The World Around You

Regular readers of this blog would know my answer is an emphatic NO! The argument is raised once again by a piece posted on washingtonpost.com that will appear in their Sunday magazine. They are also holding a chat on the topic today. The column by Thomas F. Schaller is difficult for me to stomach. His weakest argument is put forward here:

While the Democrats can still claim a slight lead in southern state legislatures — 13 of the South’s 24 House and Senate chambers — that margin is dismal compared to the overwhelming one they held three decades ago. The GOP controls the North Carolina House, the Georgia and Kentucky Senates, and both houses in Florida, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — chambers that, not long ago, Republicans only dreamed of controlling. After the 1974 elections, the Democrats controlled 37 legislatures, the Republicans four, with eight states divided. Thanks in part to southern gains, Republicans now control 21 legislatures to the Democrats’ 17, with the remaining 11 divided.

The representatives that are closest to the Southern people are still majority Democrat! But Schaller just ignores his own facts and keeps plowing forward with his doomed analysis. The question isn’t whether or not the Democrats can win in the South, they probably can’t. The question is the cost/benefit of at least making an attempt, therefore forcing the current administration to put up a fight as well. Conceding states narrows the battlefield for both sides, and there is still no guarantee that the “swing” states are winnable even if you put all of your money into them. Because no matter how narrow the field, the Democrats are going to lose the money race. The only way to combat the money is to encourage broad support and not to cede any territory to the other side.