Life and Death of the Fifty-State Strategy, Update

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:05


Over the last two weeks, I have written about how roughly 200 organizers whose salaries were paid for by the DNC, but who were chosen by, and embedded in, state Democratic parties, were laid off. These 200 organizers formed the bedrock of the fifty-state strategy, which was the cornerstone of Howard Dean's tenure as DNC chair. The fifty state strategy had the following basic differences from earlier DNC regimes:
  • Distribute national party funds evenly to states based on their size, rather than based on their value as swing states in presidential or congressional campaigns. This is designed to build up the party nationally and over the long-term, rather than on a temporary basis for each election.

  • Through direct grants to state parties, shift the location of party resources toward the states rather than Washington, D.C. This is designed to give a more local focus to the Democratic Party, and allow local parties to become more effective.

  • Through the 200 organizers chosen by and embedded in state parties, provide an increased emphasis on field organizing at the expense of paid media. This takes power away from Democratic media consultants, and also invests in the development Democratic political professional talent.
That's the basic idea, at least as I have always understood and supported it. Over an entire four-year cycle, it is a superior use of resources than hoarding cash for paid media in swing states during the final few months of the presidential elections. It is also smart politically, since state parties hold a large number of votes in the DNC.

Naturally, it was extremely disturbing to hear that the 200 organizers in the state party program were being laid off. While I did not participate in the numerous conference calls Howard Dean held today, I did receive a written response from the DNC in regards to the only question I would have asked him:

Chris: I couldn't make the call, sorry about missing it. However, is there a new statement from the DNC on the future of the 50 state strategy, and word on what will happen to the organizers in the SPP [state party program]?

DNC: There's no indication officially about the 50 state strategy, though Obama's people seem very committed to it and want to keep it going and all the signs are encouraging.

The SPP staffers contracts run out at the end of the month and we're being helpful to people who are SPP staffers who are communicating with us or looking to come to Washington, though they all have picked up a lot of skill sets and it's the best time to look for work in Democratic politics in my lifetime. After the new chairs come in, early next month some may likely pick up the staffers as part of their team or restart the SPP part of the program.


That is all I wanted to know. It is true that this is a time when a lot of people in Democratic politics will be looking and able to switch jobs. It also does seem possible that the full fifty-state strategy, or some variation thereof, will be restarted early next year when the new chair or chairs come in. However, I would disagree that all sign are encouraging. While rhetoric favoring the fifty-state strategy is both easy and politically necessary to make these days, ending the contracts of the staffers in the SPP program points instead to an almost certain termination, or at least re-organization, of that aspect of the fifty-state strategy.

I will keep an open mind, since the strategy will probably live on in at least some truncated form. The first few weeks and months of the new DNC administration will be very interesting, and important, to watch. Losing the fifty-state strategy would be a major step backward for Democrats.

Chris Bowers :: Life and Death of the Fifty-State Strategy, Update

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Do you think you and several people at this blog suffer from (4.00 / 2)
"I can't wait because I do not trust them" disease?

I ask this as someone who stayed away from blogs for a month and half because I found myself going a bit loony from my lack of patience. I am not sure whether the DNC people who wrote you are being sincere or not, but there is no way, right now, to tell at this juncture. So why not wait? This has occured to me on several of the posts here lately. Why are you so certain that everything is a bad omen? Stoller gets a bad vibe from a minor signal on the FCC, and he ran with it, but then realized later that the omen was not as bad as he thought. Others thought Obama would support torture based on another omen only to hear Obama say on 60 minutes he will end torture. Is it possible that much of this as less to do with what is happening, and more to do with a general lack of trust  in the Democrats to do what they say they are going to do?


It's not a bug, it's a feature (4.00 / 5)
What possible value could there be in waiting quietly and only even talking about things once they have already happened?

To quote Greenwald: "Politicians respond to constituencies and pressure.  Constituencies which announce their intention to maintain respectful silence all but ensure that their political principles will be ignored."  Why are you preaching a strategy of giving away all the power?

To take one example - Bush said there was no torture. He lied.  Obama says he will end torture. I hope he's right, but do you honestly expect everyone to forget about this issue until they are proven wrong?

This is how politics works.  The village attacked the possibility of Feingold being the head of the Foreign Relations committee, and that reduced the likelihood that he will get it.  They aren't going to wait until it happens or the decision is imminent. So why counsel it to the rest of us?

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel


[ Parent ]
Well there is a vast (4.00 / 1)
space between silence and crying wolf at every turn that people here may want to consider. It's time for a different role than the one that was necessary for the last 8 years by blogs. I know how politics works. I also know how audiences work. They will only suspend disbelief so many times when you make dire predictions that are not based on what eventually happens before they think o you like Zogby.

[ Parent ]
Who's crying wolf? (4.00 / 2)
The 50 state program has been canceled - those people are out of a job. At best, it will be revived, but that's not the same as keeping it.  What kind of suspension of disbelief is involved in thinking its too early to know if something that has already happened had indeed happened?  

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

[ Parent ]
you will notice that I mentioned other topics covered here (0.00 / 0)
If it were just this one, I would be inclined to agree there is cause for concern.

[ Parent ]
I did notice. (4.00 / 2)
Why post on this one, since your concern obviously doesn't apply? Here's how this post ends:

I will keep an open mind, since the strategy will probably live on in at least some truncated form. The first few weeks and months of the new DNC administration will be very interesting, and important, to watch. Losing the fifty-state strategy would be a major step backward for Democrats.

Vigilance does not equal crying wolf.  Talking about the importance of keeping a good program, and letting people know they are being watched, is a good thing.  Why do you think waiting is good in and of itself?

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel


[ Parent ]
Where would you suggest I post my concern- on the last one or the one after (0.00 / 0)
this one since they all seem very similar in this regard? Look, don't worry. I was able to avoid this site and others for a while, and having come back I am rememberin why. I just thinkt here are more constructive ways to now accomplish goals.  

[ Parent ]
problem with waiting (4.00 / 2)
Is you find out that the moment of accountability (in the case of Joe Lieberman) happened today in the (online) newspaper headlines.

If you want to effect political change you have to be two steps ahead, ever vigilant, and constantly laying the ground work well in advance.

What do you think those full-time paid lobbyists are busy doing for their pet causes? Meanwhile, we're trying to staff the battle stations for attacks from every direction.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue


[ Parent ]
I still do not understand the battle over Lieberman (4.00 / 1)
yes, he was a snake. That doesn't particularly make him unique in DC

[ Parent ]
DNC Democracy Bonds (4.00 / 1)
With word of DNC re-evaluating the SPP, I'm re-assessing my on-going investment in Democracy Bonds. Today's Dem. Senate capitulation to Lieberman's latest hissy fit doesn't help my giving mood any, either. (Yes, I know the DNC is not the DSCC, but still.)

What do people think, cancel the bonds today in protest of recent actions, then start up again if reasonable SPP strategy re-enacted? Or, keep funding my Democracy Bonds and then cancel if the new strategy really sucks?

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue


If the 50 state strategy is suspended (4.00 / 2)
When do I get my Democracy Bond money back? That's what I signed up for four years ago.

[ Parent ]
Here's what I suggest. (4.00 / 2)
Don't give money to the DNC.  Don't give to the DSCC.  Don't give to the DCCC.  A large proportion of the money you give goes to Blue Dogs.  I only give money to progressive candidates.  Period.  I target the campaigns of candidates I believe to be progressives, and I send money directly to them via Act Blue.  If you must automate the process, there is Feingold's Progressive Patriots organization.  You can designate a monthly amount to give them.  I haven't monitored them in excruciating detail, but I also can't think of a candidate they gave money to whom I wouldn't have wanted to support.

[ Parent ]
Ok, so we do it from the bottom UP! (4.00 / 1)
Hmmm let's see, we want a 50 state strategy, but they may not give us one? Waaahh. Who says we need their approval?? The 50 state strategy is merely organizing and communicating, being done in every state. Seems like you could use an internet for that. Including fundraising.

Vox Ego

that is a decent (0.00 / 0)
idea that should be looked into and fleshed out.

I kind of doubt the netroots ability to fund 200 paid organizers, but we should start thinking along these lines even if the 50 State Strategy is kept relatively intact.  Maybe we could fund organizers in states that are deemed less desirable by the DNC...

vodamusic.com


[ Parent ]
Fundraising (4.00 / 1)
YOu might think that if you could get enough money to fund effective political activity at the state level without the help of the national parties that there would be more state level third parties out there.  Left to their own devices the state parties will not have enough money, for reasons similar to why rural schools can't fund themselves adequately over the long term.

[ Parent ]
Terrible HR Management (4.00 / 1)
First, let me place some blame on the DNC for not setting a much more appropriate end date on the organizers' contracts, such as May 31, 2009.

Second, let me place blame on the incoming Obama regime for not immediately cancelling (or at least postponing) the contract cancellation. A successful organizing strategy requires continuity. Many if not most of these people know their states and localities and have acquired tremendous experience. We should be doing everything possible to keep the good ones in place and even add to their number. By informing them of termination we're already going to lose many of them even if there's corrective action right now. We are especially going to lose the best.

This is just stupid HR management. And Obama, with his community organizer experience, should understand this better than anyone.







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search