Death Of The Fifty-State Strategy, Follow-up

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 23:45


More details have emerged on the apparent death of the fifty-state strategy. First, I received this email from the DNC:

Everyone at the DNC remains very dedicated to the SPP and the SPP staffers who made up the success of the 50 state strategy over the past four years. When the program was first adopted in early 2005, an MOU was signed with the state parties that concludes at the end of this month. This date made sense since it corresponded to the end of the election cycle and was in conjunction with upcoming elections for some of the state party chairs. It was always important that as state parties began the new election cycle they had an opportunity to review what worked, and build upon the earlier infrastructure and hard efforts of those that preceded them. I am sure as the new team arrives at the dnc they will have an appreciation for this program and would like to see it continued.

However, I also obtained part of the email that was sent to the 200 organizers who were fired. Here is the relevant graph:

"Because of your efforts and hard work, last night we made history on November 4.  Barack Obama is the President Elect and the world, as we know it, is forever changed.  This is a bitter-sweet moment because this great victory comes at the end of our SPP program, which was funded only through November 30.  Therefore, this memo explains your final paycheck and the transition from the program."

In a follow-up email, I asked the source the following:

Do you think "transition" means a new job, or is it corporate speak for "you're fired?"

The source replied "you're fired." More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Death Of The Fifty-State Strategy, Follow-up
People inside the DNC are telling me that the program is not dead. This doesn't surprise me, because it is a popular program and I imagine that many of the remaining staffers at the DNC are committed to the program. At the same time, all of the organizers--who were chosen by local state parties--have been fired. That effectively kills the program, no matter the messaging and commitment of the remaining staffers.

The best bet is that the remaining staff at the DNC will try to push for a continuation of the program once the new administration is in place. In the meantime, many of the large donors who always wanted Dean out and the program terminated seem to have, at least, temporarily received their wish. Although I have no evidence to support this at the current time, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is connected to Rahm Emanuel becoming Chief of Staff.

I will continue to report on the story as it develops.

Update: I've seen in the comments that many people think Obama is replacing "Deaniacs" with his own people. That is a failure to understand how the fifty-state strategy works. The DNC organizers were all chosen by the local state parties, not by Dean. Now, the idea that you fire a bunch of locally chosen people, and then send "your own" people back to those local areas, is absurd. The new people will be reviled, and unable to function with the local parties. No one is being replaced. The program is being terminated. 200 community organizers just got fired by Obama's campaign. How ironic.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
So fraking stupid (4.00 / 15)
I tend to favor giving Obama some latitude, but this is a really bad decision that needs pushback.  The strategy works and is why we were able to identify opportunities in places like Idaho and Mississippi (House seats) and Georgia (Senate---hey, still possible).

Also, I'd note that as good a record as Obama has in his decisionmaking, he eventually reversed himself on the progressive 527s.  So we should try to convince him to keep this going as well.  

Saxby Chambliss  


"I tend to favor giving Obama some latitude" (0.00 / 0)
seems that everyone favors giving Obama latitude till he makes a decision that they disagree with. Many activists have their own "very important - do or die" issues. I don't look forward to the battering that Obama is going to take  from both left and right bloggers.  

[ Parent ]
Now hang on (0.00 / 0)
I too get tired of the beating that Obama is already taking around here but this is a legitimate gripe, if true. I'm not sure that anyone has made this out to be a do or die issue but it does seem like A) it very well may be happening and B) a short-sighted move.

[ Parent ]
What you don't seem to realize is that everyone (0.00 / 0)
has a legitimate gripe. I don't agree with some of Obama's positions but I'm first of all a moderate pragmatist. There is no way that Obama is going to please everyone. Right now  the 50 state strategy is being discussed civilly for which I'm grateful.  

I'm just projecting forward  I didn't agree with Obama's FISA stand but was turned off by the "rage" in the left blogesphere.  No way do I want to return to that.  I almost left blogging because of it.  


[ Parent ]
Projecting forward is fine (4.00 / 1)
We're actually pretty close on this whole deal. I approve of this current discussion because, as you say, it is 'being discussed civilly.' (And there is at the very least smoke here, if not fire, yet.) That's what I was defending.

I'll be right there with you in frustration during the seemingly inevitable event in which progressives rebel against Obama for pursuing an allegedly not-progressive-enough agenda.  


[ Parent ]
Oh, Because Blindly Following Bush Worked Out So Well For The Wingnuts? (4.00 / 3)
Good to know!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
"Which was funded only through November 30" (0.00 / 0)
Those are the key words. If the entire structure of paid staffers were to be maintained intact, how would they be paid after November 30?

It's not as simple as saying "let's keep everybody on and keep organizing." OK, now who's going to pay for it?

It may be that they should have kept everybody and tried to organize a massive online donation effort to pay for it. But, in an off-year with no election looming, and with the economic crisis, it was always inevitable that the efforts would have to be ramped down.

Personally, I think the worst aspect of this is the assumption that Obama can afford to let up his efforts state-by-state to create a grass-roots lobbying effort.

He will desperately need this if he wants to move his agenda through Congress against the entrenched opposition of the business lobby as well as the corporate Republican party.

NOT having a 50 state paid grass-roots lobbying effort is potentially going to cost him his entire agenda.  


[ Parent ]
But how much of their job was lobbying on substantive issues (0.00 / 0)
and how much was focused on candidates and elections? I've always assumed it was mostly focused on the latter.

[ Parent ]
He has his won campaign organization (0.00 / 0)
And it's his...it's his power base...devoted to him

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Not just a decision that one disagrees with (0.00 / 0)
I would also note that this is not a political issue position, but a matter of Democratic strategy.  Unlike, for example, FISA, I can't imagine anyone possibly believing that "Voter X would have voted for Democrats, but then voted Republican b/c the Democrats pursued a 50-state strategy."  (Note: I don't really buy this about FISA either, but I would agree that you could at least argue it).  


Saxby Chambliss  

[ Parent ]
I don't understand why anyone would be opposed... (4.00 / 10)
...to a winning strategy...

What do the big donors and Rahm have against winning big, now and in the long term?  Isn't that the whole point of being in politics?  Winning?

What the hell are their objections?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


There was a wonderful cover story (4.00 / 10)
in The Nation  from July '07 called Purple America. It took you on the ground and showed the 50 State Strategy in action and the positive impact it was having on peoples' lives.

It also address the resistance to "50 State". What I took from it is that the Democratic DC Beltway insiders are only interested in their own personal power, and to hell the the Party as a whole. They feel threatened by the 50 State Strategy. They think it diffuses their power out across the country instead of leaving it concentrated with them in DC.  It's very sad for them - and very tragic for the rest of us.


[ Parent ]
Link fix? (4.00 / 3)
OK, if the link above didn't work, try this one:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...

If that doesn't work, Google "The Nation Purple America"


[ Parent ]
Depends on the big donors in question (4.00 / 3)
If we're talking about the ones that play both sides of the fence but prefer right-wing ideology, then nixing 50-state gets them back to their beloved conservative government that much quicker.

[ Parent ]
Divided government justifies the center right (4.00 / 1)
philosophy of the DLC.  

[ Parent ]
Let's not reach conclusion (4.00 / 7)
The perception that I get is that the current staff is being cleared so that the new head can choose their own people.  In most politically appointed positions, all staff is effectively fired when a new head is brought to give them latitude.  I really think that what we are seeing is a political cleaning house.  Let's not forgot that OBAMA was an F***ing COMMUNITY ORGANIZER.  I really believe that this strategy would be killed over his dead body.

This Is Faith-Based Logic (4.00 / 4)
Cause it denies all the evidence.

As Chris explained, this is state party-appointed staff.  It's not "Dean's" staff, and therefore doesn't need to be replaced.

And even if it were, when a team hires a new coach, it doesn't fire all the players.  He may make some strategic trades.  He may even make a whole bunch of them.  But the default position is continuity.  Too much of Democratic Party politics simply ignores best practices from other organizational settings.  This is just one more example of that.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Speaking of faith-based logic (4.00 / 1)
I keep hearing about how Rahm Emanuel got the 50 states strategy killed now that he has been selected CoS. I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me since when the WH CoS runs the DNC. That might be a case of faith-based logic too - just one based in bad faith. Or maybe just magical thinking.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]
People deserve some faith (4.00 / 2)
It is not only partially faith-based.  Yes I do believe in having faith in people.  It is asking that people wait until drawing conclusions.  IMHO way too many people are jumping down Obama's and the Pary's throat way too fast.  Right now, we really have no evidence of what the Party's intentions are.

[ Parent ]
"no evidence of what the Party's intentions are." (4.00 / 2)
Isn't that a problem? The netroots is solidly and fervently behind the 50-state strategy. If Obama plans to continue it, someone on his staff can save everyone a whole lot of turmoil if they make their intentions and plans clear. The only reason I can imagine for being so non-forthcoming about their plans is that they know we will not like it, so they are being as vague and secretive as they can until it's a done deal. It doesn't sound good to me. If we knew what was up, we could react to it. But we're in the dark. Why is that? Who does it benefit?

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I believe that one of the reasons that Emanuel was picked for CoS (4.00 / 2)
was to draw fire that would otherwise be directed towards Obama, as "bad cop" to Obama's "good cop" (made all the easier given how disliked Emanuel already is by many politically-involved people both inside the beltway and beyond), as Obama tries to persue policies that aren't popular with this or that faction (which will always be the case).

Which, I think, makes sense here, as I imagine that what's going on is that Obama, now head of the party, wants Dean's people replaced by his people, and is letting Emanuel do the dirty work, while he gets to appear to be above it all. Smart politics, and I was expecting nothing different from him. My concern is with the policies, not the politics (so long as the politics supports the policies, of course, and are principled, however aggressive).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Replacing Dean's people (4.00 / 3)
I don't disagree at all about the Rahm Emanuel pick, but I don't know that replacing Dean's people makes sense. I really don't see the field staff as Dean's people. The folks at DNC HQ, now they are most likely Dean's people, but the field staff are pretty much kids (well they sure seem like kids to an old fart like me!) and if anything they are probably as loyal to the folks they've been working with for the past almost 4 years as to anyone.

As I've seen posted elsewhere, you lose a whole lot of institutional memory - especially if you don't have a very concerted effort to retain that knowledge in some fashion - that is pretty valuable if you let these folks go. It'd be supremely stupid to toss all that out the window, unless you don't expect the program to be continued I guess....

Best bet IMO would be to implore Gov. Dean to raise the $ to extend the program at least through the end of Jan. '09 to give the incoming crew the opportunity to keep whatever portion of the field staff they want to. If you let them go now, they'll effectively be gone forever.


[ Parent ]
I'm guessing that Obama wants to replace (0.00 / 0)
these people with his people, which is why this is happening. Power tends to consolidate around itself, and Obama will be no exception. I imagine that he'll now try to make Plouffe head of the DNC, who would then implement this consolidation. He doesn't want there to be two parallel Democratic infrastructures, one reporting to him, the other to powers within the party other than himself. Politically, it makes sense, even if it is kind of creepy.

And I'm not quite as sanguine about his picking Emanuel. Sure, he'll likely run a tight ship and lay down the law to congress, but at what political price, in terms of his abrasiveness? And to what extent will his policy preferences gel with Obama's? I'm all for the "Team of Rivals" meme being bandied about these days--constructive tension is good. But who will be the "rivals" to the LEFT of Obama, and not just his right?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Obama likes to consolidate power (4.00 / 1)
For a guy who believes in empowering others, Obama also likes to consolidate power in ways where he can make the best use of it.

I also see this move as a way of cleaning house, being able to re-allocate resources, and having the positions clearly identified with Obama, not Dean.

Hopefully, the SPP will be quickly re-constituted in some form and the states will still do the hiring. As long as it all happens within the next 3-4 months, there will be plenty of experienced community organizers available who were active in these most recent campaigns.

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


[ Parent ]
After 8 years of stasis and regression (4.00 / 1)
it's a bit dizzying to see all these changes take place so quickly. Of course, it was inevitable that with not only a new president, but one of the opposite party, who is himself still a political outsider in DC and different from traditional new presidents in many other ways, we would be in for some major and rapid changes once the election was finally over.

Still, now that it's actually happening, it's weird and breathtaking to see unfold. Bush has taken the country backwards in radical fashion, and only radical reforms and actions can possible get us back on track. So on some level, Obama's big changes make sense. It's just that, having gotten used to Bush stasis, it's unsettling to finally see progress.

We're kind of learning to run again, without having even walked for so long.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Plouffe says he won't go to the DNC (0.00 / 0)
From Marc Ambinder:

It's not clear what David Plouffe will be doing post-election: Ambassador to France? Senator from Delaware? Consultant-in-demand? Speechmaker? Full-time father? White House something or other? Retiree?

But here's one job he won't be taking: chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Plouffe confirmed this in an e-mail today.

(He did not respond to a follow-up e-mail about other jobs he might consider. One presumes that Plouffe has discussed his future with President-elect Obama, so his disavowal of interest in the DNC job is legit.)



[ Parent ]
I wish Dean would pick a preferred successor (0.00 / 0)
 so the dfa could start a letter writing campaign in support of this person. I would feel alot better if he did.

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately it looks like (0.00 / 0)
letters to the higher ups won't get the job done. Our only recourse may be the purse strings. Sure, they'll still have their big ticket donors, but losing so many of us little folks will definitely have an impact. And hey, with the proper netroots/grassroots campaign, we can probably peel off some of the big ticket donors too. They can't all be insane.

But besides withholding money, it's mainly going to be about what kind of netroots/grassroots campaign we can put together in order to shame or force the Party Elders into doing the right thing. And it really sucks, by the way, that we have to fight this ridiculous battle. As if we don't have more than enough on our plates with the Rethuglicans. Sheeeet.  


[ Parent ]
Not how it works (4.00 / 2)
From the January 07 GQ:

The "shit" Carville was referring to was the long-running feud between Rahm and Dean, which boiled down to Rahm's wanting Dean to give him more money-a lot more-and Dean's refusing to do it. Normally, the chairman of the DNC is installed by party leaders, but after the Democrats' 2004 debacle, there were no party leaders, and Dean won the chairmanship by winning over the anonymous state-party chairs and much neglected members of the DNC, the folks who actually vote on the matter. The state parties became his base of support, and Dean promised them two things: more money and more power.

It drove Rahm and Carville nuts. "The thing that stuns me," Carville says, "is that this is supposed to be a rigged deal-chairman of the party! The congressional leadership, the fund-raisers, people like that are supposed to decide. You [the state-party chairs and DNC members] are supposed to get a call and are told who to vote for! You're not supposed to really vote on this shit!"

http://men.style.com/gq/featur...


[ Parent ]
What follow up questions did you ask? .. (0.00 / 0)
and why would "Big donors" hate something that is working? .. or they so stupid that they'd prefer being in the minority? .. I think we need to know more before we start jumping off bridges and stuff .. there are still too many unanswered questions

Perhaps because they are representatives of the kleptocracy (4.00 / 1)
and they do not want the Democratic party to move towards the left, indeed the want to push it more towards what they call "the centre" which is really "the right".

Gore Vidal summed it up, in this quote

"[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat."

The truth is that citizens of the USA who are not at least centi-millionaires have no political party capable of getting representatives elected that looks after their interests.  The  Democratic party may be the lesser of two evils, but it is still mostly evil.  

For those influential democrats who are in fact lite republicans without the genuflecting to the mad bigots of the Christian Taliban, two much mandate is a bad thing as it may make some voters expect the party in government to remedy the extreme tilt towards the interests of the extremely rich of the terms of trade between the non-rich and the plutocratic elite.  If the cost of keeping the Democratic party sufficiently far to the right is that working people and blacks don't vote for it and the Republicans win government, well that is what they prefer.


[ Parent ]
LIsten, Rahm Emanuel (4.00 / 1)
actually travelled back in time to promote an MOU in 2005 that concludes at the end of this month ... I think our first question is, how?

We need to focus on the big upcoming disappointments: will the Obama campaign prosecute Bush-era law-breaking to the full extent of the law? Will they push for unions are strongly as they (occasionally) promised? Will they, in fact, end the wars as soon as responsibly possible? Will they repair the Constitution--FISA, the Military Commissions Act, etc.--and our reputation around the world? Who'll they appoint to the Supreme Court?

I'm not privy to any inside information, but this looks to me like a program that had a potential end-date as of three years ago. The programs hugely successful, and the people in it are worried they're out of jobs. So they're raising a pre-emptive stink, getting their allies up in arms. Which is smart. But not my first priority.

I'd rather spend this time trying to build an oppositional framework with which to more effectively batter the Obama administration later, instead of chasing the outrage du jour.


[ Parent ]
the winning strategy (0.00 / 0)
was great depression II. maybe the 50 state strategy made a difference and maybe not? any way to show the 50 state strategy got Obama much of any lead over 50%, or dramatically changed the profile of congress? aren't we just back to where we were during Clinton's first term in terms of congressional dominance? is anything really that changed?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Heh (4.00 / 1)
yea that is why he was ahead anywhere from 5 to 8 points all throughout the the whole election cycle except for 10 days following the republican convention bonus? (which narrowed from M+5 to M+1 two days before Lehman failed). And he got the biggest landslide dems got in 44 years just by default right? Get real. McCain had a narrow convention bonus lead for 10 days while being behind for 100 days and the loons are declaring him loser by circumstances only.Grow up.

[ Parent ]
Obama's whole campaign was based on the 50 state strategy. (4.00 / 3)
As far as I'm concerned, you can call it the Dean-Obama strategy. He may want to modify it, even do it a whole different way, but to think he's going to abandon the basic premise is absurd.

If they kill the 50 state strategy (4.00 / 5)
my monthly "DNC Bond" contribution goes bye-bye.

Howard Dean in 2016

Me too (4.00 / 2)
I was thinking the same thing.

[ Parent ]
I tend to agree, (4.00 / 1)
I will probably wait for new chair and hints of future direction. I have always been proud about my Democracy Bond. This news gives me pause.

Gone but not forgotten:
http://www.democrats.org/a/par...


[ Parent ]
If I had to bet, I'd say that Obama is replacing Deaniacs with his crew (4.00 / 3)
Really, that's what I would do if I were Obama.  He has a bunch of staffers that aren't going to go to the White House, so he's probably going to move these guys over to the DNC.  The DNCers there now are Dean loyalists, so Obama wants to staff it with his own people.  Oh, and if the fired DNCers are any good, Obama will probably hire them someplace else.

Remember, Emmanuel is Obama's Chief of Staff, not his consultant - that's still Axelrod's domain.  And from what I can tell, Axelrod digged the 50 state strategy.


This is stupid (4.00 / 1)
I have no problem with Obama wanting to put his own people in. Heck with his various state organizations and his legions of supporters I welcome it.
But for just this point in time until his people are slotted into place there needs to be a transition overlap. Just even as a gesture to the NetRoots and as an expression of appreciation for Dr. Dean a three month extension just makes sense. Let alone allowing for a review and reshaping.

Thanks for clearing up (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for clearing up the "cleaning house" argument.

This seems like a really, really, really silly move, unless the perception from Team Obama was that many (more than 25%, say) of these 200 organizers were highly ineffective, and letting the program expire is politic way to refresh the rolls without it looking like a purge.

But that's back to "cleaning house," I guess.

We'll just have to see what happens with the new yet-to-be-named DNC chair. It could well be Plouffe, who would put in place local people who were with BO campaign rather than the DNC, which would represent a power grab vs state parties. Remember the apparent turf war in Iowa?

This would seem consistent with the Obama strategy of bypassing gatekeepers and existing organizations/networks, appealing directly to target audiences and consolidating power within their own organization. They've been pretty effective at it so far...

Lastly, I don't really see how this has much to do w/Rham. I mean, what does a white house CoS really have to do/say about DNC organizing strategy? Seems to me they work pretty far from one another.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


Purely financial issue? (4.00 / 1)
I got an e-mail yesterday from the Obama folks asking for a donation to help retire the DNC's debt.  And I remember that the DNC had no money for most of this election cycle.  And that right at the end, they secured a $20 million loan to help down-ballot candidates.

I'd guess that those 200 field staff cost the DNC something in the neighborhood of $20 million per year.  Some of that is salary/benefits (including "hidden" benefits like workers' comp, unemployment insurance, employer's FICA).  Some of it is the cost of keeping people working (workspace, equipment and supplies, travel expenses, etc.)

Is it possible that the DNC simply does not have the money to keep the staff on, at least immediately?  Remember that the program was only authorized (and presumably funded) through this month.

I know, as an small business employer who has faced really tight situations financially from time to time, that lack of money forces short-term decisions that don't look smart in the long-term picture.  But sometimes, there is truly no other choice.

I also know that when that financial reality forces you to make decisions -- especially personnel decisions -- that you'd prefer not to make and hope will be reversed soon, your "public" behavior can seem a little schizophrenic...  While you make public statements that truly are consistent with your hopes for how things will work out (like the DNC's insistence that they still believe in and are not abandoning the 50-state strategy), you have to convey information to employees that doesn't allow them to believe that they were misled about the reality, the finality, and the commitments that they're receiving from you.

I could certainly be all wrong about this being the real underlying reason.  But isn't it possible that this is what's happening?

Side note (sort of)...  I dislike and distrust him for all of the same reasons that others here do.  But I do think it's an overreaction to think that Rahm Emmanuel, in the hectic first days of a new job with high visibility and a million high-pressure priorities, made it his first priority to dismantle a hugely successful DNC operation.


more reporting needed (4.00 / 2)
Remember that when this MOU was crafted in 2006 many of the state parties were arms of the Clinton campaign. Chris is right these very same Clinton-affiliated state parties hired the staff that are now being fired. Connected?

And as recently as last Tuesday Obama had paid organizers, staffed offices, and thousands of volunteers in most, if not all, of the 50 states. hmmm?

It seems to me to be very possible that they are letting this effort--under the authority of the DNC MOU--quietly die a natural death and replace it with their own people, their own infrastructure and their own initiative. The Clintons basically controlled much of the dem party infrastructure until Obama won the Dem nomination in May/June. That is why the 50 state strategy was controversial in the first place--the Clinton people hated the idea. In addition it was not so long ago that Carville was trying to replace Dean with Harold Ford.

There is a lot of unnecessary jumping to conclusions around here.

MUCH MORE reporting needed on this issue. imho


Let the primary go (0.00 / 0)
This borders on paranoia. The idea that people are getting fired simply because they are pro-Clinton, even though the primary ended over five months ago and Obama is now President-elect, is pretty crazy.

All of these people worked to help elect Obama. There is no evidence they are somehow undermining him. That is a baseless claim.


[ Parent ]
not what i meant (0.00 / 0)
The dem party infrastructure (nat'l and state by state) has been controlled by elected and non-elected professionals with a long time allegiance to the assumed party head--Clinton. Since 1992 Bill Clinton and his people have run the dem party. (Dean was anomaly) What we are witnessing is a widespread transfer of power, not a dismantling of policy or strategy or even tactics.

[ Parent ]
you may be right (0.00 / 0)
This could be the substitution of one 50 state organization with another. I think that the key is to watch what happens in the state and local Party elections.  

I know that there are a bunch of local 'Old Guard' Clinton loyalists who had power earlier than 2006 who want to step back into leadership positions locally, the Dean people are either resigning from exhaustion or are being systematically driven out by the Old Guard.  The Old Guard seems supported by current and long term congressional office holders to whom the Old Guard is loyal.

Conclusions:
A) Obama allows the DNC to morph into a figurehead organization, much like Clinton did, where money is hoarded for the Marquee campaign.  

B) Obama maintains a shadow organization nationwide, separate from the Local and State apparatus.  Funding and maintenance for the DNC is derived from the legislators it serves.

C) Obama encourages his local volunteers to run for local and state offices of the Party.  Where Obama loyalists win, they are DNC supported.  Where not they atrophy and the existing shadow Obama organization maintains the real national power.

Does this maneuvering morph into another 50 state strategy, I've no clue.  But I do know that unless we have a 50 State Strategy, we'll loose seats next cycle.

 


[ Parent ]
50 states for me but not for thee (0.00 / 0)
Obama isn't opposed to the 50-state strategy.  He's opposed to the 50-state strategy for the Democratic Party.

Leaving aside the mechanics of implementing the strategy, it emerged from a core belief that the Democrats should be competing in all states and appealing to all Americans.

This philosophy of going into the enemy's territory and competing for votes is something that Obama very much believes in...for himself.  Building up the Democratic Party to compete in areas where they have been counted out?  Not quite as much of a priority.

In case it sounds like I am bashing Obama specifically, let me say that the desire to advance one's individual interests at the expense of the party appears to be rooted in both the personalities of Presidents and the the dynamics of the office.  As we all know, it takes a massive ego to run for President.  Those massive egos tend to value down-ticket successes less than the rest of us do.  

Also, one's partisan affiliation has no official role in the Executive Branch.  There aren't political caucuses.  You serve if the President like you.  Period.

All this is to say that it probably is a bad idea to let the President (when a Democrat) run the DNC.  At least as long as we have the Electoral College and money spent in non-competitive states is largely wasted for the President.  


It's unfortunately, but ideally the states should take over this program (0.00 / 0)
I am sure that it is difficult for some states to fund these folks, but that is what they should do.  Maybe the DNC could make grants to the states, and maybe they do, but they should be come self-sufficient.

I know that in MD (which is one of the most Democratic states in the country) the state party is doing more grass-roots fundraising and sponsoring more activities.  Not that we need a lot of help, but we did just take over another congressional district and we need to continue to work on getting that last district.

In addition, MD is like the country in many ways.  The urban areas are strongly Democratic and the rural areas are fairly Republican.  The Democratic party needs to strengthen itself in the rural areas.

We should all get involved in the state central committees.  If this is a truly grass-roots effort, we need to think nationally and act locally.


Just got an email from Obama For America (0.00 / 0)
The DNC began building a 50-state organization in 2005.

The infrastructure they put in place over the last four years opened up a new batch of battleground states where a Democratic nominee hadn't been competitive for a generation.

In the final few months, the DNC went above and beyond to expand our ground efforts and ensure victory.

We couldn't have won this election without their support.

As we start laying the groundwork for real change, we need to help the DNC recover the resources it took to win. Please make a donation today and get your 2008 Victory T-shirt:

They're pitching the success of the 50-State Strategy to raise money as they dismantle it!


Fifty State Strategy (0.00 / 0)
The map of county-by-county voting trends recently published in the New York Times is evidence of the success of Howard Dean's "Fifty State Strategy" and a comparison of that map with a final electoral vote map is ample proof that the Fifty State Strategy is a work in progress.  If anything, the Fifty State Strategy should be continued with increased effort, not terminated, until the emerging national Democratic Party coalition becomes an effective sustainable majority rivaling the New Deal coalition.

It is discouraging to see what appears to be the old rivalry return between the Party base and the adherents of the now discredited policies of the Democratic Leadership Council especially since the Fifty State Strategy and the strategy of the Obama campaign itself demonstrate the political value of a bottom-up strategy.  It's tried and true old style precinct politics upgraded for the twenty-first century.

Perhaps it's the characteristic of a bottom-up campaign to keep the leadership accountable to the rank-and-file that frightens some who now find themselves in authority.  It would be a shame to turn a winner into a loser because of a failure of leadership at the starting gate.

David A. Blythe


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search