"Red State" Democrats Dispute Clinton's Spin

Officials at several state Democratic Parties are taking exception and disagreed with statements by Sen. Hillary Clinton that seemingly write off the electoral relevance of their states.

In the wake of loses to Barack Obama in last weekend's slew of primaries, Clinton sought to minimize the political fallout by noting that several of the victories came from traditionally Republican-leaning states.

"It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska," she told reporters. "But we have to win Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Michigan ... And we've got to be competitive in places like Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma."

On Monday, the former first lady went a step further saying that it would take a "tsunami change in America," for Democrats to carry some of Obama's red states. "It's just not going to happen," she told ABC7 and Politico.

The premise of the argument was disputed by Democratic officials from several of those states, who say the landscape is ripe for the party to make inroads, and see the strategy of writing off the "red states" as antiquated.

"Their campaign has to work on where they are right now," said Matt Connealy, Executive Director of the Nebraska Democratic Party. "I don't think even Clinton should leave these predominantly red states alone. I think that is a recipe that has not proven to be effective in the past."

Indeed, the current argument over how and where Democrats should concentrate their resources mirrors similar disagreements that arose when Howard Dean took over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Then and now the questions were: Is the party best served securing victories in voter-rich swing states? Or can it build up enough support (and drain GOP money in the process) by nationalizing its operation?

"I think a lot of folks here have seen the failed policies of the Bush administration time and again and they are getting tired of this country not moving in a positive direction," said Rick Gion, communications director of the North Dakota Democratic Party. "If there was a year that North Dakotans would go for Democrats this would be one of the best ones."

Story continues below

advertisement

"We've had Democratic governors over the years. We've had Democratic legislatures. We've had a number of Democratic leaders elected to office," said Kay Brown, communications director for the Alaska Democratic Party. "Certainly it is possible [for a Democratic presidential candidate to win]. I think the Alaska is more closely divide then what you see in Congress."

The reality, of course, is far more daunting than these party officials let on. While Democrats in Alaska have been aided by ethics scandals of high-ranking GOP officials, the state is still predominantly Republican: 61 percent of the populace voted for George Bush in 2004. In North Dakota that number was 63 percent. And in Nebraska it was 66 percent.

But the same holds true in Texas and Oklahoma -- two states cited by Clinton as places where Democrats have to be "competitive" -- where Bush won 61 percent and 66 percent of the vote respectively. Clinton's campaign has trumpeted her win in Oklahoma's Democratic primary.

And yet, officials say, the benefits are worth the costs. Campaigning in the traditionally GOP states, Connealy notes "will get the base motivated and force the Republicans to spend resources."

And, he adds, you might be surprised: "If we make the ask in red states, people are willing to respond."

Comments

[thomdavis1]

Billary/Rove '08!

[Lisette]

Has anyone noticed that Hillary has started to talk like an old fart?

[serena1313]

For years the democratic party only campaigned in the Blue states under the belief they could not win ... That is until Howard Dean became the head of the DNC. His 50-state strategy not only proved them wrong, it forced the GOP to use resources that otherwise would have been building up. Today the Democratic Party has by-far outpaced the republicans in funding by the millions, they also have millions more dollars in their coffers than they do.

It is unwise not to campaign in the red states. Texas used to be blue -- that is until Rove came along with his underhanded shenanigans and turned it red.

The reason the popular Governor Ann Richards lost to Bush was due to Rove's whisper campaign -- spreading rumours that she and her female staff were lesbians to rile the religious-right. He also got the FBI to incriminate democratic law makers on what were basically bogus charges: Jim Hightower and others.

Rove is known for his politics of fear and divisiveness. His tactics are immoral and unconscionable, but he does whatever it takes to win. Unfortunately they work. Remember what he did to John McCain in 2000: Rove's infamous "whisper campaign" (I've forgotten which state) spread false rumours that McCain had fathered a black-baby. In truth McCain and his wife had adopted a child from Somalia or somewhere and because her skin-colour was not lilly-white those the racial barbs cost him votes and probably the nomination!

Texans like Obama. So there is a strong indication he can win here; Hillary maybe, maybe not. I venture to say in the general election, Obama can [and will] win Texas over McCain. That probably will not be the case for Hillary in Texas.

But I could be wrong; it certainly would not be the first time. ;)

Nevertheless Howard Dean has the correct approach. He has done more for the democratic party than anyone in years.

Despite being an Obama voter, I have to say, Hillary is foolish to write-off the red states IMHO.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

I respect the tenacity of Hillary and her supporters.

Yet, I am baffled by your apparent obliviousness to the notion of a majority as regards Congress.

Many appear to think that presidents govern by fiat - simply ordering Congress to pass their legislative agenda.

Can you offer an answer to the fact - one that Hillary's entire campaign staff agrees with and is VERY frightened about - that Hillary Clinton has gone from a 47 percent negative rating to a 49 percent negative rating since Iowa?

That means that 49 percent of voters aren't going to vote for Senator Clinton NO MATTER WHAT.

Now, given that FACT, the best your candidate offers this November - and, remember, this is a statistic that your whole team agrees with and carefully avoids - IS A FIFTY/FIFTY SPLIT.

THAT MEANS FOUR MORE YEARS OF GRIDLOCK.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has been telling her colleagues that Barack Obama will bring a 75 SEAT addition to the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY.

THAT'S HOW LEGISLATION IS PASSED PEOPLE.

You could have policies fed to you by the ghosts of the top ten best presidents in American history along with a long list of Nobel Laureates AND IT WOULDN'T MATTER.

Why?

YOUR CANDIDATE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PASS A SINGLE BILL.

Healthcare? Are you kidding? With a divided Congress? Not a prayer AND YOU KNOW IT. Which is depressing, because it means you are defying basic arithmetical logic.

CONTINUED BELOW . . .

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE . . .

Add to that her campaign management results, and the New York Times opinion of her "experience" . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html

And IT IS CLEAR that you are supporting a NOVEMBER DISASTER for the Democratic Party.

Are you so emotionally addicted to the idea of your standing by your candidate that you are blind to the fact that Barack Obama is assembling the largest coalition of voters (Democrats [all categories], Independents & Republicans) since Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

Do you not see the numbers, the margins of victory, the crossover phenomenon and the broad appeal of his campaign?

Your allegiance to failure grows baffling.

For, it now seems that you would reject a complete Democratic takeover of the White House, Congress AND the judiciary rather than demonstrate a willingness to actually TAKE A PEEK AT REALITY.

[otispfudpucker]

Ghost you are so very right. But I must add my two cents. Texas, for the most part, despise the Clintons. They are very well informed of their dirty dealings in Arkansas, which also followed them in to the White House, and to add to that, the Monica thing.

[ConcernAmerican]

Alaska is as RED as it can get! LOL

Point out ANY democratic candidate that have won general election in Alaska?

N O N E

How many democratic candidate in general election have won in South Carolina?

Since Lyndon B. Johnson signed the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, the democratic party lost the south. The bible belt of the south heavily goes REPUBLICAN.

Missouri is a swing state, out of 115, Hillary won 110. That's the reason the number of delegates Hillary received from Missouri was the same as Obama.

Democrats in the red state are DREAMING..­.....LOL

[leogorcey]

Look, we are in a new world. In 1932 the Republicans were adrift and without ideas about how to deal with the Depression. That lack of ideas led to twenty years of domination of the stage by the Democratic Party.I humbly submit that the Pubs have screwed up so many things (please don't make me type them all down because i am given to carpel tunnel)that many formerly Republican votersof , especially those of the 40 million who are uninsured or those who are sick of the war or those sickened by the backlashes of capitalism are ready to actually vote for someone who might make a difference to them. As for Senator McCain he is going to look more and more ridiculous every day the campaign goes on. Today he voted against using the Army Field Manual as the only standard for torture. This may be the most cowardly pandering thing he has done so far. I encourage the Dems to do a fifty state strategy.

In my opinion red states became red because of those most important wedge issues 1. Abortion 2. Gay Marriage 3. Stem Cell Research and 4. Burning the Flag.

These issues are going to be basically kicked under the bus this time. The country is hurting and there is no room for inessentials.

[clevelandtocali]

Oh God, yer debating something said by ConcernAmerica? Repub plant trying to break up the party. Don't bother...

[slc20]

As someone who lives in one of the very reddest states, Utah, I am disgusted by Hillary's remarks.

Here's the thing- since the general election always goes for the republican, the democratic primary is the ONLY time we feel like our votes even count. It's the only time we can have an impact on the general election.

We are Americans, too. Hillary's dismissal of us is just one more reason I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HER.

Luckily, her sleazy campaign is going down in flames anyway, and i won't ever have to think about voting for her.

Good riddance.

[Zhonni]

Again this arguement by the Clinton camp is illogical and quite pathetic. How can you say that we are not going to carry any Red States when Independents and Republicans are willing to give a Democrat a second look.

Does anybody think that Obama would loose, CA, MA, NJ, NY to McCain? That is close to impossible.

VA is definately in play and also as ridiculous as this may sound SC is in play not to talk of Ohio and of of course Iowa e.t.c.

[SeanGardner]

Hey Zhonni.

Clinton is mad. She wasn't this mad when she won the Nevada Caucus. Everything was chilly then. But now, well, those caucus wins by Obama don't count. Why write off all of these caucus victories? Why be so disrespectful to RED STATE dems?

Clinton was not prepared for Barack Obama. She wasn't prepared for how Republicans, Independents, whites, latinos, Asian-Americans and others in big numbers have embraced Obama's vision, his ideas, his passion, and his action-oriented agenda.

[SeanGardner]

Hillary isn't the only one who has been writing off RED STATE Dems.

We know that Carl Jeffers (HUFFPO Blogger) and Juan Williams did it too after Obama's stunning 13 victory night on Super Tuesday.

They argued that Obama is winning in states that "DEMS are going to lose in the Fall anyway". Actually, to be sure, Alaska, Colorado and Missouri (states Obama won on Super Tuesday) are the kind of states that can easily be BLUE if DEMS put the adequate resouces into them. John Kerry was told this in 2004.

I mean, if winning BLUE STATES was enough, John Kerry would have been the president. We all know that. Obama isn't content with just BLUE STATES. He wants to expand the party, and isn't that what Howard Dean envisioned when he launched his "50 State Strategy" in 2005? His strategy was the primary reason Democrats have their majority in Congress. This majority (it must not be forgotten) was padded by the very culturally conservative, RED STATE Dems Clinton and her camp is dismissing.

Obama believes that DEMs need to be competitive everywhere. Not just in BLUE STATES.

[ConcernAmerican]

ALASKA will NEVER go blue, they'll remain RED. It's an OIL state. Alaskans are not stupid, they're receiving permanent fund ANNUALLY from oil revenue. Senior citizens living in Alaska are receiving monthly pension from the state.

Look at the number of voters that cast their vote for primary in Alaska for the democrats. The population of Alaska is half a million, people there HAS MONEY. You can't make it in Alaska if your monthly income is only $3,000.00/­month. It will cost you at least $5.00 to have cheeseburger, small fries and medium coke.

[SeanGardner]

excuses, excuses, excuses.

Clinton got the bricks beat off of her by a candidate who understands that Alaska, Missouri, Colorado and other states could have been blue by now.

Howard Dean is right. So is Obama. We need Democrats in all of the 50 States. And we need to be competitive in all of the atates. Its a shame that Clinton doesn't see it that way. Now we see just how polarizing she would be as President.

She is just too polarizing to win "PURPLE STATES" or quasi-RED States like Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, etc. She just is.

And there is nothing you or anything other Clinton defender can say to change this fact.

In case you're forgetting, Obama beat Clinton in Maine, which has less African-Americans than Iowa. He beat the bricks off of her. Whites have gravitated to Obama in large numbers, and there is nothing Clinton can do about it.

I was attacked by Clinton backers on this site when I predicted Obama would win 14 states on Super Tuesday. He ended up winning 13. And I was blasted because I predicted Obama would sweep the 10 contests in between Super Tuesday and March 4th. I'm predicting it out of sheer hope. I am looking at the demographics just like everyone else. And the country has spoken resoundingly as I knew it would: Obama is the candidate of positive change, meaningful change, and transformational change.

Hawaii and Wisconsin will lend their voices (and Obama victories) to this ever growing chorus next week.

And as I have been saying since last Spring: Obama has the BLUE STATE credentials, and, RED STATE credibility to capture the presidency.

ConcernAmerican, I'll tell you what my girlfriend told an Obama detractor: "don't hate the player...h­ate the game."

Obama '08

[gojackets]

I'm not sure of your point....I live in GA and $5 for a cheeseburger, small fries, and a medium coke sounds pretty cheap.

[HeironymousJosch]

"It will cost you at least $5.00 to have cheeseburger, small fries and medium coke." I don't know about Alaska but everyone else here in the contiguous US of A is paying $6.50 for a burger, fries and coke at Burger King.

[ConcernAmerican]

In addition, Alaska is TWICE the size of Texas. If you combine all the state of the US, Alaska is 1/4 of the size. It is normal for people there to fly their own airplane to go from one place to another. They have "BUSH PILOTS". Anchorage and Fairbanks are the most populated area, the rest a few thousand and they're spread out.

[otispfudpucker]

They have been blue states in the past. The whole thing about Barack that the Clintonistas don't get, is the unity of the country. The time has come to unite and people are realizing that, except the Clintons who just want to fight.
Time for this country to heal and HRC can not help with that process. She does not has the right medicine, nor does she have the bedside manner that it will take.

[poeticjustice4all]

What good is reaching out to people in the Red States if you have to compromise your platform and principles to win them over? The Democrats have no intention of cutting taxes for the wealthy, continuing the war in Iraq, overturning Roe, or limiting the rights of gay people. If Red Staters choose to continue reaching out to the socially conservative Republicans -- while voting against their own economic self-interest -- that's their funeral.

[gojackets]

I don't think that it's an either/or situation. Why should we reach out? Because based on experience I can tell you that not everyone in "the Red States" is militantly right-wing.

I think you give many voters too much credit....­I think the large majority of voters don't spend all day reading papers, surfing the net, or watching the news to catch the intricacies of differing policies and not every voter who votes republican does so to cut taxes for the wealthy, continue the war in Iraq, overturn Roe, or limit rights for gay people. I think for most people it comes down to gut reactions - do I trust this person? do I like this person? does this person seem reasonable? - and it also comes down to peer pressure - family, friends, etc. The problem down here where I live is that a lot of people have never been exposed to anything other than right-wing propaganda.

I worked recently at a hospital in a very small town and people were shocked that when I informed them that I was a "liberal" - they'd never actually met one and couldn't believe that I seemed so "normal". Democrats have been demonized so long around here that they just had this awful picture painted in their minds.

Now, does this mean that we can sweep the deep South by running a few ads? Absolutely not - but I do believe that a little positive exposure would go a long way.

[poeticjustice4all]

Every voter who votes Republican is supporting tax-cuts for the wealthy, a continued war in Iraq, the overturn of Roe and the limit of rights for gay people. Whether that's the voter's intention or not, that's what they're voting for -- and the Republicans aren't shy about stating that agenda.

[sky2evan]

Gojackets: Excellent comment.

This is also exactly why Democrats should be careful not to demonize all Republicans and dismiss Red States out of hand.

Mr. Obama has done well in mobilizing Red States and producing crossover Republicans ("Obama Republicans"), precisely because he is viewed as more likeable, trustworthy, and authentic than Ms. Clinton.

[Roose]

First, she skedaddled out of South Carolina when she realized she wasn't going to win. Then she returned at the last minute, but the damage had already been done. She got creamed.

Then she dismisses constituents in caucus states because she lost.

Finally, Tuesday night she hauled ass out of MD, DC and VA, and resurfaced in Texas giving a victory speech instead of congratulating Obama and thanking her supporters.

She's not making an appearance in Wisconsin until Friday and now wants to debate there.

Who is advising this woman?

[butchie65]

She's not coming here until Saturday, she knows she is behind here.

[LeftLeanWing]

Who is advising this woman?

Answer: Mirror Mirror on the Wall

ps.

Do not eat her apples !

[RossaRoony2]

I don't think you like Hillary too much.

Just a guess. But why?

[Zhonni]

"But why?" You will have to ask Sen. Clinton.

You must understand that no one is out to get Hillary. It is not as if someone is putting words in her mouth.

Can you see a path to failure already if Clinton is our nominee? She tells off Iowa because she lost " they are not representative of the American population" but she did not say the same about New Hampshire which has about the same demographics.

Then she says we have to be competitive in TX but discount VA, CO, IO e.t.c.

Let me ask you something, which state is likely to go Dem in November TX or VA?

[HowardRoarke]

Every time Hillary loses a state, she denies the loss means anything.

I think Hillary should just explain to us which states matter and which ones don't BEFORE asking the people to vote for her.

[Silpat]

HowardRoarke well said. LOL

[HeironymousJosch]

I second that.

[shinybear]

Clinton's dismissal of red states really angers me and again shows how brilliant Obama is and hwy we need him.

I live in a liberal blue state and for years we have looked at red states as backward right-wingers. Because of Obama my eyes have been open. I see how wrong I was. I can see how much I have in common with so many in what Clinton calls the red states.

We need to break these barriers if we are to grow!

I LOVE THE RED STATES!!!!!

Go Obama!!!!!

[mslindab]

It strikes me as so, uh, undemocratic, to feel you only have to campaign for the votes of people in the 'big' important states. A new divide for the divisive one!

[Strywever]

Here she is, talking about what's *not* possible instead of what *is* possible. That's exactly why Obama is beating her -- he believes in the possibilities, and is taking action to make them realities.
It's time to look forward, people, and to stop looking backward for our view of the future.

[LeftLeanWing]

well said;

Hillary's experience is trapped by her own 'Experience'.

[STParker]

Does the Hillary campaign really think that Obama is going to lose New York and California in the general election just because he lost them in the primary. Both of those states are solidly Democratic and VERY unlikely to go to the Republicans. Obama's ability to win the Red States may not translate in the general election, but neither will his losing the Blue States.

[afrochic]

I completely agree! That also counts for many other states like California, Mass. and New Jersey.