A lot of people have made a connection between Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy to build up the Democratic Party in red states and Barack Obama’s strategy to win the nomination through dominating in small (mainly red) caucus states. I think it’s a good comparison. I also think it is telling that Clintonian strategists like Mark Penn, James Carville, and Paul Begala have all shown contempt for Howard Dean and the 50-state strategy. For example, Begala said the following about Dean:
“He says it’s a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That’s not how you build a party. You win elections. That’s how you build a party.”
And that is the polite version. It’s no accident that Obama won the caucuses in Utah and the primary in Mississippi. Obama set out to compete in every state, while the Clintons readily admit that they did not.
“We didn’t put any resources in small states.”
— Clinton Finance Chair Hassan Nemazee, quoted by the New York Observer, on why Clinton might lose the Democratic nomination.
In my opinion, the Clintons still see the country as hopelessly divided between red and blue states, while Dean and Obama believe that Democrats can succeed almost everywhere. Here’s some evidence to support my claim:
“I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.
Here’s some more:
“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.” -Mark Penn
I know there is some spin involved in these comments, but they also reveal a startling lack of ambition. Obama won more votes in Georgia than Huckabee (the GOP winner) and McCain (2nd place) combined. Georgia, by the way, is a state that Bill Clinton won in 1992. I think it is a significant state. I also think Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, and Colorado are significant states that Obama won and that could go to the Democrats in the fall.
An Obama-Sebelius ticket could be competitive in Kansas, and based on differential turnout, the Democrats should be competitive even in South Carolina and Louisiana (two more states that Obama won). The only states that I think Obama cannot win are Utah, Wyoming, and (probably) Oklahoma. McCain is the weakest possible candidate against Obama. They both are selling a certain outsiderness and a break from the past, but just looking at their post-primary speeches on Tuesday it was obvious that McCain cannot compete.
McCain’s style is much better suited to a run against Clinton, where he would be the only change agent. And Clinton’s soaring negatives in red parts of the country will probably preclude her from competing in about 25-30 states (as Gore and Kerry both failed to do).
I don’t know exactly why the Establishment Democrats have ceded over half the states in the last two elections, but Obama has no intention of continuing that trend. I expect him to spend the bulk of his time campaigning in red states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and many of the states he won by huge margins like Idaho, North Dakota, and Georgia. Later in the campaign he may have to withdraw to Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and the traditional purple battleground states. But, unlike Clinton (and Kerry and Gore before her) Obama will cede nothing and go for a 50-state landslide win.
That’s the kind of mentality I want. I want to win in 40-states, and I want 60 senators and I want Bush-rubber stamp congresspeople swept out of office in a tsunami. It may not happen, but it definitely won’t happen if we don’t make the effort. Every state is significant.
I’m seeing the Clintons display the 50%+1 but the other 49.999% can screw off mentality.
Those other 49% vote for than just one office people; it’s why we lost Congress as soon as Clinton got into the White House.
exactly. And look at the states electing senators this year.
Looking at the states with sentators up for election would be worth a diary.
what lutton said.
I’m just so tired of the Clintoons. I want it to be over.
I think the Carvilles of this world don’t like Dean because he is a true democrat. Dean was one of the first to say the war in Iraq was a mistake. What Lutton said is a great analysis. If Democrats don’t show up or are unimportant in Red States..Kansas and part of Missouri, then Sam Graves will be re-elected, Nancy Boyda (D-Kansas)will lose, Dennis Moore(D-Kansas), will lose.
Hillary Clinton’s party of one theory does bode well for the Democratic Party.
error doesn = “does not”
I agree. It’s one of the reasons I’m supporting Obama.
And it really pisses me off to hear Mark Penn say that my state doesn’t count. You can bet he would have counted it if one percent of the vote had swung in his candidates’ favor.
Jerome Armstrong is unwilling to concede that Obama is using the 50 State Strategy, even effectively.
And thank you for pointing out that Bill Clinton won Georgia. This morning, I posted how Sen. Clinton, for whatever reason, uses Bill Clinton’s losses to explain away her losses:
To me, it’s clear that they are unable or unwilling to look to the future. To contine more from my blog post above:
Remember this is the candidate who, in addition to saying that she won “the important states”, also dismissed black voters and stated that activists don’t represent the electorate.
Oh, what’s a black activist from Kansas City or Seattle to do?
Well, not unless they also happen to be a superdelegate.
Yes, dismissing the caucus state voters while benefiting immensely from the politician-Superdelegates is absurd.
There is a difference, however, although both are forms of a representative government. Caucus voters don’t enjoy all the perks that go with being a part of the government. We work for free.
I’ve always viewed in a positive light the fact that my fellow caucus attendees had taken the time to inform themselves on the issues and candidates as and were willing to share their thinking in an open forum. I guess informed voters are considered a threat in Hillaryland. That says something.
Likewise, since momentum greases the wheels of a successful campaign, the big wins in the little states have emotionally cascaded right over and smothered the big win in CA. It’s the Liliputians overwhelming Gulliver here and who can resist cheering on the Liliputians after living through 8 years of being stomped and manipulated by Rove? The very essence of this race is the voice of the little people.
Well I’ll be damned, Steve Soto weighs in
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011957.php
That was me fainting. I’m okay now…just never thought I’d see that on that blog.
Yeah, I hit the floor. It’s a piece and a decision worthy of Steve’s leadership these past years.
That was well done. Very well said. Good assessment of Obama’s weaknesses and good reasons for why he’s willing to get beyond them and why he’s choosing to end his endorsement of Hillary.
I stopped going over there much when he went away to do … whatever he was doing. Is he back regularly now?
He’s still got sabbatical next to his name and he’s been weighing in very rarely over the last several months. Hopefully the respect his readers have for him will lead them out of the … well, crankiness, they’ve been churning.
jaw hitting floor.
very few people are willing to explain themselves so clearly when they change sides.
maybe it’ll be safe to read leftcoaster again. I stopped for a long time because it had turned into a Hillary campaign site and talked of nothing else.
he’s not the only one switching. Actual super delegates are jmping over the fence.
Team Clinton’s principles will erode her support.
Ezra Klein – Changing Rules
I look at it like this.
I figure there is about a 30% chance that Clinton would loose in November. However, if she wins the nomination, it is a 50% +1 Stategy, and the country remains divided. Things get better, but only by degrees.
I give Obama about a 35% chance to loose in November, but he also has the chance to win in a landslide. Carying new Senators and Congresscritters with him. I just don’t see Obama winning a close election, I see him either loosing, or winning in a route.
I give Clinton slightly less odds to loose, because she will play dirty, she will fight nasty, she will stoop to their level, and it has been proven to work.
Ill take my chances. I am sick and tired of this split down the middle crap.
The Republicans are just wrong, on EVERYTHING. I don’t want to have to deal with Clinton in the WH, and 48 Republican Senators then nothing gets done, no real progress is made.
If I could pick the President, its a no-brainer, either Feingold or Gore, but since we actually have to go out and win this thing, Obama has the chance to inspire America, and frankly, I think America is ready to be inspired.
I agree.
BTW- it’s spelled ‘lose’ and ‘losing’.
Loose is what your lugnuts are; loosing isn’t a word.
I think this is the most common spelling error on the internets and I brings out the school marm in me.
Yea, that really was full of typo’s and miss-spellings. Oops….. I think the problem occurred somewhere between my keyboard and my eyes.
/snark
Sorry for coming in and making a mess out of the place, ill try and do better next time.
/snark off
It’s “it” not “I”.
😉
Also “their” vs. “there,” and even “too” vs. “to.”
Lately, my brain has been screwing up your/you’re and won/one.
Same with me, but with “allowed” and “aloud”.
Stupid homonyms…
Pfft. Down with the Spelling Nannies.
ME TOO! It’s Lose or losing or loser… Not Loose or loosing or looser.
And of course spell-checkers don’t catch it.
I’m glad that I live in an important, umm, significant state.
I don’t want to sound overly dramatic here, but because the red state / blue state ideological divide matches up quite conveniently with a geographical divide, continuing on with the abandonment of some states and the catering to others really only has one eventual logical conclusion, and that’s splitting into two separate countries.
Whether or not that would happen through another civil war or not, who knows. But isn’t that really the logical endgame?
We are already divided into several different countries for all practical terms. It’s always been hard for the professionals in Nineveh-on-the-Potomac to understand local concerns in places like Kansas or Oregon, for instance, much less act on them.
But today’s situation is worse than it’s ever been.
.
DENVER — The latest polling in Colorado by Rasmussen Reports shows that Sen. Barack Obama would be a decisive victor in a general election campaign over the presumptive Republican nominee, but that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be trounced.
In polling of 500 likely voters conducted, Obama held a seven point advantage – 46 percent to 39 percent – over Arizona Sen. John McCain. However, the same poll showed McCain winning a match-up with Clinton by 14 points, 49 percent to 35 percent.
The Rasmussen poll also held bad news for Clinton on the issue of favorability ratings, when compared to her Democratic rival.
Favorability rating:
Favorable Unfavorable
Barack Obama 60 36
John McCain 55 42
Hillary Clinton 44 54
≈ Cross-posted from Steven D’s diary — Obama Supporters ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
if hillary’s the nominee you can forget about picking up a senate seat.
look at rhe results for the senate race between udall v. schaffer…who btw, has been virtually invisible…via rasmussen:
Election 2008: Colorado Senate
Colorado Senate: Schaffer 44% Udall 43%.
statistical dead heat.
no one tops hillary’s unpopularity here…no one.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll-Rasmussen
Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama opening a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Today’s results show Obama earning support from 49% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Clinton attracts 37%
As we work thru this primary season, it seems to me that one of the biggest strikes against Clinton is what has happened to the Democratic party in the past 16 years. They have NOT lead the party, they have destroyed it. And that, if for no other reason, is enough to choose Obama over Clinton. The party will be here long after the next presidency, and we need leaders and stewards who will strengthen the party, not continue down the same path of feckless and piss poor opposition to a Republican party run amok.
Jake
i’ll make two points.
i am not a supporter of either candidate, but i can’t say either of them are on High Moral Ground on this issue. the process itself is dominated and directed by faceless unelected party higherups and insiders, people who don’t understand that are kidding themselves. other people will determine who is the nominee, not us Little People. the rules here are arbitrary, and it’s a power play every season to determine which campaign will ultimately get to make the rules. i wish both candidates luck.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. The big states had a legitimate gripe about how the little states had more say in the process. With Feb. 5th, that argument became mostly moot. The big states and little states that didn’t vote on Feb. 5th are taking turns and they’re all part of the process.
What the Clinton’s campaign is now saying is that those 10 states they’ve won so far are only the important ones. Nevermind that those states mostly always go Dem. historically. Nevermind that Clinton also won mostly states that they’ve lived in or near.
The Clinton’s campaign, not the media this time, is saying that those “flyover” states don’t matter.
Nevermind that Obama’s vote totals in most of those states exceed what the GOP totals for the winner and 2nd place candidate combined are.
obama just picked up the endorsement of ex-sen lincoln chafee today:
Ummmm . . . wow. Cool. I know they don’t mean a lot, but such endorsements are nice to see.
He will make an impressive speaker at the Dem Nat’l Convention. He should be able to counter Joe Lieberman speaking at the Repub Convention.
I always liked Sen. Chafee. It was sad to see him lose his seat, but I was glad he lost it to Mr. Whitehouse, of all people.
Chaffee struck me as a decent guy for a Republican. In fact he would probably still be Rhode Island’s senator except for the need the voters of Rhode Island felt to send Bush a message (which of course didn’t penetrate his skull one bit).
Go to the tote board and chalk up another Obamacan – led by principle, not politics.
That’s Obamican
Other than the Monte Python song running through my mind, this brings up a topic that does not seem to have gotten much attention on the national media – coattails.
Has the Clinton campaign considered what message this sends on “possible coattails” of the two campaigns?
If you are already in a State so democratic it just doesn’t matter, we will be right there with you.
If you are not, tough. YOYO baby.
If I was running in a presidential red or purple state, what help should I count on from a Clinton presidential campaign based on their current and likely future analysis and strategy?
This is so spot on.
And the next time you hear about him being so-called naive, say: “That charge just shows your inability to get the job done.”
The laziness and the fear is just astounding. If you don’t lay the groundwork in the so-called red states, they will always BE red states.
But I suspect the Begalas and the Carvilles of the world know they’re not that smart, nor that dedicated. Their bullshit artistry only works short term. And that’s why they are kryptonite to the Democratic party, and the sooner the rest of the party realizes this, the better off we’ll all be.
I think the Penn comment, like those of the other Clinton honchos, makes sense, depending on the agenda they support. If your primary concern is not about change or policy or principle, but about keeping your own small circle of cronies in power, you don’t get any points for rocking the boat. It is rational to opt for minimum risk to barely hang on to a minimum edge, rather than take real risk and avoid getting trounced. Taking a stand on principle or policy — or even criticizing the status quo — is a risk that promises big victory as well as big defeat. If the game is really just about who get to go through the revolving door to the Elitise Cafe next, it’s not a game worth playing.
Once Obama receives the Democratic nomination, and he WILL receive it, I hope that he spends the majority of his time proving the 50-state strategy right. Don’t just go to democratic strongholds to make his case. Go to Alaska and Kansas and Missouri and Mississippi and other crazy red-states to make the speeches. And while there, heavily plug the local candidates for congress/senate. This is crucial. He needs to enter office with a new congress that is loyal to his cause. His first two years in office could be truly revolutionary. Forget about his published “positions” on “the issues” if he gets the congress of his choosing. He could easily pass things like single-payer healthcare and whatever else he knows to be appropriate, but would never fly with a strong opposition party in office.