All arguments about party preferences aside, the west and south will likely have a powerful influence on America’s political future as the fastest-growing regions in the nation. So notes Facing South’s Chris Kromm in his article “The Fast-Growing South.” Kromm tales a look at just-released Census data and shows that five of the top ten fastest-growing states in percentage terms are southern states: GA (4th), TX (5th), NC (7th), FL (9th) and SC (10th). Kromm elaborates:

The Northern states hailed as the future of the Democratic Party by some pundits are nowhere to be found on the list. Indeed, as if to answer those who claim the Midwest and Northeast should be the centerpiece of progressive strategy, the Census Bureau observes:
* The Northeast region grew by only 62,000 people. In contrast, the South grew by 1.5 million and the West by 1 million.

Ranking the fastest-growing states in terms of raw numbers, the South looks even more significant, TX (1st), Fl (2nd), GA (4th), NC (6th) and TN (10th).

Jim Grossfield and Celinda Lake illuminate a key challenge facing Democrats and Unions in their American Prospect article “A Union Hearing.” Although the article focuses on new approaches for organizing white collar workers, it includes some fresh insights about how Dems and Labor can help each other grow together. First they outline the problem:

Among Washington’s political cognoscenti it is considered a no brainer that idle chatter about unionism will brand a candidate as a hopelessly unreconstructed “old” Democrat. At the very least, they warn, it would be “off message,” given that voters have about as much interest in labor issues as they do in, say, the Law of the Sea. The upshot of this conventional wisdom is that, today, not many Democrats are willing to step forward to promote unionism. What’s more, few labor leaders even ask them to.

For Dems, this timidity has a price, as Lake and Grossfield note:

That’s too bad, because by speaking out for unions Democrats could not only help to mobilize public support for one of their most effective and most embattled allies, but also speak to the growing economic insecurity of one of their least reliable constituencies: young, educated, white collar workers, particularly younger women struggling with low wages and high prices.

The authors argue that Democrats must talk more about unions, but in different ways. And targeting millions of white collar workers who are experiencing a growing sense of economic insecurity is critical for prospects for both unions and the Democratic party. As they conclude:

There’s no question that it would be in the labor movement’s interest if more Americans knew about this kind of unionism. But it could also help Democrats, if they embraced it as part of their commitment to helping Americans navigate their way through the new economy. It could be one way that Democrats help workers gain the training, health care, and pensions they need, and create more balance between work and family. Democrats ought to speak out for new unions because they believe partnerships between employers and employees are fundamental to keeping American businesses strong and competitive.
Recently, AFL-CIO Legislative Director Bill Samuel said that it would “take a movement” to pass the Employee Free Choice Act and strengthen the right to organize. With new majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats can help build that movement. And they should. But to do that they need to talk less about unions as they are and more about what they can become. It is not enough to persuade young, college educated Americans that unions are a good things for janitors and poultry workers. They need to understand that this is about their future, too.

If sinking deeper roots in the middle class is a priority for long-range Democratic strategy, reading Grossfield’s and Lake’s article is a good place to begin.

Speaker-elect Pelosi has had her share of controversial appointments during the last month. But her choice for the new head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (MD), is drawing plaudits from donkeys of all shades. Naturally, WaPo has the best story on the Van Hollen appointment, since his congressional district borders on the capitol. As Ann E. Marimow reports:

Emanuel, who will chair the Democratic Caucus, praised his successor yesterday as a “political strategist and thinker of the first order” and said Van Hollen’s recruitment of House candidates helped create the first Democratic majority elected in 12 years.
“Throughout this election, I sought his advice and counsel in every critical decision I had to make,” Emanuel said in a statement.

Van Hollen knows something about how to beat popular Republican incumbents, having defeated well-liked Rep. Connie Morella to win his seat in Montgomery County. More importantly, Van Hollen is reputed to be a tireless and shrewd workhorse, as Marimow reports:

Maryland Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) called Van Hollen a hard-working go-getter who should never be underestimated. “He doesn’t take no for an answer. He pursues his goals tenaciously…”
In the past year, Van Hollen worked closely with Emanuel as a leader of the campaign committee’s effort to pick up seats in Republican strongholds. He spent months traveling from Pennsylvania to Ohio and Indiana to identify and mentor candidates, then helped build fledgling campaign and fundraising operations.

It would be hard to top outgoing DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel’s run-of-the-table on November 7th. But Dems can rest assured that their ’08 House campaign will be at full strength in a few weeks.

Some broad outlines of the mandate voters gave incoming congressional Democrats are delineated in a new NPR survey conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 12/7-10. Perhaps the most significant finding, in terms of policies voters would like to see implemented with respect to Iraq, is described thusly in the GQR Executive Summary:

Iraq continues to be the leading concern for voters and our survey finds the public skeptical about achieving stability in Iraq. While a sizable plurality of 44 percent say Iraq will be less stable if the US begins to withdraw troops during the first half of 2007, nearly two-thirds favor withdrawing from Iraq during the first half of 2007 regardless.

Another interesting finding of the poll indicates that voters are not “over” their dissatisfaction with the GOP a month after the mid-term elections, according to the Executive Summary:

Opinion of the Republican party has worsened. Currently 46 percent have an unfavorable opinion of the party.

And even better for the Democrats:

The November election helped Democrats improve their standing as this poll records the highest percentage of favorable feelings toward the Democratic party in the past two years.

The poll also found an 18-point advantage for Dems with respect to generic presidential preferences and only one out of four voters saying the country is “heading in the right direction.” The poll also found that 71 percent of voters wanted congressional Democrats “to work together in a bipartisan way with Republicans and encourage more cooperation and compromising to get things done,” although the poll did not indicate how far voters wanted Dems to compromise on specific issues. For more details see the PDF here and the NPR report here.

Democrats now control both houses of 24 state legislatures (20 before the election) and have added 6 governors for a new total of 28. In light of this substantial increase of strength at the state level, should Dems now press the case for redistricting before the next census where we can?
The Democratic Strategist discussed various aspects of “the redistricting myth” in our July roundtable and posts here and here. But things have changed for the better since November 7th, and the new political reality cries out for a reconsideration. Now Jonathan Singer at MyDD kicks off a new debate about redistricting with his post “House 2008: Mid-Census Redistricting in New Mexico?.” Singer is wary of early redistricting in NM in particular, and of redistricting before the census in general:

Voters went to the polls looking for change on November 7 and as a result will have scant patience if Democrats start using the type of strong-arm tactics implemented by Republicans to maintain power over the last dozen years. Secondly, redrawing lines to create more theoretically Democratic districts has the potential to make Democratic support in the remaining districts so thin that the Republicans can come in and challenge previously safe seats, potentially negating any benefits of redistricting.

Singer’s points are well-made, but there may be some cases where pre-census redistricting makes strategic sense, and/or serves fairness. Additionally, the population is so fluid and mobile nowadays that the ten year census provides a flawed reflection of demographic reality. Further, some states conduct their state-wide census counts mid-point between the federal census, so the demographic updates are available. It’s an important strategic choice, which merits a thorough discussion.

Money being the ‘mother’s milk’ of politics, the pursuit of the cash cows by Presidential aspirants is already well-underway. So report Chris Cillizza and Michael A. Fletcher in their Sunday WaPo article “Candidates Woo Bush Donors for ‘Invisible Primary.” Fletcher and Cillizza explain the ‘Rangers’ and ‘Pioneers’ strategy presidential candidate Bush used in 2000, noting,

These Rangers, who raised $200,000 or more for Bush in 2004, and Pioneers, who each collected more than $100,000 as part of campaigns that redefined modern political fundraising, are being intensely courted by GOP presidential aspirants across the country, both in large gatherings…and one-on-one.

The authors are primarilly concerned with the fund-raising efforts of GOP candidates in this piece, but they have the following to say about Democrats moving into position for a presidential run:

Although Democrats do not have an equivalent for the Rangers and Pioneers, their leading candidates have already begun making the rounds of wealthy donors.
Last week, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) ventured to New York to meet with a group of potential donors assembled by liberal philanthropist George Soros.
And Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has spent much of the past two years building a fundraising infrastructure that raised nearly $50 million for her lopsided reelection campaign. The donors who contributed to that campaign can give again, should she run for president in 2008.

The authors term aggressive early fund raising as a sort of “invisible primary,” the winners of which get a huge jump before anyone in Iowa or New Hampshire casts a ballot. All in all, it is a sobering look at the money game behind political campaigns. But the Democrats do have a fund-raising advantage, as noted by David D. Kirkpatrick in his New York Times article “G.O.P. Draws Fire on Senate Race Spending,” quoting political analyist Stuart Rothenberg on the benefits of the November 7th Democratic sweep:

People are going to be clamoring to give to the Democrats…For the Republicans, it is going to be pulling teeth, especially with a presidential race coming up

Taken together, the two aforementioned articles provide instructive insights into the ‘money game,’ as played by winners and losers.

Associated Press reporter Nedra Pickler’s article “Democratic Governors Plan to Use New Power” should be of interest to candidate watchers and Democratic strategists. Pickler points out that states with Democratic governors increased their electoral vote strength from 207 to 295, as a result of the November 7 election (270 needed to win). Pickler quotes Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, incoming chair of the Democratic Governors Association offering this encouraging assessment:

The framework is in place, I think, to elect a Democratic president

Governor Sebelius also points out that next year 54 percent of Americans will live in states run by Democratic governors. Interestingly Sebelius and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer are both quoted expressing skepticism that their states electoral votes will go to the Democratic ’08 nominee, while Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, who won every county in his state, is more optimistic about Dems’ chances in the south.
The article also mentions the “Denver-based New West Project, designed to deliver the region to the Democratic presidential nominee…a political network to get out the Democratic vote, which will help in 2008.” For more about The New West Project, which includes participation from members of Congress and other state officials as well as Governors, read John Aloysius Farrell’s Denver Post article “Dems forge group to milk Western gains.”

With less than two years to go before the ’08 elections, the restoration of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is reportedly bogging down in a bureaucratic morass, from levee repair to the clean-up to housing. You can read about it here, here and here.
The thing for Democrats to keep in mind is that, if the pace hasn’t picked up when November ’08 rolls around, we won’t have Prez heckuva-job to blame for the mess. Voters will expect a Democratic-controlled congress to provide some vigorous leadership. If by that time, we are still investing more in Iraq’s infrastructure than our own, we shouldn’t be surprised if Democrats are held responsible.
An estimated two-thirds of New Orleans residents have returned to the city, according to the Louisiana Recovery Authority. The missing third evacuees are most likely disproportionately Democratic voters. Most would come home, if they had a decent place to live, and could count on good schools for their kids and stable jobs for family breadwinners. Democrats must provide the leadership needed to make this happen, not only because Democratic office-holders in the region will be held accountable if we don’t, but because we are the party that addresses the needs of working people. The Big Easy and the Gulf Coast are the proving grounds.
Dems must hit the ground running when the new Congress convenes after the holidays. We do indeed need to pass a ‘Marshall Plan’ for the Gulf Coast, with strong prevailing wage protection. We need legislation to compell insurance companies to honor their commitments at an accelerated pace. National Guard units in Iraq should be redeployed to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, where they can help maintain order and assist with the clean-up. The list goes on and on. The point is to take decisive action, to provide a clear answer to the question ‘What would FDR do?’
For many of the swing voters of ’06, the Administration’s dismal performance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina was the turning point, the moment when they said. “OK, that’s enough for this clown show. It’s time to give the other guys a chance.” If Dems rise to the challenge, and make New Orleans and the Gulf Coast a showcase for their leadership, ’08 will be an even better year than ’06.

John Zogby’s “The Battle for the Latino Vote” at the HuffPo has a couple of graphs that ought to command the attention of every ’08 candiCATEGORY: Ruy Teixeira’s Donkey Rising

Just to put things in context, consider these figures: Hispanics were 5% of 95 million voters in 1996, 6% of 105 million voters in 2000, and 8.5% of 122 million voters in 2004. With a highly competitive election in 2008 and a heavy voter registration drive, we could be looking at an electorate that includes a Hispanic component amounting to 10% of 130 million voters in 2008.
Republicans took a drubbing among Hispanics this year. From George Bush’s 40% share in 2004, the Republicans managed only to garner only 30% this year. Just think what that means in the context of huge growth in the numbers Hispanic voters. For 2008 that could mean a decline of 1.3 million Hispanic Republican votes in elections that have been won and lost by mere hundreds and thousands of votes. The impact could be particularly significant in such key competitive states like Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado, all of which include large Hispanic populations.

The Latino demographic is expanding even faster in the southeastern states. As things stand now, the explosive growth of Hispanic voters bodes well for Dems — especially those who refuse to get hustled by immigrant-bashing demagoguery.

Thomas Schaller has gotten buckets of buzz (see forum at The Democratic Strategist) with his book “Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South,” the thesis of which is well-encapsulated in the title. The consequences of the strategy he has advocated in his book and TDS articles are far-reaching, and so it seems fair to give his critics’ post-election arguments a hearing. New Donkey Ed Kilgore adds to the fray in his Salon post “Yes, Democrats do need the South!” Rebutting Schaller’s contention that the ’06 election verifies his book’s argument, Kilgore notes:

Since Democrats did in fact gain ground in the South and did not lose a thing, Schaller is at pains to show how meager those gains were in comparison with the gains in other regions. But he largely ignores the constraints of the Southern political landscape this year. In a quirk of the electoral calendar, only five Senate seats were up in the South (accepting Schaller’s definition of “the South” as the 11 states of the old Confederacy), four held by Republicans. Democrats won two, for a net gain of one senator, which is a perfectly proportional contribution to the conquest of the Senate. Similarly, there were six gubernatorial contests in the South, five in seats held by Republicans. Democrats won two for a net gain of one, again a proportional contribution to the national results. (Democrats also won the single Southern governor’s races held in 2004 and in 2005, which means they now control five of the 11 executive offices.)

Kilgore concedes that Democratic candidates for the House did not do quite so well in the South. However, he explains:

There’s no question Democrats underperformed in Southern House races, picking up five net seats (with a sixth and a seventh possible in disputed races in North Carolina and Florida). But it should be remembered that nearly half the region’s House seats are in three super-gerrymandered states, Texas, Florida and Georgia. Schaller emphasizes two near losses by Democratic incumbents in my home state of Georgia. But in fairness, he should acknowledge that both of these districts were re-gerrymandered by the Republican Legislature last year, making Jim Marshall’s district (the 8th) significantly more Republican, and taking John Barrow’s home base out of his district (the 12th) entirely. The close Georgia outcomes also owed a lot to the decision of the national GOP to make Marshall and Barrow two of the three incumbents they spent heavily to defeat, in the end falling short.

In terms of state legislatures, the South doesn’t look all that red either. Schaller has recently noted that the South accounted for a small percentage of Democratic gains in the state legislatures. Kilgore responds:

But the national seat-gain number is distorted by big Democratic pickups in the mammoth New Hampshire House, and Democrats were already stronger in Southern legislatures than in many other parts of the country. As of today, each party controls five Southern state legislatures, with one split (Tennessee). Not too shabby.

Kilgore has more to say about the South’s larger number of electoral votes, compared to the “promised land” of the Mountain West and about recent demographic trends favoring Democrats below the Mason-Dixon line. Kilgore’s concern that Schaller’s argument will morph into an attack on southern culture appears to be less well-founded. And, to be fair, Schaller’s book is subtitled “How Democrats Can Win Without the South,” not “How Democrats Must Win Without the South” (In addition to his TDS articles, Schaller has another post-election analysis here and he answers some of his post-election critics here). But if Kilgore’s rebuttal falls short of making the case for a true “50 state campaign” in ’08, he has made a pretty good case for an all regions campaign.