First, when we examine investment opportunities, we need first and foremost to look at downballot opportunities. That includes state supreme courts (this friggin’ matters!), other elected judgeships, mayorships, election boards, school boards – and, of course, state legislative seats. (This is the way to build and strengthen state party …
First, when we examine investment opportunities, we need first and foremost to look at downballot opportunities. That includes state supreme courts (this friggin’ matters!), other elected judgeships, mayorships, election boards, school boards – 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 it’s 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.
First, when we examine investment opportunities, we need first and foremost to look at downballot opportunities. That includes state supreme courts (this friggin’ matters!), other elected judgeships, mayorships, election boards, school boards – 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 it’s 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 wouldn’t take much to have a huge impact.