Gallup’s recent “State of the State” series1 reveals that Massachusetts and Maryland are the most “Democratic” states (with an over 20 percentage point advantage), and Wyoming and Utah are the most “Republican (with an over 30 percentage point advantage). Our own North Carolina comes in 22nd in the Democratic ranking.

Based on the political party identification and leanings of each state’s residents in 2014, and consisting of 177,000 randomly selected interviews January-December 2014, nationally Democrats showed a slight 3% point advantage for 2014. The top 5 for each party ranked as follows:

Rank State     Advantage

1 Massachusetts 21.8

2 Maryland 20.9

3 Rhode Island 19.4

4 New York 17.3

5 Vermont 16.1

On the other side of the aisle, Republican states reported in as follows:

Rank State     Advantage

1 Wyoming 35.5

2 Utah 33.1

3 Idaho 25.2

4 South Dakota 18.4

5 Montana 17.7

(For a listing of all states, please see the full article, at www.gallup(dot)com)

What does this mean? These figures could indicate how these ten states and the others listed in the article will go in our next election. Yet, while Democrats nationally still maintain this small advantage, voters since 2008 have shown a significant shift from the Democratic Party at both the national and state level.

We Democrats must take notice, and then take action. But how?

There are many factors that influence voter turnout and elections, we know. One of the more interesting is the migration of Democrats from northern states to southern/southwest states, which has been described earlier. And one of the strongest is the state of the nation, which includes our foreign involvements, economy, and rate of employment at the time of the election.

Other factors include but are certainly not limited to the candidates’ position on timely issues, their character and moral stand, their own political background, their family and personal profile, their specific political experience, their education, their speaking ability, age, mannerisms, and presentation, and their religious faith.

We can also add the strength and weakness of each candidate’s campaign, looking at what campaigning factors influence outcome. Leadership, certainly, not only at all levels of the Democratic Party, but also within each candidate’s campaign. Weak and ineffective leadership historically has been one of the leading causes of campaign loss.

Lack of direction is also a critical campaign issue. Yes, the candidate wants to win the office, but what substantive plans are in place to achieve that goal? Planning comes not just from the candidate, but from the party who must lend open and transparent support, providing a smooth and winning dynamic.

And candidate’s failure to get adequate support is imperative. We are not talking just economics here, although in the next months to come money issues are/will be paramount. We can also add support from the candidate’s own party. Without full party support – and we have seen glaring examples of this – any candidate’s chance of winning is drastically reduced if not eliminated.

The list goes on and on, but let us close with this. One of the largest factors in winning any election is the heart of the people voting, the Joe’s and Mary’s in the street who will, if motivated, go to the polls and pull the right – Democratic – lever.

But how to get their attention, much less their hearts, for that winning vote?  Make the issues relevant. Connect the people to the party. Use what we have so long and so glaringly ignored. The precincts. Here, at the precinct level, is the best place to start. And each precinct should have, must have if we are to win, the very best leader possible, not just the only person around willing to take the job.

And we as a party must make that “Precinct Leader” position not only attractive but rewarding to intelligent, active Democrats who can lead and get the job done. These are the people we want and need, and we can encourage them to take up the reins by showing respect for the position and precinct’s people. And we can do this by constructing party platforms that really do constitute the needs and problems of the people – again through the precinct.

Is this a simplification of the issues? Yes, in a way, as we are leaving out quite a bit here in the interest of time and space. But it is also an honest overview, based on considerable research and findings. 

Clearly, people come out to vote if they believe that the issues are relevant and important to their own lives and the lives of their family. If they believe that no one hears them, (and that has been the case), and that no one cares what happens to them (and that has also appeared to be the case far too often), and that only a chosen few are “running things anyway” (and we hope that has not been the case), then they will lose their own sense of self and self-efficacy and will not come out to vote.

So let’s look at this Gallup poll again, and then let’s decide as a precinct, county, state, and country Democratic party that never again will we allow the devastation we witnessed in 2014 to happen another time. We can reach our voters if we realize what we are doing here, and if we remember that the foundation of democracy is comprised of its people, not its party line.

The purpose of our political organizations appears to be – in a nearsighted vision – the election of candidates, and elections are objectives. But our ultimate goal – the one that takes us as a country where we really need to go – is to provide to the public, the men and women who make up our country, pay our bills, and fight our wars, with the best leaders we can find.

We can’t do that by ignoring the people who are our “target population,” nor the folks who are never mentioned or rewarded but who are the unseen backbone of our party. We can do that by listening to and respecting the voices of every voting American, every man and every woman in the street, and then responding in kind. And that – and that alone – must be our mission.

1 This article mentioned is part of Gallup’s annual “State of the States” series, which reveals state-by-state differences on political, economic, religion and well-being measures. •