The Candidates
Featured Archives
You know, if he wasn’t an obvious stalking horse for a Huckabee 2012 campaign, I could see myself supporting Chip Saltsman in his longshot bid for RNC chair. Especially when he says things like this:
If there is one area Democrats out-worked Republicans over the past four years, it is expanding their voting bloc. Many scoffed at Howard Dean’s “Fifty State Strategy,” including other Democrats. But the fact remains that his party became more competitive in more places over the past two election cycles. In 2006, Democrats won House and Senate seats in traditional Republican territory. Two years later, Obama won nine states President Bush carried in 2004, and, in almost half of those states, Obama ran ahead of the national vote.
I have defended Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy here and elsewhere in the blogosphere against Republican and Democratic attacks. I thought it was brilliant, even when the Democrats were complaining about wasting money and Republicans were laughing because we loved to see the other guys waste their cash.
Well, two election cycles later, the Democrats have gained a total of 57 seats in the House and 14 seats in the Senate. It was obviously time, money, and effort well spent. They managed this by picking up seats in traditionally Republican areas; meanwhile, the GOP continues to write certain races off and not even field a challenger in many of them. Chip Saltsman is right – we would do well to emulate a 50-state strategy of our own.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I think at this point Saltsman is undeniably right. When you have Democrats winning seats in districts that Bush (and McCain) carried with over 60% of the vote, the DNC is doing something right.
I think heading into the election, the Democrats had 60 seats in red districts, and Republicans had about 9 seats in blue districts. There is the balance of power in the house right there.
It appears that the much maligned Dean has had the last laugh. He will retire as a much sought after sage in the Democratic party.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Nothing wrong with Saltman’s fifty state strategy as long as we don’t get him with it.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Mr. Saltsman is a smart cookie, but I think it is unwise to put in a Chairman that favors one candidate over another.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Remember when Republicans were falling all over themselves at the thought of Howard “the Scream” Dean leading the DNC. That was about the time that Rove was considered the greatest political genius since Machiavelli.
I guess he who screams last, screams best.
(sorry, couldn’t help that last line)
November 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#1… agree there… he made up for his “I Have a Scream” speech post-2004 Iowa Caucus.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Find a person who is going to be vying for chairman that doesn’t have a preference for who ought to run.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
That, and we get the media to blatantly cover for our mistakes while simultaneously excoriating our opponents, and we’re shoe-ins!
November 19th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I dunno. What kind of ideological sacrifice is involved in a 50-state strategy? I mean really, Democrats only hold half the seats the have by running candidates who are to the RIGHT of some Republicans.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Oh who cares whom the potential RNC chairmen prefer in 2012. Are they the right person for the job — Yes/No? As long as they are competent and help us make gains in 2010, then more power to them.
If they try to use their position to further their favorite’s ambition, they won’t have the position for very long.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Here’s a bit of 50 state trivia to chew on.
1964 was the first time Democrats EVER carried Vermont, and that was Johnson’s 44 state landslide.
You read that right. The modern Democratic party, founded in 1828, didn’t win Vermont for 136 years. That is the longest stretch of futility of either major party in any state. They didn’t win it again until 1992, which means they won Vermont once in 164 years.
My, how things have changed.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Can we start that now?
Maybe by forming a Conservative Caucus or using an existing structure within the Republican Party, printing up some literature, and going door to door recruiting members?
On a related topic, why is it that I never hear of party meetings outside of party Caucuses? How can we have a grass roots party if the grass roots don’t every do anything?
The internet is fine but people need to relate on a personal level as well.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I think picking saltsman might be good. Mostly because the chairman isn’t allowed to pick favorites. He isn’t going to promote one candidate over the other. Plus…who is going to run Huckabee’s campaign with saltsman gone?
November 19th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
MWS,
It’s interesting how political parties change in composition as time goes on. One of these days, I’m going to make a serious attempt to get a grip on the Demographic changes in party’s throughout the last 230 years, why these changes came about, and how that effected their electoral coalitions. But, it’s too big a project for me to do more then just flit around the edges just now. My instinct, though, is that Presidents have had a good deal to do with that changing composition. FDR, for instance, arguably altered the class divide to certain extent. Prior to FDR the blue-bloods and intellectuals tended to be Republican; after him the blue-bloods were diffused and the intellectuals leaned increasingly left. Just look at the newspaper endorsements since like 1950, for a picture of how thoroughly the Republicans have lost the media post FDR. But, I digress.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“Prior to FDR the blue-bloods and intellectuals tended to be Republican; after him the blue-bloods were diffused and the intellectuals leaned increasingly left.”
Yeah, what caused intellectuals and elites (especially academia) to become so liberal?
I love the Orwell quote “Some ideas are so preposterous, only an intellectual would believe them.” But even that quote came in the 30’s or 40’s. How did this come to be? Were the ivory towers always there and now it’s more pronounced?
I mean, it drives me nuts that incredibly smart people can espouse such ludicrous ideas like postmodernism.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Money works in politics. Your comment on it reminds me of people laughing about Obama wasting money in places like Florida & North Carolina & Virginia.
Investing in potentially promising states, in a long term strategy, is an absolute winner. Where should the GOP be focusing their resources in this way? PA, OH, MI – to take advantage of the rust belts rustiness?