What Is The Safe States Strategy?

Over the Fourth of July weekend Democratic National Committee chairman, Terry McAuliffe, again called for Ralph Nader to drop out of the presidential race. "He needs to help us, not hurt us," whined Terry. Or, another radical idea might be for Terry to get his candidate, Senator Kerry, to help himself.

Just what are the Democrats worried about that they're campaigning against a candidate who, at this point, is only on the ballot in seven states? It must be that a couple of these states are not considered "safe."

At least 75% of us live in what each of the political parties considers "safe states." That is, states in which history and demographics point to a fairly certain outcome, no matter who does what. G.W. can try all he wants, but it's not likely that he'll carry California. The same goes for Kerry's chances of victory in Texas. The major candidates will show up in their safe states and bask in the adulation for a good photo opportunity or two, but that's not where they will be spending their money. The big campaigning is reserved for those few battleground states that could go either way.

But it's not just the major parties that view these states as safe. Third party candidates are also aware of which states they might be perceived as a spoiler in, should they have a strong showing, and which states they can campaign in without any chance of screwing things up for the big boys. Many Greens, aware that the Democrats blame them for Gore's loss in 2000, have suggested using a "safe states strategy" in 2004, only actively seeking votes in those states where they can't possibly affect the outcome of the race.

When I first heard this strategy suggested four years ago, I thought it was the most ridiculous, self-defeating, and anti-democratic idea I'd ever heard. Besides which, what sort of idiot deliberately sets out to campaign only in those areas where they can't possibly make a difference? The safe states strategy seemed to me to be both idiotic and borderline insane.

I had come to be, by that point in my life, a pure politics person who believed that you went with the candidate who most closely represented your views, regardless of the odds against them. The lesser of two evils was still evil, as far as I was concerned, and compromise only encouraged more evil. Further, I expected my candidates to give their best effort in every region, and make their case to every voter.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic