Again . . .

More On The Marked Man

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in | Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

It really does bear repeating just how much trouble Howard Dean will likely be with his party should it fail to do well in the upcoming midterm elections. The following passage from this story is a long one, but it is instructive as well (read on):

Not all states are equal on an election map, and Alaska is one of those less populous states -- like Kansas or Idaho or Alabama -- that national Democrats almost never bother to visit. For one thing, just getting there presents a logistical ordeal: the journey from Washington takes as long as it would to reach, say, Nigeria, and even then you sometimes need a hydroplane to get around. And more to the point, there aren't a whole lot of people to see once you get there. Registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by a margin of 2 to 1 in oil-crazed Alaska, which hasn't sent a Democrat to the House or Senate in more than 30 years. To put it another way, there were more Democrats in Central Park for the Dave Matthews concert a few years back than there are in the entire state of Alaska -- all 656,000 square miles of it.

It seemed somewhat bizarre, then, when Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, chose to make the long odyssey to Alaska at the end of May, near what was the beginning of one of the most intense and closely contested national election campaigns in memory, when every other Democrat in Washington was talking about potentially decisive states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. It was also strange that no one in Democratic Washington seemed to know he was going. Although I had been following Dean closely for months, I found out about the trip accidentally and invited myself along -- an intrusion that Dean seemed merely to tolerate. We met up first in Las Vegas, where he was making appearances with Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader. Dean, who enjoys his image as an unpretentious New Englander, is given to finding his own flights on discount Web sites, so it's sometimes hard for even his own staff to track his itinerary. On the morning we left for Alaska, Dean went missing for a good half-hour. It turned out that he was in the business center of the MGM Grand, where he had been trying to figure out how to print his boarding pass but somehow ended up in an impromptu game of online backgammon with a guy who claimed to be in China.

Touching down in Anchorage, we were greeted by Jonathan Teeters, a 25-year-old former offensive lineman at the University of Idaho who had been hired to help the state party begin to organize Democrats. It took less than 10 minutes, as Teeters drove us through a pounding rainstorm to the state headquarters, for Dean, seated in front, to unleash his usual brand of havoc on a state unaccustomed to it. First, he absently asked Teeters what kind of radio interviews he would be doing during his 24-hour stay and was told that he was booked on the local Air America affiliate, the only liberal radio option in town. This is what party chairmen get paid to do -- rally the faithful, collect their money and urge them to vote.

"Bull," Dean snapped, using a slightly more elongated version of the term.

"Huh?" Chris Canning, Dean's personal aide, suddenly looked up from a loose-leaf binder. He seemed to think he had misheard.

"I'm not going to do that," Dean replied firmly, craning his neck to address Canning in the back seat. "I didn't come all the way up here just to talk to people who already agree with us. I want to talk to everyone else. I'm fine with doing Air America, but we have to do something else too. Isn't there some conservative show we can do?" Teeters warned that the few right-wing shows in town could get nasty for the chairman. "If you can set something else up too, great," Dean said with finality. "Otherwise, I won't do Air America."

Then Dean wanted to know how many organizers the state party now had on the ground, and Teeters told him there was just one: Teeters himself. The D.N.C. created his job -- along with a position for a communications director -- last year as part of Dean's signature program, known as the 50-state strategy. Under this program, the national party is paying for hundreds of new organizers and press aides for the state parties, many of which have been operating on the edge of insolvency. The idea is to hire mostly young, ambitious activists who will go out and build county and precinct organizations to rival Republican machines in every state in the country. "We're going to be in places where the Democratic Party hasn't been in 25 years," Dean likes to say. "If you don't show up in 60 percent of the country, you don't win, and that's not going to happen anymore."

In paying for two new staffers, Dean had, virtually overnight, doubled the size of Alaska's beleaguered state party, which used to consist of only an executive director and a part-time fund-raiser. But now, as Dean considered the vastness of the state's landscape, he decided that one organizer wasn't enough. "In most states, we have three or four," Dean said, thinking out loud. "Seems like you should really have more. We should be able to find that money in the budget."

That night, after meeting with Dean at the sad little storefront office that houses the state party, Alaska's party chairman, Jake Metcalfe, announced to 400 assembled Democrats at a fund-raiser that Dean had just promised to hire an additional organizer for the state. The ballroom erupted in grateful applause as Dean sat there beaming. The members of his staff, gently rolling their eyes, began calling back to Washington, warning the political staff that they would need to find the money for yet another salary in, of all places, Alaska.

In just a few hours, Dean had nicely demonstrated why so many leading Democrats in Washington wish he would spend even more time in Alaska -- preferably hiking the tundra for a few months, without a cellphone. It's not that Democrats in Congress don't like the idea of building better organizations in the party's forgotten rural outposts. Everyone in Democratic politics agrees, in principle, that party organizations in states like Alaska could use help from Washington to become competitive again, as opposed to the rusted-out machines they have become. But doing so, at this particular moment and in this particular way, would seem to suck away critical resources at a time when every close House and Senate race has the potential to decide who will control the nation's post-election agenda, and when the party should, theoretically, be focused on mobilizing its base voters -- the kind of people who live in big cities and listen religiously to Air America.

It's true that adding a second organizer in Alaska will cost the national party only a modest sum, maybe $35,000 this year, but that same money could pay the salaries for canvassers in Pennsylvania or Connecticut, where a few thousand votes could mean the difference between swearing in Speaker Hastert or Speaker Pelosi next January. Overall, Dean's investment in state parties could cost the D.N.C. as much as $8 million this year, every dime of which could be crucial when you consider that the Republican National Committee says it will pour as much as $60 million into local races to defend its Congressional majorities. (The D.N.C. has pledged to spend $12 million on this fall's races.) With the president's approval ratings stuck around 40 percent, and polls suggesting that the Democrats may have a real chance of rolling back 12 years of Republican rule, numerous Democratic insiders are privately and, at times, publicly deriding the 50-state strategy as an indulgence that could cost them their best and last opportunity to sweep away the Bush era, once and for all.

But Democrats are safe, right? The tide is turning against the Republicans, right?

Well, maybe. But then again, maybe not:

The polls keep suggesting that Republicans could be in for a historic drubbing. And their usual advantage--competence on national security--is constantly being challenged by new revelations about bungling in Iraq. But top Republican officials maintain an eerie, Zen-like calm. They insist that the prospects for their congressional candidates in November's midterms have never been as bad as advertised and are getting better by the day. Those are party operatives and political savants whose job it is to anticipate trouble. But much of the time they seem so placid, you wonder whether they know something.

They do. What they know is that just six days after George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, his political machine launched a sophisticated, expensive and largely unnoticed campaign aimed at maintaining G.O.P. majorities in the House and Senate. If that campaign succeeds, it would defy history and political gravity, both of which ordain that midterm elections are bad news for a lame-duck President's party, especially when the lame duck has low approval ratings. As always, a key part of the campaign involves money--the national Republican Party is dumping at least three times as much into key states as its Democratic counterpart is--but money is only the start. "Panic results when you're surprised," says Republican National Committee (r.n.c.) chairman Ken Mehlman. "We've been preparing for the toughest election in at least a decade."

Thanks to aggressive redistricting in the 1990s and early 2000s, fewer than three dozen House seats are seriously in contention this election cycle, compared with more than 100 in 1994, the year Republicans swept to power with a 54-seat pickup in the House. Then there's what political pros call the ground game. For most of the 20th century, turning out voters on Election Day was the Democrats' strength. They had labor unions to supply workers for campaigns, make sure their voters had time off from their jobs to go to the polls and provide rides to get them there.

Now, though, Democrats are the ones playing catch-up when it comes to the mechanics of Election Day. Every Monday, uberstrategist Karl Rove and Republican Party officials on Capitol Hill get spreadsheets tallying the numbers of voters registered, volunteers recruited, doors knocked on and phone numbers dialed for 40 House campaigns and a dozen Senate races. Over the next few weeks, the party will begin flying experienced paid and volunteer workers into states for the final push. The Senate Republicans' campaign committee calls its agents special teams, led by marshals, all in the service of the partywide effort known as the 72-Hour Task Force because its working philosophy initially focused on the final three days before an election.

So Republicans hope to close the deal in tight races with a get-out-the-vote strategy that was developed in the wreckage of the 2000 presidential campaign. Bush's team was led then, as it is now, by Rove, Bush's political architect and now White House deputy chief of staff, and Mehlman, then White House political-affairs director. Their theory was that Bush lost 3% or 4% of his expected vote in 2000 because those people just stayed home.

Again, all of this effort and preparation might come to naught. But what if it doesn't? What is to stop Democrats from turning on Howard Dean and what would be considered a wasteful and disorganized fifty-state strategy in the event of a disappointing failure to capture either one of the two chambers of Congress?

Nothing. Nothing at all. The sound you hear in the distance is that of knives being preemptively sharpened.

« When Negative Ads BackfireComments (4) | What Did They Know And When Did They Know It?Comments (63) »
Again . . . 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

...is that while Dean looks like he's right - and in an abstract scenario, he would be - he's actually making a fairly deadly mistake. You can focus on rebuilding, say, Alaska all you like - but if you don't sit down and contemplate why you lost Alaska in the first place then you're unlikely to fix the problem.

Neither Emanuel nor Dean seem ready to address the fact that their major obstacles are strategic, not tactical. One says that the cure is to throw money at the problem and the other claims that it's better to create hothouse flower versions of State political parties. Neither man is asking why. If the situation so naturally favors the Democrats, why do they have to implement the solution in the first place?

Or, to put it another way: they ask "What's the matter with Kansas?" instead of "What's the matter with us that Kansas doesn't like us?" Of course, that may be because they don't want to think about the answer...

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Yes, both men are strategists, they just prefer different strategies. Neither one is an analytical thinker. Dean has it "right" in the sense that the Democrats definitely need a GOTV ground game, which they haven't had in a long time now. Emmanuel has it "right" in the sense that they also need big donors and to provide adequate financial support for key races. They don't have what they have "wrong," they just don't have everything they need.

Dean essentially agrees with you also, in that he says people haven't been voting for Democrats because Democrats haven't given them a reason to. But I don't think he's the guy to address that particular problem.

I don't know if the situation naturally favors the Democrats, but, even if it does, the reason they need the solution is turnout. 40% or more of the electorate sitting out any given election makes for a huge wild card...anyone who can roust a significant percentage of them can win handily. And, historically, Democrats are not all that great at turning out themselves, much less anybody else. Even if they develop the right message, it won't do them any good if the people who agree with it don't actually go out and vote.

I usually phrase it "What's not the matter with Kansas?" but your alternate title is more to the point.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

Howie probably went salmon fishing in the hotel swimming pool while he was there.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

He's trying to raise the Democratic grassroots from the dead. That's a good bit of what the rift is about, although I'm not sure Emmanuel knows it. I'm sure Dean does. For Dean, fundraising is a distraction. He only raises it in self-defense, to keep the knives at bay. And because he needs money to rebuild the grassroots. He doesn't need a lot, which means he's not as driven about raising it as they would like him to be. But he has to raise it himself, because they wouldn't let him use money they raised for that purpose.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

It's the sound of the party faithful sneaking up on Dean to plunge the already-sharpened knives into his back. The Democrats aren't concerned about the long view... they want their power back, and they want it back now. They don't care if it costs them the ability to create the atmosphere for a true political realignment, or even the ability to open new dialogue... they want their names on the pretty offices. And if Dean doesn't do that for them, they'll sack him and get somebody to replace him that they think can, another "Great White Hope" of sorts. However, it might almost be best for Democrats to stick with the Screamer if it results in a strengthening of their operations, even at the expense of a 2006 victory.

On the same hand, though, if they don't want to do what's in their long-term best interests, that's fine with us so long as our own leaders don't get complacent.

"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."

"...so long as our own leaders don't get complacent."

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

than you give it credit for being. Dean was both a paean to the netroots nitwits and a conscious acknowledgment that McAuliffe's fundraising prowess was filling DNC coffers but it wasn't winning elections. I don't think anyone gave him the job because they wanted him for the position. It is not for nothing that Rahm Emmanuel has been able to erect essentially a second power center in the Democratic Party. Dean's netroots strategy has some benefits and in the long run may be a sound idea but it seems to me unlikely that they're willing to persevere with the effort it takes to resurrect the state parties in most of Middle America. In the end, Moe is probably right to say that it is less an issue of money than of message. Economic populism has traction in blue collar locales, but the accompanying social liberalism has none.

Chairman Dean wasn't appointed by a cabal of major Democratic elected officials. He was elected by party leaders nationwide.

I don't think that Alaska's local Democrats will necessarily turn against the 50 state strategy if it's bringing home the bacon. Nor will any of the other local parties who are getting money like never before under Dean.

That was how Dean won, as I understand it: he built a coalition of the 'netroots' and those who stood to gain from the 50 State Strategy.

Why would not winning the Congress break this coalition?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Dean's link with the netroots is generally misunderstood. People confuse Dean with his internet campaign, which is to say they confuse him with Trippi. The netroots was Trippi's thing, not Dean's. On the contrary, Dean has a rep as somewhat of a technoklutz.

Dean himself campaigned in a very traditional way, because he's a very traditional guy. Trippi and his followers were the architects of the net pizzazz. The netroots believe that salvation of the Democratic Party is to be found on the internet; Dean's core supporters (who call themselves simply the grassroots, not the netroots) believe it is to be found out among the people. Like Dean, his supporters lean toward traditional grassroots politics; like Trippi, the netroots leans toward internet pizzazz. Unlike Dean, his grassroots supporters tend to be fairly techno savvy, but they do not aspire to be internet gurus and see technology mostly as a tool to support a ground game, not an alternative to hands-on activism. Dean's grassroots are also less inclined to irrational exuberance about the internet a spigot out of which large amounts of money automatically flow.

There is some overlap between the two groups, and they are certainly allies, but there is also some tension there. After Dean's campaign ended, Trippi set up his own website and Dean's grassroots were essentially faced (or thought they were) with a choice: Dean or Trippi. By an overwhelming majority, they chose Dean, and Trippi's effort fizzled. The rest of Trippi's most dedicated followers eventually became part of the netroots. In addition, many in the Dean grassroots, who labor out in the real world, suspect (correctly, I would say) that the netroots invests far more time and energy in blogging than in hands-on grassroots activism.

Dean won by wooing the DNC members with his 50-state strategy, as they are the ones who stood to gain from it. I don't think the netroots had much, if anything, to do with it...they were too busy wailing and gnashing their keyboards over the results of the 2004 election. The grassroots lobbied their local DNC members directly and also showed up at every one of the regional meetings where the candidates for the chair made their pitch for the position, to reinforce the message that it was Dean who had the power to energize the grassroots. And I think you are very right that, barring a major disaster, the DNC members will remain in Dean's camp as long as he continues to funnel money to the states. If his enemies want to unseat him, they will have to agree to do the same...or create a disaster themselves. But the grassroots will stick with him, even then.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

the "sit this one out to send a message" crowd needs to realize what they could do if they *gasp* actually vote this time around. If the Dems win at least one chamber, of course they'll spin it as a victory (especially if it's the impeachment-friendly House). If the GOP just barely holds bith chambers, the knives will indeed plunge into Howie's back.

Shouldn't that be enough for the paleocons to realize they should still vote?

Sitting out is a vote for KOS.

"barely bolds both chambers". Sorry.

Sitting out is a vote for KOS.

Shouldn't that be enough for the paleocons to realize they should still vote?

Don't know where this one comes from. The people talking of siting it out are the liberal wing of the party.

...because they didn't like Kerry, either. This year, they are energized by the Lamont victory and, unless they live in a state where a DINO is on the ballot, they are eager to vote. And the Dean people will be voting regardless, because they are very aware of those knives.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

I've seen three groups talk about sitting out:

a) the so-called fiscal conservatives
b) the Tancredoites
c) Those opposed to illegal alien legalization

But lately I've only heard it from b).
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

If it were to be the House, then we could expect the awful Amnesty/Massive Increase in Permanent Legal Immigration bill to pass, and President Bush would sign it. The short-term effects might prove hard to predict. Would the passage of such an awful bill help anti-amnesty Republicans take back the House in 08, or would it deflate the base even further? The longer-term effects are much easier to predict, as there is no reason to expect the increased influx to result in anything other than large net gains in voters for the Democrats.

If its the Senate, then we can kiss goodbye any chance to put another conservative on the Sup Court. Even if the GOP holds the Senate with a 51 or 52 seat majority, then a Dem filibuster would likely prove impossible to break, and there probably wouldn't be enough Republicans left to pull the nuclear/constitutional option. Since marriage will almost certainly make its way to the High Imperial Court in the next 3-5 years, then we would be delusional to expect anything other than a SCOTUS imposition of gay marriage/civil unions. Then when feeble attempts to thwart the decision fail, we will have finally been completely defeated in the Culture War.

I'm expecting to see at least 2 years of the biggest legislative deadlock in modern history.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

is far from the worst thing that can happen to this country.

No man's life, liberty or property are secure when the legislature is in session.
... Mark Twain

I'd be happy with two years of gridlock. But what we are going to get is two years of impeachment investigations and hearings. But who cares what that does to the country, the troops, the GWOT as long as the Democrats can get payback for Clinton.


John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

Two years is all it would take to make Iraq the new Vietnam, as in a country sending out boatloads of refugees because the people we abandoned it to made it a living nightmare.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I was about to comment that it seemed like a win/win situation for true conservatives, but I forgot that *not* doing something can result in dramatic change also.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

what you say might be true in some cases, but in this case, losing the House may result in a massive amnesty bill, while losing the Senate means no more conservatives on the Sup Court.

Either of those consequences should be enough to make even the most disillusioned of conservatives get out and vote.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service