We should adopt a 50 state campaign strategy for 2004 (with a caveat)

Conventional wisdom says that a presidential nominee should write off states where he has no chance to win in the general election, shore up his base states and play the competitive states hard. This is a sound strategy for the general election, but it need not be the strategy from March to November. Fact is, most of those fickle, wishy washy swing voters only begin to pay attention to the campaign around Labor Day at the earliest. From March to the convention I see great symbloic value with the Democratic nominee adopting a 50 state strategy. It would exude confidence and dilute the Bush team's "aura of inevitability" strategy they are trying to adopt for 2004. The sight of Howard Dean, or Wesley Clark stumping in Kansas or Wyoming in June, after the primaries, would convey a message that the Democrats are running a serious campaign and that our nominee is playing offense, not defense. Richard Nixon tried a 50 state strategy in 1960 and it was widely assumed that it did not work, but that is because he was traveling to hopeless states in October. I do not think we should do that. Obviously, the nominee should not be campaigning in Idaho in the last week of October. But a campaign visit to all 50 states would have a positive national effect and could energize Democratic voters nationwide, which would have a positive effect on down ballot races.

but I think we should play things by ear. It is a very hopeful thing to me that the establishment dems are so worried about Deans appeal to the South. Look at the confederate flag issue and Zell Miller calling Dean a traitor. I think maybe they are scared he is going win alot of it.

because unless we transcend this internal bickering we will win the election, but still be stuck in the mud due to lack of coattails. . .we have to focus on the whole thing, congress and the white house. That is why the Dean and Clark grassroots movement is so important.

--Mike

In an election where we will most certainly be facing a huge disadvantage monetarily, the conventional wisdom might actually make more sense.

I see your point in the symbolism, but I think the money may be better spent in the states we must win to win the election. If the funding is available, then by all means visit all 50.

it. This might not be a problem at all. Dean is really killing alot of Dem paper tigers.

eom

And the way he's campaigning in forgotten states like Texas, I think he can get the voters....no problem with that.

I'd say that Ann Richards would beg to differ that Texas is forgotten. She still raises a lot of money for the Dems and I'm sure will do so again in this election.

Now, states like Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska - THOSE are forgotten states. Wyoming went to Bush by 40% in 2000; the others were all over 20%.

Considering the low number of electoral votes in those states, I'd rather see the nominee fight for states that were close in 2000.

supply. Based on his present rate of fund raising he will have that much.

Based on his present rate of fund raising he will have that much.

I think your math might be a little off. Didn't he raise around $15 million last quarter?

With the staff, probably about 5 million. I think it would be a great investment. LOTS of earned media.

Does anyone even do bus tours anymore? As convoluted as campaign scheduling is, I think it's likely not feasible.

Too bad Wellstone didn't take the bus!

It doesn't have to be 50 states, as whoever the nominee is could visit the remainder of them later in the campaign. And who goes to Hawaii? Or Alaska?

And oh yeah, Clinton went on several bus tours in 92. Watch the War Room.

Clinton wasn't facing a $250 million campaign opponent, either, so the campaign strategy has to be different this time, of course.

The point is - it's likely not going to be economically feasible to campaign much in states that are basically lost causes. Wyoming, for example, went to Bush by 40 points in 2000. We're not making up 40 points no matter what we do, and I don't see campaigning there having much of an impact elsewhere.

We should activly pursue this. But it iw going to take us hittin gthe ground and not stopping. Our candidates can't visit every state, but we can do the dirty work. I think we have the people and the commitment.

if money is a problem, make sure that he has a contingent of dedicated volunteers on site to do the rest.