« The magnitude of Santorum's defeat | Main | A Northeastern realignment? »

November 08, 2006

Comments

But the argument against Dean's strategy was that it imperiled Democratic chances for the House and the Senate for the sake of investment in the future. That seems a stretched reading today. Even if Dean's focus on a 50-state strategy did not bear fruit in this election, it remains an investment in the future that (one hopes) will pay dividends down the road.

No, it is not totally plausible. Dean turned on the lights in places where the Democrats had felt ignored, exploited, and isolated for years. There are letters of gratitude to him from all over that give testimony to this. By reviving Democratic party structures in places like Idaho we are laying the groundwork for more Deomcratic presence in statehouses, governorships, influence with the general public, and future successful Congressional campaigns. We are also inserting into the Democratic party the populist eliment that's needs to win a national election. Beltway people don't understand the electorate the way someone like Tester does. The fifty stae strategy helps dilute the blinkered insular and out-of-touch views of the Beltway folks. It was arrogant and misguided for the beltway types to write off big hunks of America. Rahm owes Dean an apology.

Dean's strategy was responsible. Had the Democrats not run candidates in red states, there would not have been candidates to support. Webb's win in Virginia is a two-fer, actually, with Tim Kaine's previous win being the first shot across the red state bow.

You've got too much political experience to be another speculating pundit, Brendan.

The comments to this entry are closed.