So Much For the 50 State Strategy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:11:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I actually think this post has a lot of insightful analysis but I do chuckle that its central point is that a 50 State Presidential strategy this year is a pipe dream:

Even West Virginia, once one of the most Democratic states in the country—it voted for Dukakis and was one of the six states won by Jimmy Carter in 1980—is now moving in to Republican territory for Presidential years. It's not as Republican as Kentucky, but like Kentucky it's unlikely to go Democratic regardless of the Democratic nominee, even if it were Clinton.

More . .

I think Kentucky and West Virginia are not going to go Dem in the Fall no matter what. But I also think that is true for AL, AK, GA, ID, MS, MT, NE, NC (I expect an Obama win there), ND, SC, SD, UT and WY. Those are 13 states that Obama has won or will win and when it was the Clinton camp saying we were not going to win there it was a mortal sin and an affront to the vaunted 50 State Strategy. I am glad some are willing to discuss these issues rationally now. Maybe now "electability" discussions can center rationally on the respective electoral strengths and weaknesses of Clinton and Obama as opposed to the faux outrage those discussions previously engendered.

p>By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Gerry Spence Opens for Fieger in MI Criminal Trial | Newsweek Poll: Obama's Lead Drops by Half >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

So Much For the 50 State Strategy | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:13:20 PM EST

with you strongly on West Virginia. If it's Clinton, it will go Democratic.

Yup, the Clintons are very popular in WV (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM EST

I used to live there and they love their Bubba, and Hillary too. All she has to do is show up and talk to them and she will get the state, in the primary and the GE. West Virginians don't like snake oil salesmen, no matter what color they are. And they are good at spotting them, too. Obama cannot take WV, Hillary can.

Just had a devilish thought..do you think Obama can be persuaded to send Michelle to WV for him? That I would pay to see. If she wags her finger at them, she is likely to lose it. Heh.


And I know a lot of "garlic noses" there (3.66 / 3) (#21)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST

with parts of the state heavily settled by Italians -- I went to a wedding there that was straight from The Godfather. (The local godfather even was there, complete with guards at the church doors, to bestow his blessing.) I met many hundreds upon hundreds there, almost all of whom seemed to have come from ancestors from the same few towns in Italy.

So we had lots and lots of yummy wedding cookies, which is what I remember more than any garlic in the repast. But I bet that the Rev. Wright's quote about them isn't going over very well in lovely WV.

Btw, as I recall, many of the Italians settled there to work the mines. And Hillary's father coming from nearby mining country won't hurt.


Garlic noses? WTF? (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:11:28 PM EST

: That is apparently what Rev. Wright (5.00 / 0) (#25)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST

calls Italians. Go figure.

: It's a Wrightism <eon> (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:21:18 PM EST

: Sorry, thought you knew he wrote (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:28:10 PM EST

in a recent article, even after Wrightgate, that Italians were the "garlic noses" who killed Jesus.
The Rev. Wright really doesn't do well at history, as we saw in the Moyers interview, nor at geography. My Neapolitano and Siciliano and such relatives would be the first to blame the snooty Romans, too.

: A 1 rating from BTD for quoting Wright? (none / 0) (#48)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:19:22 PM EST

Well, then I would presume that you give a 1 rating to the title of Obama's autobiography, too -- or actually less, because he didn't make clear that it was a quotation by putting it in quotation marks.:-)

Clarksburg WV (none / 0) (#52)
by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:13:51 PM EST

is famous for being where NY and NJ mobsters went to hide out. There were a number of business there and in Morgantown that were money laundering operations for the mob that even got busted. I happened to be in a restaurant there once when about 15 black towncars with NJ plates pulled up. Definitely godfather material there. But I think those days are long gone. Given the coal and steel and related industries, it was heavily settled early by Scots-Irish, then by Italians, then by Pols, and others. Quite a rich heritage. Super, ultra pro union. Could easily go Dem in very single pres election if the candidate would just spend time there. But often it's not seen as worth it. Definitely economically challenged in a number of areas. And most definitely corruption in the state government.


: disagree about Obama, could win if (none / 0) (#53)
by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:15:05 PM EST

he's the nominee and just spent enough time there. And mostly if the Clinton's spent time there on his behalf. But I'd say if the dems want the state, why go through the middle man, just nominate Hillary. :-)

: Days definitely not gone (none / 0) (#58)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:27:30 PM EST

in Fairmont, WV, believe me -- as I said, I just was there for my education in all things Italiano. Fine ethnic cuisine to be had, too.
But the spot definitely not to miss is the Poky Dot Cafe. The '50s live!

I Don't Know if KY and WVA Will Go Dem (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST

But I think they have as much chance going Dem if Clinton is the nominee as Virginia and Missouri have of going for Obama if he's the nominee.

: Much better chance, I think (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Lysis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:00:36 PM EST

Just like we'll get Arkansas with Hillary as the nominee, we will also win West Virginia and be within striking distance in Kentucky. She and her husband are both quite popular with rust belt Democrats, and she will do much better than Gore and Kerry did there, or Obama will do if he's the nominee.
As I said downthread, Bill Clinton won Kentucky and West Virginia twice. He won the latter state by 13 points in 1992 and 15 in 1996. It's very winnable with a Democratic candidate who appeals to the working class.

: Well, According (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by The Maven on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:24:10 PM EST

to SurveyUSA, which has had a pretty strong record so far this year, Clinton actually does much better than Obama in Missouri against McCain, so that's one less argument in his favor if one is claiming to look at electability. In their poll released a couple of weeks ago (the most recent one for the state), Clinton edges out McCain 47-46, while McCain defeats Obama by a rather healthy margin of 50-42.

: Last 2 Polls Clinton Was In Striking Distance (none / 0) (#44)
by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:36:43 PM EST

of McCain in MO. Obama trailed McCain 8% - 16%.
With a united party, Clinton would IMO have a chance to squeak a victory in MO. There is no way she could win without a strong AA turn out.
IMO Obama has no chance of winning MO with or without a united party. MO is a pretty conservative state except for a few small pockets. Even a lot of our Dems are conservative Dems. Personally, didn't think he had a chance prior to Rev. Wright and Ayers hitting the media but now no way.

I actually think we have a (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:19:49 PM EST

chance at West Virginia with Clinton.

Before its all done.. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by ineedalife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:20:21 PM EST

I would think Clinton would put the entire border south into play. My in-laws are part of the working class retirees that have moved into the Lexington Kentucky area in the last 4 years. Two Hillary votes there.

I kind of doubt... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:21:23 PM EST

...that Hillary can win Tennessee or Kentucky, although she ought to fair better than Obama. She should win Arkansas, and I think she can win West Virginia.

Obama's argument is that he can win in Virginia and maybe North Carolina, which may be true. But since he has bleak prospects in Florida, and shaky ones in Ohio and Pennsylvania, I think his road to victory is a rougher one.


Lets put NC to rest (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:24:58 PM EST

regardless of whether he wins the primary here, no way on God's green earth can Obama win NC in the GE. Believe me, this is the buckle of the bible belt & Wright ruined any chance he had of taking this state.


Fair enough. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:11:37 PM EST

I've seen fairly recent polls where Obama was roughly even. But my instinct is that you are right. I do think he can probably contend in Virginia, which is less traditionally southern than it used to be.


trust your insticts (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:32:38 PM EST

and it is a shame too -- a lot of traditionally Repub. voters here are really sick over how W "left them out to dry" and were ready to vote Dem. in the GE provided the party put up an "acceptable Dem" nominee (and for the record, even though I'm a Hillary supporter, I don't think Hillary was ever an "acceptable Dem." around these parts). Obama had a shot, but not now because of Wright and to a lesser extent "cling-gate." Also, a lot of it has to do with the fact that they don't think of McCain as another W. IMO, neither Obama nor Hillary can take NC in the GE.


The Obama fans who actually think (none / 0) (#55)
by kenosharick on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:25:03 PM EST

he has a chance at ND,MO,Tenn, NC, GA, or even Virginia are in some alternate reality. With the play that rev wright and his association with a domestic terrorist will get, he will not win Wis or Iowa either.


: Large Bible Belt In MO (none / 0) (#57)
by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:35:54 PM EST

Obama is DOA because of Rev. Wright.

oh (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:21:48 PM EST

the other thing - race, race, race - it's always race with Obama supporters.

They just don't see that these people don't like being looked down on - a la clinggate - by a Harvard educated inner city man who thinks they are stupid, and who has never worked physically hard in his life.

I know these folks, having come from western PA. My mother's ancestors were farmers, and my father's were coal miners.

Of course, my generation has bachelor's and master's degrees to go around.

But hey, ...have his fingernails ever been dirty?

I do not understand race as an issue (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:25:38 PM EST

especially for Obama. He seems to accuse everyone else of racism, yet flounts the 90% vote of the AA community. Is that not racism too, on the part of the AA community? What chance does he have if 80% of the voters who are mostly white and others decided to go 90/10 also for Clinton or McCain?


No, no, you don't understand... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM EST

it's only racism if you DON'T vote for Obama. If you do it's a well-thought out decision based on qualifications. See??

Ok, now I have to go rinse out my brain. Twisted logic always clogs it. Sigh.


I understand you point but, (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:31:02 PM EST

there is a difference -- yes, 90% of the AAs are voting for him mainly because he is black, and imo they should not be but, it isn't as though they would not vote for a white candidate. IMO, it is racist if someone would never vote for a person because he was white or black. In the case of Obama, I think it is more of a "pride" thing that a black man is doing so well, not a "I'll never vote for a white person" thing. I don't know if I'm drawing the distinction clearly enough, but that is what I think is going on with him. His AA support is not racist, per se, but more about finally having an opportunity to vote for "one of their own."


: I Agree With You On This n/t (none / 0) (#45)
by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:42:41 PM EST

I still disagree about WV (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:36:33 PM EST

I think Hillary would have an excellent shot at that state.

Kentucky is running strangely close too.

Not strange at all. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Lysis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:50:41 PM EST

Bill Clinton won Kentucky and West Virginia twice. It can obviously be done. By Hillary.


I agree (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:33:53 PM EST

A lot of voters in Appalachia voted twice for Bill and consider his presidency "better times." I think WV can definitely turn blue if Hillary's running--and KY isn't out of the question, either.

My big worry is that unless Hillary is running, electoral-rich Ohio will stay red and, worse, Pennsylvania will join it.


: IMHO (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM EST

PA will join it, no question.

: About Ohio (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST

I think Ohio will not go Republican this year no matter whom the Dems nominate, now that Blackwell is out of the picture.

IIRC (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:52:58 PM EST

SUSA had Clinton winning WV and tied in KY. I think what a lot of people at Dkos don't recognize that Clinton's ecomonic platform appeals to these voters whereas Obama's does not. Or at least IF he has a similar platform he isn't selling it.

You didn't hear about his (none / 0) (#17)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:54:01 PM EST

"an Iberica Jamon" in every pot proposal?
I guess you're just not paying attention.


Sure (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:56:39 PM EST

But I am not buying it anymore than I buy Obama winning in ND et al.


: Not fair comparison (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Davidson on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:32:06 PM EST

Where is there a Survey USA poll showing that Obama fares as well in ND as Clinton does in WV and KY?

: I would (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:38:45 PM EST

buy it somewhat more from the sense that WV has a history of going blue even though it hasn't in the last few elections. When was the last time ND went blue?

The real question is competitiveness... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by p lukasiak on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:38:16 PM EST

The most important aspect of states like WV and KY is whether Democrats can be competitive in them, i.e. whether spending time and money in them will force the GOP to do likewise.

While Obama does seem to be able to make a few "red" states more competitive than does Clinton, he also makes a number of "blue" states more competitive for the GOP.

Obama changes the map by putting more states in play than Clinton does. That's not great news, however -- Obama puts states like Ohio, California, and Massachusetts in play -- not just states like North Carolina and South Dakota. And Dems shouldn't have to even think about MA, and should not have to do too much to win in California.

Clinton is up by 11 in Ohio right now -- Obama is down by two (April 11-13 SUSA), and if Obama has to spend time and resources protecting California and Massachusetts, and trying to win in Ohio, all those "red" states he supposedly puts "in play" will be meaningless. He won't have the time to campaign there, because he'll be too busy trying to hold onto the Democratic base states and win in places like Ohio to make those red states competitive.

The point is not (none / 0) (#7)
by mbuchel on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:25:41 PM EST

that they will necessarily go in the Democratic column THIS year. Some may (perhaps more than we may think in the current positive climate for Dems), probably most will not.

But if you campaign, as HRC has, ignoring solid red states and dismissing those states as irrelevant, you can never build the party structure that may lead to them going blue in the future.

This was one of the great problems of the Clinton Presidency. Yes, we won the WH twice, but look what was left after he was finished. Fewer congressional seats, governorships, state legislatures, etc.

That theory is fine, just do not lose your base (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST

in the process like lumping a successful democratic administration with that of George W. Bush


The 50 state strategy is not, and should not (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:33:53 PM EST

be, a strategy employed in presidential elections. It's meant for the Senate, House, Governorships, legislatures, etc. In a presidential election, it is a real mistake for Republicans to go after Rhode Island or Democrats to go after Alabama. Resources and time are finite.

And the Democrats lost in 1994 because they were corrupt and lethargic. Furthermore, this new crop of Dems that we have finally gained isn't so hot, in case you haven't noticed. Many of the new Governors (Patrick, Culver, Beshar, Spitzer and probably his replacement) are unpopular.


: of course if Obama is the nominee (none / 0) (#56)
by kenosharick on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:28:34 PM EST

the repubs would be wise to compete in all 50 states-polls show them tied in Mass!!!

Hillary conceded some states because of $ (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:45:11 PM EST

That was spun by the Kossacks as "dismissing red states." After Super Tuesday, her campaign stumbled. Before Super Tuesday, she didn't concede anything. She poured more resources into Tennessee than in Georgia, and got a win out of it. (And Obama poured more resources into GA than in TN. Did he dismiss TN?)

But she campaigned in Georgia and other red states, too. However, after Jesse Jackson Jr and other Obama surrogates pretty successfully branded the Clintons as racists before SC, that effectively made it impossible for her to win a lot of Southern primaries because of the large proportion of AA Democrats in the South.

In the general election, Obama isn't going to talk about a 50 state strategy because he isn't going to be foolish and waste resources in a quixotic attempt to win a state that is going to remain red because of its demographics. And it sounds like someone connected with his campaign is finally speaking honestly--as Big Tent says.


Yes, the Democratic congress declined (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by hairspray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST

starting in '94 but don't give us the BC did it story. Look up what really killed the congress, i.e, long years in power with the inevitable corruption, the rise of southern GOP power, the rise of the right wing radio spewing into rural America and the proliferation of right wing think tanks making inroads into American media etc. Clinton raised lots of money for his party and campaigned for many Democrats. The populace was sick of the old guard and Newt Gingrich rode a wave of "change".


Your comment makes no sense (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:32:18 PM EST

If the point is we can not ignore states like KY and WV, then you are contradicting the post you say you are defending.

you make no sense.


: Hey, about West Virginia (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST

Another thing to keep in mind is just how badly McCain did there during the Republican caucuses. That was the state where his result was so bad he sent his people to Huckabee to stop Romney.
I think Clinton would be a shoe-in to pick up West Virginia against McCain in the general.

There is 50 state strategy PR (none / 0) (#14)
by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:46:17 PM EST

And there is 50 state strategy facts.

The world we live in where talking about the facts of one election cycle is considered a rejection of a 20 year strategy, I find that pathetic.

Everyone on the Internet is a PR guru.

Same balance perhaps is required in this discussion.

Not following you (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:57:12 PM EST

Well, more specifically (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:12:39 PM EST

The 50 state strategy is a lot more than just what any campaign says during this election cycle.

What was set up here -- by other bloggers -- is a situation by which the Clinton campaign can't make her argument to SDs without a bunch of people accusing her campaign of peeing all over the 50 state strategy.

Which I think is dumb.

You can say "Ok, we're not going to win in AL or GA this year, but lets send our activists in those states 500k to open up some field offices."

Can't you?

Someone from the Clinton campaign saying we won't win in those 13 states. That isn't rejecting a 50-state strategy. Far from it. Although it could be construed as bad PR with respect to the 50 state strategy.

Rereading your post, I'm wondering though if you weren't being sarcastic as far as that's concerned.


: Ah (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:16:24 PM EST

Of course. That was my point in this post.

Is the 50 state strategy just about Presidential (none / 0) (#31)
by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:36:58 PM EST

politics? I thought it was about the Democratic party winning races by being there, and not winning just the Presidency. Am I wrong- is this the new meaning of 50 state state strategy?

: I agree. (none / 0) (#51)
by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:56:44 PM EST

I don't think the 50 state strategy is primarily about Presidential politics. And I wonder if the strategy stands to be weakened due to the inept management of the DNC, which right now is raking in far less money than either candidate. The DNC AFAIK is what funds the 50 state strategy - no other body does. The MI/FL issues are certainly against the spirit of the 50 state strategy if nothing else.
On the other hand, Clinton and Obama have 50 offices in Indiana combined. Is that a big expansion of the Dem party in Indiana? Yes. Does it have lasting significance? Who knows. Obviously, the more Dem voters there are in a state, the greater the likelihood of competitive candidates throughout the state.

Keep your comments on topic (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:51:22 PM EST

fat chance (none / 0) (#49)
by pluege on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:33:32 PM EST

Maybe now "electability" discussions can center rationally on the respective electoral strengths and weaknesses...

now there's an optimist for you.

Rational discussions get less likely by the day, especially with the crazy Obamanans seeing their inevitability strategy slipping away by the day.

polling doesn't work in WV (none / 0) (#54)
by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:20:53 PM EST

The culture there does lean conservative in many respects (like OH, PA, VA, KY), and without much contact will by default keep with that lean. But what's interesting is those numbers change drastically with attention. Kind of interesting. It's sort of like the adage of the will not vote for you if you don't ask, but here they won't vote for you if they're not worth serious campaigning. They'll take it personally. Just my take.

Go 'eers. By the way, don't tell any of my VA neighbors I like WV. There is a lot of bigotry in VA about WV. I think they're still sore it split off and went to the north during the civil war. Damn yankees. :-)