how the Democrats can win over this particularly brainless and vicious type, since it would be difficult to be more violent and xenophobic than the GOP.

Truer words were never spoken, my friend.

[A18]

And more jobs being shipped over here.

You simply tax away money for lower quality health care, that therefore costs less. You're essentially saying big business would be better off if Americans didn't have such high standards. That kind of depends on the business, now doesn't it?

[Blue Rectangle]

Clinton won states like Montana and Colorado because of Perot, pure and simple.  Clinton only got 38% of the vote in MT in 1992!

In his eight years, Clinton did a lot of things to piss off Rocky Mountain states: logging restrictions, wilderness road restrictions, snowmobile restrictions, the Staircase-Escalante land grab, etc.  This isn't libertarianism.

The current social "libertarian" policies of the Democrats are things like abortion rights and gay rights.  These are loser issues in the West.  In these states, libertarian means things like lower taxes, a smaller federal government, property rights and gun rights.

If the Democrats somehow become pro-life, anti-gay rights and pro-gun and become the party of lower taxes, smaller government and less environmental regulations, then yeah, they can win here.

[opebo]

Clinton won states like Montana and Colorado because of Perot, pure and simple.  Clinton only got 38% of the vote in MT in 1992!

In his eight years, Clinton did a lot of things to piss off Rocky Mountain states: logging restrictions, wilderness road restrictions, snowmobile restrictions, the Staircase-Escalante land grab, etc.  This isn't libertarianism.

The current social "libertarian" policies of the Democrats are things like abortion rights and gay rights.  These are loser issues in the West.  In these states, libertarian means things like lower taxes, a smaller federal government, property rights and gun rights.

If the Democrats somehow become pro-life, anti-gay rights and pro-gun and become the party of lower taxes, smaller government and less environmental regulations, then yeah, they can win here.

You are quite correct about the West in general, but not about your own state, which is changing out from under you.  NV first, and then CO will be Democratic leaning states. 

[Blue Rectangle]

Clinton won states like Montana and Colorado because of Perot, pure and simple.  Clinton only got 38% of the vote in MT in 1992!

In his eight years, Clinton did a lot of things to piss off Rocky Mountain states: logging restrictions, wilderness road restrictions, snowmobile restrictions, the Staircase-Escalante land grab, etc.  This isn't libertarianism.

The current social "libertarian" policies of the Democrats are things like abortion rights and gay rights.  These are loser issues in the West.  In these states, libertarian means things like lower taxes, a smaller federal government, property rights and gun rights.

If the Democrats somehow become pro-life, anti-gay rights and pro-gun and become the party of lower taxes, smaller government and less environmental regulations, then yeah, they can win here.

You are quite correct about the West in general, but not about your own state, which is changing out from under you.  NV first, and then CO will be Democratic leaning states. 

Kerry spent an aweful lot of time and resources on CO in 2004 and Bush still won easily.  If the Democrats want to waste even more time in 2008, then that's fine by me--it will just mean Republicans will win other states.  If Dean wants to waste time going after MT, with its whopping 3 EVs, then I say go for it.  Maybe we can arrange a trade: we'll give Dean NV, CO and MT, but we get MN, WI and MI.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of the 9 political groups, 8 support a higher minimum wage, and 8 support universal health care.