DR. HOWARD DEAN PRESCRIBES ANOTHER DEM ELECTORAL DISASTER

Actually, the Republican Party would seem to be the more centrist of the two major parties. As Timber pointed out elsewhere, most of the Democratic strength in the last election was heavily concentrated in a few highly urbanized counties. L.A., Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Miami went heavily Democratic and with their large populations generally carried States that otherwise have been Republican. Most Americans, it would seem, have not "bought" the Democratic Party Line. Michael Moore and other radically left celebrities alienated more Americans than they convinced with their anti-administration hysterias.

It might be an interesting thing to examine why it is that the Democrats were able to do so well in the major urban areas when the rest of the country so clearly rejected their message.

Maybe it is just the simple fact that they are more people in urban areas.

Maybe there is a difference between political parties and political ideals. I'm no defender of the Democratic Party, but I certainly believe that if, for instance, Howard Dean's ideals were considered 'Democratic' then 'Democratic' ideals are more centrist than Republican.

I don't believe there is anything centrist about the current Republican party. There are some centrist Republicans -- like the one I voted for for Senate -- but they are coming under quite a bit of pressure to tow the line rightward.

life isn't as simple as you'd like to make it, asherman. let's remember what the voting looked like - not what the electoral college map looks like.

The "Purple Map" is as much poppycock as is the notion of "A nation deeply and equally divided", IMO.

This quasi-3D map originated as part of CBS Television's election coverage. The image shown here is the final rendition of what through the period over which election returns were reported had been a dynamically updating graphical depiction of voter preference distribution. As explained in this Information Week ARTICLE:



A much larger, high-resolution version is available HERE for those who wish to see it in greater detail. A Flash animation showing the map's night-long evolution condensed into about 30 seconds is available HERE (Broadband connection recommended)

As readily may be seen, far and away the greatest proportion of counties voted majority Republican, shown in red. Thats well known, and unremarkable. However, what is remarkable - striking, actually - is that, as shown by this map's 3D representation, by far the greatest proportion of the Democratic vote derived from America's largest metro areas ... which often were the sole islands of Democratic voter preference within an otherwise essentially "Red" state. The Democratic Party largely has become the party of urbanites, its core support all but isolated within the enclaves of megalopolises. Clinging to the myth of "An equally divided nation" does The Democratic Party no service whatsoever; quite the contrary, in fact. If The Democratic Party continues to fail to connect with the people who do not live in major cities, its prospects are bleak indeed.

(Note - the above is mostly a repeat of an earlier post of mine on another thread - just thought I'd mention that in case there was any deja vu goin' on)

Good try, timber, but no banana/no cigar.

I've been following this whole map thing for some time. Try going to a non-partisan site for a selection of maps and map reviews.

Good try. Well, actually, adequate effort.

I would hardly characterize CBS Television News partisanly disposed toward the Republicans. The sort of appraisal denoted in your above quoted comment handily makes my point, IMO.

My appraisal of your research efforts is consistent. No doubt about that, timber.


The glorious American machine most definitely includes CBS.

I think ehBeth has a point in that a precinct level depiction shows that even where Republicans won the county, a large portion of the vote still went to Democrats. Timber's county level map hides the Democratic voters in the rural areas and makes it look like only 'urbanites' vote Democratic. While I won't argue that the Democratic party is not far and away the more urban party of the two, I do think that the precinct leve map shows that there is great disparity of political views even in what look like very red states.

It is hard to argue that the voters 'rejected' liberalism when you look at the precinct level map.

Oh, well, its your call. As I've said before, if that works for you, by all means, go with it. I happen to believe thats precisely the sort of thinkin' least likely to be propitious for the ongoing prospects of those opposed to Bush and/or The Republicans.

Just something to think about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62349-2004Dec13.html



washingtonpost.com
The Democrats' Rove Envy

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, December 14, 2004; Page A27


Democrats have come down with a serious case of Rove Envy. It is a form of jealousy that could have some useful consequences.

The longing is for the strategic clarity and organizational acumen that Karl Rove, President Bush's political top gun, brought to the 2004 campaign. Put aside the fact that Rove has been mythologized by both his friends and his enemies. Ignore (just for the moment) the fact that Bush's campaign against John Kerry was relentlessly negative. What really irks Democrats is that they did a lot of things right this year and were still out-hustled by the GOP. Figuring out why is -- and should be -- a Democratic obsession.

Last weekend offered important public glimpses of the Rove Envy that runs deep in Democratic ranks. In an unusual speech before a gathering of state Democratic leaders in Florida, outgoing Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe went out of his way to praise the Bush campaign.

"They were smart," McAuliffe said. "They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us."

McAuliffe was much taken with the Republicans' use of consumer marketing techniques to target voters, suggesting that the GOP is at least one technological revolution ahead of the Democrats in figuring out how to turn out loyalists and persuade the persuadable. While Democrats used old-fashioned mobilization techniques -- think of them as Turnout 1.0 -- Republicans were already at Turnout 2.0.

The Republicans, McAuliffe said, "were much more sophisticated in their message delivery," going after a "very specific, targeted niche," which "is what we now need to do as a party."

Howard Dean and McAuliffe don't agree on much. But they do agree on Rove Envy and the need for new approaches.

"We ran the best grass-roots campaign that I've seen in my lifetime," Dean said on "Meet the Press." "They ran a better one. Why? Because we sent 14,000 people into Ohio from elsewhere. They had 14,000 people from Ohio talking to their neighbors, and that's how you win in rural states and in rural America. If we don't do those things, we aren't going to win. We have to learn to do those things."

The comments from Dean and McAuliffe underscore the disconnect between the widely publicized post-election debates over the Democrats' ideological future and the intense discussion among grass-roots activists and bloggers over what the party needs to do to build stronger organizations to compete with Rove Inc.

It's easy to muster a crowd and win press clippings for debates on Iraq and foreign policy. It isn't quite so sexy to talk about why it is that Republican state party organizations are, with a few exceptions, much stronger than Democratic organizations. Strong parties in red states allowed Bush to build his popular vote margin by turning out the faithful in places where he was already strong. Democrats concentrated almost entirely on the battleground states.

That's why the contest over who will chair the Democratic National Committee looks different in the regular press than it does on the activist blogs. Dean's potential candidacy is conventionally seen in ideological terms: a Dean victory would be interpreted as a move to the "left." But on Web sites such as Daily Kos, Dean is seen as a "reformer," an outside-of-Washington figure who will build a stronger party. Dean's comments on "Meet the Press" spoke to this view.

The "reformer" sobriquet is also bestowed on Simon Rosenberg, a dark-horse candidate for DNC chairman who heads the New Democrat Network. Although Rosenberg's roots are in centrist politics, he has ties to Dean and has been arguing since the election that Democrats need a thorough reorganization.

True, organizational obsessions are often linked to ideological concerns. But the thirst for a 50-state Democratic organization transcends ideology. As Ken Rudin reported on National Public Radio, the words "50-state strategy" tripped off the tongues of Dean and Rosenberg -- but also of such party veterans as former Denver mayor Wellington Webb, former Michigan governor Jim Blanchard and former representative Martin Frost of Texas. Clinton administration veteran Harold Ickes also laid heavy stress on building state parties, while Donnie Fowler of South Carolina spoke for beleaguered Southern Democrats.

Thus, even before Democrats get to the question of ideology, they will have to decide what their party needs most. Is the new party chairman's primary job to be public spokesman? Or is it to move the Democrats up the organizational and technological curve, to rebuild atrophied party structures, to keep asking: What Would Karl Do?

[email protected]