Polls, 50-state strategy, and the coming re-alignment...

I'm sure many of you have seen the latest Survey USA poll which shows President Bush at 33% and shows him with a net positive rating in only three states: Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming (with a grand total of 11 electoral votes out of 538).

Check out the poll here:

www.surveyusa.com/50state2006/50StatePres060515Net.htm

This poll, and others like it, is exactly the reason we need a 50-state strategy. Because the former strategy of picking up a few seats here and there is not enough. I have heard, and I'm sure many of you have as well, that the Republicans are safe from a huge sweep because of the illegal redistricting by Tom Delay.

Now, in most elections i'd say there is truth to this, but the one time that redistricting will not save the incumbent party, and probably even hurt it, is when a realignment is about to take place. Why? Think about it. Redistricting doesn't create new voters for the incumbent party, it only changes the boundaries in certain districts to make them more favorable to the incumbent party. But by doing so, you ultimately weaken otherwise safe seats. Thus, if you have a re-alignment, a phenomenon where groups of people (entire demographics) shift their voting allegiances from one party to the other, that means you can expect to lose from 5% to 10% of your vote total. So if you are a candidate that used to receive 60% of the vote in your district (making it a safe seat) and that vote total is diminished to 55% due to redistricting, suddenly you are vulnerable given the re-alignment.

For this reason, I think if we stick to the 50-state strategy (and the DLC ass-hats don't get their way), we may win between 40 to 50 seats come the November mid-terms. That would give Democrats a 243-191 majority at worst, and a 253-181 majority at best. Or simply, a 52 to 72 seat majority. Which incidentally, is more than the Republicans have ever had over us in the past 12 years.

Now, that being said, I also want to take a look at the Senate races coming up. We currently have competitive races for 12 seats. 9 are Republican seats (RI, PA, MO, NV, MT, AZ, VA, TN, OH); and 3 are Democratic (MN, NJ, MD). If you look at Bush's approval ratings in these states they are, to put it simply, terrible.

Vulnerable Democratic Seats.

Minnesota: Bush Approval, 33% - Disapproval, 65%.
New Jersey: Bush Approval, 26% - Disapproval, 70%.
Maryland: Bush Approval, 29% - Disapproval, 67%.

Vulnerable Republican Seats.

Rhode Island: Bush Approval, 23% - Disapproval, 75%.
Pennsylvania: Bush Approval, 28% - Disapproval, 70%.
Missouri: Bush Approval, 29% - Disapproval, 68%.
Ohio: Bush Approval, 32% - Disapproval, 65%.
Nevada: Bush Approval, 37% - Disapproval, 62%.
Tennessee: Bush Approval, 37% - Disapproval, 60%.
Arizona: Bush Approval, 39% - Disapproval, 59%.
Virginia: Bush Approval, 39% - Disapproval, 58%.
Montana: Bush Approval, 46% - Disapproval, 52%.

As you can see, Bush has an approval rating lower than 40% in every single state, minus one - Montana. But in Montana, it should be noted, that incumbent Senator - Conrad Burns - has a lot of problems regarding ethics, and trails in every poll to both Democratic challengers Tester and Morrison. It is possible therefore, that we may end up with a clean sweep in these races. Thus giving us as much as a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate. Given that in all of these races, we have very strong candidates, I don't think this is too much of a pipe dream on my part.

So in conclusion, how do we win? RUN AGAINST BUSH. Make this election about two things: 1) change; 2) bringing balance to the government. And run in as many districts and states as we possibly can. This to me seems to be a winning strategy.

If you enjoyed this post - recommend it, so others may read it on the main page.

running...

Or add your insights on the subject.

Can we recall a senator?

with their constituents also tends to support your analysis, although if those polls are correct we will need to see some more movement before November if we are to take over the Senate:

Still the two Senators who are LEAST approved by their constituents Republican Senators Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Burns of Montana. Other Republican Senators who are close enough to negative numbers in the same polls that they could have trouble include Senator Kyl of Arizona, and Senator DeWine of Ohio.

These statements are based upon the poll released April 20, which is due to be updated any day now. The trend as, I read it, has been against incumbents in general, but more strongly so against Republicans.


http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/060420100USSenatorNet.htm

the Pederson campaign is on the right track to rid us of the scourge of Kyl. His ads hammer that Kyl cast the deciding vote on the prescription drug debacle, which, in spite of our local media's attempt to portray it as a rousing success, is horribly unpopular among the oldsters, which is the single largest voting block in AZ.

forum that had the parking lot--including our staff spaces, nearly full.

Our auditorium seats 400 and our guard said there were people standing.

I'm jazzed for a big win!

Over the years I've come to believe that living here (maybe it's the heat?) makes people extraordinarily stupid. Perhaps common sense will prevail, for once.

who are Democratic senators like Biden, Lieberman, Kerry, and Feingold when sorted "By Highest Net Job Approval".

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/060420100USSenatorNet.htm

When you sort "By Highest Approval" it's even more showing.

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/060420100USSenatorApproval.htm

Her approval is at par with Shumer. The other Democratic Senator from New York. Hardly anything to go around bragging about. It's the (D) that is popular in New York. Not Hillary.

Even still - she ranks 25th. What is that? The top edge of the middle.

Those numbers on Bush don't mean that much in the TN Senatorial race, especially since there is no incumbent to run against.

open seats are generally more competitive because voters have to look at both candidates instead of just the incumbent. Ford is a fairly moderate or even conservative black Democrat. He can win. But at the very least he has a fighting chance. The experts have this race as a toss-up or give a slight edge to the Republicans. Tennessee is the 9th most likely to change parties in the Senate election.

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/TN.htm

I think we should run somebody in every election every time with the only exception being a progressive Independent like Bernie Sanders who caucuses with the Dems. This strategy worked wonders for the Republican Revolution in 94 which was a message to Clinton that Hillary-care sucks ass.

I'm guessing that - if we aren't there now, the trend appears to indicate (aw hell, more like it's being yelled at us) that more races are competitive, especially if they're GOP. It seems to be gaining momentum. Didn't used to be this way. But now it's being spoken about openly and frequently. It's no longer beyond the realm of possibility. It's like IMPEACHMENT is no longer just an option. It's on the table. Funny, it's as Nancy Reagan warned Donald Regan when he was falling out of favor as White House Chief of Staff for Ronnie: "People are talking." Frankly, at times it was mostly she herself doing the talking. But that did get out there - spread all over the news. And it became self-fulfillling. That I think is what is now happening here. People ARE talking. The neat thing about this is that once people start talking, it starts insinuating itself into the national consciousness, and it's no longer treated as an utter taboo, I think you can safely say it's starting to become a done deal. It's no longer unthinkable or That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned.. Once it gets on the radio, and in print, and online in more mainstream outlets than just liberal blogs, it starts absorbing into the national consciousness.

It used to be that the very idea of the Dems taking back the House was equally unthinkable. Not taboo, however, just an impossibly unrealistic pipe dream. The republi-CONS had the joint by the balls and were keeping it that way. No hope. Umm... things change. A lot more has happened that has shown them for what they truly are, and it's the reason why poll after poll after poll - for several YEARS now - consistently have shown a clear MAJORITY of the American people say this country's veered off onto the wrong track. There hasn't been a majority "right direction" verdict in YEARS. I think I recall noticing a switch to majority "wrong track" in 2002 or 2003. And it hasn't changed. Just grown more and more majority negatives. That side of the ratio has only grown. That is NOT good for the enemy because this is another one of those dismal things that have happened on THEIR watch. We didn't become mired in these MULTIPLE MESSES until a) the republicans took control of Congress in 1994, and the closer was bush "taking" the Oval Office. They're both poison to each other and, happily (and more importantly) MORE PEOPLE ARE NOTICING. And as Nancy Reagan said - "people are talking." That's what we need to turn the tide. And that's why you're hearing more people discussing how it's not "if" but rather "when" the Dems take the House back. John Murtha is now the latest to stick his neck out on this one, and it won't stop with him, either. He's only the latest one.

Also, slightly to the side of this issue but still relevant I think, have you noticed the music turning itself up louder on the political protest front? It happened back during Vietnam as the younger generations were waking up, realizing what they had at stake (when we still had the draft), realizing how pointless and wasteful the war was, and saying NO. Music had a lot to do with furthering that awakening. Protest songs filled the airwaves by the biggest of the big names - Dylan, Lennon, Stones, Buffalo Springfield, Crosby Stills & Nash - & Young, and many many more. The political movement was so momentous that it even had its own soundtrack. Now, Neil Young is back, along with other musicians speaking up including Springsteen, Stones, the Dixie Chicks, Pink, and many more. When that happens, and the soundtrack accompanyment to the political movement, it pushes that movement into higher prominence and high gear. It's suddenly a recognizable entity whose existence cannot be denied or dismissed. Then it becomes a force to be reckoned with, and it has an impact and it effects change. Sometimes, substantial change. It happened in the '60's and '70's, and I think it's happening again now. And the GOP has been at the helm during the present conflagration of crises. Everything's turning to shit and it's ON THEIR WATCH. Name me something that isn't worse since the republi-CONS took command?

Enough has happened. Enough has gotten out to the public. We've seen too much. From incompetence to deceit to theft to greed to war crimes. And it's all been ON THEIR WATCH. It is NO LONGER UNTHINKABLE to expect that they're going down.

It is not a fun time to be a republi-CON, ANYWHERE. At ANY level.

"So in conclusion, how do we win? RUN AGAINST BUSH. Make this election about two things: 1) change; 2) bringing balance to the government. And run in as many districts and states as we possibly can. This to me seems to be a winning strategy."

your conclusion is exactly right, we have to run against bush. We can't let them drag us down with divisive issues like gay rights (which we are all for), stem cell research, abortion, etc. They are going to try and divide the American people again, but we can't fall for the bait. We have to keep control of the national conversation, and drive it away from hot button issues and towards a democratic reformation never before seen in my lifetime.

But I disagree with a point in your reasoning. Its possible for the GOP to gerrymander themselves into a very favorable position without weakening other districts.

The way the lines are drawn, the average GOP district is suburban or rural and probably 65-35 GOP leaning voters. Democratic districts are in the big cities and go 9 to 1 Democratic. In each district the votes of the losers are in effect canceled out of the system. They gain no representatives. So in the GOP districts, it only takes two goppers to cancel out one Democrat, where in the Dem district, it takes 9 Dem voters to cancel out a gopper. If each party had the same number of total voters for the entire nation, the GOP would have a great advantage.

The GOP realizes this and have drawn the map to their advantage mostly with the approval and even the demand of the Democrats in the big cities who want the safest districts possible.

I do agree with the 50 state strategy as its working out. Dean goes after all 50 states. The DCCC and SDCC target. We have something on them both ways. At the least, the 50 state strategy will maximize Democratic participation and prevent the GOP from putting all its efforts into the targeted districts.

thank God Dean got in there to implement the strategy or we would have went into this cycle with the same old juncker down strategy that has failed us for 12 years. I wish it was implemented in 2004 cycle, it would have given us must better inroads, but it is what it is, the Democratic brand is reaching terrirtory that hasn't seen it in decades, thank God

if we just run against Bush we'll lose, we have to run against the failed philosophy that government is the problem, then if you vote for the GOP that is the government you get. we need to run as candidates that want a governemtn for all the people.

I was really glad to see your post. Running against Bush himself is, I agree, a sure path to ruin. Let's not make this personal. There are plenty of issues that we can run on and while many of them are Bush screw-ups it's more important to focus on those issues rather than him.

Dean promised us Boots on the ground, and he delivered.

That *is* the way to win, folks.

Key phrases are:

• Rubber stamp Congress
  
• Culture of corruption
  
• Reckless executive
  
• Bankrupt budgets
  
• Incompetent cronyism
  
• Iraqi quagmire
  
• No accountability
  
• Erosion of rights
  

Pick one of the above and present the Democratic plan.

Pickles says thats not true. The American people love her man and she is so loved and trusted by the American people.:sarcasm:

Sorry if this comes across as pedantic, but I'm intrigued by your use of the term "realignment." Do you use this term in its literal, political sense, or is it a term of convenience to describe what you see as a shift of voter behavior toward Democrats, as they exist, away from Republicans, as they exist?

I ask because, as you may be aware, this country has not experienced a full-fledged political realignment since the 1933 election cycle, and we're long overdue. The exodus of the so-called Dixiecrats and the further change in voting behavior by what became known as "Reagan Democrats" and the loss of the solid-South toward Republicans was a partial shift, but one more due to voter behavior specifically than an actual realignment of political parties. That is, the political parties didn't change, and the interests that served them were fairly constant, yet voters themselves shift allegiances. This of course is quite complex in and of itself, but it's something different than a political realignment, which is orders of magnitude more complex.

In any case, the rise of neoconservatism and religious fanaticism on one end and the fracturing of the Democratic party along more liberal/conservative lines on the other has laid the groundwork for a full-scale political realignment. Political scientists and historians have been predicting for over a decade now (1980 was a start, but it never fleshed out fully) and thought it might be taking place after Republicans won the house in the 90's. Yet, again, it hasn't happened. But, I do think now that the process has been put in full motion and that these past events will serve as a catalyst the brings it about rather quickly when it does happen. What is yet unknown is how financial and business interests will line up, and that will in large part determine which major party today, a third party, or some other arrangement comes out dominant, if indeed any faction does become dominant.

Regarding your post specifically, I think your percentages lack much basis, but the general argument you're expressing I think has a lot of merit. A shift in at least voting behavior will occur during midterms. How dramatic that may be is left to be seen and depends on so many factors it would be difficult to predict at this point.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post.

When I called it a "realignment," I suppose I meant that persons who once voted Republican will now vote Democratic.

I actually believe that this trend has been occurring for a while now. It just hasn't fully matured, in part because Democratic leaders have been slow to recognize it.

There seems to be a 6-9% gap in the middle which has voted Republican in the past (72, 80, 84, 88, 94, etc.) which seem to be disillusioned with the Republicans now. Given that the core Democratic base is growing, and that independents are siding more and more with Democrats (thus giving us between 48% to 49% in any given election - compared with 41% to 43% in previous elections (68, 72, 80, 84, 88, 92)), I think this portents badly for Republicans in future electoral match-ups. This middle 6-9% gap has shown itself willing and capable of voting for a party or person other than the Republicans (as they did in 1992 and 1996 for the Reform Party and Ross Perot). We saw it again in polls through out the 2004 season when Kerry led Bush: 48% to 44% fairly frequently and consistently. Again, our failure in the 1990s and 2004 was that we failed to win them over ourselves.

The problem with Democrats, in my opinion, is that we seem to "pander" to the wrong voters. We "pander" to the religious right and to the Wall Street type Republicans, when both are among the strongest voting bloc for the GOP. Call it a hunch, in that I have no empirical data to back it up, but I suspect that what has turned off the middle 6-9% is the Republicans rigid ideological policies on economics and litmus tests on religion. So adopting such policies doesn't seem to be a smart political strategy for Democrats, at least from my point-of-view.

In my view, politics is not a zero-sum game. It is a contest between competing interests. Which ever party puts together the largest coalition of interests wins the election.

--get serious about doing something about electronic voting and the disenfranchisement of many of our voters.

to keep it simple and framed in terms the average voter understands. Kerry's major fault was spending too much time in the Senate, a debating club for elite millionaires that speaks in a language unbeknownst to the common citizen.
Rubber Stamp Republicans made Bush's insane agenda a laundry list of failed policies. They've looted the treasury for the benefit of their wealthy donors. Yes class warfare works. Foreign policy has turned us from the most admired nation under Clinton to the most reviled under Bush. They've borrowed money from foreign interests that now have the ability to lower living standards for most Americans, thus compromising our economic security. They refused to act to demand higher CAFE standards and we are now puppets with our Arab masters pulling the strings (there's an image for you).
Our military is compromised in the Iraq quagmire that was predicated on lies. We are less secure. Osama bin Laden is still bin Missin', but Grover Norquist stated he'd be captured or killed just before November which opens the door for speculation.
With energy prices burgeoning out of control and good jobs being our chief export, everyone who has to work for a living and those on fixed incomes are the ultimate victims of Republican failed policies, and that's a large voting pool.
The Republicans have left holes in our economy and our security that must be exploited and demonstrated to be bad for Joe and Jane Q. Public.
Even with all this we're up against a corporate media that lives in Republican pockets and voting tabulators controlled by Republican operatives. In short, we have our work cut out for us in spite of statistical advantages.
Let's hope the corporate elites come to understand they can't make profits if we the people don't have money to buy what they're selling.
Buy your gas from Citgo, and boycott Exxon/Mobil. In short, starve the beast as Mr. Norquist would say.
Follow the money.

1. Bush isn't running - Repuke candidates will run away from him quicker than a Bushbot trying to avoid military service.

2. 50 states requires a lot of money - you run the risk of spreading the available resources too thin and losing everything. That's what Schumer and Emmanuel are arguing with Dean over - they're not "DLC asshats" - these are Congressional leaders who want to take back the Congress and make Charlie Rangel Chair of Ways and Means. You don't have to be a "DLC asshat" to conclude it's a waste of resources to try to pick up, say, Idaho 2 - it is daft to put money there unless the numbers indicate you have a real shot at winning.

3. Watch out for the Fall money dump. Repukes are infamous for crying about how they are going to lose and then - presto! - it's September 15 and you see a ton of commercials, party activists and campaigning - all just purchased with magic money and just in the nick of time.

Your strategy will lose us the election. Period.

1. Running against Bush is the key. The same way the GOP ran against Clinton in 94. The same way we ran against Reagan in 1982 and 1986. The same way we ran against Nixon in 74 (none of them were on the ballot, yet the opposition made significant pick ups in all of these races). In 2002, we didn't run against Bush and we lost. We need to nationalize the elections. Sure the Republicans want to run localized elections. Why? Because they know Bush is unpopular. But we have to tie their votes to Bush: "Congressman so-and-so voted with Bush 400 times (etc)." We have to call them the "rubber stamp Congress" and explain that this is why we need change. We need balance in Washington, otherwise we'll get more of the same.

2. The Emmanuel/Shumer strategy is stupid. Dean is right and they are wrong. Maybe we'll have less money to throw into individual races, but so to will the Republicans. In the past, we targeted 20 or so seats, but so did the Republicans. Meaning that the seat changes were minimal. In one election, we'd pick up 4 or 5 seats. In the next election, the Republicans would pick up 4 or 5 seats. Thus, the Republicans would hold on to their majority - which in the end is all they want. If we gain less than 15 seats in this election, it will be considered a failure. And the Emmanuels and Shumers of the Democratic party will blame Dean. But in reality, it will be their own fault - since they didn't target enough seats for victory.

3. Watch out for our fall money dump as well - and our boots on the ground. You supporters of the DLC have to have faith in your own party and people on the ground. The problem is that you don't. You satisfy yourselves with mediocrity.

It's time for you to think big. The skys the limit. You see us as a minority. But we are really the majority. On Iraq. On the economy. On health care. On most issues, including terrorism. That's what this post is all about. If the DLC spent time actually listening to the people outside Washington (which is disproportionately Republican at the moment), they would realize this.

"Centrism is not whatever the Republicans say, divided by two."

"You supporters of the DLC??" That's really funny.

I was working on progressive campaigns, sleeping on the floor of the Manchester Teamsters Union Hall in subzero weather for Jesse Jackson in '84 and '88 when most Deaniacs were probably in diapers. You want to disagree with my stategy and tactics? Fine - let's have a lively and focused discussion - I'm certainly not omniscient. But don't throw "DLC" at me. Or I'll just throw loser at you - because we saw the minions of Park Avenue Dean and Silicon Valley Joe Trippi up close and personal in Iowa 2004 - and it wasn't pretty - it was a comical circle jerk.

1. I know running against Bush is the key. But that doesn't mean it will happen. House races - where we have the best shot - are often decided by local issues even when the President is unpopular (see 1980). You act as though running and winning big against Bush is a given, which I find simply incredible.

2. Go ahead. Run against Mike Simpson in Idaho 2 and pour a lot of money into that district. He won with 70% of the vote in 2004 and you might cut it to 60%. What does that get you? Nothing. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REALISTIC CHANCE TO PICK UP THE SEAT. And Mike Simpson isn't going to get more money from the Repukes - he doesn't need it because it's a safe seat. Do you see the Republicans putting money into New York 10, which is an open seat. No, because they have no chance of winning it.

The question isn't "targeting enough seats for victory." It's targeting seats you realistically think you can win. Spread yourself too thin and you end up with a lot of "nice tries" and fewer wins.

Emmanuel and Schumer are targeting more than 20 seats - they're just not targeting 535 seats in 50 states. Do you really think Rahm Emmanuel doesn't want to win? Do you think he really wants to sit in the minority in the House? Are you kidding?

3. Maybe I'm just mediocre. But I have been "on the ground" many times. I spent late October-early November 04 in Florida working 4 polling stations 12-16 hours a day - at considerable personal expense - on a bad leg.

But I've never seen a Democratic money dump in Congressional races - and given the finances I don't think I'll see one this year either.

"Thinking big" is a nice swipe but the devil is in the details and both elections and wars are won with a million little acts, not "one big strategy."

I don't see the Dems as the minority. On the contrary. I want to win and govern as the majority - I'm not really interested in losing for the cause.

But by doing so, you ultimately weaken otherwise safe seats.

I had read that, ironically, Delay's machinations had made him vulnerable (had he not had to stand down because of his crimes). He figured he was safe, so he gave some of his Repug voters to other districts.

37 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate. That's enough to govern.

They went from pro* to seriously anti*. I guess * showed them.

in his header, that a strong democracy is totally anathema to most of the Democratic establishment (Kerry and Edwards being notable exceptions), and indeed currently to all parties vying for government in the West, bar the Scandinavians, perhaps. Heck, at least one poster here would be satisfied with a sufficient majority to govern.

A closer reconciliation with democracy, a move closer towards it, after the primal lurch to the right we have all suffered, which a landslide for the Dems would signify, would be reflected at the very least, even in the US, in a movement towards Socialism, towards a New and indeed better Deal than you have ever had.

The one thing about Socialism is that, front though it often is for ambitious, hypocritical villains, by that very same token, it represents the tribute vice has to pay for virtue. After WWII, difficult as this is take on board, the Labour politicians were unlikely to have been much, if at all, better than even those vestigial Socialists currently on the party's back benches, who have no love for Blairco and all his corporatist works. But after WWII, they had the unopposable groundswell of public approval, which enabled them to form not a bad welfare state. One in fact to which the Tories contributed on and off, when in Government. Better men had been created in the Tory ranks, who were ashamed of the unbridled greed of Thatcher and her infernal spawn; ironically, from a among the ranks of the old-money brigade, who lost little time in resigning, when they saw the direction madam was taking the country. Indeed, Harold McMillan, by then an elder statesman long out of government, once described the privatization of the country's public utilities, as "selling the family silver."