If you could pick five red states for Democrats to invest in long-term outside of the seven swing states, which five would you pick? I recognize there are winnable races in every state that need $$$ but looking at this in terms of Senate seats and electoral votes mostly but open to anyone's thoughts or ideas here.
If you could pick five red states for Democrats to invest in long-term outside of the seven swing states, which five would you pick? I recognize there are winnable races in every state that need $$$ but looking at this in terms of Senate seats and electoral votes mostly but open to anyone's thoughts or ideas here.
Mine:
Alaska
Kansas
Nebraska
Ohio
Texas
1) Alaska good overall trend, cheaper state to invest in. Recent success in AK-AL, almost getting Peltola reelected. RCV creates additional opportunities.
2) Kansas- good overall trend, cheaper state to invest in. Managed to get Governor Kelly elected twice.
3) Nebraska- The way they apportion EVs means we should probably have a strong party here anyway. but mostly same reasons for Alaska and Kansas. Dan Obsorn's solid run makes me think we can score an upset here too.
4) Ohio- I feel like we just can't give up here even with the tough swing from 20-24. The three C cities give us a decent base. If we can claw back in northern Ohio we can start competing here again.
5) Texas- Long term project but there are millions of unregistered but eligible voters and think we still have room to grow in the metros. I don't buy that Latinos are gone forever either.
First, when we examine investment opportunities, we need first and foremost to look at downballot opportunities. That includes state supreme courts (this frigginтАЩ matters!), other elected judgeships, mayorships, election boards, school boards тАУ and, of course, state legislative seats. (This is the way to build and strengthen state party organizations.)
Second, in addition to the party split, we need to consider costs, which means taking into account the state population and its media markets. In addition to Alaska, because of their low population I would add North and South Dakota, as well as Montana and perhaps Maine. (Texas, by contrast, will be hugely expensive. You can probably invest in five or ten other states for the same amount of money.)
I would also add Florida. Why? Because the Florida Democratic Party is finally starting to get its mojo back. This time, I believe they ran a candidate in every state legislative seat. (Nationwide, Democrats left more than a thousand legislative races unchallenged!)
That said, the Democratic Party bloody well needs to bring back the 50-State Strategy! And the new DNC Chair (hopefully Ben Wikler) needs to focus more on being a *catalyst* for sensible evolution and much-needed change of the Democratic Party, and *not* just fundraising. This means inviting lots of outside groups to the table for an ongoing conversation. (Field Team 6, Red Wine & Blue, etc etc etc.)
1) Sure I think there are going to be winnable seats in all 50 states that need $$$ but in terms of flappable senate seats or at the presidential level this decade I think we're limited to a handful.
2) Yeah Iowa and Montana were in competition for my picks because Trump might bungle Agriculture and trade policy enough to move elastic voters there he did it in the past and could do it again. We did win 3 of Iowa's 4 House seats and got Tester reelected in 18. I don't think the Dakotas are coming back any time soon but understand those are cheap markets to compete in.
3) I have Florida PTSD I don't think they've shown any ability to win statewide since 2018. They got candidates in every seat and performed worse than any presidential cycle since 1988.
4) Yeah we need to invest wherever we can and should in all 50 downballot in House seats, and legislative seats where we can compete but doing all we can in the seven swing states is expensive, the resources to expand and build a durable Senate majority this decade are going to be even more limited.
Excellent points in both posts! I suppose I was intentionally trying to shift the focus a tad, rather than just addressing your question as phrased. Apologies.
Oh no reason to apologize your point is important and overall I agree with it, we do need to push money into states we probably aren't winning at the statewide federal level until the 2040s for downballot reasons and to set us up for future success.
I think it should matter that local races are where Democrats can get traction, especially if they are in red region. Not arguing this is where the energy should be focused the most but local races tend to be lower profile compared to the statewide and federal ones.
I had mentioned in another party of the thread that SC-01, as an example, is a Congressional district that might present opportunities for growth for Democrats at the local level as itтАЩs a Lean GOP district.
Agreed on the Dakotas and Montana. THe investment requirement is so miniscule--and their history of electing left-populists to Congress so substantial and recent--that it would be malpractice not to keep investing there and be ready to pounce at the first hint of the next realignment.
Utah - I think there is a "tipping point" with MAGA evil that causes a mass shift of "mainstream" LDS (who mostly think like The Bulwark never-Trumpers) into our coalition. They already test left on a policy level to where the GOP is currently (sorry, can't recall where I heard that, might have been a David French podcast).
South Carolina - Lots of "normie" Republicans here. Room for growth upstate and in the Charlotte suburbs. You just have to get a critical mass of people past their "social taboo" of voting Dem (my parents viewed that first-hand when they asked for D ballots the first time they voted in Summerville, SC - Charleston 'burbs). Being geographically in between NC and GA also connects some dots in my head, in ways I can't fully verbalize.
Slight update - I also characterize UT and SC as states where people mostly come off as friendly, in ways that don't apply to, say, Florida. Or even Texas.
No question I think the argument for #s 1 and 2 is much stronger. I am just trying to find different ways of looking at state demographics, for plausible "coalition" mindsets.
Hopefully some people smarter and more connected than me are also doing this.
UT residents are indeed friendly but very much conservative. Ideologically, unless weтАЩre talking Salt Lake City or Salt Lake County, all else of UT hasnтАЩt really changed that much over the years besides non-white demographics. Even with this, non-white Utahns can still be conservative, even socially.
Urban areas need to explode in population that favors voters who are transplants or itтАЩs going to be hard for UT to move closer to the blue column. You have most of the state that is rural, which adds to the problems as well.
Living in SC, I just don't see the state being worth much investment for Dems. You can ungerrymander it by initiative. The Upstate is Wyoming-level red. The 42-44% floor looks enticing, but it's a mirage. The normie GOPs, who do tend to run the state, couldn't even get Tom Rice into a runoff in a 5 person primary after he voted to impeach Trump, and that was in relatively less right coastal/peedee area. We sunj a ton of cash into Jamie Harrison's run against Graham, who is not beloved, and it wasn't really close.
I don't know much about SC but it would be helpful to at least grow the Democratic Party's presence locally first, even in red areas outside of say SC-06 which Jim Clyburn represents.
SC-01 could be a good Congressional District by which Democrats can organize in.
I don't disagree, and if you could build up the Ds in Charleston then it would be harder gerrymander to the present 6-1 split we have now. But we had a lawsuit like the Alabama one about gerrymandering specifically on racial packing Clyburn's district that went no where. CD01 is Nancy Mace and her district was made redder after she beat Joe Cunningham. Plus the state level is badly titled too.
I just think there are better places to spend money than SC.
Agreed on investment being better spent in other states. I'd only selectively focus on SC for the exact reasons I mentioned but yes, definitely want to aim where the traction is the most.
AZ, GA and TX represent room for growth for Democrats as do AK and KS.
*Has an initiative process that could defang gerrymandering
^elects state supreme court justices (Kansas Bar determines theirs, Alaska has a commission of bar-appointed and Gov-appointed members that pick)
These are all pretty small states, except Ohio. Seems like some investment should go into at least one larger state. But they seem to provide some hint of sunlight for the Dems. The ability to block gerrymandering and elect judges means they could follow Michigan's path and fix structural issues that block progress. I considered Iowa, Missouri, and Mississippi. The judicial situation doesn't look favorable in Iowa or Missouri. Better in MS, but I'm skeptical that electoral reform would pass there.
The Ohio redistricting referendum failed because the amendment would've required the districts' partisan lean to match that of the state, which was a dumb idea from the start and, as OH Republicans used to their advantage, would've required more gerrymandering.
The Republicans' usual redistricting strategy (in all the states they control, not just Ohio) is to pack urban areas into a small number of deep-blue districts and then combine light-blue suburbs with dark-red rural areas to create their Republican districts. A better idea would be to put an amendment on the ballot that requires that, to the greatest extent possible, contiguous urban and suburban areas to be in different districts from the surrounding rural areas. This would 1) prevent them from eliminating Landsman's seat, 2) force the creation of a new all-suburban district in Columbus that would lean Dem, and 3) either shore up Kaptur significantly or create another Dem-leaning district in northeastern Ohio.
It's highly unfortunate that states like NC, GA, TN, and TX don't have ballot initiatives, because an amendment like this would significantly curtail Republican gerrymandering in those states.
Good list here. Your first two are the best options and deserve that pecking order. I'd still put Iowa at #3. The population is mostly secular and moderate, and the revival of Trump's tariffs could trigger another farm crisis. We saw how quickly the state realigned after the last farm crisis.
Are we sure Iowa's population is still mostly secular and moderate? I got the distinct impression that a large part of their realignment has been driven in no small part by their growing evangelical numbers. I'll defer to others on this but that's the impression I've gotten.
However the potential for us to benefit from a republican induced farm crisis sounds plausible to me.
I can't say with 100% certainty but I don't think the evangelical numbers are growing outside of a few enclaves. It's mostly the Lutherans and Methodists doing the realigning.
Well, the United Methodist church just disunited last year over gay marriage and gay ministers. Our local UM church dropped its affiliation and is now trying to raise boo-coo bucks to buy back their church from the national UM organization. The church up the road stayed. Both congregations are realigning now, with the bigots coming to our independent Methodist church or whatever they call themselves now.
If you could pick five red states for Democrats to invest in long-term outside of the seven swing states, which five would you pick? I recognize there are winnable races in every state that need $$$ but looking at this in terms of Senate seats and electoral votes mostly but open to anyone's thoughts or ideas here.
Mine:
Alaska
Kansas
Nebraska
Ohio
Texas
1) Alaska good overall trend, cheaper state to invest in. Recent success in AK-AL, almost getting Peltola reelected. RCV creates additional opportunities.
2) Kansas- good overall trend, cheaper state to invest in. Managed to get Governor Kelly elected twice.
3) Nebraska- The way they apportion EVs means we should probably have a strong party here anyway. but mostly same reasons for Alaska and Kansas. Dan Obsorn's solid run makes me think we can score an upset here too.
4) Ohio- I feel like we just can't give up here even with the tough swing from 20-24. The three C cities give us a decent base. If we can claw back in northern Ohio we can start competing here again.
5) Texas- Long term project but there are millions of unregistered but eligible voters and think we still have room to grow in the metros. I don't buy that Latinos are gone forever either.
First, when we examine investment opportunities, we need first and foremost to look at downballot opportunities. That includes state supreme courts (this frigginтАЩ matters!), other elected judgeships, mayorships, election boards, school boards тАУ and, of course, state legislative seats. (This is the way to build and strengthen state party organizations.)
Second, in addition to the party split, we need to consider costs, which means taking into account the state population and its media markets. In addition to Alaska, because of their low population I would add North and South Dakota, as well as Montana and perhaps Maine. (Texas, by contrast, will be hugely expensive. You can probably invest in five or ten other states for the same amount of money.)
I would also add Florida. Why? Because the Florida Democratic Party is finally starting to get its mojo back. This time, I believe they ran a candidate in every state legislative seat. (Nationwide, Democrats left more than a thousand legislative races unchallenged!)
That said, the Democratic Party bloody well needs to bring back the 50-State Strategy! And the new DNC Chair (hopefully Ben Wikler) needs to focus more on being a *catalyst* for sensible evolution and much-needed change of the Democratic Party, and *not* just fundraising. This means inviting lots of outside groups to the table for an ongoing conversation. (Field Team 6, Red Wine & Blue, etc etc etc.)
1) Sure I think there are going to be winnable seats in all 50 states that need $$$ but in terms of flappable senate seats or at the presidential level this decade I think we're limited to a handful.
2) Yeah Iowa and Montana were in competition for my picks because Trump might bungle Agriculture and trade policy enough to move elastic voters there he did it in the past and could do it again. We did win 3 of Iowa's 4 House seats and got Tester reelected in 18. I don't think the Dakotas are coming back any time soon but understand those are cheap markets to compete in.
3) I have Florida PTSD I don't think they've shown any ability to win statewide since 2018. They got candidates in every seat and performed worse than any presidential cycle since 1988.
4) Yeah we need to invest wherever we can and should in all 50 downballot in House seats, and legislative seats where we can compete but doing all we can in the seven swing states is expensive, the resources to expand and build a durable Senate majority this decade are going to be even more limited.
Excellent points in both posts! I suppose I was intentionally trying to shift the focus a tad, rather than just addressing your question as phrased. Apologies.
Oh no reason to apologize your point is important and overall I agree with it, we do need to push money into states we probably aren't winning at the statewide federal level until the 2040s for downballot reasons and to set us up for future success.
I think it should matter that local races are where Democrats can get traction, especially if they are in red region. Not arguing this is where the energy should be focused the most but local races tend to be lower profile compared to the statewide and federal ones.
I had mentioned in another party of the thread that SC-01, as an example, is a Congressional district that might present opportunities for growth for Democrats at the local level as itтАЩs a Lean GOP district.
Agreed on the Dakotas and Montana. THe investment requirement is so miniscule--and their history of electing left-populists to Congress so substantial and recent--that it would be malpractice not to keep investing there and be ready to pounce at the first hint of the next realignment.
Also, imagine inspiring migration there from Blue States. It wouldnтАЩt take much to have a huge impact.
1) Kansas
2) Alaska
3) Utah
4) Nebraska
5) South Carolina
Curious about your thoughts on South Carolina and Utah.
Utah - I think there is a "tipping point" with MAGA evil that causes a mass shift of "mainstream" LDS (who mostly think like The Bulwark never-Trumpers) into our coalition. They already test left on a policy level to where the GOP is currently (sorry, can't recall where I heard that, might have been a David French podcast).
South Carolina - Lots of "normie" Republicans here. Room for growth upstate and in the Charlotte suburbs. You just have to get a critical mass of people past their "social taboo" of voting Dem (my parents viewed that first-hand when they asked for D ballots the first time they voted in Summerville, SC - Charleston 'burbs). Being geographically in between NC and GA also connects some dots in my head, in ways I can't fully verbalize.
Slight update - I also characterize UT and SC as states where people mostly come off as friendly, in ways that don't apply to, say, Florida. Or even Texas.
Thanks for sharing. I'm skeptical they come over in enough numbers but appreciate the solid case for them.
No question I think the argument for #s 1 and 2 is much stronger. I am just trying to find different ways of looking at state demographics, for plausible "coalition" mindsets.
Hopefully some people smarter and more connected than me are also doing this.
My mother and her family grew up in Ogden, UT.
UT residents are indeed friendly but very much conservative. Ideologically, unless weтАЩre talking Salt Lake City or Salt Lake County, all else of UT hasnтАЩt really changed that much over the years besides non-white demographics. Even with this, non-white Utahns can still be conservative, even socially.
Urban areas need to explode in population that favors voters who are transplants or itтАЩs going to be hard for UT to move closer to the blue column. You have most of the state that is rural, which adds to the problems as well.
Living in SC, I just don't see the state being worth much investment for Dems. You can ungerrymander it by initiative. The Upstate is Wyoming-level red. The 42-44% floor looks enticing, but it's a mirage. The normie GOPs, who do tend to run the state, couldn't even get Tom Rice into a runoff in a 5 person primary after he voted to impeach Trump, and that was in relatively less right coastal/peedee area. We sunj a ton of cash into Jamie Harrison's run against Graham, who is not beloved, and it wasn't really close.
I don't know much about SC but it would be helpful to at least grow the Democratic Party's presence locally first, even in red areas outside of say SC-06 which Jim Clyburn represents.
SC-01 could be a good Congressional District by which Democrats can organize in.
Should have been cannot fix by initiative.
I don't disagree, and if you could build up the Ds in Charleston then it would be harder gerrymander to the present 6-1 split we have now. But we had a lawsuit like the Alabama one about gerrymandering specifically on racial packing Clyburn's district that went no where. CD01 is Nancy Mace and her district was made redder after she beat Joe Cunningham. Plus the state level is badly titled too.
I just think there are better places to spend money than SC.
Agreed on investment being better spent in other states. I'd only selectively focus on SC for the exact reasons I mentioned but yes, definitely want to aim where the traction is the most.
AZ, GA and TX represent room for growth for Democrats as do AK and KS.
Add in Missouri and Mississippi as well.
Agreed on AK and KS.
Here are mine ...
No particular order.
Alaska*
Kansas
Ohio*^
Nebraska*^
Montana*^
*Has an initiative process that could defang gerrymandering
^elects state supreme court justices (Kansas Bar determines theirs, Alaska has a commission of bar-appointed and Gov-appointed members that pick)
These are all pretty small states, except Ohio. Seems like some investment should go into at least one larger state. But they seem to provide some hint of sunlight for the Dems. The ability to block gerrymandering and elect judges means they could follow Michigan's path and fix structural issues that block progress. I considered Iowa, Missouri, and Mississippi. The judicial situation doesn't look favorable in Iowa or Missouri. Better in MS, but I'm skeptical that electoral reform would pass there.
The Ohio redistricting referendum failed because the amendment would've required the districts' partisan lean to match that of the state, which was a dumb idea from the start and, as OH Republicans used to their advantage, would've required more gerrymandering.
The Republicans' usual redistricting strategy (in all the states they control, not just Ohio) is to pack urban areas into a small number of deep-blue districts and then combine light-blue suburbs with dark-red rural areas to create their Republican districts. A better idea would be to put an amendment on the ballot that requires that, to the greatest extent possible, contiguous urban and suburban areas to be in different districts from the surrounding rural areas. This would 1) prevent them from eliminating Landsman's seat, 2) force the creation of a new all-suburban district in Columbus that would lean Dem, and 3) either shore up Kaptur significantly or create another Dem-leaning district in northeastern Ohio.
It's highly unfortunate that states like NC, GA, TN, and TX don't have ballot initiatives, because an amendment like this would significantly curtail Republican gerrymandering in those states.
Good list here. Your first two are the best options and deserve that pecking order. I'd still put Iowa at #3. The population is mostly secular and moderate, and the revival of Trump's tariffs could trigger another farm crisis. We saw how quickly the state realigned after the last farm crisis.
Are we sure Iowa's population is still mostly secular and moderate? I got the distinct impression that a large part of their realignment has been driven in no small part by their growing evangelical numbers. I'll defer to others on this but that's the impression I've gotten.
However the potential for us to benefit from a republican induced farm crisis sounds plausible to me.
I can't say with 100% certainty but I don't think the evangelical numbers are growing outside of a few enclaves. It's mostly the Lutherans and Methodists doing the realigning.
Well, the United Methodist church just disunited last year over gay marriage and gay ministers. Our local UM church dropped its affiliation and is now trying to raise boo-coo bucks to buy back their church from the national UM organization. The church up the road stayed. Both congregations are realigning now, with the bigots coming to our independent Methodist church or whatever they call themselves now.