The 50-State Strategy: a plan to build a truly nationwide Democratic Party structure capable of competing--and winning--everywhere in the U.S., at every level. Take this effort to its logical conclusion, and try to envision a scenario in which the Democrats win the presidential election with every state, every electoral vote. This has never been accomplished in the two-party era of American politics, although candidates have come close to perfection several times. Is it a goal worth working for? Hell yes--imagine, for example, the "coattail effect" this would have on congressional, state, and local races.
If Kos is right that states like Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, and Montana might be in play this year, why stop there? Could this be the year we run the table? The short answer is "not bloody likely." The longer answer is "not bloody likely, but technically within the realm of possibility." Basically, everything would have to go right for the Democrats between now and November 4. Follow me below the jump for a description of how such a scenario might play out.
1. The Big Picture
If we want a landslide victory in 2008, the first step is to nominate Barack Obama. I've got nothing against Hillary--in fact, I voted for her. But my personal preference is irrelevant to this discussion. Hillary's best-case scenario is a broad victory like the ones that other Clinton won in 1992 and '96. Even a Clinton/Obama ticket (my personal desire) has too low of a ceiling. Barack, if everything goes his way, can do better.
Obama's first challenge is to unite the party--not a small task given the large number of Clinton supporters who have mixed or negative feelings about him. Worse yet, rumor has it that the Clintons themselves have a personal dislike of him. And in order to win any sort of landslide, Obama would need the full power of the Democratic Party behind him, and that includes the Clintons and their supporters (both influential and grassroots). The most obvious way of patching things up would be for Obama to offer one or both Clintons a powerful job. Vice President is out of the question...it's not likely that Hillary would be interested, and even if she was, I'm not sure it would be a good political move. She might not be interested in a Cabinet position, either. I think the smart move would be for Obama to offer Hillary Clinton the role of US Ambassador to the United Nations. It's a job that she is uniquely qualified for, given her diplomatic experience as First Lady and as Senator, and it's an offer she couldn't refuse (she would be following in the footsteps of her personal heroine, Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a delegate to the UN General Assembly from 1947-1952). With the Clintons on board and working to make sure their supporters get excited about Obama, the campaign could concentrate on other details. As far as Edwards supporters go, rumor has it that Obama would like John Edwards to be his Attorney General--another smart move.
In order to create the popular support necessary to achieve a landslide victory, the Obama campaign would have to be almost entirely positive, with few if any attacks on John McCain. The problem with that is that McCain is relatively popular...it would be essential to raise his negatives, and attack ads are the best way to accomplish that. The solution for this dilemma? That's where we step in. Blogs like Daily Kos and organizations like MoveOn should go after McCain in a big way. Our mission should be to dig up as much dirt as we can (as long as it's true...no black-baby-born-out-of-wedlock garbage) and compile compelling reasons why no self-respecting American should vote for him--and make sure the traditional press picks up the story. For example...did you know McCain unabashedly uses racial slurs? Or that Mr. Straight Talk has admitted to compromising his principles for political gain? Or that veterans' groups give him abysmal ratings? With McCain's image as a maverick and a war hero tarnished, independents will flock to Obama and conservatives will look for an alternative. Meanwhile, Obama will be free to concentrate on introducing himself to the portions of the American public that are still unfamiliar with him; to define himself before he lets his opponents do it for him.
McCain is having serious problems with his base and needs to sure up support by selecting a conservative running mate. Perhaps he wants Huckabee, but what if Mike isn't interested, or can't clear the vetting process? Should McCain pick another conservative? At this point, let's assume that it's early summer and Obama is enjoying a double-digit lead in the polls (as of this week, some polls already have Obama up by 7-8 points). McCain decides his best bet is to go for the center and hope the right wing falls in line. He selects Joe Lieberman as his running mate. This backfires terribly as posters featuring pictures of The Hug and The Kiss start popping up everywhere. Meanwhile, the Right, incensed by this "betrayal," recruit a third-party challenger...let's say Roy Moore.
With conservatives split and moderates firmly behind Obama, an electoral landslide starts looking achievable. The main challenges to a complete sweep would be the Deep South, the Plains states, the Mountain West, and McCain's home state of Arizona. Obama realizes he needs a running mate from the west, and someone who is popular among women and Latinos, and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano fits the bill perfectly. With Napolitano on the ticket, even McCain's home state is suddenly in play.
Recognizing the potential for a historic victory, Obama adopts a bold, risky strategy: he will concentrate his own efforts on the reddest states, sending his running mate, his wife, and other surrogates to traditional swing states and blue states. His polling lead keeps growing as Moore picks up steam in the South and McCain is hurt by a fresh wave of bad news out of Iraq.
2. The 50 State Strategy
With the campaign spending its resources in traditional Republican strongholds, it will not be able to concentrate on any states won by Kerry or Gore. But Obama can hardly afford to take these states for granted, either. And who better to help out in Gore/Kerry states than Al Gore and John Kerry? Gore can concentrate his efforts in the Midwest, and Kerry can concentrate on the Northeast and Pacific regions, with Ted Kennedy lending a hand, too. Similarly, Bill Clinton could campaign in places where he performed particularly well, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennesee, and the Ohio Valley. Indiana would be difficult, but between its recent Democratic shift and Evan Bayh's campaigning, Obama could come out ahead in a three-way race.
The South is the region where the presence of a candidate to McCain's right would really benefit the Democratic ticket. An example of this would be the 1992 and 1996 presidential races: with Perot picking up some Republican support, Bill Clinton won four Southern states twice and two others once. Among the others, Virginia and North Carolina are within reach; only South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi would be difficult. Fortunately, since Roy Moore is from Alabama, he would likely poll very well in these states, possibly even pushing McCain into third place. With strong support from the African-American community and other Democrats, Obama should pull in 40-45% in these states (Kerry got low 40s in most of the Deep South--in a Republican year). In a three-person race, 40% is often enough to win (see CO, ME, MT, NV, NH, OH in 1992).
The Plains States have been reliably Republican in Presidential races since the Nixon era (LBJ swept the region in 1964), but frequently vote for Dems in other races. Popular Democrats such as Tom Daschle, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad would be instrumental in the northern plains, as would visits from Obama himself (the people are probably tired of being ignored by presidential candidates). Kansas would be a little easier; Obama's mother came from the state, he won the caucus overwhelmingly, and has been endorsed by Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Oklahoma also has a Democratic governor (Brad Henry) and is another place where Moore would hurt McCain. Plus, Dems actually outnumber Republicans there...go figure.
In the Southwest, Democrats like Harry Reid and Bill Richardson could put their states firmly in Obama's column, and I've already discussed how Napolitano could help in Arizona. This could be the year we finally flip Colorado, as well. Texas may seem out of reach, but the fact that Bush is from the state probably inflated Republican numbers here in the past two cycles (Bill Clinton came close to winning it in '92 and '96), and strong minority turnout for Obama could make a miracle win possible.
This brings us to the Mountain West, and for the first time, the obstacles seem too great to overcome. For example, in the past four cycles, the Republican candidate has won Utah by an average of 31 points, Idaho by 28, and Wyoming by 25. Ouch. But all is not lost, even here: Montana went for Clinton in '92 and has a great Democratic governor in Brian Schweitzer. Democrats in Wyoming and Idaho have given Republicans headaches recently, and Obama is extremely popular among rank-and-file Democrats in the region. There are plenty of political independents here, and a little personal attention from Obama could go a long way in swaying their votes. Throw Alaska into this category, too. Utah, where Bush beat Kerry by 46 percent, poses additional problems, and may require some unusual help. Obama has indicated that he wants some "dissenting voices" on his Cabinet...can you say "Commerce Secretary Mitt Romney?" Before you scoff, remember that Mitt's core values are subject to change at a moments notice. The man is a political weathervane: he will point whichever way the wind is blowing, and he'll see it blowing toward Obama.
3. Election Night
By the time Election Day rolls around, Obama could be polling in the 60's, with twice the support of John McCain. As the results come in, he could see over 70% of the vote in Northeastern Democratic strongholds, and roughly 45% in places like Louisiana, Kentucky, and Indiana...with Moore's help, that should be enough to edge out McCain. Imagine celebrating squeaker wins in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Idaho. Imagine Romney celebrating an Obama win in Utah. The count from Wyoming might be too close to call for days, as the absentee ballot count trickles in. With a little luck--and a lot of work--it might be there that the Obama and the 50-State Strategy make history.
BIG DISCLAIMER: Obviously, this scenario is not intended to be a prediction of how things will turn out, nor a prescription for what the party should try to do this year. In fact, I think a Democratic victory over McCain is hardly a foregone conclusion. Rather, I meant it to be an illustration of the power of the 50-State Strategy, the importance of electing Democratic governors and members of Congress in every state, and the upside of a candidate who can appeal to progressives and moderates alike.
4. Historical Precedents: www.270towin.com
1912 Wilson (D) takes 40 states, Taft (R) takes 2, T. Roosevelt (I) takes 6.
1932 FDR (D) takes 42 states, Hoover (R) takes 6 states--all in the Northeast
1936 FDR takes 46 states, Landon (R) takes ME, VT
1964 LBJ (D) takes 44 states, Goldwater (R) takes 6
1972 Nixon (R) takes 49 states, McGovern (D) takes MA, DC
1984 Reagan (R) takes 49 states, Mondale (D) takes MN, DC
1992 B. Clinton (D) takes 32 states, GHW Bush (R) takes 18
1996 Clinton takes 31 states, Dole (R) takes 19
2007 Bush approval under 50% in all 50 states