A lot of that goes back to the Democrats simply not putting any effort, outside of stronghold states and urban areas, into state and local politics. The party ends up with a skeleton operation until the DCCC decides that some district looks competitive now, then they helicopter in a bunch of money and resources, mostly out of DC, into the race of some neoliberal picked for their ability to fundraise. And if they lose, the money and resources disappears as quickly as it arrived. There’s no building of a strong local party that can serve as a foundation for switching seats because that’s hard work that can’t be accomplished by throwing money at DC consultants.
I think a lot of that smug, urban liberal attitude about the hinterlands is really a rationalization for the party being one giant grift.
That history goes back a long ways. In the 90s, that's when the party under the 'New Democrats' (Clintons) started to turn their back on the labor movements in the south and rural areas. There was a time when the deep south had strong unions and workers rights that they had fought for through decades. The Dems turned their backs on them and Clinton was able to get rid of unions that not even Reagan could touch. Those states became "deep red" states as liberals love to call them, as a result of Dems turning their backs on them and slowly pulling away.
Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was seen as too radical by the Dem party back in 2004 and they are just too lazy to really lift a finger and campaign in all 50 states. They whine and moan about gerrymandering but they're not going to do anything about it.
A lot of that goes back to the Democrats simply not putting any effort, outside of stronghold states and urban areas, into state and local politics. The party ends up with a skeleton operation until the DCCC decides that some district looks competitive now, then they helicopter in a bunch of money and resources, mostly out of DC, into the race of some neoliberal picked for their ability to fundraise. And if they lose, the money and resources disappears as quickly as it arrived. There’s no building of a strong local party that can serve as a foundation for switching seats because that’s hard work that can’t be accomplished by throwing money at DC consultants.
I think a lot of that smug, urban liberal attitude about the hinterlands is really a rationalization for the party being one giant grift.
That history goes back a long ways. In the 90s, that's when the party under the 'New Democrats' (Clintons) started to turn their back on the labor movements in the south and rural areas. There was a time when the deep south had strong unions and workers rights that they had fought for through decades. The Dems turned their backs on them and Clinton was able to get rid of unions that not even Reagan could touch. Those states became "deep red" states as liberals love to call them, as a result of Dems turning their backs on them and slowly pulling away.
Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was seen as too radical by the Dem party back in 2004 and they are just too lazy to really lift a finger and campaign in all 50 states. They whine and moan about gerrymandering but they're not going to do anything about it.