Dem's can win in red states & GOP can win in blue states. But they can't win unless the voters have the opportunity to see & hear the candidates.
The U.S. Census Bureau released new state-by-state population estimates for 2004 Wednesday of this week. The Atlanta Business Chronicle reports that The American City Business Journals (story in the foregoing link) used those figures to hypothetically reapportion U.S. House Representative seats today, six years in advance of the next scheduled reapportionment in 2010.
Three of the four states losing seats -- Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania -- were states that Kerry carried.
The significance of this is obvious: The balance of power in the Electoral College would shift, since each state's number of electoral votes is determined by the sum of its House seats and its two Senate seats.
And adding to this significance are those states that would pick up seats, Georgia being one of these. Overall, GOP-leaning states in the projection would pick up more Congress seats and thus more electoral votes.
Hopefully such articles will assist our national Party in getting the message after losing the last two elections to President Bush and the GOP; it can't keep writing off the South in election after election and expect to retake the White House.
And it is not just the South. Although I am not in Howard Dean's camp as far as his becoming DNC Chair, as noted in my 12-09-4 post, he's getting the message right. In his recent speech seen at George Washington University regarded by the pundits as part of his campaign for the Chair, he accurately noted:
"We cannot be a party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single district, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter."
_______________
The title of this post indicates that Democrats can win in red states and Republicans can win in blue states. But they can't win unless the voters have the opportunity to see, hear and take the measure of the candidates.
This is according to Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who is serving in his second term and, according to his Web site, is Chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC), where he works to help develop the legislative agenda for the Senate Democratic Caucus.
Yesterday he had the following guest article in The Washington Post entitled:
Our 'National' Elections.
Parties Should Court All Voters -- Not Just Those in Battleground States
If you saw a real live presidential candidate this year, you must live in one of those "battleground states." You're lucky. Most of us never laid eyes on a candidate except on television.
In fact, most Americans are as likely to see a presidential candidate in the flesh as they are to see Elvis walk out of a Johnny Rockets hamburger stand. Despite being called a national campaign for the presidency, it really isn't national anymore. These elections have become a series of mini-campaigns in specific states calibrated to win an electoral college vote. The candidates rush back and forth between such contested states as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. They act as if they're running for president of the battleground states rather than of the United States.
Since your tax dollars are being used to fund the presidential campaign, you have a right to expect the candidates to run a national campaign and maybe show up in your state. After all, when they received their party's nominations, the Bush and Kerry campaigns each pocketed $74.6 million in public funding for the general election campaign. They took that money and headed straight for the battleground states.
Here's how it works:
Following the national political conventions, the two presidential campaigns sit down (separately, of course) and divide up the country. Each nominee decides which states he's certain to win. From that point on, each candidate will feel free to ignore the states he has determined he is certain to win or lose. Thus each side will ignore its own safe states and will give up on the opponent's safe states right out of the starting gate.
The states left in play are where both campaigns think they have a chance to win, and that's where the campaign will be waged. They start out with about 15 battleground states and whittle them down as they get closer to the election.
This year, by the time the candidates collected $150 million in federal financing between them for their presidential campaigns, both had already decided they would not show up in a majority of the states.
North Dakota is a good example. It is a "red state." The Bush people were certain they would win it, and the Kerry folks were certain they would lose there. So President Bush ignored it and John Kerry gave up on it. Neither showed up. Both made that decision before the real campaign got started.
Now, I understand the political strategy that says you pick cherries where cherries grow. But I think the current strategies of both parties are reinforcing the strengths and weaknesses of each party. Instead of reaching out and trying to build in new areas, both parties are retreating to their safe states and conceding defeat in areas that deserve to be a part of the presidential campaign. That strategy undermines our political system and further polarizes America's politics.
The fact is, Democrats can win in red states and Republicans can win in blue states. But they can't win unless the voters have the opportunity to see, hear and take the measure of the candidates. In state after state, that just isn't happening in presidential campaigns.
This year President Bush won North Dakota by 27 percentage points. At the same time, I won reelection to the U.S. Senate there by 36 points. He's a Republican and I'm a Democrat. So much for red and blue. A lot of voters don't think in those colors if given an option.
Current presidential campaigns shortchange voters and weaken the opposition political parties in many states. Opposition parties simply cannot gain a foothold and grow and build in a state unless they have a national political party that begins to compete in those states with a national message.
Maybe if American taxpayers are going to continue funding presidential campaigns, the money should come with a requirement that the candidate for president run a truly national campaign. Then maybe you'll see one of the candidates in your state, too.
Three of the four states losing seats -- Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania -- were states that Kerry carried.
The significance of this is obvious: The balance of power in the Electoral College would shift, since each state's number of electoral votes is determined by the sum of its House seats and its two Senate seats.
And adding to this significance are those states that would pick up seats, Georgia being one of these. Overall, GOP-leaning states in the projection would pick up more Congress seats and thus more electoral votes.
Hopefully such articles will assist our national Party in getting the message after losing the last two elections to President Bush and the GOP; it can't keep writing off the South in election after election and expect to retake the White House.
And it is not just the South. Although I am not in Howard Dean's camp as far as his becoming DNC Chair, as noted in my 12-09-4 post, he's getting the message right. In his recent speech seen at George Washington University regarded by the pundits as part of his campaign for the Chair, he accurately noted:
"We cannot be a party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single district, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter."
_______________
The title of this post indicates that Democrats can win in red states and Republicans can win in blue states. But they can't win unless the voters have the opportunity to see, hear and take the measure of the candidates.
This is according to Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who is serving in his second term and, according to his Web site, is Chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC), where he works to help develop the legislative agenda for the Senate Democratic Caucus.
Yesterday he had the following guest article in The Washington Post entitled:
Our 'National' Elections.
Parties Should Court All Voters -- Not Just Those in Battleground States
If you saw a real live presidential candidate this year, you must live in one of those "battleground states." You're lucky. Most of us never laid eyes on a candidate except on television.
In fact, most Americans are as likely to see a presidential candidate in the flesh as they are to see Elvis walk out of a Johnny Rockets hamburger stand. Despite being called a national campaign for the presidency, it really isn't national anymore. These elections have become a series of mini-campaigns in specific states calibrated to win an electoral college vote. The candidates rush back and forth between such contested states as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. They act as if they're running for president of the battleground states rather than of the United States.
Since your tax dollars are being used to fund the presidential campaign, you have a right to expect the candidates to run a national campaign and maybe show up in your state. After all, when they received their party's nominations, the Bush and Kerry campaigns each pocketed $74.6 million in public funding for the general election campaign. They took that money and headed straight for the battleground states.
Here's how it works:
Following the national political conventions, the two presidential campaigns sit down (separately, of course) and divide up the country. Each nominee decides which states he's certain to win. From that point on, each candidate will feel free to ignore the states he has determined he is certain to win or lose. Thus each side will ignore its own safe states and will give up on the opponent's safe states right out of the starting gate.
The states left in play are where both campaigns think they have a chance to win, and that's where the campaign will be waged. They start out with about 15 battleground states and whittle them down as they get closer to the election.
This year, by the time the candidates collected $150 million in federal financing between them for their presidential campaigns, both had already decided they would not show up in a majority of the states.
North Dakota is a good example. It is a "red state." The Bush people were certain they would win it, and the Kerry folks were certain they would lose there. So President Bush ignored it and John Kerry gave up on it. Neither showed up. Both made that decision before the real campaign got started.
Now, I understand the political strategy that says you pick cherries where cherries grow. But I think the current strategies of both parties are reinforcing the strengths and weaknesses of each party. Instead of reaching out and trying to build in new areas, both parties are retreating to their safe states and conceding defeat in areas that deserve to be a part of the presidential campaign. That strategy undermines our political system and further polarizes America's politics.
The fact is, Democrats can win in red states and Republicans can win in blue states. But they can't win unless the voters have the opportunity to see, hear and take the measure of the candidates. In state after state, that just isn't happening in presidential campaigns.
This year President Bush won North Dakota by 27 percentage points. At the same time, I won reelection to the U.S. Senate there by 36 points. He's a Republican and I'm a Democrat. So much for red and blue. A lot of voters don't think in those colors if given an option.
Current presidential campaigns shortchange voters and weaken the opposition political parties in many states. Opposition parties simply cannot gain a foothold and grow and build in a state unless they have a national political party that begins to compete in those states with a national message.
Maybe if American taxpayers are going to continue funding presidential campaigns, the money should come with a requirement that the candidate for president run a truly national campaign. Then maybe you'll see one of the candidates in your state, too.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 5:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home