That is the title of E.J. Dionne's latest article in the Washington Post.
I'll give you a quick background on Dionne.
Dionne is a journalist, political commentator, and an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post. He is also involved in Governance Studies for the Brookings Institution, an NPR commentator, and a professor in the foundations of democracy and culture at Georgetown.
He certainly is a progressive who frequently and intelligently discredits the Bush Administration. Some of his works are "Why Americans Hate Politics: The Death of the Democratic Process", "They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate the Next Political Era", and "Stand up Fight Back: Republican Toughs, Democratic Wimps, and Politics of Revenge"
You can find the article here
You can read the article if you choose, but I'll probably quote most of it because it was incredibly substantive in my mind.
My interview with Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland was delayed for a reason that explains why this Democrat is so popular in a state that was once considered a Republican bastion.
In the course of his travels on Saturday, Strickland discovered that a farm in a heavily Republican area near Cincinnati was celebrating its 200th anniversary as a family-run operation. The governor decided he had to drop by and chat with some folks who probably didn't vote for him. Strickland is one Democrat who tries to leave no Republicans behind.
At a moment of festering polarization in national politics, Strickland is Mr. Consensus. He doesn't hide his progressive views -- he calls himself "pro-choice, pro-labor and pro-universal health care" -- and yet just about everyone thinks of this ordained Methodist minister as a moderate because he spends a lot of time in places where Democrats don't dare venture, offering soothing sentiments you're unlikely to run into on talk radio or the Internet.
"If you act with respect toward the people who disagree with you," Strickland said over the telephone when we finally got around to talking, "they'll give you a break and won't cut you off."
When it comes to elections in purple to red states, these are the sorts of things Democrats have to do. We won't always have the wind at our backs like in 2006, and we must make the necessary sacrifices to ensure electoral success.
One could argue Strickland did it only for bi-partisan attention from the media, but he comes off as pretty legitimate to me. In fact, I can see why he was elected so handily this past November. Among so many other things that angers us Kossacks about the Bush Administration, one of biggest is the sense that we liberals, progressives, and even moderates have had little to no voice because the administration has basically covered it's ears and yelled "la la la la". I have met a lot of republicans in my life that I absolutely abhor for their divisive and often offensive beliefs, but I have also met many republicans who, although I still disagree with, are respectable people with understandable sentiments. If a republican governor went out of his way to come to a major family event at my house, I still wouldn't vote for him, but I would respect him!
Strickland's political skill only partly explains Ohio's political transformation. A state that voted narrowly for President Bush in 2000 and 2004 not only elected Strickland as governor in 2006 but also sent Sherrod Brown, an economic populist with a far-more liberal public profile, to the United States Senate.
The conversion rate among Ohio voters in just two years was staggering. According to exit polling, 30 percent of Ohioans who voted for Bush in 2004 voted for Strickland in 2006; 20 percent of Bush's 2004 voters supported Brown.
Why the big change? Scandals involving former Gov. Robert Taft and former Rep. Bob Ney made even loyal Republicans squeamish. Strickland won a fifth of self-identified Republicans and a quarter of conservatives, while holding on to more than 90 percent of liberals and Democrats, and roughly 70 percent of moderates and independents. If national Democrats reached such numbers in 2008, they'd win the presidency decisively.
The new economy has hit Ohio hard. Industrial cities such as Youngstown and Cleveland have suffered under the lash of globalization. Brown's tough stand against free trade appealed in a place where the loss of well-paying blue-collar jobs makes the promise of a flat world fall very flat indeed.
The exact vote totals were Brown (56%) 2,133,705-1,681,015 (44%) Dewine and Strickland (60%) 2,307,420-1,406,792 (37%) Blackwell. You can also read a more detailed analysis of the full Ohio vote at my previous diary here
I know Blackwell may not have been the strongest person to run against a Democrat, but the fact that Strickland nailed 60% of the vote in what may be the most important state electorally for Democrats is a great sign. You have to believe that Blackwell's 37% really was those who approve of Bush, if only those were the only people who voted Republican in elections! One must recognize the appeal of a candidate who has progressive views, religious views that he doesn't incorporate into his choices (but uses enough to sway the huge bloc of religious voters), and a no-nonsense base of intelligence.
Brown succeeded by microtargeting an appealing message to voters who have suffered through a weakening economy. It was truly amazing to see him win so decisively while running as a liberal in the swing state.
What might Democratic presidential candidates learn from Ohio? As a matter of style, Strickland suggests they understand that "people are desperately wanting to believe that political leaders understand them and that they are trying to deal with their day-to-day lives." Memo to overly cautious candidates: Strickland also thinks that "the display of genuine emotion is important."
Substantively, Strickland says the economy matters most, although he has been a strong opponent of the Iraq War from the beginning. "The foreclosure problem is huge," Strickland says. "The people are desperate for jobs." He sees health care and education as central -- they were the key issues in his recent budget. These questions "ought to give Democrats a leg up," but only if they can "talk about these things in a way that gets people to believe you will do something about them."
There's the rub for Democrats in 2008. Voters want government to work but aren't sure that it can. They want government to solve problems but worry that it won't. This creates a strategic paradox: Democrats need to discredit Bush's government without discrediting government altogether.
I think this is great advice, and I also think that our top runners for the nomination have this in mind. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all came from middle class or lower backgrounds to a life of politics, and I believe that they must realize the importance of not only articulating their views in San Francisco and New York, but in Cheyenne, Birmingham, and Carson City. No candidate can win a national election without being a national figure. For example, Kerry started his organization in Ohio quite late into the 2004 cycle and had an awful lot of money left in his pocket after the election was finished. Sure, our candidates probably won't win Oklahoma by visiting Tulsa or Texas by swinging through Austin, but I know the voters are paying attention and we need to address the issues of people who don't always vote Democratic. Among other major advantages, isn't one of the reasons Clinton performed much better in 2006 than 2004 because she went to rural areas and engaged people who probably didn't even vote for her husband?
Come on guys, we can appeal to almost any voter with these issues! I don't remember the exact poll, but don't Americans agree with Democrats on all the major issues except for gay marriage?(which is pretty close) We just need to find particular ways to frame our platform to make it more appealing than just getting half of the country's votes. I want 2008 to be a landslide pummeling for Republicans like 1996!
Strickland, because he has executive power, has advantages Democratic presidential candidates don't. In introducing his first budget, he decided not to increase taxes. Confronting a Legislature under Republican control, he chose to deprive the GOP of what would have been its main talking point against him. "I think some of my Republican colleagues were unhappy about that," Strickland said with a chuckle about his no-tax-increase budget. But he did push successfully for a broad children's health insurance plan and a freeze on tuitions at state colleges and universities, both of which make voters happy.
State Rep. Kevin DeWine, the deputy chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, credits Strickland with introducing "a budget that was pretty fiscally responsible," but argues that Strickland has not been tested yet.
"He's not had to make a decision where he's had to expend any political capital," DeWine said.
That's true. On the other hand, Strickland has capital to spend because he has combined progressive goals with a moderate demeanor and a cheerful approach to potential adversaries. When you talk to him, you realize you're not in Washington anymore.
Finally, an interesting ending. Maybe he has it easier than we think, maybe not. Although I certainly think taxes will have to be "restored" (not raised) to the Clinton year levels, his style of choking away their talking points puts a smile on my face. I believe any of the top-tier Democrats will do a much better job of responding to Republican criticisms/talking points than we have done in some of the recent elections cycles (I'm looking at you John Kerry, Patricia Madrid, etc.)
In summation, we must find the intricate balance of framing our platform with an appealing message to all voters. We already have the head start in money and the support of the American people, the next step is to establish ourselves early in the battleground states like Ohio with strong organizations extending our platform in the ways that helped Strickland and Brown triumphed.
And this is how I believe we can succeed electorally in 2008.