Should Democrats give up on giving up on states?

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

I think it's a bad habit they need to break

[DaleCooper]

As it is, they're about one state away from triaging their way out of a path to 270.

[TwinGeeks99]

Yes, they should invest in infrastructure in all 50 states to help them gain a true national mandate. They need to listen more to the needs of rural America if they wish to expand their coalition. And the same goes for Republicans, too; they need to listen to the needs of urban population centers if they too want to win more elections.

[DaleCooper]

Yes, they should invest in infrastructure in all 50 states to help them gain a true national mandate. They need to listen more to the needs of rural America if they wish to expand their coalition. And the same goes for Republicans, too; they need to listen to the needs of urban population centers if they too want to win more elections.

Investing in infrastructure is the key thing. The desire to give up on over 25 states actually makes perfect sense once you understand that a lot of Democrats believe elections are won and lost based on how much money is spent on TV commercials 3 months before the election. No amount of advertising will make Democrats (congressional or presidential) electable in the plains states, but genuinely incorporating their needs into the national platform and spending years building real infrastructure in the state will.

[beesley]

Both parties need to adopt a 50 state strategy, but it seems that they've both decided they can't reconcile both sides of America. Apparently if the reach out to the Dakotas, they will lose New York, which is nonsense. They just need to give all states something to vote for and prove they mean it in the long-term.

[UncleSam]

Yes, they should invest in infrastructure in all 50 states to help them gain a true national mandate. They need to listen more to the needs of rural America if they wish to expand their coalition. And the same goes for Republicans, too; they need to listen to the needs of urban population centers if they too want to win more elections.

Investing in infrastructure is the key thing. The desire to give up on over 25 states actually makes perfect sense once you understand that a lot of Democrats believe elections are won and lost based on how much money is spent on TV commercials 3 months before the election. No amount of advertising will make Democrats (congressional or presidential) electable in the plains states, but genuinely incorporating their needs into the national platform and spending years building real infrastructure in the state will.

You can’t please everybody or prioritize everybody. If Dems actually funneled massive amounts of money to the plains states two things would happen:
1. Blue states and cities would be mad about it
2. The plains states still wouldn’t vote for them because infrastructure / economics tend to be second to social and cultural issues for most people in the heartland

Dems shouldn’t ever ‘give up’ on a state but they shouldn’t be investing any national resources in or making significant policy concessions to states that are far right of the nation and where voters hold views that are diametrically opposed to the party’s base.

[DaleCooper]

Yes, they should invest in infrastructure in all 50 states to help them gain a true national mandate. They need to listen more to the needs of rural America if they wish to expand their coalition. And the same goes for Republicans, too; they need to listen to the needs of urban population centers if they too want to win more elections.

Investing in infrastructure is the key thing. The desire to give up on over 25 states actually makes perfect sense once you understand that a lot of Democrats believe elections are won and lost based on how much money is spent on TV commercials 3 months before the election. No amount of advertising will make Democrats (congressional or presidential) electable in the plains states, but genuinely incorporating their needs into the national platform and spending years building real infrastructure in the state will.

You can’t please everybody or prioritize everybody. If Dems actually funneled massive amounts of money to the plains states two things would happen:
1. Blue states and cities would be mad about it
2. The plains states still wouldn’t vote for them because infrastructure / economics tend to be second to social and cultural issues for most people in the heartland

Dems shouldn’t ever ‘give up’ on a state but they shouldn’t be investing any national resources in or making significant policy concessions to states that are far right of the nation and where voters hold views that are diametrically opposed to the party’s base.

It's not about funneling massive amounts of money to plains states (again, see my comment about how Democrats think all of this is won or lost on multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns), it's about making sure that their interests are represented in the national party's platform instead of ignored completely, or worse, treated as illegitimate. It's also about creating a real presence in these communities at the local level so that Democrats aren't seen as complete foreigners, as they often are. This won't lead to Democrats winning these states at the presidential level, but it may allow them to do better than 30% in some of them, and more importantly, it will give the Democratic Party some credibility in rural and exurban America. Democratic presidential candidates have lost some of these states for almost 60 years, but plenty of congressional Democrats found success there, some within the last decade even.

Each party's decision to write off one half of the country and pander to the other is a big part of what has caused this polarization to get as bad as it has.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, only FL of DeSantis is nominee, we have Senate races in OH, VA, MT, MI, WI NV and AZ we may lose NC or GA since there are no Senate race and of course IA and TX are safe R.

But PA, OH, VA, MI, MN, WI, VA, NV and AZ are battlegrounds

[EastwoodS]

Does anyone find it kind of scary that each party is basically in an electoral race by locking in enough states to keep one party out of power, by letting states deeply polarize overtime? No Democrats and the GOP shouldn’t do this. Make the electoral map 1960 again!

[Galeel]

Generally I think it's smart to invest in a lot of states rather than just a few given the diminishing returns of extra investment and how much money Democrats have to spend.

[Orser67]

We should seek to be competitive in state and local elections nationwide, and in the long term seek to restore our brand in rural America.

In federal elections, and in the short term, imo we should pursue a ~35 state strategy. Unless Republicans nominate a Roy Moore-level candidate or Democrats have a Joe Manchin-level candidate, it's just extremely tough for Democrats to win federal races in WY, ND, OK, ID, AR, SD, KY, AL, TN, LA, NE, UT, MS, and WV. I could be convinced to add a few states to that list or take a couple off, but my point is that I don't think we should be wasting a lot of money on federal races in these states barring special circumstances.

I view the map roughly like this:

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Does anyone find it kind of scary that each party is basically in an electoral race by locking in enough states to keep one party out of power, by letting states deeply polarize overtime? No Democrats and the GOP shouldn’t do this. Make the electoral map 1960 again!

I loved how random and unpolarized the 1980's Senate maps were. Democrats would lose Vermont and RI and win ND and Texas.

[Hammy]

Finally some surrenderism I can get behind.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Democrats burned a 100 million dollars in Montana, another 100 million dollars in south Carolina  and threw another amount into the furnace in Kansas,Alaska and Iowa. The idea that the democrats give up on states is ridiuclous.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

They should give up on red-state grifter Democrats.

[Sirius_]

Democrats burned a 100 million dollars in Montana, another 100 million dollars in south Carolina  and threw another amount into the furnace in Kansas,Alaska and Iowa. The idea that the democrats give up on states is ridiuclous.

Democrats just did a terrible job in 2020 senate races in general and the DSCC needs to do better.

[Hope For A New Era]

Does anyone find it kind of scary that each party is basically in an electoral race by locking in enough states to keep one party out of power, by letting states deeply polarize overtime? No Democrats and the GOP shouldn’t do this. Make the electoral map 1960 again!

I loved how random and unpolarized the 1980's Senate maps were. Democrats would lose Vermont and RI and win ND and Texas.

The last such map is the 2002 gubernatorial elections map. It's such a weird map.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Yes. I wonder how many House seats they’ve left on the table in red states because of this strategy, like Utah 4 for example. They don’t have to win statewide in Utah to make investing there be worth it.

[Hope For A New Era]

Yes. I wonder how many House seats they’ve left on the table in red states because of this strategy, like Utah 4 for example. They don’t have to win statewide in Utah to make investing there be worth it.

UUP spoiler threw UT-04 to Owens.

Weird district.

[Motorcity]

On the presidential and senate level? Yes. Dumping a hundred million into South Carolina wasn’t the wisest thing to do.

For local/state/ and house? No. 2018 slowed we could win seats in Utah and Oklahoma. And the governorship of Kansas!