One lesson of this election is that despite aging white demographics and surging minority ones, there is still a fair amount of bite in the white population, and Trump was able to take advantage of that to the tune of a 20 point advantage, 39 points among uneducated whites. This Nate Cohn piece illustrates the point: www.nytimes.com/…
This was especially true in rural areas which are the majority of the red districts above.
It was not so terribly different in 2004, when Kerry lost the presidency, and the GOP composition of the House was 232 GOP, 201 Dems, and 1 independent (4 non voting members). Going into 2017, it will be at least 239 GOP, 193 Dems; there are 4 not yet called.
What Dr. Howard Dean kicked in in 2004 as the new chair of the Democratic National Committee and implemented a 50 state strategy. IT was not popular with the democratic elite of the time like Rahm Emanuel or Paul Begala. The basic idea was to send DNC support to all 50 states to build state infrastructure and to recruit good candidates. From 2006-2010 we controlled the House and Senate. Of course, we cannot exclusively link the 50 state strategy to the success in the 06,08 elections. GWB was by then a dramatically failing POTUS, in the wake of disasters in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and his failed and unpopular effort to change social security. But when you look at the effect of the 50 state strategy on the reddest states we held our own or improved by a number of measures — from the above link —
Here's how the Democrats fared in the reddest of red states between January 2005 and January 2009, the period when the 50-state project was in operation:
- State House seats: Net gain of 39 seats, a 2 percent increase of all seats in the states analyzed
- State Senate seats: Net loss of two seats
- Governorships: Net loss of one
- Attorney generalships: Net gain of one (elected seats only)
- U.S. House seats: Net gain of three seats
- U.S. Senate seats: Net gain of one seat
- Presidential performance: In 15 of the 20 states, the Democratic nominee saw an increase in vote share between 2004 and 2008. In three other states, the vote share remained constant. It dropped in only two states.
"Where we really made a big difference was in states like Nebraska, where Obama won an electoral vote in 2008," Dean said. "He had a real party to work with."
When Dean left the DNC in 2009, adherence to the 50 state vision left with him. Tim Kaine (09-11), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (11-16) and Donna Brazile (16) did not pick it up. You can see an argument — why throw good money after bad? Why not strategically go after the most vulnerable districts? The net effect is that we have lost the house and we lost seats this time.
Let’s fast forward to 2016 and that sea of red that helped elect Trump.
It is quite true that gerrymandering in 10 provided the absurdities in places like PA and OH where about 75% of districts are red despite 50/50 POTUS votes, and we know a majority of people voted blue in recent elections despite the majority of districts being red. Non-partisan redistricting that entered via referenda in CA and AZ can shift that, but not until the census in 20. My understanding is that Eric Holder and Barack Obama intend to work on ridding the country of gerrymandering.
That is terrific. But in 18, 20, we have to face down those red districts.
Dean is planning to run for DNC. I assume he would work to reinstate the 50 state strategy. I know Keith Ellison is throwing in for the DNC also. He is a terrific guy, and Obama, Sanders, and Warren all back him. What was interesting about having Dean as DNC chair in 04-09 was that it was his full time gig. Ellison, like Kaine and Wasserman-Schultz before him, has a pretty intense day job. I personally really like the idea of Dean - or some other potential full time DNC chair — having that as their main gig. I think we need that in the time ahead.
I realize that Dean’s post DNC lobbying work is problematic to many. I am sure I will get jumped on by a number of people for suggesting Dean as I have on twitter. It does not have to be Dean although his proven track record suggests he deserves consideration. I would like to ask the purity police to stand back and look at that as they consider who best to implement the 50 state strategy.
I think it is critical to this that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are consulted in a big way. Clearly, Sanders and Warren understand the complaints of those “left behind” in the emerging economy of the past decade, and Bernie in particular was able to tap into this from the left much as Trump did from the right.
Coupled to this is that you can see many of the red districts are close to blue districts. That means we can all pitch in to help, no matter what state we are in (except Hawaii, RI, DC). I have reached out to two friends in red districts, and they are thinking of running. We can help build infrastructure and volunteer to flip those red districts blue. I will do so in CA.
This is a project I think all progressives/dems can get behind. Of course, I am interested in statehouses, governorships, and the Senate, but the house represents a tangible reminder of the kind of problem we face. We may need to allow for a variance in the range of views we recognize as democratic party ones, since rural districts have different issues than urban ones, for example.
But it is a tangible, viable goal to fight for. Let’s roll.