Thursday, May 11, 2006

Should Dems go long term or short term for 2006?

DNC Chariman Howard Dean is bringing in more money than expected, but is he wasting it on attempting to present a reasonable Democratic presence in severly red states? Dean may be bringing in more money, but he is spending it almost as fast as it comes in.

In military terms, this is the same as attacking without having a reserve force to take advantage of break through. But Howard Dean ran for DNC Chair on the promise of a 50-state strategy, and over the long term the Democrats cannot win without being competitive in every state. So the argument is between the short term view of what it takes to win the House and perhaps the Senate in 2006 and what it takes to again be capable of winning nationally.

The Washington Post writes the story of the conflict among the Democrats.

1 comment:

Nelson said...

I'm behind Dean on this one. Democrats have used short term strategies in the past couple of elections and it has failed them. What's more is now, Americans are looking for a real alternative, and to a great extent, Americans don't feel the Democratic party is the answer. Maybe we should have opposed the Iraq war from the start and stayed true to our values!