November 14, 2006
Dated Kerry, Married Dean
Who won the election for Democrats last week? Apportion a large measure of credit to the national environment and to Republican mistakes. Give the Democratic grassroots, who cultivated candidates, knocked on doors and raised money for people and causes ignored (at first) by the national party. Certainly, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer deserve their accolades.
And then there’s Howard Dean, the unorthodox, insurgent chairman of the Democratic Party. For more than a year, many of the party’s familiarly named strategists, consultants and hangers-on have been convinced that Dean wanted to shape the national committee as a counterweight to the party committees. So if party committees get credit for the victory, Dean should get none, right?
Wrong. [MARC AMBINDER]
Dean ran for chairman on a platform to devolve power and spending authority to state parties. Dean believed the national party committees were too closely aligned with – and therefore only serviced – the interests of the Washington establishment. He redirected the flow of money and responsibility outward to his patrons in states. He legitimized the grievances and complaints of the party’s grassroots army, who had grown frustrated with their status as outsiders looking in. The RNC pioneered a ground-game first approach in 2004; Dean became the first Democratic chairman to validate the work of volunteer ground warriors.
Whether Dean was right, in the normative sense of the word, is irrelevant. He did what he did, and the consequences speak for themselves.
Three years ago, Howard Dean-style politics was too outré for the Democratic Party to bear. Today, arguably, Dean Politics is Democratic politics. Embedded within Dean's campaign theme was a broad critique of the Republican approach to power. Iraq was simply its worst manifestation. But Dean also evinced his distaste with Republican "corruption." He talked about how Democrats - and independents and even Republicans -- were interested in results, not ideology. In his eyes, Americans wanted a fresh approach. He urged, first Democrats, then Americans, to take their country back. He also urged the party to overlook interest group apostasy; remember that Dean got an “A” rating from the NRA as Vermont's governor. He clumsily endorsed an outreach to "the guys with confederate flags on the back of their pick-up trucks."
Leave the Internet aside: the architecture of Dean Politics has become the de mode style for the entire party. Dean promoted a vocal, confrontational style of campaigning, one that did not cede an inch to Republicans. His primary campaign was predicated on a 50 state strategy. He urged Democrats to adopt issues that would drive wedges between the Republican base and the party’s weaker adherents (mostly in the suburbs). He rejected the politics of inoculation, pronouncing himself proud to be the talisman of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. He intuited that the party (and voters) wanted the Democrats to be the opposition party.
When Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. and Iraqi troops in December of 2003, then presidential candidate Dean called the arrest "a good thing which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer." Then he uttered the words that would hasten his cataclysmic collapse as the Democratic frontrunner: "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer." At the time, it was an outrageous statement, and one from which Dean quickly retreated.
In retrospect -- three years later, amid a sluggish, intractable civil war that's left 2500 more American troops and untold Iraqis dead, Dean was prescient. Few who voted in last Tuesday's elections would disagree. They couldn't disagree; the facts on the ground have proven Howard Dean right.
As the result of Dean's own 50 state funding initiatives, when states like Indiana and Wyoming and Nebraska suddenly featured competitive races, the DNC had trained field staffers on the ground. But even Dean’s admirers admit that there’s no concrete way to know whether the 50 State Project gave these races a bigger boost than the DSCC and DCCC efforts.
But give Dean credit for setting the tone and style of Democratic politics. Successful, Democratic politics, that is, in an environment that Dean first detected three years ago.
Posted at 11:02 AM
Comments
many of the races "that suddenly became competitive" would not have existed at all if Dean had not encouraged the grassroots to get out and run in every district and support candidates who seem like long shots at best. If Rahm had his way, many of the candidates he finally ended up funding or not funding at all, won because they had the courage to run and they had grassroots suppporters who worked for them for free.
Maybe you can't quantify Dean's help, but you can't quantify Emmanuel's help either. Most if his hand chosen candidates were beaten in either the primary or general election. Other candidates who won, he did not give money to until the last minute and that money often came from the DNC.
I'll take one Dean for Schumer and Emmanuel put together and doubled.
Thank you for the article.
Teresa | 11.14.06 12:00 PM
 |
Dean was not merely right about this. Glenn Greenwald compiled a collection of quotations from Dean that make him seem like the most prescient participant in our political process--way ahead of either the conventional wisdom or with the courage to speak against the conventional wisdom.
jayackroyd | 11.14.06 12:01 PM
|
Well, that's what I've been saying to anyone who brings up the topic of Howard Dean: he's right well before others realize that he's right, and his mortal sin politically was speaking up about what he knew was true, well before common wisdom was ready to come to the same conclusion.
Right about the war before it started, right about Saddam's capture, and right about the 50 states strategy.
Somehow I suspect as well that he would have made a much better president than people have been willing to give him credit for.
r€nato | 11.14.06 12:02 PM
|
The vast majority of people commenting on this have no idea what they are talking about. The state parties are not the "grassroots": in many places, they are the corrupt establishment. You don't have to be in Washington to be corrupt and incompetent. And in many places, we won in spite of horrendous state party disasters, not because of them. In some states, like Ohio, we likely lost seats we could have won because the coordinated campaigns (Dean's responsibility) were just plain disasters (several days out from the election, the total call volume was somewhere around 2000 calls a night STATEWIDE, which is simply pathetic).
Do the netroots people so enamoured of Dean know any of this inside baseball stuff? Nope. They just really, really like the sound of the hype. But the fact is, Dean's efforts did NOT have a good showing.
hulkingfrond | 11.14.06 12:24 PM
|
Of course, there is the argument that Rahm Emanuel only won 8 of the 22 races in which he recruited candidates. From the often-absurd lefty website, Counterpunch.org:
Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) (One is still undecided.) And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. ...Rahm's Losers: Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA), Tessa Hafen (NV), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Lois Murphy (PA).
Winners: Brad Ellsworth (IN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Baron Hill (IN), Ron Klein (FL), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch, who was apparently antiwar (VT).
Undecided: Joe Courtney (CT).
http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh11112006.html
frank carper | 11.14.06 12:26 PM
|
Dr. Dean was right about everything he predicted before the war and immediately after invasion.
Cheney was Wrong about everything he predicted before the war.
Cheney never "screamed" at a rally, but tell me who is crazy one?
feckless | 11.14.06 12:30 PM
|
I think Kos had it right; without the contributions of both factions -- Dean and the netroots, and the traditional organs like the DSCC and DCCC -- the Democrats would not have done as well. In many cases, the DxCC groups were too timid in the beginning. They imposed Blue Dog candidates who had no backing in many cases, and many of those candidates were (fortunately) beaten in primaries by more traditional Democrats. They initially planned to fund so few races that they'd have to sweep the board to get a majority. Dean's efforts had a ground game in place all over the country. But we only won so big because the DCCC, once it saw how things were going, steered substantial amounts of money into the right places and switched tactics (from "say nothing about Iraq" to "beat Bush over the head about Iraq").
So now, instead of replacing the horrible Richard Pombo with a pro-corporate Blue Dog like Rahm Emmanuel wanted, we're replacing him with a brilliant progressive environmentalist with a PhD in engineering and expertise in wind power. The guy the DCCC wanted wouldn't have won, because he wouldn't have inspired the devotion and national attention. The DCCC did throw in piles of money at the end, early enough to put Jerry McNerney over the top.
Joe Buck | 11.14.06 12:44 PM
|
Dean's idea of building in all the states is a necessary long-term strategy. No doubt there is an argument to be made for the short-term tactic of focusing on battleground states, but it is clear that -- strategically -- the DNC has to focus on the long term. Consulants like Begala, who deplore long-term planning, are ignoring the big picture.
Of course, the 50-state strategy is not an immediate success everywhere. For example, Nebraska lost every race by double digits, despite unadulaterated hype (mostly from cheerleaders in the state party), because poorly organized state parties will still perform poorly. The good results occurred in places where the state party is competent.
winwin | 11.14.06 12:50 PM
|
Ditto Teresa. I don't know why Washington can't see who really won this election for the Dems. Rahm and Schumer are getting all the credit in the beltway, but those of us outside see that Dean was right to pour money locally and to run in 50 states. What it looks like to us is Rahm trying to take credit for Dean's strategy. A typical inside the beltway move, but one that does not escape the grassroots. We see who the real hero last Tuesday was and it wasn't Rahm! It was that annoying screaming man too liberal to lead the Democrats. God bless him and thank God the DNC members didn't listen to their leaders inside the beltway and elected him Chairman, otherwise we'd be looking at two more years of Republican control. Now you beltway types are insiting that Hoyer be majority leader. The grassroots (you know, the ones who won the election for you) would prefer Murtha, someone who had the balls to say what we all thought about Iraq, but the beltway prefers some insider whose sole belongs to K-Street.
Mike in SLO | 11.14.06 12:55 PM
|
Dean was not a backstabber as both Emanuel and Schumer. Emanuel kicked Cegelis to the curb for Duckworth and Schumer, Hackett for Brown. I believe they could have run me in Ohio and beaten DeWine. He was one of the wimpiest and lamest Senators there. Probably only exceded in wimpyness and lameness by our other Senator, Voinovich. Cegelis was a former campaigner who possibly could have campaigned better with a lot less than Emanuel poured into Duckworth's campaign. ( I know she's a vet and a severely wounded vet at that.I wish she had won. But should she have run when there was already a viable candidate in place? Emanuel used her.) Wusin , Jennings, Burner and other CLOSE races could have used some of the money. Dean's 50 State Initiative opened up races west of the Mississippi and in the Bible Belt. He didn't win all of them but they were viable races that can be competetive in the future. Only if this Congress complies to middle class needs. Low cost college loans. Increase Pell Grants. Repeal the "Biden" "Hoyer" Bankruptcy Bill. Increase the minimum wage significantly. Revise the Tax Code to bring the upper level rates to 2001 levels.( stop sending chump change to those making less than $70,000.00 and telling us how wonderful they are to us while a multi-millionaire gets 3 times more than our gross earnings.) Most of us are concerned with financial isssues but there are others. NSA. Military commission and torture. Iraq. Afghanistan? Osama? They weren't kidding when they said this was a "Do Nothing Congress."
nellieh | 11.14.06 12:55 PM
|
You wrote thet Dean's style "did not cede an inch to Republicans," yet in the previous paragraph you noted that Howie got an A rating from the NRA. Dean didn't just give an inch, he gave away the entire ranch, abandoning and betraying Dems who have worked for decades on sensible handgun regulation.
Politus | 11.14.06 12:57 PM
|
Whether or not any of us acknowledge it or not, this was a team victory.
Dean laid the groundwork. The grassroots recruited and built up candidates outside of Rahm's sphere of influence, providing warm bodies and cash. Then, Rahm (and Schumer) came in with the big bucks and put a lot of candidates who started out as netroots/grassroots candidates over the top as some of his own initial targets fizzled out.
It was a team victory. Thanks NJ for finally acknowledging that. Rahm's been getting all the credit up until now.
jerry | 11.14.06 12:57 PM
|
Please provide a quote in which Dean "retreated" from his statement that the capture of Saddam Hussein didn't make America any safer. I followed his primary campaign closely and I never heard him retreat from that statement. Maybe you assume that because he took a lot of flak for it, he must have backed off?
lucidity | 11.14.06 01:00 PM
|
Nice to see Dean get credit for a change. The guy's done a lot, and all the media do is diss him, while giving the Chimperor a free ride on everything from domestic spying to the obscene tragedy that is Iraq today.
chuck | 11.14.06 01:13 PM
|
You can quantify Dean's contributions quite concretely: look at the state legislature and Governor's races (esp Colorado).
Even if the Congressional races are credited entirely to the DCCC and DSCC, Dean still has the states' races under his belt.
Radha Krishnan | 11.14.06 01:21 PM
|
Actually, Rahm Emanuel's help has been quantified -- and found to be negative.
Paul Lukasiak crunched the numbers -- and found that, far from helping to secure the Democratic takeover of the House, Rahm very nearly prevented it.
In addition, Johnnygunn has a DKos diary that maps out the Democrats' 2006 gains -- and shows that the Democrats underperformed in the House races, compared to how they did in the State Houses, governorships, and Senate races. This ties in nicely with Lukasiak's findings.
Phoenix Woman | 11.14.06 01:33 PM
|
I think it is clear that there are some races that never would have been competitive had it not been for Dean investing in states that would otherwise have been ceded to Republicans. The fact that races like WY-AL, NE-03, ID-01, and KS-02 were even competitive is certainly due at least in part to the DNC's support for those state parties. An added bonus to that strategy is that, at the last minute, Republicans were forced to throw a large amount of money and campaigning star power (Dick Cheney, etc) to save those seats that they otherwise could have assumed 30+ point wins in.
And Politus - Dean never claimed to be a liberal. That's what the media made him out to be in the 2004 primaries, but he never really was one. Vermonters would often give him flak for not being liberal enough, but the truth is he was a moderate as governor and never claimed otherwise. As for the NRA thing, Dean's position on gun control is that gun control is very different in Vermont than it is in NYC. If you talk about gun control in Vermont or Montana, people think you're going to take away their hunting rifle, but if you talk about gun control in NYC, people praise you for getting Uzis and AK-47s off the streets. Basically, he's in favor of local regulations depending on the locality - in rural Vermont, he never really saw the need for such regulations and never signed any, so the NRA gave him a good grade. Simple as that.
Francisco | 11.14.06 02:04 PM
|
Great piece, and certainly Dean should have a lot more thanks than he got for this victory. This election shows that, contrarely to what many inside DC thought, his 50 state strategy was just spot on, allowing us to win not only the House and the Senate, but also many statehouses and governorship.
Just a question. What do you try to accomplish with your title? It has nothing to do with your article, and actually dismisses the fact that Dean said on Fox this weekend that Kerry did a lot for this victory.
Which shows that Dean is a class act, contrarely to some inside the Beltway reporters.
Disabused democrat | 11.14.06 02:30 PM
|
Hulkingfrond,
Are you aware that the whole point of Dean's strategy is to REBUILD the state and local parties? Of course state parties all over the place are corrupt. That's exactly what Dean is trying to change. These state parties (like Ohio) are corrupt because they're wedded to permanent interest groups in the state (lobbyists, unions, etc.) and not to the actual voters.
Elrod | 11.14.06 03:07 PM
|
Politus, "abandoning and betraying Dems?" Oh, man, that's rich, coming from a guy with a Joe 2006 tattoo on his butt.*
*not really**
**I hope
clarke | 11.14.06 03:16 PM
|
I think it is clear that there are some races that never would have been competitive had it not been for Dean investing in states that would otherwise have been ceded to Republicans. The fact that races like WY-AL, NE-03, ID-01, and KS-02 were even competitive is certainly due at least in part to the DNC's support for those state parties. An added bonus to that strategy is that, at the last minute, Republicans were forced to throw a large amount of money and campaigning star power (Dick Cheney, etc) to save those seats that they otherwise could have assumed 30+ point wins in.
And Politus - Dean never claimed to be a liberal. That's what the media made him out to be in the 2004 primaries, but he never really was one. Vermonters would often give him flak for not being liberal enough, but the truth is he was a moderate as governor and never claimed otherwise. As for the NRA thing, Dean's position on gun control is that gun control is very different in Vermont than it is in NYC. If you talk about gun control in Vermont or Montana, people think you're going to take away their hunting rifle, but if you talk about gun control in NYC, people praise you for getting Uzis and AK-47s off the streets. Basically, he's in favor of local regulations depending on the locality - in rural Vermont, he never really saw the need for such regulations and never signed any, so the NRA gave him a good grade. Simple as that.
Francisco | 11.14.06 03:18 PM
|
America ISN'T safer with Saddam captured. He wasn't threatening us, except verbally. And he was toothless at the time. Now we have a failed state worry, a real threat.
Dean was right and is right. And viewed many ways, his approach makes sense. He didn't suggest it would be nirvana. It just builds and builds, and in that sense, it only beats every strategy I've heard theorized and advanced for about the past 34 years.
Did it win more races this year? It won some. And hardly relevant to the longterm gains he's creating that his successors will get credited for.
I just wish he was my personal physician; I might not live forever, but I'll live better.
Kevin Hayden | 11.14.06 03:28 PM
|
I wrote the below letter in response to this article in the Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901465.html
I am frankly quite amazed at the complete lack of respect being show to Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee while all of the credit for this blowout victory is getting handed blindly to Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer.
While those two certainly did good work as chairs of their respective campaign committees, they should not be sole recipients of the credit for the Democratic shut-out. The AP article printed in the Washington Post entitled "Schumer, Emanuel Engineer Party's Win" (Nov. 9th) fails to even mentioned party chairman Howard Dean.
While Schumer and Emanuel can certainly be credited with helping to close the deal, the credit for laying the groundwork must clearly go to Dean and the grassroots who supported him and his 50 State Strategy. Dean challenged the grassroots early to contribute money to his strategy after they helped get him elected party chairman.
By getting paid trainers and organizers on the ground in all fifty states, he reasoned, we could rebuild the party at the local level and reignite the passions of local democrats in areas previously considered unreachable, which would in turn help Democrats up and down the ticket. Indeed, there were many reports this year of local Democratic parties being established or rebuilt in certain places in the south and west where Democrats hadn't been seen in over a decade.
Furthermore, many of the most successful Democrats, those who beat previously safe Republicans, were endorse early by the grassroots and supported by them without the support of the campaign committees, and sometimes even against their direct opposition. Indeed, one Emanuel-endorsed candidate, Tammy Duckworth, did beat a grassroots candidate, Christine Cegalis, but lost the general election, while nearly all of the grassroots backed candidates were successfull in the general.
Amazingly, the AP article even credits Schumer for choosing Jim Webb to run against George Allen, perhaps the most ridiculous assertion this cycle. Rather, this victory must be credited entirely to the grassroots who first started pushin Webb over a year ago, long before he even decided to run.
A post by Markos Moulitsas dated Oct 31st, 2005 entitled "VA-Sen: Webb might challenge Allen"[1] reads, "Just when George Allen looked set for an unchallenged 2006 reelection bid in the runup to his 2008 presidential effort, we may just get a credible challenger after all -- James Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration."
Two months later, DraftJamesWebb.com was launched[2], at a time when the Virginia Senate race wasn't even on the DSCC target list at all.[3] That's right, the DSCC, headed by genius Chuck Schumer, didn't even think Virginia was a viable target.
To their credit, Schumer and Emanuel jumped on board when they realized we had something, but they didn't invent it. They didn't inspire a new generations of grassroots activists, they didn't get a whole new group of previously disillusioned Democrats to not just get involved but to even run for office. They didn't put paid professionals in all fifty states to take advantage of this new excitement.
No, for empowering a new reinvigorated generations of Democrats, the credit falls squarely to Howard Dean and the grassroots activists who supported him, got him elected chairman, contributed to his campaigns at the DNC, added their own ideas to the mix, and helped find local candidates they believed better suited to win, like Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Heath Shuler, Larry Kissel, and many more.
This wasn't top down machine-style politics folks, this was a grassroots revolution.
References:
1: VA-Sen: Webb might challenge Allen
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/31/223725/00
2: DraftJamesWebb.com
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/1/171214/8501
3: Democrats target seven states in 2006 Senate races
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20051227-1435-democrats-2006.html
Sean Robertson | 11.14.06 03:57 PM
|
Ditto Francisco.
Well said.
I simply can't understand why people overthink this stuff so consistently. It really isn't that complicated.
Dave | 11.14.06 04:58 PM
|
Politus, I can't think of one reason that a moderate former governor of a rural state should make gun control a policy issue.
Compared to Iraq, stem cell research, equal rights for gay Americans, consumer rights, net neutrality, obscene corporate pay, tax breaks for sending jobs overseas, spam, elimination of habeus corpus, no-bid contracts to Halliburton, billions lost in Iraq, Aby Ghraib, sanction of torture, voter suppression by the GOP, possible theft of elections via black box voting machines, the "Save Paris Hilton" tax act, rampant abuse of intellectual property rights stifling innovation, rollback of worker's rights, the demise of America's reputation internationally, ungodly amounts of federal debt, warrantless wiretapping of millions of Americans, etc - where would you rank gun control?
I for one am glad I did not hear "gun control" pass the lips of a single Democrat in this election cycle; if I had, it would have been a harbinger of total disaster. In fact, had the Democrats lost, I would have gone out and bought a gun; the defense of the Constitution has never been weaker (i.e. habeus corpus and torture).
If there's one place that it's true that "moderates" won this election, it's on the Dem's run away from traditional social wedge issues like gun control. Thank god, because we've got a lot of other work to do.
JT | 11.14.06 05:03 PM
|
Gun control: my question is, on what positions are urban professionals ready to compromize to make a coalition with rural working class? Choice? Gay bashing? Gun control?
Suburban belts of many metro areas are scarlet red, while rural area are more of a swing vote. If we want to provide more services for the low income working class in rural areas for ideological reasons, we can try to get some credit for it, to wit, some seats in Congress and state houses.
piotr | 11.14.06 05:34 PM
|
There is enough credit to go around. However, Dean's plans are strategic rather than tactical. His responsibility is to build a lasting machine that will deepen Democratic party roots in "Blue" states/districts and begin planting those roots in "Red" states/districts where we had given up on before. One of the more important things Dean says is that people respect being asked for their vote. For too long we have ignored the very people who, election after election, vote against their own self interests. I applaud Governor Dean for his vision and efforts.
musicalnuke | 11.14.06 05:41 PM
|
Politus says
You wrote that Dean's style "did not cede an inch to Republicans," yet in the previous paragraph you noted that Howie got an A rating from the NRA. Dean didn't just give an inch, he gave away the entire ranch, abandoning and betraying Dems who have worked for decades on sensible handgun regulation.
You are apparently ignorant of why Gov. Dean got an A from the NRA and what he presented as his stand on gun control during the '04 primary campaign.
For you and others, Dean got an A because he acted on the common sense reality that Vermont is a primarily rural state without a gun problem. During the campaign he said that gun laws should reflect the realities and needs of different parts of the country. Gun laws in urban centers should not be the same as in VT or MT or UT.
If you want to go after that, feel free, but don't make gross generalizations with no basis in fact.
Joe in Wynnewood | 11.14.06 05:53 PM
|
Today most folks call it "The 50 State Strategy. Back in 2003 we just called it "The Vermontster Mash!"
SubwaySerenade | 11.14.06 06:03 PM
|
If the media actually was willing to do some reading instead of talking to each other in their little echo chamber they would know that Dean did contribute significantly to the Dems' victory. I have absolutely no problem crediting Rahm and Schumer for the victory too but I find this exclusion of Deam really disgusting. I don't know if Rahm's doing it as a Clintonista or if he's doing it just to increase his standing in the House but it's dumb dumb dumb for him to pull this because this crap will be remembered for a long time by activists which will bite him in the ass down the road. The worst part is that Dean and Rahm actually share the "confront and win" approach. They should be strong allies not wasting time dissing each other.
mainame | 11.14.06 08:09 PM
|
Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is inclusive not exclusive like Rahm's. Rahm's DCCC doesn't answer e-mails or return calls to netroot country bumpkins like me. I am sorry that Tammy lost but Rahm maybe you should listen to people who know the terrain in their hometowns better than you do. Investment banking doesn't make you a people person. We could have use a little money in our efforts. Howard at least responds to our pleas for help. I think that Howard Dean deserves a lot of credit. The DCCC will not get any of my money as long as I have to open up my e-mails and see James Carville asking for my money to be spent elsewhere.
cleo | 11.14.06 08:37 PM
|
Hulkingfrond just proves most of the netroots point...the DC bubble democrats belittle netroots and grassroots efforts (including Dean) and think very little of their constituency. He goes on to say we know nothing and that Dean "really didn't have a good showing". Funny considering he doesn't even back up his argument with facts or observations of any kind. How did he "not have a good showing"? We're just plain wrong. LOL!!!!
Closer to the truth is something in the middle of all the rhetoric. Emanuel's fundraising skills and last second funding of 2nd and 3rd tier races probably helped win a few more than we thought we could. At the same time, the netroots and Dean understood from the very beginning that you have to challenge everywhere and go on the offensive. We backed up our understanding with money and GOTV efforts. While we didn't win all that we wanted, we understand the long-term implications of a 50-state strategy...and that Schumer and Emanuel were largely as responsible for winning as we were.
I think it's time to put aside the bickering and pat each other on the back as we all deserve some of the credit. Don't worry, it's not in limited supply, unliked your boy Carville would like to think.
Rumpjungle | 11.14.06 10:19 PM
|
"I think the big [reason we won] is because we went to every state and asked everybody for their vote. ... It's a sign of respect to ask people for their vote. Democrats have been afraid to go in a lot of places, and we won in a lot of those places."
---DNC Chairman Howard Dean Wednesday night on The Daily Show
Howard Dean got it right. And if the Dems would quit pussyfooting around to placate Republican politicians, and instead recognize that this election was a mandate from the American people to right the Constitution--in short, if they could see their way to act for AMERICA instead of for Democrats--they would impeach Bush and Cheney. Respect US. Their oath is to preserve and protect the Constitution, not to put the priority on bandaids like minimum wage and Medicare. Why fix booboos first when there's a cancer on the Constitution? Restore habeus corpus, repeal the Patriot Act, and IMPEACH.
klinca | 11.15.06 12:01 AM
|
Is the point of the exercise power or good government? If it is good government the 50 state strategery is worth it. Competitive, losing races still mean that the opponent may be a little less knee jerk right wing on the next close vote in Congress. In Wyoming we can't make Barbara Cubin into a decent person, but I still think the closeness of her race could make her a little bit more decent. It also emboldens the next Democrat that will run against her in 2 years.
stillonmt | 11.15.06 12:01 PM
|
Try again hulkingfrond. I was there, looking at the spreadsheets. They were doing more than 2,000 calls a day in ONE OFFICE in Columbus four days out. So, unless the entire rest of the state wasn't doing anything (which they were; I saw those spreadsheets too) what you claim is beyond ridiculous.
Honestly, I suspect you are actually one of the DCCC's people sent out to Ohio and didn't like the fact that your ringleader didn't get to dictate statewide policy....which was a good thing.
I don't want to go totally negative on you. There is inherently going to be a conflict when you're running a co-ordinated campaign for tickets across the state. Ohio was a particularly tricky example because the Dem candidate for Governor was polling through the roof, which meant that he was getting a lot of R support. The coordinated had to balance the needs of bringing his people out, the Dem Senate candidate's people out, as well as bringing people out for all of the competitive Congressional races. And the Congressional candidates wanted to bring out a ton of people that weren't going to support either Strickland or Brown.
But that's beside the point. If you want to argue that state parties are by and large inept, hey, I'm on board. They frequently are. And for us to be sustainably successful, we've got to change that. In my opinion, that's part of the brilliance of the 50 state strategy: hire competent people and send them out to the states...teach a man to fish and the whatnot. But you picked the wrong example here, my friend. I was there, so I guess I do know some of this 'inside baseball stuff' (which you clearly do not).
WasActuallyThere | 11.15.06 12:22 PM
|
HELLO, I WANT TO MAKE ORDER FOR THIS TRACTOR ABOVE. HOW MUCH IS THE DEPOSIT BCOS AM NOW IN DUBAI.SO I WILL TRY TO COMING THERE TO MAKE THE BALANCE OK. MAIL ME BACK IN TIME. THANKS.
DAVID | 06.25.08 02:44 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
