At the time, the plan seemed like an overtly ambitious plan, borderline impossible. Just the term “50 state strategy” appears overreaching like President Herbert Hoover’s “A chicken in every pot” or President Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”
In a 2006 interview with CBS News, Idaho party chairman Richard Stallings reacted to former Bill Clinton adviser and current CNN pundit James Carville, who believed that Dean didn’t spend the money wisely.
‘I don't think Mr. Carville knows what he's talking about," said Stallings. “Democrats haven't been winning on the kind of stuff Carville is talking about. The 50-state strategy is the future."
According to the Democratic Party’s web site, Dean has stated that the goal of the strategy is: “An active, effective group of Democrats organized in every single precinct in the country.”
But is this really the key to the Democratic Party’s future? Party chairman like Mr. Stallings would definitely agree with Dean that it works as they received hefty checks from the party and with the clear successful election results of 2006.
Not to go all op-ed-ish, a term just made up in this article, but a 50 state strategy is not necessary in a general presidential election or even in the year leading up to the election.
Presidential elections are different than midterms in the sense that the American people are voting for one man or woman for one job in the presidential race. In the midterms party money can boost several candidates in several different states and districts against the opposing party. Therefore, one state is selecting several people for several positions.
Democrats after a CNN presidential debate.
One of the positives of the strategy is that young adults were involved in the ’06 midterms than any non-presidential election year before. Young Democrats were more active in the election process than ever before. Regardless of your state, region, or end of the political spectrum, any chapter of the Young Democrats of America had a chance to become involved in rallying support for a Democratic contender.
The biggest fear to party leaders Republican or Democrat is throwing money away at battles or national regions that have no chance of turning in their favor. Before Giuliani began to emerge in the polls, Insiders on Capitol Hill claimed that the Democratic Party should right off the South in the general election. This strategy should never be attempted.
Currently more and more social conservatives have threatened to vote independent because they do not believe that any of the Republican contenders will uphold their values. This could be the edge the Democrats need to win more states in the South in 2008, depending on the candidate that wins the nomination.
Many in the Democrats’ camp are banking on the strategy to work as far in the future as the 2018 midterms. Sure it seems like an eternity, but long-term thinking is the way to go if you want to hold a substantial majority.
Online bloggers have posted their say as well. One in particular at An Enduring Democratic Majority states, “With a Democratic resurgence in Congress and redistricting fast approaching, are the Dems poised to solidify our newly-won majorities? Or can the GOP make a comeback by taking advantage of the nation's changing demographics in 2012? Right now, the GOP has a good shot at closing the narrow gap.”
For the Democrats sake, they’ll realize that spending money and redistricting can only last so long. But if they can do both without white-collar scandal, they just may be successful for years to come, just ask Tom Delay. |
