And One More Thing, That The Democrats Need Badly

A fifty-state strategy.

No, I don't mean for this election, which is already a cake that is largely baked, one way or the other.  I mean a return to the strategy Howard Dean launched after he went from unsuccessful Presidential contender in 2004 to Democratic National Committee chairperson the following year.  Dean took his pioneering work in Internet campaigning and used it to launch a strong Democratic Party presence in every single state in the country.  He didn't care about the "blue-red" divide that on which both the Republicans and the media thrive.  He understood that part of the purpose of a truly national party was to pull together as many Americans as possible, from as many walks of life and sets of beliefs as possible.  He understood that doing this gave you the long-term voter bedrock that allowed you to survive and surmount the short-term shocks of political life.  Above all, he understood that doing anything else turned you into a regional party at best, and a former political party at worst.

It was this strategy, in 2006, that gave the Democrats the national strength to not only reclaim the House, but (by a tiny margin) the Senate as well.  Of course, Republican failures helped to augment that strength.  But what really made victory possible, especially in the Senate, was a willingness to run and support candidates in "red" states, like Jim Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana, that would not have been supported by the party's national base.  When the Obama wave hit in 2008, this strategy was still in place, and it elected Democrats all over the county--especially in the Senate, where it push the party close to the point of a filibuster-proof majority.

Unfortunately, two things conspired to end that strategy:  Democratic hubris in the wake of the Obama blowout, and Republican divisiveness in the form of the Tea Party.  National Democratic leaders started to push for immediate satisfaction of all party goals, even the ones with somewhat dicey national support.  And Republicans, upon seeing this, used it to revive their ancient divide-and-conquer strategy, in the form of Tea Party activism.  The result:  stalemate, and the 2010 elections, lost because Democrat "purists" felt that they were accomplishing something by staying home.  They were accomplishing something, all right:  a Republican majority in the House that has done enormous damage to our country, and the hopes of Democratic activists as well.

I am already hearing echos of this "purism" regarding the 2014 election, now three weeks away, specifically on the subject of immigration reform.  Many Democratic activists want to try to "teach" Obama a lesson because he has pushed back his promised of administrative relief until after the election.  Do they really think implementing administrative relief will be any easier if Republicans end up controlling both houses of Congress?  Not when the Republicans have greater power to control the budget process and use it toward policy ends.  They have already indicated that they can and will do as much.

To accomplish anything of lasting value, the Democratic Party has to be the Democratic Party of the United States, not the Democratic Party of New York, California, or Maryland.  It has to build a dialogue and, ultimately, a platform that can be supported across the county.  That is how you not only win seats in red states, but keep them as well.  That is how you build a majority that perseveres over the long haul, and builds lasting support over that time for your goals.

2014 may be uncertain, but 2016 and beyond don't have to be.  The instant this election is over, the Democrats need to come together from across the country.  And talk together.  Organize together.  Raise funds together.  Support each other through thick and thin.  And act like a party that gets its support from everywhere.  It's the only way it will be supported everywhere.