Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search


The Death of the 50 State Strategy


by: David Mauro

Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 03:33 PM CST


That's what Chris Bowers of OpenLeft says the DNC, under the new leadership of Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, is planning.

During the festivities here in D.C., I ran into a source close to the transition at the DNC who was able to provide an update on the new outlines of the DNC strategy, which does diverge from the current form of the fifty-state strategy in multiple ways:

  1. Increasing Centralization: The shift in resources away from paid media and toward on the ground organizers will continue. However, these resources will be more directly controlled by the DNC itself, rather than by state parties. In other words, the SPP program where the DNC pays for organizers chosen by the state parties themselves is, as previously reported, done. Instead, the DNC will likely hire and assign organizers themselves. State party grants will also likely be transformed into more centrally directed expenditures by the DNC.
  2. More swing state, less fifty-state: Many, if not most, states will have more resources spent on them during the next four years than during the previous four years. In addition to increasingly centralized control over how these resources are spent, there will also be a return to a swing-state focus for 2012. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Obama campaign's version of a swing state strategy was broader than either the Gore or Kerry incarnations.
In short, the DNC will be moving away from the long-term, decentralized, fifty-state strategy of Howard Dean's tenure, and toward serving as a short-term, centralized re-election effort for President Obama in 2012.  It will continue the move away from paid media ushered in by Howard Dean, maintain or increase the amount of resource expenditures in most states, and the number of states it targets will be a broader effort than the narrow focus we saw in 2001-2004 (but more narrow than 2005-2008). However, it will return to the traditional role of the DNC as a supplement for the sitting President's re-election campaign, rather than as the long-term, localized institution building operation that is was from 2005-2008.

The fifty-state strategy of 2005-2008 is going to be replaced with the "re-elect President Obama" strategy of 2009-2012. Both have their advantages, but I still consider firing the 200 state party organizers a real blow to the long-term development of local Democratic Party talent and infrastructure.

Obviously planning for the re-election of President Obama is important, but investing in an aggressive Fifty State Strategy like the one Howard Dean has implemented is an investment towards Democratic victories in 2010, 2012, and beyond.

Some of us had reservations when the Obama campaign moved volunteers out of Texas, but overall I think the Obama team really understood the upside of the Fifty State Strategy. Unlike the 2004 campaign of John Kerry, Obama's campaign seemed to get "it."

The change in attitude that came to the DNC with Dean's January 2005 election helped Obama win in places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana.

Since Dean took over at the DNC, Democrats have won U.S. Senate and House races in many areas not traditionally friendly to Democrats. As Gov. Dean said on Morning Joe yesterday, the 2006 elections, which included Democratic Senate pickups in Montana, Virginia, Missouri and Ohio, "gave our strategy credibility."

So what exactly happened to justifty getting rid of the 50 State Strategy?

Back in November, when Rahm Emanuel was named Obama's Chief of Staff, I wrote that the development was not good for the future of the 50 state strategy.

It is unclear of course what influence, if any, Emanuel (who I still believe is a great pick for CoS) had in killing the strategy of Dean. The two had many disagreements over 50 state vs. swing state issues when Emanuel served as Chairman of the DCCC.

It is not all gloom and doom though. Bowers makes a good point that Obama's swing state strategy is significantly broader than that of Gore or Kerry. 

If Texas Democrats can continue to make progress and win a few statewide offices in 2010, perhaps there is a chance we can end up on the swing state list. If we do, there will be a lot of people to thank. Howard Dean will be one of them.

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Disappointing, but there are still a lot of questions (0.00 / 0)
Partly, Kaine is changing the strategy. Partly, he's posturing. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

Activists loved the 50-state strategy, both because it helped local parties and because it was pushed by netroots hero Howard Dean. Unfortunately, donors hated it, and DNC fundraising lagged way behind the RNC's efforts. This was the only area where the Republicans did better than we did, and it's got to improve. I'm guessing that the donors basically said "we'll pay to win elections, but we won't pay to organize every county in every state".

At the same time, it's clear that the Obama folks favor something in between Dean's approach and Gore/Kerry's only-hit-the-obvious-swing-states approach. In the fall, they paid lip service to the full 50-state strategy to please the activists, and made symbolic gestures like hiring at least one person in each state, but they gave higher priority to the states that could tip the election. Now, to please the donors, they're paying lip service to swing states, but they're still casting a wide net.

I don't like the new language, but it's not clear that anything has actually changed.  


Resources (5.00 / 1)
If Obama had invested fully in campaigning in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota, and lost each; and in so doing, squandered resources that made him either lose the entire election, or win by a much, much narrower margin, then we would be questioning the decision to invest in "hopeless" Red States. Hell, we'd be screaming at him for wasting his (our!) money.

There has to be some measure of balance. After all, we don't want to waste resources -- we want to target them to be as effective as possible.

If a state can put together a credible candidate and/or infrastructure, then by all means, they should have the 100% backing of the DNC. But if they refuse to try, then I question why they deserve it more than those who actually want to win.  

I'm not a player, I just Tweet a lot: @KathTX


[ Parent ]
To be fair (0.00 / 0)
Obama did not invest in Idaho and Wyoming post primary.
Obama lost Montana by 2%.
Obama got 45% in both North and South Dakota.

As for Idaho, while it gave Obama six more percentage points than John Kerry earned in 2004 (30% vs 36%) and ID-1 did elect a Democrat to the US House in district that (pre-2008) had a PVI that was more Republican than Chet Edwards district.

There's something optimistic to say about almost every state. Tennessee seems to be the only one that is rapidly slipping towards Republicans. Florida's state party is possibly the one that needs the greatest amount of, national party restructuring. I remember going to a web strategy session for political outreach and Florida was the example of doing it wrong. I have not heard good things about the state party since then. Obama won Florida, not the Florida Democratic party.


[ Parent ]
Stay tuned... (5.00 / 2)
David is right.  We have many reasons to thank Howard Dean, and expanding the playing field will go down as one of the smartest moves in politics because it gave us red state organizers hope to keep fighting the good fight and forced the Republicans to defend more territory.

I'm in DC right now, and there's lots of buzz about DNC/Obama plans going forward.  While David is correct that the DNC strategy is being tweaked, that hardly means that Obama isn't going to run a 50-state strategy.  There's a new grassroots infrastructure being built called Obama 2.0, and their goal is to put organizers in all 50 states.  Same goal, just wearing a different hat.  Given that Obama just ran the most effective grassroots campaign in history, I trust that this new strategy will deliver results.

On David's other point about Obama shipping folks out of state, I understand the frustration.  Our Travis County coordinated campaign had to deal with this struggle on a daily basis, and it sure would be nice if Texas could get over the hump and become a battleground state instead of an export state.  The good news I can share is that the 3,000+ people that Obama inspired and trained to head to battleground states now all have a wealth of field experience.  This is extremely valuable.  Personally, I learned more in 2004 during the Sierra Club's battleground program than I have in many years of organizing in Texas.  When you see the action on the front lines, you learn how to run a strong grassroots effort.  The successful internship program we implemented during the 2008 Travis Coordinated campaign was copied directly from 2004 Sierra Club battleground program.

I've talked to a lot of these newly minted Texas Obama organizers, and they're very eager to apply what they learned to their home state of Texas.  The Obama campaign spent a tremendous amount of resources training these good folks, and we will benefit for years to come as they get involved on a local level.  It's now up to the Texas Democratic Party to incorporate these new grassroots activists into a real field program here at home.  If the TDP drops the ball, then we have only ourselves to blame.

I look forward to Obama 2.0, and it'll be exciting to have a permanent Obama presence in Texas.


One Huge Benefit (5.00 / 1)
There are plenty, plenty of states with lackluster, dormant, lazy, or simply unorganized state parties. We don't necessarily want to fun bad organizations -- it's a waste of my Democracy Bond, dammit!

This move allows the DNC to say "Hey state party, you kind of stink. You don't run a real field campaign, and you're not really trying that hard to register and turn out the 2,000,000 unregistered minority voters in your southern regions. We're taking over, because we actually want to win." Or something like that.

Flexibility in an organizational structure is a good thing, especially when you're trying to corral Democrats. It says to the state parties, "Shape up, or ship out." I, for one, welcome the ultimatum.

I'm not a player, I just Tweet a lot: @KathTX


That's a good point (0.00 / 0)
Hopefully it will get the state parties attention.

[ Parent ]
Indeed -- it is about winning (0.00 / 0)
"you're not really trying that hard to register and turn out the 2,000,000 unregistered minority voters in your southern regions"

Mmm -- sounds like a state I know.

I also welcome the ultimatum.  It becomes easy for state parties demand handouts without having to be accountable, and that is not a good situation


[ Parent ]
Just Look at Texas! (1.00 / 1)
The TDP delivered an anti-Dean delegation to the DNC and remains wholly devoted to the "targeted campaign" doctrine of the DSCC/DCCC. The party establishment in Austin is simply opposed to "party-building", whether under Dean or, now, Kaine.

The TDP got an allocation of staff -- supposedly field organizers -- under the "50-state" scheme. But, the State Chair(man) used the field staff as a personal entourage in Austin. The field staff worked in Austin, mostly, to keep a lid on the party, not to expand. They bacame a part of tMatt Angle's 5-House seat targeting. They did nothing to build a strong party or to develop the state's latent Democratic majority.

We cannot become a swing state, much less a blue state, so long as the strategy in Austin is (a) minimizing the political participation rate and (b) restoring the Jim Crow coalition in the Texas Legislature.

 


[ Parent ]
Seriously... Boyd's entourage? (0.00 / 0)
John - I'm guessing someone made you very upset at the TDP or you haven't been paying attention, but the TDP staff has been one of the best in recent years, and to give some gratitude, our field director (Terrysa Guerra) for West Texas has been phenomenal. Anytime I organized a workshop for our precinct chairs, candidates, or general activist here in the El Paso area, I could count on her to come all the way from Austin to help out. Out of the 6 times she has been here, only one of them has been with Boyd, so much to that "entourage" you described.   Her and the other field directors have gone to most counties to help with county chairs to organize their areas and helping to build our party after years of neglect.

In this cycle, most of the staff went out of the Austin area to help with that crazy 5 house seat idea, the same crazy house seat idea that has ousted Dictator Craddick. And after November, they went to Houston to help in the special election for Chris Bell. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is our comeback in Texas, In 2008 we destroyed a very important barrier to coming back, and TDP staff were one of the many thumbprints who created this victory.

Finally John, I really want to know who and whom we're putting in the state legislature to restore any form of a Jim Crow coalition.  I really want to know.


[ Parent ]
The volunteers decided to go on their own (0.00 / 0)
"Some of us had reservations when the Obama campaign moved volunteers out of Texas"

__________

The volunteers decided to go on their own.
I don't think that they were cattle.


Connect With BOR
Your source for Texas politics.

On Facebook: BOR
On Twitter: @BOR
On the Go: Mobile App

Upcoming BOR Events

"Do I Look Illegal?"
Arizona GOP Debate Watch

Wednesday, February 22
6:00-9:00 p.m.
Angie's Restaurant
1307 E. 7th Street
RSVP on Facebook

Save The Date:
Super Tuesday Super Watch Party!
Tuesday, March 6
6:00-10:00 p.m.
Scholz Garten
1607 San Jacinto



Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Shared On Facebook

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- B & B
- Bay Area Houston
- Blue Bloggin
- Bluedaze
- Brains and Eggs
- Capitol Annex
- Collin County Democrats
- Collin County Observer
- Community Forum
- Dog Canyon
- Dos Centavos
- Easter Lemming Liberal
- Eye on Williamson County
- Feet to the Fire
- Grading Texas
- Greg's Opinion
- Grits for Breakfast
- Half Empty
- Houtopia
- In the Pink Texas
- Kiss My Big Blue Butt
- Letters from Texas
- McBlogger
- Mean Rachel
- Musings
- North Texas Liberal
- Off the Kuff
- Panhandle Truth Squad
- Para Justicia y Libertad!
- Pink Dome
- San Antonio Mayor
- South Texas Chisme
- StoudDemBlog
- Texas Clover Leaf
- Texas Kaos
- The Caucus Blog
- There..Already
- Three Wise Men
Best of Texas Right
- Blogs of War
- BlogHouston
- Boots and Sabers
- Lone Star Times
- Publius TX
- Rick Perry vs the World
- Safety for Dummies
- Slightly Rough
- Urban Grounds
Other Texas Reads
- Burka Blog
- D Magazine
- DOT Show
- Statesman Elections
- Strong Political Analysis
- Texas Monthly
- Texas Observer
- The Texas Blue
- Quorum Report Daily Buzz
Around Austin
- Austin Bloggers
- Austin Chronicle
- Austin Contrarian
- Austin Metblogs
- Austin on Two Wheels
- Austin Real Estate Blog
- Austin Statesman
- Austin Texas Bike Shit Stuff
- Austin Towers
- Austinist
- Capital MetroBlog
- Daily Texan
- Do512
- Downtown Austin Blog
- East Austinite
- Elise Hu
-
Flash Mob Austin
- Keep Austin Blue
- M1EK
- Travis County Democrats
- University Democrats
TX Progressive Orgs
- ACLU Legislative Blog
- Atticus Circle
- Criminal Justice Coalition
- Equality Texas
- NOW Texas
- PFAW Texas
- Public Citizen
- SEIU Texas
- Tejano Insider
- Texas AFT
- Texas HDCC
- Texas Watch
- TFN
- TSTA
- TSEU
- Texas Young Democrats
- United Ways of Texas
TX Elections/Returns
- TX Returns 1992-present
- TX Media/Candidate List

- Bexar County
- Collin County
- Dallas county
- Denton County
- El Paso County
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Jefferson County
- Tarrant County
- Travis County

- CNN 1998 Returns
- CNN 2000 Returns
- CNN 2002 Returns
- CNN 2004 Returns
- CNN 2006 Returns
- CNN 2008 Returns
Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Powered by: SoapBlox