Reply #17: Why I don't agree. [View All]

One of the great coups of the 20th century was that Republicans made themselves into a truly NATIONWIDE party.

You are advocating that we pull back in areas where we don't have strong support, especially in the deep south. In essence, this is advocating making the Democratic Party a REGIONAL party. We should aspire to grow our party, not prune it.

You don't have to "spend a ton of money" in the "hopeless" states--but you do have to keep Democrats (like ME, dammit *stomps foot* ;-) ) involved and engaged in the party. You certainly don't want to send a message to states like Mississippi, which is just slightly less than 50% Democratic, that we aren't worthy of National party efforts. Why hand the rest of us (not meaning me, but other southern democrats) over to the REpublicans. We KNOW that Democrats don't have the same funding as Republicans and we DON'T expect the Democratic party to invest as heavily in our state as the Repubs will, but to just close the door on us is to sabotage the entire party.

And, Will, you know I love ya, but let me add this: When did Southern Democrats (ya know, we did have a little something to do with the creation of this party) lose their right to have a say in the strategy that affects us?

The problem with "forgetting" us is that it will have a downward coattails effect. If you don't think it is worth the party's time or money to run and run hard in the south, then how do you think House and Senate (and all those important statewide office) elections will play out?

It's dangerous to shut the door on any region. I hope you reconsider your proposal. :-)

And on edit, I also hope you will consider posting a "The Merits of Including Southerners in the Democratic Party" thread today. :-) :hi: