A lot of people have made a connection between Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy to build up the Democratic Party in red states and Barack Obama’s strategy to win the nomination through dominating in small (mainly red) caucus states. I think it’s a good comparison. I also think it is telling that Clintonian strategists like Mark Penn, James Carville, and Paul Begala have all shown contempt for Howard Dean and the 50-state strategy. For example, Begala said the following about Dean:
“He says it’s a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That’s not how you build a party. You win elections. That’s how you build a party.”
And that is the polite version. It’s no accident that Obama won the caucuses in Utah and the primary in Mississippi. Obama set out to compete in every state, while the Clintons readily admit that they did not.
“We didn’t put any resources in small states.”
— Clinton Finance Chair Hassan Nemazee, quoted by the New York Observer, on why Clinton might lose the Democratic nomination.
In my opinion, the Clintons still see the country as hopelessly divided between red and blue states, while Dean and Obama believe that Democrats can succeed almost everywhere. Here’s some evidence to support my claim:
“I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.
Here’s some more:
“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.” -Mark Penn
I know there is some spin involved in these comments, but they also reveal a startling lack of ambition. Obama won more votes in Georgia than Huckabee (the GOP winner) and McCain (2nd place) combined. Georgia, by the way, is a state that Bill Clinton won in 1992. I think it is a significant state. I also think Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, and Colorado are significant states that Obama won and that could go to the Democrats in the fall.
An Obama-Sebelius ticket could be competitive in Kansas, and based on differential turnout, the Democrats should be competitive even in South Carolina and Louisiana (two more states that Obama won). The only states that I think Obama cannot win are Utah, Wyoming, and (probably) Oklahoma. McCain is the weakest possible candidate against Obama. They both are selling a certain outsiderness and a break from the past, but just looking at their post-primary speeches on Tuesday it was obvious that McCain cannot compete.
McCain’s style is much better suited to a run against Clinton, where he would be the only change agent. And Clinton’s soaring negatives in red parts of the country will probably preclude her from competing in about 25-30 states (as Gore and Kerry both failed to do).
I don’t know exactly why the Establishment Democrats have ceded over half the states in the last two elections, but Obama has no intention of continuing that trend. I expect him to spend the bulk of his time campaigning in red states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and many of the states he won by huge margins like Idaho, North Dakota, and Georgia. Later in the campaign he may have to withdraw to Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and the traditional purple battleground states. But, unlike Clinton (and Kerry and Gore before her) Obama will cede nothing and go for a 50-state landslide win.
That’s the kind of mentality I want. I want to win in 40-states, and I want 60 senators and I want Bush-rubber stamp congresspeople swept out of office in a tsunami. It may not happen, but it definitely won’t happen if we don’t make the effort. Every state is significant.
