DNC Chair Faces Enormous Task

[sandnsea]

With Howard Dean officially in the DNC race, one thing is for certain, it won’t be boring. Just yesterday Chris Heinz dropped by DU to attempt to rally support for Rosenberg, and later Joe Trippi announced his support as well. Are these the first shots? I suppose I’d be a silly little schoolgirl to believe this race will get no more unruly than a school lot fracas. In any event, others can dissect the power politics involved. I’ve just got a few, more basic, questions.

Most candidates agree that the base cannot be ignored, but that we also cannot be the party of interest groups. They then state we have to stop conceding other groups of voters and regions and show up in the south. How do the candidates suggest we cross that gaping canyon?

DFA supported Schweitzer in Montana, according to Howard Dean’s statement today. Schweitzer ran with a Republican and I highly doubt John Kerry was ever invited to campaign with him. Having lived in Montana for many years, my bet would be that Brian yelled “STAY AWAY”. What does that mean to any of the candidates suggesting a “go west” strategy?

The candidates also promote supporting and trusting the grassroots as well as building the party at the state and local level. State Parties have power players and monied interests of their own. How do the candidates propose to fire up the grassroots without displacing the dedicated State politicians who have been the backbone of the State parties for decades?

These all lead to the main question, why we lost and what are we going to do about it. Not just the Presidential campaign, but Senate and House seats. We lost FL, GA, LA, NC, SC, and SD. We picked up CO. Do the candidates seriously miss the fact that it wouldn’t have mattered if Kerry had “showed up” in the south, southern Senate candidates lost as well. Can any of the candidates explain these Senate losses? Doesn’t this indicate a bigger problem than just “showing up”?

It isn’t the job of the DNC chair, particularly, to set the party platform. But the next chair will have the almost insurmountable task of cobbling together traditional Democratic voting blocks while simultaneously transforming the issues of these voters into a vision of change for the future that also reflects basic American values. Structural change won’t be enough. Regional strategies won’t be enough. Tepid variations of tired policies won’t be enough. Dressing up a mouse in a dragon suit won’t be enough. We need a candidate who is capable of true soul searching, who can ask the tough questions and really hear the answers, who can learn and then articulate with strength and clarity. So my final question to each candidate would be, what exactly, Mr. Candidate, is a Democrat?

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=212

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Enormous Tasks Yes, Complicated Strategy No!

The next DNC chair should focus on two issues above all others - Fair Voting and The Media. Without addressing those two issues first, the rest is pointless. Granted, it will be difficult and very time consuming to build a media infrastructure that will deliver the Dem's message fairly and without power at the national level, achieving federal standards for elections will be daunting.

[kerrygoddess]

2. How much of this actually falls on the DNC chair?

[sandnsea]

3. the Dem's message

Even if we blast through the media, what are we blasting? A portion of the media problem is that even when we get through, we've got conflicting messages anyway. Until we bridge gaps between Oklahoma Dems and NYC Dems, there's not going to be a cohesive message even if the media were 100% on our side.

And I personally don't think election reform is going to be all that daunting. All we really have to do is use the Washington State election to get Republicans on board, throw in the revote because the machine lost the votes, stuff like that. After that, most of what is needed will be pretty easy to get. If we organize at the state level at the same time, we should be able to get this stuff fixed by 2006. As long as we don't run around screaming "stolen election" making it a political issue instead of a nonpartisan democracy issue.

[janx]

4. I'm not familiar with that person's blog, but here's what my

terrific congressman, Mark Udall, has to say about winning in the West:

Why Democrats are winning in the West
By Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)

"The people have spoken - the bastards." So said legendary Democratic political operative and Nixon antagonist Dick Tuck after losing his bid for a California state Senate seat in 1964.

Democrats may have been mouthing the same words the morning after Election Day as it became clear that Americans reelected President Bush and increased the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.

Pundits have wasted no time insisting that our nation is divided between so-called "red" and "blue" states - as if another civil war were in the works. But Democrats should look beyond red and blue and toward the so-called purple states, particularly in the Rocky Mountain West.

For two elections, Western and Southwest voters have turned their states into shades of purple, and if you consider voter attitudes and the changing demographics of the region, it is likely that these states will be permanent battleground states in presidential elections.

Any future Democratic electoral strategy must include the West. In 2002, voters elected Democratic governors in Wyoming, New Mexico and Arizona. In 2004, Colorado voters elected a new Democratic U.S. senator and a new Democratic House member from a rural, Republican district and put Democrats in control of both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly for the first time in 44 years.

In addition, Coloradoans showed their green side by approving ballot measures to build a multibillion-dollar mass-transit project and to require utility companies to derive more of their energy from renewable sources like the wind and the sun.

Voters in Utah reelected Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson with 56 percent of the vote, and Montana Democrats swept the governor's office for the first time since 1988 and regained control of both houses of the Legislature for the first time since 1960. In the presidential race, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was competitive in Arizona and did better than expected in Colorado and Nevada while barely losing New Mexico.

Why are Democrats winning in this part of the country? With more people moving West and an increasing Latino population, the Four Corners region has added 1 million new registered voters, and many of these voters do not align themselves with a political party. In Colorado, unaffiliated voters make up the second largest group of voters in the state. This surge in unaffiliated voters has created more competitive elections and more ticket-splitting, which dispels the popular belief that the West and Southwest are red states. They're not - they are independent states.

Along with demographics, Western Democrats have succeeded on the message front by offering common-sense solutions to challenges Americans face in their daily lives. We understand that environmental protection and economic development go hand in hand. Our economy depends on healthy public lands and clean water and air in which to hunt, fish, mountain bike and ski.

We support vibrant rural communities - which often are ignored by policymakers - responsible oil and gas development and reliable transportation systems that move people and goods. Corporations of the New West economy - high-tech, biotech and telecommunications - relocate to our states and create jobs because we offer these amenities and this quality of life.

We also support strong families, and that's why we seek ways to create first-rate schools and colleges and universities, to make healthcare more accessible and affordable and to make our communities safer. And, like any responsible parent, we don't want to pass on huge debts to our children, so we believe in fiscal responsibility, sensible tax relief and balanced budgets.

Finally, the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on moral values. Western Democrats respect and celebrate people of faith, but when it comes to civil liberties, Westerners want their privacy to be respected and value the right to be left alone.

My Mormon ancestors came west to pursue religious freedom and in the process discovered how inspirational our landscapes could be.

Our Western culture is rich because of our diversity, not in spite of it. Faith plays an important role in people's lives, and we should embrace that fact and not condescend to it or dismiss it.

I'm not suggesting that Western Democrats have all the answers, but for two consecutive elections we have run winning campaigns with independent politicians who understand average Americans, who bridge the New West with the Old West, and who have common-sense solutions to the challenges we face in our nation. By looking west, Democrats can find answers on how to engage voters and win. The future of our party depends on it.

Udall represents the 2nd Congressional District in Colorado and was just elected to a fourth term.

[sandnsea]

5. I understand

First, I'm that blog, along with some other Kerry supporters. But in any event, here's a couple of problems with Udall's comments. Things that a DNC chair would have to address.

"responsible oil and gas development"

couple that with "clean coal" to win WV and MT and probably some other states that I'm not aware of.

The environmentalists go beserk.

"Faith plays an important role in people's lives"

The anti-religion people go beserk.

"increasing Latino population"

A vote Democrats are actually losing, more than gaining.

We still face the reality that in order to gain in the west or south, we may alienate further left liberals in the cities. We held them together in Oregon this year, but I wouldn't bet on it in 2008. A final example, there's plenty of Democrats who believe Healthy Forests is really a necessary thinning program. And even if it were, there'd still be plenty of environmentalists who don't want a single tree touched in the forest.

Whoever the DNC chair is, he's going to have to figure out how to bridge some very big gaps within the Democratic Party before he can even begin to reach out and broaden the tent.

[kerrygoddess]

6. Makes a lot of sense

This all makes a lot of sense.

[WI_DEM]

7. But I'm sure Brian Schweitzer still appreciated the

campaign contribution made by DFA.