There is a lot of great writing going on in the diaries right now, and everyone should check them out. However, one disturbing trend I have noticed on this blog over the past two days has been a tendency to revert to the "gimmick" strategies and crude political speculations that were rampant during the primary season and the VP selection process. Specifically, I am referring to those who look at candidates only in their supposed ability to pick off one or two states, improve our standing in one or two demographic groups, or who have some sort of biography that would result in less mud being slung at them by the GOP. When mapping out plans for future elections, especially Presidential elections, such strategies are beyond worthless since they serve as little more than temporary bandages and smokescreens while ignoring long-term problems. They are also naïve to assume that we will ever put up a candidate who will not be mercilessly attacked by the Right Wing Noise Machine. We can only ever solve that problem by creating an equally powerful Left Wing Noise Machine.
To put it as politely as I can, discussions about criteria for future candidates are forms of the "electability" argument at its most reductive and idiotic. In this election cycle, in one important area, we employed a far more effective strategy that we must continue to pursue and expand into other areas. Specifically, going into this election, one of the major problems that we faced was that the partisan makeup of the swing states favored Republicans. In response to this problem, instead of simply looking for a candidate who can to flip one or two key states based on geography, and instead of looking for a candidate who can improve our standing among one or two demographic groups based on background or charisma, we attempted to more or less permanently shift entire regions and demographic groups toward our party and ideology. Thank the Maker we actually did this, because beforehand we were rapidly losing the battleground and on the brink of total collapse.
For forty years, the partisan composition of the swing states had favored Republicans. After 2000, this problem was especially severe, as states worth 307 electoral votes had a pro-RNC partisan index. To rectify this, rather than just nominating someone from a red state, we attacked twenty-two states with a plan to register new voters and maintain regular contact with millions of "unlikely" voters. The aim behind this plan was not to win one election based upon the unique characteristics embodied entirely within a single candidate. This time around, the aim was to change the electorate itself--to structurally alter the partisan composition of the electorate in the battleground states and make it more favorable to Democratic candidates. Quite frankly, this strategy worked in most places we tried it. In CO, IA, ME, MI, MN, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, OR, PA VA, WA and WI we managed to tilt the playing field in a more positive direction for Democrats. Of the states that we targeted, only in AZ, AR, FL, LA, MO, TN and WV did we suffer setbacks. Basically, we gained everywhere outside of the South, where admittedly we were crushed. Now, as I wrote earlier today, states worth only 239 electoral votes have a pro-RNC partisan index.
We are not going to win elections by doing a better job of screening major candidates based on a laundry list of geographic, ideological and personality criteria. The party's national fortunes will only continue to decline if we simply look at elections as a jigsaw puzzle where we try to match a candidate's statistics with national demographics. We need long-term solutions for the entire party that addresses long-term problems for the entire party, not just a candidate whose E-Harmony personality profile produces a good match with the nation as a whole. We are only going to win by continuing to our heavily activist-based registration and voter contact efforts, and coupling it with a far superior use of linguistic and political frames that will allow us to halt and immediately reverse our national slide in ideological and partisan self-identification.
Our success in the battleground was a good start, but we have a long way to go. The country is composed of much more than 22 states, and nationally we are still witnessing the electorate slide toward reactionary and theocratic ideologies. Considering this, if, two years from now, when the next round of Presidential candidates slowly comes into focus, we are still spewing crap like "well, she's a moderate Governor from a slightly red state, so I think she has a better chance than the mildly liberal Senator from the lean blue state" I may start believing that we are in fact doomed. Those who see our problems as embodied entirely within the biographies and demographic profiles of our Presidential nominee not only fail to grasp the scope of our decline, but may in fact contribute to our decline. We are in the grips of a major crisis here, and simply nominating someone who is "strong on defense" or "who can compete in the South" will do nothing to alleviate the severity of this crisis. If we want to win, we need to structurally alter the electorate and its ideological framework, not try and fool it with a gimmicky candidate biography and selective issue positions. The only way to become more electable is to shift the electorate in our direction. Please, no more gimmick strategies.
Democrats :: Thu Nov 4th, 2004 at 06:46:50 PM EST
