PA-Sen: Casey +18

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Well, fwiw, the only Democrats I ever remember seriously arguing that nonsense were Non-Swing Voter (who turned to Libertarianism lol) and a dingus who wrote a Politico article in December 2016 imploring Democrats to abandon he Midwest in favor of greener pastures in Texas, Arizona and Georgia. Of course, Dems should target the latter two states, but anyone who argues the Midwest is a lost cause for either party is a buffoon. Now, I’ve heard plenty of people describe Ohio and Iowa as Leans or likely R states and advocating for ignoring them Presidentially, but that’s much different than “abandoning the Rust Belt”

A lot of mucky mucks within the party who are directly interested in party resources moving South are quietly making the argument. And one can view the Obama/Trump vs Rising American Electorate arguments (ESPECIALLY the people who draw a strong dichotomy between those two choices as the only options) as a proxy argument for abandoning the industrial midwest to go to the sunbelt and vice versa.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Well, fwiw, the only Democrats I ever remember seriously arguing that nonsense were Non-Swing Voter (who turned to Libertarianism lol) and a dingus who wrote a Politico article in December 2016 imploring Democrats to abandon he Midwest in favor of greener pastures in Texas, Arizona and Georgia. Of course, Dems should target the latter two states, but anyone who argues the Midwest is a lost cause for either party is a buffoon. Now, I’ve heard plenty of people describe Ohio and Iowa as Leans or likely R states and advocating for ignoring them Presidentially, but that’s much different than “abandoning the Rust Belt”

A lot of mucky mucks within the party who are directly interested in party resources moving South are quietly making the argument. And one can view the Obama/Trump vs Rising American Electorate arguments (ESPECIALLY the people who draw a strong dichotomy between those two choices as the only options) as a proxy argument for abandoning the industrial midwest to go to the sunbelt and vice versa.

They already have abandoned the midwest by giving priority to anti-gun/anti-cop measures as well as other miscellaneous SJW objectives that do nothing but make Sunbelt billionaires feel better about supporting the Democratic party. All this being done while leaving behind card-check and the public option. The Dems cannot operate as GOP-lite with the added bonus of Planned Parenthood.

Just look at how Dems spit on the face of workers by not supporting coal as well as opposing steel tariffs.

Please tell me about these TX, AZ, and GA billionaires who hate cops. Really looking forward to learning about them.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I don't think it would be wise to 'abandon' the rust belt, but it seems pretty clear that the sun belt is presenting more future opportunities, whether people like it or not. These trends have been ongoing for decades. I don't think it's something the party can change - at least not for many years.

I also don't think making inroads with white college grads / upscale whites is as poisonous for progressive policies as some think, but that's another argument (and one I've made elsewhere on Atlas before). The gist is that many left-leaning Millennials will come to make up white college grads in the Democratic Party, and others will nevertheless take their cues from party leaders - namely future Democratic presidents.

I think the mistake is in thinking about it as a zero sum game. To be fair a lot of the people who I've heard make Sunbelt Exclusive arguments come from states that currently receive 0 national attention, and so could be forgiven for being aggressive in their quest for national resources. But I think a party that allows regional variation and evenly distributes resources is the one that comes out best.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I think the mistake is in thinking about it as a zero sum game. To be fair a lot of the people who I've heard make Sunbelt Exclusive arguments come from states that currently receive 0 national attention, and so could be forgiven for being aggressive in their quest for national resources. But I think a party that allows regional variation and evenly distributes resources is the one that comes out best.

I do like the idea of investing everywhere, but the party should still identify districts/states with the most promise and try to develop them with more resources than say, Wyoming or what have you. I don't think the party does a good enough job with this. They spend way too much money on advertisements/consultants and not enough on building a permanent + sustainable ground game that can also support organic GOTV in states that may not warrant as much financial help from national orgs as other, more competitive states/districts.

I'm not a believer in that the Democratic Party's status as perpetual minority party for the past couple decades was completely avoidable - I think the Republicans were eventually going to come out on top after the 80s, but Democrats have made things worse by not maximizing their potential. In fact, maybe maximizing isn't even the best word. Sometimes Democrats seem to shoot themselves in the foot out of stupidity or greed. Look no further than the issues with the DNC, and how that was all easily avoidable.

It's so frustrating.

Oh sure, the 'mistake' is being made by people sounding a full retreat (for reasons of their own), not you. Sorry for the ambiguity. Targets are fine on Presidential campaigns, but I don't think that the national party, particularly at the DNC, should be focused on investing large amounts of money on particular regional bets. Give nearly every region a relatively flat amount of resources so everyone can capitalize on opportunities they see in their region.

Heck, there's even a case for throwing a small amount of money at Wyoming every cycle. The fossil fuel industry is collapsing, the GOP doesn't really know how to handle that, and Cheyenne + Casper are growing. Why not give the state party enough money to get its voter file in order, hire a couple full time organizers, and see what they can make of it?

Maybe that wouldn't have saved the party in the Reagan Era, but it certainly would have softened the blow. At minimum, I think it would make it easier to bounce back from systemic setbacks. You'd have fewer situations like Alabama, for instance, where there's barely a statewide party apparatus (and what there is is deep in debt) statewide candidates can't raise money, &c &c. So the Joneses of the world have an easier time of it, and shifts in broader socioeconomic trends (ex Georgia) can be capitalized on by local forces much quicker.

As for parasitic consultants: yep. Though that said, various subsections within the DNC are also lending their imprimatur to some interesting projects I've heard rumors about.