Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the If they want to win the POTUS seat in 2008, the Democrats need to realize how the results of 2004 and 2006 reflect on each other.
The simple lesson is this: the right kind of Democrat can do very well in the Mountain West, and take the electoral votes here to the White House. With very popular Democrat governors in Montana, Arizona and New Mexico and a governor elect in Colorado that won by a 15-point margin, the Democrats are set up very well for the Presidential election in 2008. These four states carry 27 electoral votes. Purple Nevada gives five more. Bush won in 2004 by 35 electoral votes and each of the five states I mentioned went to him.
What's the lesson? That the right Democrat can carry all five of these very purple states on to a win. John Kerry was not the right man. He lost by huge margins in Montana and Colorado even when local and statewide Democrats made incredible gains in the same election. Any honest westerner would tell you that if they did vote for John Kerry it was a vote against Bush, not a vote for Kerry. You need look no further than Kerry's staged photo op in hunter orange and a shotgun to understand why.
Would Senator Clinton be the right woman?
The "right" Democrat for the western states is pro-ranching and farming and leery of government land grabs. Is socially moderate but can claim a socially conservative mantle. Is pro-gun and pro-hunting. Can play both the rural and urban crowds, but comes off as rural. Comfortably plays the boot-wearin', bolo tie sportin' everyman. Doesn't spew religion at every chance to shore up a base they don't identify with (it doesn't work here). Emotionally lays out their cards and doesn't appear to be hiding something. Appears sincere at all times.
What the Democrats in the power structure need to do, and quickly, is to figure out how to make the primary system pick a candidate who can win in 2008. In the end the power structure does not pick the candidate, the primary voters do, and in the 2004 election that proved disastrous. The primary voters picked an unviable candidate (who almost won anyway) because he was the exact opposite of the man they despised. Primary voters don't vote on strategy, they vote on emotion, and in 2004 it killed them.
Who can win out here in 2008? A Warner/Richardson or Warner/Schweitzer ticket was my (very) early best bet for the win, but now that Warner is out the field is open. Conventional wisdom is Hillary, Hillary, Hillary and Ms. Clinton might make a fine candidate. The question the Democrats should be asking themselves is, "Would Hillary garner the same result as John Kerry?" Taking nothing away from Ms. Clinton, out here the answer probably is yes, no matter whom her running mate is. It's good for the Democrats, I think, to see people like Gov. Vilsack not conceding the race just yet. It's exciting for the Democrats that Barack Obama is considering a run, who I think can win out here with a Richardson/Schweitzer or similar running mate. The Democratic primary voters are going to make a hard choice. The question I have is, can they be saved from themselves?
Comments
# 1 | neil | November 9, 2006 4:43 PM
you are absolutely right on with this. the shift at the state level in montana and other western states that bush carried in 2004 was eye-opening to a northeasterner like me. candidates from NY or MA right now cannot likely carry purple states - hilary, kerry or otherwise. edwards might have a chance.
some of these western dems are an interesting blend of left and right, a potent blend that could help tap into purplish southeastern states like VA or NC. they are the 'luke-warm water between the fire and ice' of the liberal northeast and conservative southeast (sensu Smalls, 1984).
# 2 | kevin v | November 9, 2006 5:08 PM
yea. one argument is that Hillary has won the rural vote in New York. But I'd retort that rural voters of New York are not rural voters of the Mountain West.
# 3 | coturnix | November 9, 2006 7:18 PM
You just described Edwards who, unlike others, is also well known and liked everywhere.
# 4 | Erin | November 9, 2006 8:45 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned sincerity. No matter where the Dem candidate comes from or whether he or she wears cowboy boots and totes a gun, what it all boils down to is whether they come across as being genuinely interested in the good of the country.
# 5 | kevin v | November 10, 2006 1:19 PM
yea but Bora, I'm getting tired of Southern Democrat presidents! hahahaha
# 6 | revere | November 10, 2006 2:56 PM
Gee, Kevin. It seems like just yesterday those "in the know" (the Beltway Dems) were telling us the only way to win in 2006 was to shut up about the war, go for "values" and move to the right. I don't think we did any of those things and won anyway, in spite of some really crappy meddling by Rahm and company (Tammy Duckworth, for example). We'll have to see how it shapes up in a year. Right now I don't think anyone knows what's going to work in addition to some honesty and integrity.
# 7 | kevin v | November 10, 2006 3:14 PM
R - you're right (and if Kerry had stuck to his guns in 2004 and run on his conscience instead of how he thought other people wanted him to run, he might have won). anyway, my point was that you can keep every state the same color it was in 2004 for the 2008 election and just swing the western states. Maybe the pertinent question is, would Kerry have won the western states if the election was in 2006 instead of 2004? I say no, but he might have won Ohio. One year from now will be an interesting landscape.
# 8 | revere | November 10, 2006 4:04 PM
No, I don't think Kerry could have won. He was a really rotten candidate and I held my nose when I voted for him. His "electiability" was based on his hawkish history. I was around in the Vietnam days and he was not much of a force except on TV. He wasn't convincing then and he isn't convincing now. I have no respect for him and I've seen him up close for a long time. We don't need phony candidates like that.
# 9 | Zed | November 10, 2006 9:02 PM
I'm impressed. Your analysis is as good as I have seen anywhere. I particular like that you can see that urbane bigotry towards rural sports and hunting is rather dangerous ground that carried the Republicans into formerly Democratic rural areas.
I would add that as far I can see many of us redneck types think Edwards is as big a fop as Kerry. I personally fail to see any real qualifications he has for the presidency.
# 10 | Tim | November 11, 2006 5:12 PM
Hillary, sadly, has too much baggage both ways: Iraq baggage plus leftover baggage from her time as first lady (unfairly, but that's the way it is). Al Gore, I think, would be a more compelling candidate than Hillary, but even he isn't ideal.
You mentioned Schweitzer and Richardson -- those are two strong candidates that would both play very well here in Colorado. Why not have one of them at the top of the ticket?
# 11 | kevin v | November 13, 2006 2:34 PM
Zed - that's my impression of Edwards, too, although it could be only because he's been under the radar for two full years now. But he certainly didn't come off as anything but urban during the '04 race.
Tim - I think the conventional wisdom in NM is that Richardson is running for the Prez nomination straight out, but for some reason I've always figured that he didn't have much chance of getting it (winning those early primaries in Iowa and NH ...? maybe, but I don't see it right now), but maybe I'm wrong. It would be nice to have a wonk back in there running. Question is, can you find somebody like Clinton (Bill, that is) who is both wonk and can connect with regular people? I haven't seen enough of Richardson to know if he can do the latter, but I'm not writing him off. I'm also not writing off Schweitzer. We saw Clinton come out of nowhere as guv of a small state in 1992. No reason somebody else can't do it again.