PDA

View Full Version : Dean the prophet


Jason McCullough
12-28-2008, 11:36 AM
Fun review (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/berman/print) of exactly how right Dean was.


At the 2004 Democratic convention, Dean, who was running Democracy for America, the grassroots organization he founded after his presidential bid, met with state chairs from around the country and heard all about their woes. "They were all talking to me about how hard it was to win governorships and Congressional seats and state legislative races because nobody would put any money in except in the presidential race," Dean recalls in an early December interview in his Washington office. He'd learned during the primary that year how much the party had atrophied organizationally, "lurching from one election to the next," slicing the electorate into narrower and narrower targets (remember Florida and Ohio?). The meeting with the state chairs confirmed his worst fears. "I realized we weren't a national party anymore," he says.


A few months later the state chairs asked Dean and the other contenders for DNC chair to give $200,000 a year to each state party. Dean enthusiastically embraced and enlarged the plan en route to easily winning the DNC race and gave every state the resources to hire at least three or four organizers and access to a high-tech database of voters, which became the twin cornerstones of the fifty-state strategy. Under Dean, battlegrounds like Ohio still took priority, but every state got something. That might not sound like much, but it was practically a revolution within the Democratic Party, which tended to view the DNC as a PR agency and ATM for Congress and/or the White House. "We had a great building and no debt," Dean says, referring to the work of his predecessor, the high-flying Clintonite Terry McAuliffe. "But there was essentially no technological infrastructure and no political infrastructure of any worth." The states, by and large, had been left to fend for themselves.


Indiana is a good example. When Dan Parker became chair of the state party in November 2004, his first order was to slash his staff in half after Democrats lost the governor's mansion. Indiana, like so many states, had been written off by the national party--the last Democratic presidential contender to carry it was Lyndon Johnson. But Dean gave Parker the money to hire three field organizers and a full-time communications director, the first the state had ever had. (When Dean came in, thirty states had no such important position.) In 2006 that staff worked on three competitive Congressional races long before the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) arrived. The party picked up all three seats that year and elected a record number of Democratic mayors in 2007. By the time the Democratic primary rolled around this past May, Hoosier Dems had been revitalized, and Obama--to the surprise of many--invested heavily in the state, visiting forty-nine times. On November 4 Obama won Indiana--a state John Kerry lost by twenty points--by 26,000 votes. "We're a poster child for the fifty-state strategy," Parker says.

wildpokerman
12-28-2008, 02:09 PM
I'm not sure why this is so cool, it's his JOB to be a booster and say that his party is going to sweep elections. I'm sure the head of the Republican Party, Dick Forgottonbyhistory, said they were going to have major gains.

It's like highliting a CEO that says his stock is going to go up. It's the dude's job to put a happy face on things and state that things are going to go well and he has a 50/50 chance of being right.

Anders Hallin
12-28-2008, 02:38 PM
This isn't about Dean being a booster at all, though, this has to do with the actual strategy used by the DNC and how that can have helped the Democratic Party in making gains.

Hugin
12-28-2008, 02:49 PM
I'm not sure why this is so cool, it's his JOB to be a booster and say that his party is going to sweep elections. I'm sure the head of the Republican Party, Dick Forgottonbyhistory, said they were going to have major gains.

It's like highliting a CEO that says his stock is going to go up. It's the dude's job to put a happy face on things and state that things are going to go well and he has a 50/50 chance of being right.

I don't know what article you read, but the one linked talks about how Dean was one of the main drivers behind a strategic reorganization of the party nationwide which had a direct effect on the lay of the political landscape today, including Obama's election.

wildpokerman
12-28-2008, 02:56 PM
I don't know what article you read, but the one linked talks about how Dean was one of the main drivers behind a strategic reorganization of the party nationwide which had a direct effect on the lay of the political landscape today, including Obama's election.

So now we can totally ignore the irresponsibility of the Republican party including and especially the president and give credit to Howard Dean?

I guess history IS written by the victors.

nlanza
12-28-2008, 02:59 PM
So now we can totally ignore the irresponsibility of the Republican party including and especially the president and give credit to Howard Dean?

I guess history IS written by the victors.

Wait. So either the Republican party fucked up OR Dean's strategy was good?

Why the hell can't both things be true?

Hugin
12-28-2008, 03:07 PM
So now we can totally ignore the irresponsibility of the Republican party including and especially the president and give credit to Howard Dean?

I guess history IS written by the victors.

Er..no? One creates a condition of vulnerability for his party, the other helps create the organizational framework through which that vulnerability is exploited. You think low approval ratings alone magically make voter registration lists and targeted state by state expenditure decisions and local candidate positioning and a million other things happen for the other party?

Ryan A
12-28-2008, 03:37 PM
This article strikes me as a bit Dean-favored revisionist. My memory may be faulty, but I seem to remember HRC being the candidate of the DNC structure and her campaign was woefully ineffective and disorganized while Obama's campaign was the one with the amazing ground game. I think more credit is probably due Obama's campaign of upstarts and less is due Dean and the DNC infrastructure.

Sarkus
12-28-2008, 04:02 PM
This article strikes me as a bit Dean-favored revisionist. My memory may be faulty, but I seem to remember HRC being the candidate of the DNC structure and her campaign was woefully ineffective and disorganized while Obama's campaign was the one with the amazing ground game. I think more credit is probably due Obama's campaign of upstarts and less is due Dean and the DNC infrastructure.

I tend to agree. Not that Dean didn't do some good things, but let's not give him all the credit for a) public dissatisfaction with the other party in general, b) an unpopular sitting president from the other party, c) the economic meltdown, and d) the degree to which Obama energized the political process. The Dems didn't win Indiana just because of Dean's better organizational initiative.

Hugin
12-28-2008, 04:12 PM
This article strikes me as a bit Dean-favored revisionist. My memory may be faulty, but I seem to remember HRC being the candidate of the DNC structure and her campaign was woefully ineffective and disorganized while Obama's campaign was the one with the amazing ground game. I think more credit is probably due Obama's campaign of upstarts and less is due Dean and the DNC infrastructure.

I think your memory is faulty, or not quite seeing how national party politics work. Clinton's people opposed Dean getting the DNC chairmanship, and they'd been butting heads behind the scenes since at least the midterm congressional elections. When the DNC enforced the rulings against Florida and Michigan, it hurt Clinton more than any other candidate and convinced many of her supporters he was out to get her all the way upi through to the convention, when Dean had to help settle how the delegates would be seated and head off a floor fight. Both issues were settled in a manner that ddn't particularly favor Clinton.

The DNC certainly supported Clinton as the de facto top Democratic candidate leading up to the first primaries, which was only practical, as a fundraising and organizing operation for the Democratic party there's no avoiding the influence of the Clintons and (generally) it's good to get the nomination settled earlier rather than later. But the DNS doesn't control how individual campaigns organize, in fact the are lots of rules as to how the party and the individual campagns interact, while ostensibly working in parallel in the various states and online. That being said, even Obama's people admit Dean's strategies coming out of 2004 were a kind of seed or roadmap for their own, more extensive efforts.

The Dems didn't win Indiana just because of Dean's better organizational initiative.

ETA: For goodness sakes, no one is claiming Dean is responsible for all of it, no single factor is responsible for all of it. But Dean put into motion strategies that were proved successful and eventually paid off big. Trying to deny that seems weird to me. Dean put resources into a state that the party had completely written off. By the time Obama's team were in a position to campaign there, the party was stronger and had a better field of downticket candidates, more people in office, and more feet on the ground than it had had in decades.

Jason McCullough
12-28-2008, 04:26 PM
Like Hugin said, it's not just Obama.

Look at the counterfactual: if Dean hadn't got DNC chair and Clinton had the nomination this year, the Democrats wouldn't have even tried to contest Indiana, North Carolina, and possibly Virginia for the Presidency. Additionally, a lot of those +10 Republican congressional districts wouldn't have gone Democratic because they wouldn't have been contested - no series candidate, no fundraising and organization investment, etc.

Ok, add back in Obama but leave out Dean: now Obama's organization has to build their ground game from completely nothing in all those places. Makes it's a lot harder. Obama still would have won, but it wouldn't have been a blow out, and you wouldn't see all those strongly Republican districts go the other way.

Ryan A
12-28-2008, 04:32 PM
I think your memory is faulty, or not quite seeing how national party politics work. Clinton's people opposed Dean getting the DNC chairmanship, and they'd been butting heads behind the scenes since at least the midterm congressional elections. When the DNC enforced the rulings against Florida and Michigan, it hurt Clinton more than any other candidate and convinced many of her supporters he was out to get her all the way upi through to the convention, when Dean had to help settle how the delegates would be seated and head off a floor fight. Both issues were settled in a manner that ddn't particularly favor Clinton.

The DNC certainly supported Clinton as the de facto top Democratic candidate leading up to the first primaries, which was only practical, as a fundraising and organizing operation for the Democratic party there's no avoiding the influence of the Clintons and (generally) it's good to get the nomination settled earlier rather than later. But the DNS doesn't control how individual campaigns organize, in fact the are lots of rules as to how the party and the individual campagns interact, while ostensibly working in parallel in the various states and online. That being said, even Obama's people admit Dean's strategies coming out of 2004 were a kind of seed or roadmap for their own, more extensive efforts.


Thanks, Hugin: that's a great amplification of the article that Jason linked.