Twisted Logic: If GOP should contest CA in 2004 we should contest Kansas

All these dumbass pundits who say that the Schwarzenegger victory opens the door for Bush to be competitive in California in 2004 do not know what they are talking about. Why didn't these same people say last fall that the election of Democratic governors in Kansas, Wyoming and Oklahoma should open the door for the Democratic nominee to contest those states. So if * should contest California now that Schwarzengger is governor the Democratic nominee should contest Kansas, Wyoming and Oklahoma now that Sebelius, Fruedenthal and Henry are governors.

KS, WY, and OK will not vote Democratic presidentially. It just isn't going to happen.

And I predict that unless it is a complete blowout CA will stay with the Democrats.

Do they even come close to matching the total electoral votes for California?

Well, I'm kinda biased, but reading/talking to people from around Kansas, we might swing Blue depending on who is nominated. IMO, Dean has the best chance with farm positions, heathcare and his gruff, passionate manner. Lot's of people agree with me. I think Dean could contest the Midwest/Western States, win, and not have to deal with the bugaboo known as, the South. It would be an interesting approach at the least.

A note. We got a Dem gov for the same reason Arnold got elected. Money, money, money. They poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into Sebelius campaign and poof, results. She appeared a lot on TV, had major name recognition, and her opponent was riddled with problems, inflicted by the Sebelius camp. I think the Dem party would do well to order a case study of why a Dem gov was won in a typically Red state.

We're going to need all the Electoral votes we can get, even Kansas' 6 could swing the next election.

Its about limited resources: time and money.

The DNC won't have the time or resoruces to effectively campaign heavily in those states you mention, and still campaign in Cali.

The idea isn't about winning a state. It's about making it compeditive. The GOP has more money to spend.

If you take resoruces away from Cali (which they want to make in play) to Kansas (which you can put into play) the difference in the electoral college weight makes that an unwise choice.

$ 1 invested in Cali means much more than $1 invested in Kansas. The potential return in Cali is much more than the potential return in Kansas.

A Dem needs Cali to win. Bush doesn't need Kansas to win. And we don't have unlimited time and money.

It dosn't have to be that way.

The need for money, and its scarcity, is caused by the campain stratigy used by the DNC. Manily TV adds. Which is expensive, and where most of the money goes. So, spending recorses on smaller states (electoryal wise) yealds few benifits.

Their is also some demografic here. Kansas is mostly rual, and rual mostly vote GOP. So why bother.

But this is part of the resone why the Dems keep losing. Its not that they fail, but that they don't even try. But the GOP keeps at it through radio and through the churches. So the dems lack of effort here is a self fullfilling proficy.

And their is an alternitive. I call it "front porch" campaining. What it is, is a more aggresive use of the intenet and meet up to spread your mesage. You can't run to and give speeches in every city in the US. But the new approch is to not even try. And many of the issues that Kansas faces are in fact nationl issues that can not be resulved at the state level.

And while Kansas by herself may not be worth much. The mid-west is another mater. The entire regone is mostly ignored. If you can win over Kansas, I bet you she will not come alone.

...but they need the money and resources. Right now, they just aren't getting it. Everything you say is good, but they need to strategize better on getting money, and using it.

Their is an old saying that comes to mind when I disuse this.

A wise man need only whisper. It is the fool who must shout his wisdom to others.

Part of the problems that the Democrats are faced with is something called "retail politics." They sell a candidate, much like you would sell a TV set. The candidates vies are like features. They are "pro-choice", "pro-labor", or "pro-education," and so forth. And the features of each candidate are determined by the demographics of the area he is running in. This is so because when all you have is a TV add slot. But to even have the money to afford the TV time, you have to go to the corporations and Limousine Liberals who will NOT donate money to candidates they want. The people get first choice, are the corporations that attend the $10,000 a plate dinners. You then have to sell that choice to the voters. Hence the term.

The problem is that the people see right through this, and are not impressed. A "vote for Gray Davis" campaign add is just as likely to get surfed over as an add for laundry soap. To compensate, you need to increase your media saturation, buy more adds, and make yourself even more dependent on corporate donations, ending up with an even less attractive candidate. There is a point of diminishing returns with this strategy, and that point has already been reached.

Eventually, you have candidates like Clark, Leabermen, Kerry, and Gepheardt, who are virtual neo-cons and are just as conservative and pro-corporation as the Republican counter part. All the add time in the world can not make these candidates look good. Especially when their history follows them.

In contrast, as you noted, are the Republicans. They not only have inexhaustible financing, but control the media as well, and are not above violating the law when ever it suites them. Repugs have the capacity to literally inundate a district with their message, 24/7/365, on the radio, in print, on TV, even from the church pulpit. They only roll out the adds to "ramp up" the campaign. You can't just "tune them out" without also dropping off the face of the earth. Hell, do you realize that Ashcroft even has adds playing during Saturday morning cartoons?

That also means that in order for the Dems to get the message out, they have to push their way through all this. It's like a beach, crowded with Republican pundits, and the Democrat can only hold a few fingers above the water for 30 seconds, before going back under.

The first step to changing this is for the Dems to quit playing the fool. Of course, part of this means that they need to understand that the corporations are against the American people, but that is another issue. But when they truly start to address the concerns of the voters, the voters will seek them out to hear what they have to say. People will support liberal and progressive programming on the radio (they constantly prove that they can maintain high ratings, and make money) because they WANT to hear the left wing pundits. They aren't saying what the voters want to hear, but what needs to be said.

But when your primay mesage is "give me money" exactly how much support can you expect?

That writing off bs is just that. They should even visit Alaska and Hawaii and Puerto Rico too!

Hell some of the central plains states can be done 4 or 5 in one day!

But only before the campaign kicks into high gear, before the conventions. A June or July visit to Kansas or Nebraska would not do any harm.

...helped do in Nixon in 1960. Unwise.

Competition often improves the way mankind does things and without it stagnation sets in.