3/23/2003
"Smart" strategy or defeatism?
If you're expecting a Democratic comeback in Florida anytime soon, it is best to get over it now, in an odd-numbered year. Before you have to endure the ridicule of enemies and the pity of friends. The Miami Herald (I read miami.com so you don't have to!) reports under the unironic headline 2004 might be year of smart Democratic Party politics that "The Democrats' likely new state House leader, Rep. Chris Smith of Fort Lauderdale, is devising a strategy to focus a lot of money on only a few, targeted races. . . . Smith's plan is simple: Raise $4 million for House races next year, and spend most of the loot on three key seats where he thinks Republicans are especially vulnerable."
Uh, excuse us, but exactly how is this in any way different from the state Democratic party's strategy every other year in its long, slow slide to irrelevance?
The flip side of this strategy is that you concede easy victories to Republican incumbents everywhere. Even ones who unaccountably have strong local opposition. When a party leaves large numbers of seats uncontested, it gives Democratic voters no reason to show up at the polls. NO reason to even register as Democrats. It leads unaffiliated voters to register Republican, because the only place you can have any input is in the Republican primary.
You might recall the Libertarian Party's "Operation Full-Slate" last year. They ran more candidates than the Democrats. No kidding. Sure, none of them won, but that wasn't the point, the contested races got people involved in the party, brought new voters to the polls (more than a few of whom voted for Jeb for governor while they were at it) and argued for and publicized the party's platform. It was an exercise in party building.
Targeting "strategic" districts is a cut-your-losses strategy. It may be a kind of realistic Fabianism, but it also shows a party that's locked into a minority party mind-set.
(Via Fla. Politics.)
Uh, excuse us, but exactly how is this in any way different from the state Democratic party's strategy every other year in its long, slow slide to irrelevance?
The flip side of this strategy is that you concede easy victories to Republican incumbents everywhere. Even ones who unaccountably have strong local opposition. When a party leaves large numbers of seats uncontested, it gives Democratic voters no reason to show up at the polls. NO reason to even register as Democrats. It leads unaffiliated voters to register Republican, because the only place you can have any input is in the Republican primary.
You might recall the Libertarian Party's "Operation Full-Slate" last year. They ran more candidates than the Democrats. No kidding. Sure, none of them won, but that wasn't the point, the contested races got people involved in the party, brought new voters to the polls (more than a few of whom voted for Jeb for governor while they were at it) and argued for and publicized the party's platform. It was an exercise in party building.
Targeting "strategic" districts is a cut-your-losses strategy. It may be a kind of realistic Fabianism, but it also shows a party that's locked into a minority party mind-set.
(Via Fla. Politics.)
