Revisiting the 50-state strategy

[illegaloperation]

We should revisit Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.

When Dean was the chairman of the DNC, we has our biggest success in congress: 2006 and 2008 elections.

For those who don't know, Dean's 50-state strategy was the effort of Democrats to compete even in the most inhospitable places. We were rewarded with winning the House of Representatives and the Senate.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. I think that it was a great strategy. No stone(s) should be left unturned during election season

the downside is that it resulted in the election of several "Blue Dogs" to Congress and Blue Dogs are just as bad as Republicans according to some people (not me). Problem is that it may take several cycles for demographics to shift enough in some states/districts for progressives to win, so we need to decide whether or not to work to elect Blue Dogs so that we can get a Democratic majority back in the House and Senate or hold out for pure progressives to win in red/purple states/districts?

[illegaloperation]

3. Obviously they would be conservative Democrats.

Those inhospitable places are not going to vote for a bunch of liberal Democrats.

I don't see a downside to this. Would you rather have Heidi Heitkamp or Rick Berg in the senate?

[freshwest]

4. Neither do I. They won't vote conservative on every issue, but the GOP will every time.

We have to respect each other and the circumstance that we are in or we can't have the numbers to change things. Got to buck up and handle diversity since we are Democrats, that's our motto.

[illegaloperation]

5. Ditto

Those Democrats may be conservatives, but they understand party loyalty.

Even the then most liberal Republican senator, Scott Brown, voted against Obamacare.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Absolutely ...

and in the big picture, some conservative Democrats can squeak out victories in red areas, the biggest benefit(s) are not they votes on individual legislation but rather, their presense allows Democrats to head committees, allows Democrats to determine what bills see the light of day and allows Democrats to schedule the votes.

[ashling]

10. Or ask yourself this?

Would you rather have Nancy Pelosi of John Boehner?

[SharonAnn]

12. They got us a Democratic Speaker of the House who set the legislation agenda..

When there's an "R" Speaker of the House, the "R's" set the legislative agenda. That's the first and biggest result of a "D" majority, even if some of them are Blue Dogs.

Since the "R's" have been the majority in the House, all we've seen is garbage legislation bieng introduced by them.

[msongs]

2. we should just revisit howard dean instead of hillary clinton :-) nt

[TDale313]

6. Yeah, me too :-) n/t

[illegaloperation]

7. No

We need someone that has the best chance of retaining the White House and that someone is Hillary.

That way, we can make sure that Kennedy and Scalia get replace by liberals.

[Rhiannon12866]

8. I totally agree with you. Howard Dean did a brilliant job!

Have we forgotten so soon?

[eridani]

9. Agreed. I'll start donating to DNC when they reactivate this strategy n/t

[DFW]

13. Especially now

The radical right holds sway in the House for now. Even blue dogs, should we take the House, will be able to point to a continuing recovery and have an easier time, both with re-election and getting breathing room to vote with a Democratic Speaker.