After reading Christina Bellatoni's piece in TPM "Operation Fix The Campaign: How National Parties Help Unlikely Winners," I was confused. Do national parties need to "fix" campaigns that won? I'm no expert, but shouldn't they learn from campaigns that won? It seems to me, as a candidate, if you can beat someone who outspent you by millions with the hard work and dedication of volunteers, close friends, and family who were so inspired by you and your message that they gave up weeks and months of their time, maybe you've got a good thing going there. To me, this is like trying to sell David a RPG after he killed Goliath with his sling shot. Newsflash: The sling shot worked and you were rooting for Goliath.
Bellatoni points out that, "In such a critical election cycle where the Republicans are attempting to win back control of Congress, there's no way either party would leave a campaign up to chance." Yes, that is true. So, then why would national party committees continue to completely ignore all of the people on the ground who could help win elections. I am talking about the actual Democrats who proudly proclaim to their party affiliation and then proceed to knock on doors, make calls, and show up to vote over and over again. When those folks get their say at the polls in a Primary, then they are your best allies in the general - provided the same candidate is still running in the general election.
It looks like the DSCC has some sense of the need for the candidates to remain consistent with what got them there:
Asked specifically about Sestak, Menendez (D-NJ), said the party isn't installing people with a "cookie cutter" approach, and wants candidates to maintain their independence.
However, there is no mention of the voters, supporters, or the people who put them there. In fact, the whole article points to how the parties are encouraging campaigns to jettison people who worked for free. Really? Aren't those your most dedicated folks?
The media often characterize grassroots groups like DFA, MoveOn, or PCCC as outsiders coming in to a state to stir people up. But, as Democrats in the states know, we actually give support to Democrats on the ground who understand their states and districts and want to elect candidates who stand for something. We are simply providing some resources to the activists who care the most and who make things happen. It's amazing what they can do when they are empowered to make their own decisions. The national party could just as easily do the same.
I don't disagree that campaigns "need structure," but what campaigns don't need is DC operatives putting out the fire in the belly that got them there in the first place. Let's hope that is not the DSCC plan. Listen to the Democratic voters in the states and build your campaigns around them-they are the ones who will turn out in a midterm if you give them a reason.
|
STATE BLOGS
