Paul Begala disses DNC chair Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy thusly:
“He’s in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He has raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it’s a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That’s not how you build a party. You win elections. That’s how you build a party.”
Right you are, Paul. And how good have the Democrats been at winning elections, since, say, 1992? OK, I’ll give you 1996, with a strong economy, Ross Perot Redux and Gingrich with foam on his mouth. Anything else?
Well, why not try something new?
I wrote about this in the early days of this blog, and then some, and more — I’ll have more today.
Does Paul Begala actually think that Democratic policies would be better for the people of Utah and Mississippi then Republican policies would, or does he think that Democratic policies would basically screw the southern and midwestern working class but be good for the big cities and the coasts, which have more voters anyway so let’s concentrate on them? Because it seems to me that if you really believe that the Democrats have a better vision for the future of the country than the Republicans do, and that Democratic policies really will make life better for the poor and lower-middle classes — which I certainly do, and I think most people here agree — that if you think all that but then you don’t want to go try to show those very people why that’s so, you surely can’t really expect to succeed. And conversely, if you don’t think that Democratic policies would be better for the country as a whole and not just for the Massachusetts Liberals, how can you even really claim to deserve to win?
<
p>
Concentrating on the places where we “can” win is one of the big reasons we don’t win, because not only do the people who live where we “can’t” win see what we’re doing and think, “they want to be in charge, and that affects us, but they obviously think we’re not important enough to come try to get our vote or tell us why they’re better — why should we just trust them on their say-so?” but the people who live where we “can” win see it too. This — Republican spin aside, because you can spin small things into big things, but you can’t spin nothing into something — is part of why liberals have a bad reputation as egghead elitists.
<
p>
Abandoning the “50-state strategy” and concentrating on our base and the swing states might work (sometimes — we’ve certainly seen that it often doesn’t) in the short term, and we’ve been trying it because we’ve seen that it worked for the Republicans. But sauce for the goose isn’t necessarily sauce for the gander, and in the long term playing to the base is dangerous. It contributes to the polarization of politics in this country, reduces the chances for meaningful debate and compromise, and pushes the people whose votes we don’t court toward the other side. We can’t just care about winning the next election or two, we have to care about what effect we’re having on the political landscape not just now but five, ten, twenty, fifty years from now.
… I’ve got my routine?
<
p> – Aimee Mann
<
p>
I just posted about this this morning on the howard_dean community on LiveJournal. Adam Nagourney’s article gets to the point right at the start:
Note that 50 states doesn’t just mean “even in states that vote solidly Republican”, it also means “even in states that vote solidly Democratic”. Like us. Yes, we have grassroots organizers, paid for by the DNC, working out of our state party office here in Massachusetts. They’re putting together the Victory ’06 campaign, and they’ll help us beat Kerry Healey.
<
p>
Thank you, Dean.
I saw some DNC people collecting signatures at Harvard Square last week (after the ballot deadline for any race). Any idea what they were collecting signatures for? Really curious but didn’t feel like bugging them about it.
…when Democrats come to realize that TV blitzes don’t win campaigns. You can lose a campaign if you don’t have that, but you sure can’t win one with just tv ads.
<
p>
While the candidates are still stuck with having to spend all they have on Iowa and New Hampshire (and one other state TBD) in the early months of the primary, the Democrats will have build a foundation to put into place once the primaries are over. It’s completely a Catch-22 for the Democratic presidential candidates. For instance, Howard Dean in 2004 tried to build a 50-state strategy in the primaries, but when he fell apart in Iowa and NH, his field organization collapsed quickly and he ran out of funds. He was accused of being incompetant, but really what he was was overly optimistic that his leads in those states would stick, and he wanted to be ready for the rest of the country. Kerry ignored 48 states–you could even say he mostly ignored 49 states and just focussed on Iowa, and the rest just fell into place… except that he really didn’t have much of a field organization built up until just the last few months of the general election.
<
p>
The days of campaigning just in the media are over. When over a billion dollars is spent on campaign ads in 2004, between the two parties, the candidates, and the 527s, people just stop paying attention–unless one party or another manages to put together so nasty and so effective an ad that it can get discussed on free tv for weeks or months on end.
<
p>
At the end of the day, you have to have some money in the bank. But those field staffers aren’t picking their noses (and thanks, Paul, for insulting everyone who is out knocking on doors, working their asses off to spread the Democratic message). They are building the base. And what better time to build the base than the point when the Republicans are imploding at every turn.
<
p>
If only there was a candidate running for Governor of Massachusetts who thought similarly to Howard Dean on the power of building a field organization…
<
p>
…oh… wait! Nevermind.
This tension has been brought up before, and someone on Kos pointed out that if you’re interested in winning House seats, work with the DCCC. Want to win Senate seats? Give to the DSCC. If you want to strengthen the Democratic party, and improve infrastructure over the long haul, you’ve got to work in all areas of tUSA, regardless of size, demographics, religion, or other factor.
<
p>
States as blue as Massachusetts have a red governor, and states as red as Wyoming have a blue governor. Building the party obviously impacts governors races, and therefor also senate races and all other statewide races. As for House, county, city, and town races, we’ve got to start somewhere.
<
p>
Dean isn’t focused on instant gratification, and his plan is about building the structure of the party, so that we’ll consistently turn out more of our votes, consistently gather more volunteers, and consistently bring in more small time donations. It’s a wonderful, savvy, long term plan.
It doesn’t matter until we have a message and policy that addresses the needs of the American people. What I’d like to know is what they are saying to those people in Utah. Especially when asked about Iraq and jobs and education etc… There doesnât seem to be any national message or policy being espoused.
<
p>
Not until we have a polished consistent message, clear policy and likable candidates should we even think about 50 states, much less one more than 2004.
A couple of days ago, Terri Gross (Fresh Air) was interviewing someone concerning the rise of evangelical Christians as a dominating force in American culture and politics. One of the critical points noted was that the religious leadership grasped more than 20 years ago that the only way to take power to teach a coherent message and then beome involved at the most local levels — PTA to school board to city council, etc., etc. — and to do it everywhere possible until critical mass was reached.
<
p>
Begala refuses to admit what any political science or history major knows to be true — that in a democracy, top-down political organization is successful only in the short term. You can try to out-fund-raise the other side, but money alone at most builds support a mile wide and an inch deep. The only way to win — the way Dean has intuitively grasped — is to take the long view and sow the seeds of change at the local level, identify and nurture talent, and bring people up the ranks. This is about time, money, patience and staying on-message.
<
p>
No, I don’t think that the 50-state approach will lead to Democratic majorities in Alabama or Idaho in five years. But with sincere and substantive financial and logistical support from the DNC and the development and consistent communication of a coherent political philosophy, it may be possible to rebuild a meaningful block of voters in five years in large parts of the country where our party has faded since the early 1980s which will substantially influence policy at a local and county level. In ten years, the leadership from that level will rise to state and congressional positions, while other seeds sprout in less fertile soil.
my hometown district in texas has more registered democrats than republicans, but bush beat kerry there by more than 60 points. and that’s not just because bush is a local product.
there is a major major disconnect between the party at a local level (i.e. school board, sheriff, county clerk) whether there are still many dems (on paper) and the party at a national level. and it seems like howard dean is the only democrat of any influence who is doing the real work of trying to close that gap.
the democrats who are quick to write off a lot of bush voters in the flyover states as wild-eyed rubes are making a mistake that will cripple the party for generations.
i know from real life experience that there are a lot of people voting republican who down in their bones are oldline democrats, but aren’t willing to buy into the elitist, poll-driven robots that the dems put up election after election.
the republicans did not win the heartland so much as the democrats gave it away.
a lot of people scoffed at some of the low-level efforts of barry goldwater to build a grassroots conservative movement forty years ago. and now he (regrettably) looks like a genius.