More evidence that Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy was a complete failure

Most of the Dems that voted against extending tax cuts for the middle class only were blue dog Dems. Of course many of these so-called Dems got blasted on election day...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x540018

The 50 State Strategy was predicated on making Dems competitive in normally conservative areas. The problem is that they were Dems in name only. They voted rethug on many vital issues and now they're trying to poke Pelosi and Obama in the eye one last time before their swan songs.

Howard Dean's 50 state strategy has been an unmitigated disaster and he deserves much of the blame for the current predicament. The Democratic Party would have been more focused and effective without the DINO's. Instead, the Dem leadership bent over backwards trying to satisfy these punks and the Dem message got completely out of whack.

Good riddance.

redistricting is now being done by the GOP instead of dems

Good riddance to them all when they are gone.

But the Blue State only strategy is not viable either.

Those folks in the Red States like to reproduce.

those blue dog Dems would not have been elected, and Republicans held those seats. Also, the 50 state strategy was what made obama successful, because it built a solid organzation even in states where Repulbicans won, forcing them to compete in their own yard.

Without the 50 state strategy, it is quite possible Democrats would never have won the House and Senate or the White House, and we would be united here at DU.

This is a common misconception. It may have helped slightly, but it wasn't a major factor at all. Obama won in a complete blowout.

The explanation for Obama's blowout of McCain is pretty simple...

Obama won because of George Bush's extreme incompetence and an economy that was in the shitter.

to spend money where they never had to before. That is not just Obama, but the House and the Senate. They were forced to defend a huge territory with limited resources and that made the difference.

The 50 state strategy is dead, anyway. It was not maintained by Dean's successor.

elected, we'd never have had the majority in both Houses & all the chairmanships, judicial appointments (including the SCOTUS) and most if not all of the things theDems DID pass in the last 2 years.

All this complaining is because we'rejealous that the Pubs can always hold their caucus together to vote in a block and the Dems can't! But do we REALLY want the Dems to be mindless sheep like the Pubbies are?

:kick:

The 50 state strategy, if nothing else, forced the GOP to SPEND MONEY in places they normally considered safe, which allowed for more progressive candidates to win in areas that would normally be competitive, b/c the GOP wouldn't have the available funds.

The problem was the abandoning of the 50 state strategy after it got Obama elected.

Those DEMS now didn't feel backed by the party and tried to act more like republicans to appease their areas.

Dean did not have control over the blue dogs that Rahm promoted.

So how do you explain their current votes against middle class tax cuts only? They haven't been reelected and yet they're still acting like rethugs.

The truth is that they were never true Dems to begin with.

I am sure their lack of support for this party structure has NOTHING to do with the fact that they were left to twist in the wind when this loony administration abandoned the strategy that got them into office.

the 50 state strategy beyond the words '50 state'. Howard Dean recruited progressive Democrats. Rahm Emanuel, then controlling DCCC money, refused to give any DCCC money to any progressive candidate and in fact, deliberately placed DINO candidates to oppose them on the ballot. With the DINOs in place and money flowing, many Dinos were elected. Some progressives were as well. I worked on a congressional campaign of a very successful, high name recognition, local candidate. It was one of the smartest campaigns ever run against the incumbent. If she had compromised her environmental policy statements, the DCCC would have sent money her way. Because she is a recognized voice on peak oil and long range urban planning in dealing w/ that issue, she didn't move so rahm released no money.

Was it dean, in which case he is responsible for most the blue dogs?
or was it Rahm, in which case he is responsible for most the blue dogs?

You can't really say, I'm going to give Dean credit for the 50 state strategy and all the positives from it, but Rahm is gonna get blamed for all the downsides it generated.

many states. Dean got the party up and running.

Let us clarify: Dean did not select candidates. For
example in the last batch--Rahm Immanuel and Nancy Pelosi
hand picked candidates. Too often, they look for
rich candidates who can fund their own campaigns.

Just in case, any one is really concerned that Dean will
challenge Obama. Dean has too much character. He
has said no. He means what he says.

Dean organized and brought the Democratic Parties
in the states back to life. There were states
in which the building had not even been used for
years.

and the already confirmed effectiveness of gerrymandering of districting
(which the Pubs had control over in 2000, and will again this time)
have been intellectually dishonest for a long time now.

On the one hand, they credit Howard Dean as the "50 State Strategy" master of the Universe,
who should run for President against Barack Obama in 2012,
But on the other hand they dislike with a passion many of those same Dems who won and hailed
from some of those "confederate Flag on the pick up truck" states, and publicly denounce them,
time after time, even more so than they tend to bother with Republicans.

So, how how can it all be neatly reconciled, one might ask?

If we are looking at a Blue Dog elected who won a seat in a fairly conservative district which was previously held by a Republican prior to 2006, than it was all Rahm's fault, cause he was the chief recruiter, and after all is the Devil incarnated.

In fact, anything folks don't like about how the Dem Majority occured is Rahm's fault.

HOWEVER, the fact that we ended up with a Dem majority....well that
was Howard Dean's doing single handledly....and it's all good.


Of course, the reality is that this type of talk is a bunch of bullshit....
and the saddest part about it is that most spewing it already know it's bullshit,
but somehow must think that no one else will figure this out.

Seeing it right in this thread. Everything good = Dean. Everything bad = Rahm.

it would have been nice to have had a 50 state strategy in the latest election. Instead the NDSC funded a candidate in our primary who lost to Elaine Marshall. Instead of having him drop out before the runoff they funded him in the run off where he lost again to Elaine Marshall who now had no money. So did they spend any money on her? God no, despite the fact that Burr wasn't at 50% in the polls. So we ended up with no top of the ticket here and lost the state House and state Senate plus a Congressional seat. If we had, had a competative Senate race instead of a blow out we might have at least kept something. Our local Dems are suffering for national party sins. Though I will admit Easley hasn't been a help.

But I have to agree with you. The 50 state strategy is really good on paper -- but we got a LOT of conservadems as a result.

They are DINO's A warm D in the column and nothing more. -- what they were not was liberal OR progressive. That was it.

and as far as making te GOP spent money? Does anyone REALLY think they care about money?

It got us a majority, which allowed Democratic committee charpersons to set the agenda in the House for 4 years, FWIW

You either compete for those seats or you dont.

If you compete for them, the populace of some of those districts is pretty conservative. You're going to get someone who will only vote with the Democrats 70% of the time or so. But that is better than the Repug you would get from that district who would vote with the Democrats 0% of the time.

party structures at the local level in every single state and creating a party infrastructure.

By creating the infrastructure, you allow people to raise in the state from local to state posts, and then to be elected at the federal level. Emmanuel and Schumer's methods, however, consist in recruiting millionaires who can pay for their campaigns and ignore the rest.

The abandon of the 50 state strategy is responsible for us losing that many state legislatures, in a time when redistricting will be so important. Just asking: why is Kaine still there?

OP is a shit statement
:D

also praise Dean when those same Blue Dogs get voted out from their conservative districts.

also praise Dean when those same Blue Dogs get voted out from their conservative districts.

can't wait to say goodbye to blue dog Tim Kaine,D, Useless

did I trash HD?

The bulk of the blame for the 2010 election loss lies with Obama. His WH is incompetent in messaging and they did a wonderful job of deflating their base after the 2008 Election. His theme, "Change you Can Believe in" and his so called Team of Rivals are a farce because there are basically zero Progressives in his Admin. Instead of rallying the nation to fight for the policies that were helpful to ordinary Americans, he sold ordinary Americans to corporations.

Obama would serve this country and the Democratic Party best by not running for re-election in 2012. Democrats need their Presidential candidate to be a fighter against the Right Wing, not a Wimp.

Both have failed up to this point. That much is clear. The point of my post was that there seems to be no acknowledgment of Dean's failures and I'm pointing them out

BTW, what's a syncophant?

Obama's failed.