Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 9/25 (305 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Although why wouldn't try for Clinton for KS? (0+ / 0-)

    Seriously, if you are winning the Midwest, the New South, the Southwest, and all of the usual blue states, what's left?

    Give HRC all of the Obama 2012 states, plus AZ, NC, MO, GA, IN, and MT. Excluding TX, that's 17 states, assuming you don't think she'd fairly easily win AR or LA. If you think she'd spend on average $10 million in each state, that's only $170 million. Considering we already win the most expensive states and wouldn't have to spend as much in the others, like FL, that seems well within reach. That's not to say it's the best course of action, only that it is quite possible if she wants it to be against someone like Cruz.

    "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

    by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:18:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Because I don't think Clinton could win (6+ / 0-)

      Kansas even if she tried, whereas if she did try she could maybe win Kentucky or West Virginia. Kansas is one of those states that is as reflexively anti-Democratic as they come.

      I'll remind you that Kansas has been one of the most - if not the most - consistently and strongly Republican states in the entire country. There has never, ever been a time where the Democratic party was the dominant party here, which cannot be said of, I think, any other state (including, fwiw, Utah).

      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

      by wwmiv on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:23:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know that, but the point I'm (0+ / 0-)

        making is that there's probably not a lot to lose by doing so. In a situation where she's up against Cruz and it's clear she'll basically win no matter what, she'll have all the money she needs from the outset. She couldn't completely ignore the usual states, but she probably wouldn't have to fight for them like Obama did. This frees up time and resources to play around to some degree. Given that all of the remaining states except for Texas are cheap, she could probably be aggressive if she wanted to be.

        "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

        by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:26:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is, in fact, a lot to lose (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, jncca, BeloitDem

          All campaigning has opportunity costs, the time and money spent in one state takes away from others.

          Hillary won't contest Kansas unless a blowout win is obvious and states like Georgia and Texas are already secured.  And that can't happen unless the GOP not only nominates someone like Cruz or Paul or even worse, but also the GOP nominee runs a campaign that makes McGovern '72 look good in comparison.

          45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you misunderstand me, DCC. (0+ / 0-)

            HRC against Cruz was the obvious hypothetical, I thought, as were all of the other conditions, or something similar. It's not that I expect this to happen, only that a certain set of circumstances makes it possible, at least in theory.

            As I said, it's not as if we can devote no resources or time at all to standard swing states. But if we are starting out with a state like OH or FL being Lean D, at worst, to say nothing of PA, that frees up time and resources.

            There are obvious candidates for any Democrat in a situation like the one we're describing. Certainly, GA or AZ would be a better target than some deep red state. But aside from TX, there's no state that is a big money pit. Even GA, which can't be cheap, doesn't qualify. And aside from TX, GA, and perhaps AZ or KY, what's left? ID? KS? ND and SD? Anything that's left is small and cheap to campaign in.

            You probably don't need to spend $10 million in most of the deep red states to compete effectively. That's why I used an average.

            There are, as you indicate, opportunity costs to this possible strategy. I thought I indicated as much. I just think they aren't as extreme as you imagine. Basically, what I am saying is, if competing in FL usually costs $40 million, we could probably drop that down to $35 million, and there we have the money to compete in, say, MS.

            I also think the money advantage could be incredible, as I indicated above. Against someone like Cruz, it'd be ridiculous, because not only would HRC be HRC, but she'd be against Cruz. The only problem I see her having is if it looks so obvious she'll win, people feel as if there's no point in giving more. But she'll still have plenty--certainly enough to compete in the Obama states plus a few others, but also, I suspect, to compete in at least a few of the usual red states.

            And on that note, she doesn't need to complete in all 50 states to be unusually aggressive. All of the 2016 Obama states, in this hypothetical, plus NC, AZ, GA, and MO, would be 30. She could be less aggressive than I suggest above and target all of those, plus, say, SC, AK, MS, KY, ND, and SD, and probably not come close to breaking the bank. That still leaves 14 states, including TX, ignored.

            "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

            by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:49:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Idaho (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gygaxian

        Other than Frank Church, there had never been a dominant Democratic force in Idaho.

        I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

        by OGGoldy on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:32:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (6+ / 0-)

          Between the depression and the early 40s the state was utterly dominated by Democrats.

          Their state house, at one time, was 59D-4R and the state senate 35D-9R.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

          by wwmiv on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:35:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Between the depression (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wwmiv

            and the early 40s" was a brief time, less than a decade.  Idaho's New Deal domination in the 1930s was an aberration from the Republican norm, as it reverted fairly quickly.  Still, it was likely a useful interlude of reform.

            Interesting how, according to the chart, the state senate there has had the exact same 28R-7D balance for the last decade (and that is an improvement from the late 90s/early 2000s.)

            38, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

            by Mike in MD on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:50:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

              But despite it being short, it still existed. You can't even claim any time period whatsoever for Kansas. Ever.

              23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

              by wwmiv on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:54:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Going further (0+ / 0-)

                We held all statewide offices for most of the time period going until the late 40s, while having almost parity in the state legislature. We were doing pretty damn well there.

                23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                by wwmiv on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:56:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  OTOH, hasn't Kansas had a tradition (0+ / 0-)

                of very moderate Republicanism?

                Wikipedia is telling me this:

                The Kansas Democratic Party has not been able to send a U.S. Senator to Washington since 1939, a record currently unmatched by any state party in America, Republican or Democratic. Kansas Democrats haven't controlled the Kansas Senate since 1917, the only period in which Democrats have ever held a majority in the upper house, and the Democrats have had only three non-consecutive two-year periods of majority control in the Kansas House of Representatives, the last being in 1991
                Wow...

                "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

                by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 09:00:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Kansas had a Democratic Governor (0+ / 0-)

        as recently as 2011. So "reflexively anti-Democratic" is a bit of an exaggeration.

        25, Practical Progressive Democratic Socialist (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie!

        by HoosierD42 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 02:40:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site