Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(59,672 posts)
13. True, though likely not as good as 2006 and 2008 were
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:03 AM
Jul 2016

The entire idea is that the local parties have to be decent everywhere and have to work to develop candidates -- so when the tide turns in our favor, we have the best chance to succeed, where we have always failed.

From 2004 - 2006, Howard Dean insured that ALL states got money to help the state parties. It is sad, but likely true that 2004 was lost because the Ohio party did not have the resources to counter ALL (they countered some) of the Bush means of suppressing the vote. What was also clear was that in many states - not just Ohio - the DNC had not worked hard enough to insure the state parties were healthy.

In 2006, the Democrats reaped the benefit - when they almost ran the table in terms of the Senate. No one had predicted that we could regain the majority, but we did. In addition, many good candidates were fielded for the Congress who won. (Both Kerry and Wesley Clark used their money and fame to help many of the vets (and some other) candidates. Many districts that Rahm Emmanuel as head of the DCCC thought a waste of money were won by candidates funded by the DNC or Kerry and Clark.

I do not think - even if the parties are healthier this year and if their are candidates, that it will be as much of a wave at the Congressional level as it was in 2006. Obviously, we should be helped by what is likely to be a Hillary landslide, but unlike in 2006 where we were helped by the extremely high level of people saying the country is on the wrong track, we are now the party seen as in power - even though we control neither the House or Senate. I think the days when people voted straight ticket are gone, but there might be Republicans that simply do not vote because they are disgusted by Trump.

Democrats bet the House on Trump [View all] Night Watchman Jul 2016 OP
I like this approach, but a Hail Mary is being generous Cosmocat Jul 2016 #1
My hope is to win back the Senate Funtatlaguy Jul 2016 #2
That is possible Cosmocat Jul 2016 #4
Gerrymandering can work against them IronLionZion Jul 2016 #7
very high turnout and a landslide election needed karynnj Jul 2016 #11
YEP Cosmocat Jul 2016 #14
I think the outcome depends on bucolic_frolic Jul 2016 #3
As a Packer fan, I've seen a few Hail Marys succeed... Still In Wisconsin Jul 2016 #5
Excellent Scientific Jul 2016 #6
best effect.... getagrip_already Jul 2016 #8
...by tying Republicans to themselves... ffr Jul 2016 #9
This is Possible Night Watchman Jul 2016 #12
This is where Howard Dean's 50 state strategy would come in handy bigworld Jul 2016 #10
True, though likely not as good as 2006 and 2008 were karynnj Jul 2016 #13
A "60 yard Hail Mary" will not win back the House. yellowcanine Jul 2016 #15
They also need to pay attention to smaller states!!! Delmette Jul 2016 #16
An actual trickle-down process. sofa king Jul 2016 #17
it would only take about 20 seats NewJeffCT Jul 2016 #18
Dare I dream? sofa king Jul 2016 #19
as long as Democrats NewJeffCT Jul 2016 #20
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Democrats bet the House o...»Reply #13