Dems Look to Make Gains in West

Fox News ^ | Friday, January 21, 2005 | AP

[metalmanx2j]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Western Democrats gather here on Saturday with two major tasks: interview candidates for head of the Democratic National Committee (search), and chart a course to improve the party's prospects across this mostly red-state, pro-gun region.

While most of the Rocky Mountain and Sunbelt states went for President Bush in November, the Democrats picked up some state and local offices, and say the region holds great promise for them, with its booming population and growing number of Hispanic voters (search).

"Democrats have lost the South, so we have to look for another field to mine," said Arizona Democratic chairman Jim Pedersen. "And here is where the opportunity is."

To succeed in the region, Western Democratic activists said, the party must better understand the West's pressing concerns, including land use, water and urban sprawl. They also must frame traditional Democratic issues such as education and health care in language that speaks broadly to Western voters, activists said.

Most of the candidates running to succeed outgoing DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe are expected to come to Sacramento to make their pitch to the Democratic state activists from across the West. The candidates include Howard Dean, former Reps. Tim Roemer of Indiana and Martin Frost of Texas, and former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb.

"What we need in the DNC chair is somebody who has a strategy beyond the top-tier 18 states," said Utah Democratic chairman Donald Dunn, referring to the states targeted by John Kerry in 2004. "And we need a message that works for Westerners — on environmental issues, land use and the perception that Democrats want to take your guns away."

Last fall, even Utah, where President Bush won 71 percent of the vote in November....

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Good luck, DemonRats.

[Spok]

"improve the party's prospects across this mostly red-state, pro-gun region."

This translates to lying to gunowners. It's like Hillary suddenly revealing her deep Christian conviction. The Democrats are forgetting that they already have the moron vote locked up.

[EagleUSA]

Good luck, DemonRats...
=====
Yes, it will be difficult for them, as it will CONTINUE TO BE when you are a party WITHOUT A PURPOSE other than SELF-EMPOWERMENT AND CONTROL WITH A SOCIALIST AGENDA.

Kinda like trying to sell Osama Bin Laden t-shirts at the World Trade Center site....

[VIDADDICT]

"Democrats have lost the South, so we have to look for another field to mine,"

More than likely they will find themselves in a mine field.

[Dan from Michigan]

and the perception that Democrats want to take your guns away."

Perception? John Kerry voted to ban the .30-30. That's not a perception, but reality.

[Texas Eagle]

Western Democrats gather here on Saturday with two major tasks: interview candidates for head of the Democratic National Committee (search), and chart a course to improve the party's prospects across this mostly red-state, pro-gun region.

Riiiiiight. In reality, they are trying to figure out how they can replicate Seattle's 105% turnout in all the blue counties.

[Jagdgewehr]

"And we need a message that works for Westerners — on environmental issues, land use and the perception that Democrats want to take your guns away."

A message that woks for Westerners? I thought they were looking for a message that works for Democrats? Either way, their message is going to be, "No, we're not looking to take away your property rights and guns. That a lie."

[Texas Eagle]

Dumbasses. Where do they go to brainstorm on how to mine the red states for votes? They go to the blue-est city, in the blue-est county in the blue-est state -- Sackatomatoes.

[metalmanx2j]

Yeah I thought Hellery's sudden conversion was pathetic. I mean nothing more that a disgusting attempt to curve voters, but hopefully many can see through it. She has no soul!

[AZ_Cowboy]

It'll never happen. The dems are far too beholden to the environmental groups and to urbanites in general for such an ideological shift to take place. That, plus the fact that we sticks-dewllers are by and large a whole lot more self-sufficient, suggests a scenario by which only a tiny fraction of rural America will ever be pursuaded to bank leftward any time soon. The West is rapidly harmonizing its political slant with the South, and many people in the West (like myself) take just as much offense at the epithets thrown out at Southerners as the Southerners do. Make no doubt about it, they hate lots more than folks with drawls. They hate country people in general.

In addition, it seems unwise to have your operatives going around calling anyone who isn't in New York or Los Angeles an inbred hick holy-roller. I haven't seen any subsistence in this arena, either.

The conflict is not regional, as in North-South-West, anyway. The true conflict here is urban/rural. "The Map" clearly shows this. I do notice, however, that the dems are still trying to look for a way to carry the country while ignoring the South. Ignoring any region is probably not a hot idea.

[jdege]

If the Democrat Party were to change in such a way as to be attractive to a Wyoming cattle rancher (with respect to guns, environmental regulations, etc.), I'd vote for 'em.

But they wouldn't be liberals, anymore.

[henderson field]

In other words, now that Mexican communists are moving into Colorado, the Democrats think they can take the state. They may be right. Wake up, Colorado!

[international american]

He he ......they don't have a clue:)

[thoughtomator]

They can't remain anything close to what they are and achieve this.

[southernnorthcarolina]

"Democrats have lost the South, so we have to look for another field to mine," said Arizona Democratic chairman Jim Pedersen. "And here is where the opportunity is."

I hate to say it, but this could be a sign of intelligence among the Dem strategists. Pedersen is exactly right: the GOP has the South (with the possible exception of Florida, and the chance that Virginia may be in play within a decade or two) pretty well locked up. Dems need to gain territory, obviously, and the place for them to look is Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada.

Certainly the GOP still holds the upper hand in those states (though New Mexico is tight), but they're getting within striking distance. I could see the Dems scratching out a majority in one or several of these states in the next Presidential race by cobbling together such disparate groups as Hispanics, Native Americans, environmentalists, anti-growth activists, isolationists (still a popular view in the heartland), and anti-Mexican immigrationists, among other groups.

There are warning signs aplenty in the four states I mentioned.

Arizona: Dem Gov. Napolitano; unorthodox GOP Sen. McCain; anti-sprawl sentiment in the Phoenix burbs (I always find it ironic that some folks rush out to the rapidly growing exurbs, become a part of the sprawl themselves, but try to close the door behind themselves).

New Mexico: Gov. Richardson, a possible VP candidate next time; Sen. Bingaman; hyper-close Presidential races in 2000 and 2004.

Colorado: Salazar's defeat of Coors, a household name in Colorado if ever there was one, should send up a warning flare; significant lefty concentrations in Boulder and ski areas (which are increasingly gaining primary residences as opposed to ski vacation homes, as golf resorts are built).

Nevada: Clark County (Las Vegas) is one of the very few of the fastest growing counties in the nation to vote blue. Can the outback continue to outvote the strip? Getting uncomfortably close.

Those four states, plus Ohio, will likely be the point of attack for the Dems in 2008.

[spinestein]

[The dems are far too beholden to the environmental groups and to urbanites in general for such an ideological shift to take place.]

If only this were still true.

The DNC has apparently given up on these people as not progressive enough.

Now their main constituency is the tin-foil-hat wearing, Marxist policy promoting, George W. Bush evil conspiracy believing, foam at-the-mouth DUnderhead crowd.

[Torie]

I agree with you about the South as long as cultural issues remain highly salient.

Colorado has had a Dem blip up, but before it had a big GOP blip up from the Gary Hart days. Nevada has always been rather close, with one big swing to Reagan. I don't think it is trending Dem, and certainly Las Vegas is not. Reno is though. New Mexico usually leans a bit Dem, and is always tight in tight elections, and has been for seeminly forever. We all in the political junkie world think Arizona is trending Dem, but it doesn't really show up in a big way in voting habits. Granted, maybe Bush masked it by running so well there with Hispanics. I don't think these states will start showing a Dem bias in the near to near-intermediate term vis a vis the nation.

The place I worry about is Ohio. I think it is trending Dem (with the epicenter in metro Columbus), and while the GOP has most of its territory locked up, so do the Dems. The GOP badly needs to keep making gains in Minnesota (none this year), and flip Iowa and Wisconsin I think.