First, thanks for dropping by Tom.

Now on to my views on this subject.  To give it a baseball analogy, Rahm Emanuel at this point is playing for one run in the third inning.  Bunting the runners along, calling the hit-and-run. Howard Dean is playing for the big inning.  There is a lot of research on this (at least for baseball).  Earl Weaver's three-run homer/big inning strategy scores more runs than the cautious old-fashioned Gene Mauch version.  Of course, late in the game, Weaver would go for one.  That strategy is not appropriate for May.  Use it in October and November.

A second point, of course, is that Rahm has different donors and a different constituency.  The people donating to him have short-term objectives.  The people donating to the DNC (and, yes, to Howard Dean) have deliberately endorsed the fifty state strategy.  Changing courses now is essentially selling out your supporters.  And, according to Ruy Texeira, that is exactly what is hurting Democrats nationally.

Third, I believe that even in the short run, the fifty state strategy is working.  

Proponents of the 50-state strategy could answer Rahm Emanuel's question by pointing to the phenomenal success of using the Internet for fundraising by Howard Dean and John Kerry during their presidential campaigns. All the Democrats need is an inspirational message!

My suggestion for such an inspirational message is that the primary mission of the Democratic Party for the 2006 elections should be to fix our broken U.S. political system: when different people placed in the same system tend to produce similar results, the problem is not the people but rather the "system."  As Norm Ornstein has diagnosed, it is bad process that has led to bad behavior and bad policy; what is desperately now needed are good processes that can lead to good behavior and good policies. And as David Brooks has repeatedly pointed out, the American people's faith and confidence in the institutions of government are now badly shaken.

In the war rooms of the Democratic Party, there should be the sign "It's the system stupid!" For the American people to open their wallets in support of the Democratic Party, they need an inspiration message (not just a litany of first 100-days pet policy initiatives). The leaders of the Democrat Party needs to describe how they will fix our broken U.S. political system such that the common good is pursued for the benefit of all Americans--Democrats, Republicans and Independents. In short, the leaders of the Democratic Party need to tell the American people how they will fundamentally change the way Washington works!

Could defenders of Rahm Emanuel answer my question: is Emanuel's insistence on using a DLC message and strategy that is short-sighted and fails to inspire worth the risk of both failing to capitalize upon this year's potential while putting Democrats in worse position over the long haul?

Strongly urge you to contact Jonathan Krasno http://www.binghamton.edu/polsci/people/ krasno.html of Binghampton and Donald Green http://www.yale.edu/polisci/people/dgree n.html of Yale.

Ruy Teixiera  http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweb log.com/donkeyrising/archives/001287.php provides exerpts from their essay that explains the math behind the 50 state strategy:

Because of diminishing returns, we know that a large investment in an expensive race will bring few votes, while a small investment in a cheaper race may bring many. Parties shy away from the latter on the grounds that hopeless candidates are hopeless causes. But the math says different. Suppose that we could increase the odds of twenty candidates from 5 to 10 percent for the same cost of helping two candidates with 45 percent chances get to 50 percent. By helping the twenty hapless candidates, we would increase the expected number of victories from 20 x 0.05 = 1 to 20 x 0.10 = 2. By helping the well-heeled candidates, we would increase the expected number of victories from 2 x .45 = 0.90 to 2 x .50 = 1. The first investment portfolio has an expected return of 1 additional victory, while the second one is just one-tenth of an additional victory.

That is a fairly realistic scenario. Seventy challengers in 2004 spent between $100,000 to $500,000, and 19 of them won at least 40 percent of the vote. Boosting their spending by as little as $50,000 or $100,000 would have a discernable effect on their chances, while increasing expenditures by $500,000 in an expensive race would likely have little effect. Parties ignore long shots because viewed individually no single candidate has a particularly good chance of winning. But as a group, long shots are ripe with possibility because of their numbers and because their low spending gives parties a chance to influence their chances. Targeting overlooks many potential winners....

The bottom line is that targeting does not help parties win elections. Instead, it impels them into high-spending races where the value of their contributions is minimal. The narrow group of targeted contests excludes many other elections where they have a distinct, albeit distant, chance of winning.

How much has putting DNC staffers on the ground in the states actually cost?  I've seen stories that the DNC has spent $60,000,000 in the last 15 months, or something like that, but how much has been spent on staffing the states?  

"Is the rate of spending at the DNC and the investment of money and resources in states without competitive 2006 races worth the possible failure to win back the House and Senate?"

Hmmm...

First, the question is a false one. It is not necessarily either or in result nor in strategy.

Second, the fact that Rahm and those of a like mind have not had a 50-state, every district strategy is exactly why we are in this mess to begin with.

Can Rahm explain why those states are without competitive 2006 races? Probably but I doubt I'd agree with his answer.

There is an old adage that says if you keep doing what you've been doing you'll keep getting the results you've been getting.

We won't be competitive in those states and districts until we spend some time, money, and effort getting competitive in those districts.

Rahm and the DCCC have a particular, short-term mission. It is an important one and I want to see them succeed. Schumer and the DSCC have a specific, short-term mission. It is an important one and I want to see them succeed.

I believe partially because of Rahm's efforts and partially despite his efforts we will succeed in taking back the House this year.

I believe that despipte Schumer's fantastic fund raising efforts we will fail to take back the Senate because he is too narrowly focused and hasn't put enough effort into putting enough states into play.

The DNC under Howard Dean has a specific, long-term mission. It is the mission it should have had all along but has not for many years now.

The DNC is THE PARTY. The DCCC and the DSCC are wings of the House and Senate Democrats. They are not THE PARTY. It is not their job to do party building. It IS the job of the DNC to do party building and under Howard Dean they are doing it.

We need strong party organizations in every state in order to be able to put every district, every senate seat, every governership, every state legislature, every county seat, every town seat in play. No democrat anywhere should be abandoned.

The DNC's mission should not, must not be co-opted by the short-term missions of the House and Senate... as important as their missions are. Remaining focused only on the short term is a losing proposition and part of what got us into this mess to begin with.

Peace,

Andrew C. White
Demcoracy for the Hudson-Mohawk Region President
Stephentown (NY) Democratic Committee Chair

I feel Dr Dean has the right vision, we need to rebuild the DNC in all 50 states, not just the "blue" ones, in my state of South Carolina, the Republicans are solidly entrenched, why, abdication of the DNC, in a state that has lost almost all of it's mills, a large military population where they are being screwed over by the republicans with  the  VDBC Commission, VA budget holds, trying to offset VA compensation by SSD payments, PTSD not being treated by DOD, forget the promise, who remembers A Promise Made Is A Promise Kept? The only promise they are keeping is to keep the tax cuts for millionaire's at the expense of our nations veterans and active duty members. What party is now the best for military families the Democrats of course, the republicans have proved it's all lip service. Go Dr Dean, keep seeing the "big picture".  Mike Bailey Lexington SC

in response to a dissent of sorts in my diary about Dean's 50 state strategy to better illustrate why I believe in what Dean is doing:

A friend of mine at one point found himself leading a canvassing team in Ohio in '04. As he put it to me, "what the hell did I know about Ohio?" He'd never lived there, worked there or done anything there. Yet because the state party was weak he found himself leading a group of young twenty somethings who also knew nothing about the state or the specific neighborhood they were in. They were all good and earnest people but they had no chance against the GOP neighborhood machine when combined with their elecion night chicanery in the state.

Dean is saying, no more of that shit. We're going to build up the state parties with precinct captains who actually know the neighbors they're canvassing. That is the mechanism of success. The human touch triumphs the hi tech in politics. It always has and always will.

I don't see how you can take this question out of context.  Emanuel's cautious, reactively-targetted money-spending approach is wedded to his cautious, reactively-targetted ("message? what message?") message approach.  Somebody needs to tell Emanuel that triangulation is dead.  And spending more money on it won't do the Lazarus thing.

George Lakoff nailed it in Don't Think of An Elephant:

A third mistake is this: There is a metaphor that political campaigns are marketing campaigns where the candidate is the product and the candidate's positions on issues are the features and qualities of the product.

This leads to the conclusion that polling should determine which issues a candidate should run on. Here's a list of issues. Which show the highest degree of support for a candidate's position? If it's prescription drugs, 78 percent, you run on a platform featuring prescription drugs. Is it keeping social security? You run on a platform featuring social security. You make a list of the top issues, and those are the issues you run on.

This sort of market-driven, run-to-the-middle approach is surely at least partly responsible for the gap I pointed to in my diary comparing the relatively lackluster generic ballot contest with other indicators, such as presidential approval, congressional approval and right track/wrong direction, since last September.

Emanuel would be in a much stronger position to make his argument against Dean if he had not worked so hard to squash passionate grassroots candidates such as Christine Cegalis.  A good crop of truly passionate candidates from the grassroots, nurtured by national money would bode well for recapturing the House with a decent majority, and the fighting spirit to actually accomplish something.  That would significantly up the level of benefit for Emanuel's approach, which would affect the entire calculus.

But since the expected benefit from his approach is so low--(can anyone tell me what results we're supposed to expect if the Dems win the House under Emanuel's tutelage?)--Dean's strategy is not even close to be questionable.  Of course, I hope that the Dems do win the House back this November, and with enough votes and enough fire that they go far beyond what Emanuel's pinched vision will allow.  But if the Dems win in November, I fully expect that people like me will be fighting tooth and nail against his pernicious triangulating instincts.

The only way to win in the long run is to articulate a vision.  And to do that with confidence, you need a support system.  Dean is focused on building that support system.  With the current crop of Beltway Democrats running away from any hint of vision--even with Bush now at 29%--Dean represents the only plausible game in town.

There can't be more than a few states left in this country that have a majority of people that support Bush.

If we were better organized across the country, we might be talking about a complete trouncing this fall of the Republicans who rubberstamp Bush's policies, no matter how obnoxious or illegal.

But we're not. If we're lucky we'll squeak by and take over one house of Congress and hold onto it.

That's the reality this year.

But it doesn't have to be the reality looking forward.

Because by the time I finished the comments were approaching the 400 mark...

"And when did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Rahm?"

Okay, I understand that's not the kind of response you're looking for here.  However, Representative Rahm's question is phrased in such a way that it doesn't seem any satisfactory answer (other than capitulating and opening up the DNC wallet) can be fashioned.

So, I'm going to tell you a little story from 2004 instead.

I was home visiting my folks, and talking about politics with my Dad. My Dad is a smart man, a Democrat, and keeps pretty well informed via TV and his local print news.

We began talking about John Kerry, and my father said he didn't know if Kerry "had the guts" to defeat Bush. Astonished, I reminded my father we were talking about a decorated Viet Nam War   who had served in the Senate for many years.

Didn't mean a thing to him.  What stuck in his mind was the anemic response of the Kerry campaign to the Swift Boat attacks, and the general waffling air of the Democratic Party.

My father lives in the bluest county of a state with a popular Democratic governor. Yet his impression of the national Democrats they were too craven to defend themselves against nasty political attacks. What confidence could he have that they would fight for the things that mattered to him?

Because I had spent a lot of time reading about the ins and outs of what the Democrats and the Republicans had been doing- (or example, voter registration fraud in his own state that he hadn't heard a whisper of in his local media), I was able  to turn his perceptions largely around.  He ended up not only voting for Kerry, but contributing to the GOTV efforts and volunteering to help bring people to the polls on election day. He was still grumbling about anemic Dems, but he did it.

This is one small example, but it's an example that is repeated many times on the Republican side in every single state-including the ones considered blue.

In too many states, there is no one countering that view of "spineless" Democrats. It is not something that will be countered soon by traditional media, whether from inertia or a desire to protect "access journalism".

It can only be countered on the ground by an active and engaged Democratic grassroots in every state.  That is the mandate the DNC gave Howard Dean on his election, and that is the promise he is following through on.

I'm under no illusion that the money supplied to the states is all being handled wisely.  Guardians of the old way of doing things are sometimes reluctant to really change. That's where the new blood comes in, and it takes some time to gain trust and influence. And some noses will certainly be picked.  (Though I'm not sure anyone in the DC Consultocracy has a whole lot of leeway to criticize on that score. They often open their mouths and sound like the most parochial of yokels served au jus.)

But before you can win, you have to fight. And people have to see that you've got fight in you.  It's called leadership.

Doing that will pay dividends that are not currently being calculated in Mr. Rahm's reckoning, I think.

And, if the DCCC is so concerned about money, what's happening to follow up on the dues in arrears from Congressional incumbents?   Seems like they'd have an interest in gaining the majority this November.

I'd like to see a list keep publically of those in arrears currently.  Then, I'll think about sending some of my hard earned cash the DCCC's way.

I agree that the analysis required here is complex, and I've not seen it attempted in a long-form way.

The underlying implication from Rahm Emmanuel is that this is a one-time opportunity to retake the House and if we miss this opportunity, we may not get another.

It's surely undeniable that in many precincts and counties, the Dem machinery is bust. And that no sustained success at all levels of government will be possible without making that right.

But I don't follow how a slim victory in November (in the House, say) will be more than a One Congress Wonder unless it's underpinned by renewal in the precincts and counties.

In fact, it may be preferable for the Dems not to win this year - and suffer deprival of instant ya-yas - if (BIG if!) that leads to more concentration of effort on lower level rebuilding.

One thing is on the Dems' side: when the GOP lost their control of Congress in 1930/32, they were thoroughly marmalized (with further huge losses in 34 and 36).

The Dems, ever since 94, have managed to keep things reasonably tight. (OK, there's an increased incumbency premium now. But the Dems are in nowhere near as bad shape as the GOP were when they won in 46.)

Overall - I'd not be getting my panties in a bunch right now...

Could proponents of the 50 state strategy answer Rahm Emanuel's question: Is the rate of spending at the DNC and the investment of money and resources in states without competitive 2006 races worth the possible failure to win back the House and Senate?

I'd like to counter with another question: Should the primary goal of the Democratic Party be winning elections or governing the country?

While it's true that you can't govern if you don't win, plans need to be made for after Election Day. A Democratic Senate would not rule only over the states which were wise enough to send Democratic senators to Washington-- it would be in charge of all states. If the next Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi, her decisions will impact the entire country, not just the San Francisco-area district she represents. If the next occupant of the White House is a Democrat, he will be President of the United States, not just President of the Blue States.

A governing power earns its legitimacy by representing all the people. Rep. Emanuel could very well hold the key to winning an election, but what good will that do us if entire regions of the country feel totally unrepresented? Any victory will be short-lived. A Democrat in Utah or Wyoming might not normally have much of a chance, but running strong candidates sends the message that in power, the Democratic Party will consider their interests as well.

I'm pretty sure that the United States is the only democracy in the developed world where the parties don't run a candidate in every district, in every election.  In Canada and Europe its taken for granted that the parties will compete in every district, which means at least having a candidate.

There are a number of reasons why the US is out of step here.  The main one is the lack of spending limits on elections, which leads to superlong, expensive campaigns.  Nominating candidates around six months before election day, and having separate primary elections doesn't help, they extend the campaign season to almost a year.  It means you have to  quit your job to make even a token run for office.  its hard to find candidates for every district in that environment.

The other reason is that local parties are often extraordinarily weak on the ground.  They can't identify new political talent, can't offer any meaningful support for candidates, and sometimes make under the table deals with the other party not to challenge incumbents or to make sure that any challenges are really weak.

This is obviously bad for our democracy, but it also means that there will be a considerable advantage to the first party that is able to break the paradigm and to compete everywhere.  Such a party will win races it isn't supposed to.

Essentially Dean is trying to strengthen the local parties, which is the first step towards making the Democrats competitive everywhere.  The biggest problem with his strategy is that it doesn't address the institutional reason why not every election is contested (unlimited spending and campaigns that go on too long), which would have to be fixed by legislation.  Also, its a long term strategy and it really is imperative for the Democrats to take back the House this year.  However, even with these problems, what Dean is doing is very necessary.

I would welcome, and like to be able to quote, serious answers to this question.

I still think both places have a pro-Dean bias but here you will get serious dialogue.

I think this is a better place than Dkos for real discussion, although this one needs to happen within Party leadership, and that's why this answer is in both places.

On the subject, I think there are competing interests that the Democratic Party has not clarified.

A. Is winning The House, the most likely object, the top priority or is it worth spending millions in the same time cycle to begin the effort to spread the Party more effectively in places it has been ineffective?

B. The Party, as a functioning organization, has set up three competing organizations;

• B1 The DCCC Charged with winning The House
  
• B2 The DSCC Charged with winning The Senate
  
• B3 The DNC not charged with, but under the leadership of Gov. Dean, choosing the role of spreading the Party in the same 2006 Election Cycle.

As I said yesterday in another thread, I think all are headed in the same direction. It is a matter of tactics and timing. It is a legitimate discussion that should be held at the highest levels of the Party.

Should we be deploying our resources, in this atmosphere which gives us the best chance in 15 years or more, to win back The House and curb the President or should we immediately begin the very necessary step of deploying assets into the field to build the Party at substantial cost?

It's a legitimate discussion.

As someone who comes down every time on the side of 'Practical Politics', both avenues are necesary and I think Gov. Dean has done a great job. I only wish he had waited until after the 2006 elections.

Why? Because taking back the House this time means defending our Constitution which I fear is truly in danger.

I posted a brief answer on Daily Kos, but I think my comments might be lost on what is a rather lengthy thread at this point, so I think I'll expound a little bit, because the question has been turning in my mind since I first responded and I think the question deserves a more detailed response than I gave previously.

First, having a respected reporter posting and asking questions is great; I hope the lesson learned is that there is a lot of wisdom here outside the Beltway among people who are relative outsiders and this represents the beginning of a good working dialogue between working reporters and activists.

Rahm Emanuel's concern is understandable and reasonable given his position.  I think we all wish him well and want him to succeed this election cycle.  Nevertheless, I ultimately have come to the conclusion that his question represents an essentially false dichotomy typical of the people inside the Beltway.  And I'm not bashing the pros inside the Beltway because I've been one, albeit one who has become convnced that our party is badly in need of some fresh thinking and new ways of doing business.  

Essentially, the assumption behind Rahm's question is that the size of the resource pie is fixed.  That thesis is outdated.

The rationale behind the 50 state strategy is oriented toward long-term party building, but I think the circumstances of the 2006 election cycle make it a sound strategy in the short term as well, given the abysmal public approval ratings of the GOP Congress.  What we are doing is likely to expand the number of potentially competitive seats which does a couple of things.  First and foremost, it puts the Republicans on the defensive in places where they did not expect to be.  We may not win a lot of these races, but we'll make them work for it in a way they were not expecting to.  Take a look at the polls in the Wyoming at-large seat; the Democrat is within striking distance of the incumbent at this point in time.  Now, we may not win that one -- and I'd be awfully surprised if we did -- but that one race means there's an incumbent who will have to spend his money and time on his own race rather than someone else's.  And, it's one more race that the GOP has to keep an eye on.  There is enough discontent with incumbents that the odds are good we'll see a few more surprises in 2006 -- unexpectedly competitive races for Republican incumbents.  Any race where we can put the GOP on the defensive is a diversion of resources from the expected competitive races.

Where I think the false choice presented by the question exists is that the fixed resource pie model has less validity now than it did in years past, as shown by the Internet fundraising of the DNC, Howard Dean and John Kerry.  My challenge to Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC is to look at the demonstrated potential of small donor Internet fundraising and make use of it.  In other words, call our bluff.  Give us a list of 35 or so really winnable races in mid September and let us donate the money for your GOTV and media buys.  And this where the 50 state strategy comes full circle, because while you may have Democrats stuck in hopeless districts in the Deep South, they can make a difference for people like Charlie Wilson in Ohio's 6th.  This is what a truly national party is capable of, and GOP has been doing for years.  Now, there are a lot of conservative Democrats with whom I might not see eye to eye with on a lot of things but if a few bucks helps them win and ensures a Democratic takeover, I'd consider that a pretty good investment of my money.  In other words, Rahm, stop worrying about the money -- it will come in if you maneuver your candidates into a competitive position come this fall.  In the meantime, the DNC is doing the long term work we need to become the national party we need to be.  We'll make some gains in state houses as well, which is good for the long-term interests of the DCCC as well.  

I recognize that this represents a big departure from the way the DCCC has done business over the years and is definitely a threat to the old way of doing business.  Nevertheless, a look at the record since 1994 ought to convince us that it is time to look beyond the tried and failed.

The idea that this is an either/or proposition between winning the House or Senate and pursuing a 50 state strategy for the DNC is simply mistaken.  In 2006, we can, and should, try to do both.

You can't build a house without infrastructure. Without roads, electricity, sewer and gas, you can spend all you want on a slate roof and mahogany floors and your won't get your occupancy permit.

Focusing only on "target" races where the DCCC has determined we can win does nothing to build infrastructure. Mass mailings and media buys may buy an election or two, but they do nothing to build the local party. The House is only one level of government, Mr. Emmanuel. But without precinct committemen, no Democrat at any level with last long. The GOP gets this. Without state level organization at the local precinct level there can be no long term sustainable Democratic gains.

Also by reducing the focus of the national party to just a few chosen races at the federal level limits true democracy. If only people in leadership positions at the DCCC get to direct where support and funding goes, when it goes there, and to which candidates this assistance is given, then we are giving control of our party and our nation to a few gatekeepers within the party, rather than putting control over those elected where it belongs - at the local level in the hands of the electorate.

But when Democrats take back the house, it will have nothing to do with Bush at 29% approval or the GOP Scandalapaloozafest, and everything to do with Rahm's genius and brass balls.

The way the mood of the country is turning, there should be no reason for any Democrat with the kind of backing Rahm is providing to raise money hand over fist. It's where that money comes from and how it is controlled that worries Mr. Emmanuel.

Dean wants to build state organizations and decentralize the party. This decentralizes control of the money as well, and opens up who will run for office. Rahm wants to be a gatekeep and king maker. Chosing which races gets funding and which doesn't centralizes control under a few well chosen Beltway gatekeepers, and closes down who can run for office and who can't.

First of all, thank you for soliciting opinions about this here.

On the strategy question, I'm definitely with Dean. This is a long-term problem that won't be cured in one election cycle (no matter what the results).  

Over the long haul, there is no substitute for  stronger state party organizations that can continually present the Democratic message, counter misperceptions, engage with the opposition in each state and raise the spirits and fortunes of Democrats.

The alternative is to continue to selectively target and pour funds into the small number of competitive races each election year without addressing the fundamental organizational issues that have led to a rather dismal electoral performance by Democrats since 1978. The Democrats lost Ohio in 2004 in large part because the party organization was allowed to atrophy there over the last two decades.  More money directed at Ohio in 2004 would not have solved this larger problem or likely bought a victory there.

There is never a good time for building stronger state party organizations across the country as there is another election every two years. In such an environment, one can always find a very good reason not to do it. But if not now, when?  

As for 2006, it's certainly possible that such a strategy may slightly reduce the probability of a Democratic victory in November.  On the other hand, it may slightly increase the chances of a Democratic blow-up by giving Democratic candidates a better chance in districts that are generally not as competitive. As in 2000 and 2004, targeting only competitive states and districts increases the likelihood of razor thin results in either direction.  

At the end of the day, the most important thing is to spend the money well whether on behalf of the 50 state strategy or for this year's elections.  I wish I had more confidence that this will happen regardless of who has control of the money or for what purpose it is used.  I'm unsure about the motivations of the professional consultancy class and wonder if in some cases over time personal financial motivations trump any residual political idealism in a field (politics) that is so likely to invite or breed cynicism.

My county of 360K in NC has a Democratic registration advantage but is run by Republicans.

The blogs and Dean's DNC message brought me into an active role this winter. I found that our local party infrastructure was as moribund and atrophied as described.

With encouragment from one of the DNC hirees, I am now a candidate for office.

We are rebuilding the whole deal. We have more candidates on the slate for November than folks can remember in more than a dozen years.

Now that a perfect storm is brewing and even local Republicans are disgusted with their party and officials who have acted like mini-Bushes, we have a real chance to ride the wave.

Candidates are surfers, the party is the board. We need both to be able to catch the wave and ride it when it comes.

Here's the problem: When you have a "good" year for the Democrats (like the present one), people will say, "We gotta spend money on short-term wins this year! We'll never have a better opportunity to take back Congress!"

But when you have a year that is shaping up to be bad for the Democrats, people will inevitably say, "We need to spend everything we've got this year! If we don't, we could face totally disastrous losses!"

In other words, there will ALWAYS be an argument against long-term planning. That's why it's so difficult to ever do - whether in politics, spending policy, etc.

Personally, I think the Dems need to do long-term planning no matter what the underlying situation looks like. The GOP spent years planning for the long term without regard to outside factors and it reaped huge dividends for them.

I would not suggest Rahm belives we need a gimmick to win. Instead, he's wedded too strongly to the idea that Clinton-era tactics are going to prevail.

That triangulation is the way that Republicans can vote Democrat.

I think this is just not the case personally, but I think that's the message here...everyone seemingly is stuck in the 90s out of the netroots.

This is sort of touched upon in the moses comment above, but I have to point out that the 50-state strategy is not just a long-term issue. The Dems cannot afford to write off whole swaths of the country and leave their Reep counterparts in those states free to fundraise and campaign for their friends elsewhere.

They also cannot afford to leave state parties to atrophy -- just because those states are unlikely to vote for a Dem for President anytime soon -- and consequently have no groundwork in place if and when lightning strikes and "safe" seats suddenly become open seats after some "unbeatable" Reep incumbent gets, shall we say . . . indicted?

Suddenly importing busloads of volunteers and showering cash on a district that had virtually no Dem presence just months before is beyond transparent -- it's pathetic, and it's not going to get the job done. Sustaining a party presence nationwide makes sense in the short term and the long term.

When Dean set out on this course no one was even thinking of 2006 shaping up like 1974 or 1994, and most people would have expected top Republican House leaders to be raising funds for down the ticket candidates rather than their legal defense funds.

If you don't have a 50 state/465 candidate strategy you will miss that magical, mystical political wave if and when it happens. I am not predicting an electorical tsumami this year on a par with 74 or 94 but if it happens it will be a good thing to have a Democrat on every ballot.

Why I support the 50-State Strategy:

The Constitution's three branches of government are "balanced" such that no single branch dominates without the power-pendulum starting to swing away. This mechanism is meant to keep the lid on excesses of the political factions. A similar pendulum swings between the Reps and the Dems. Anytime, anyplace, an election looms and one
party is missing then the pendulum fails and our political process stumbles. It's up to us to restore "balance".

In 2004, since I live in a blue state, nobody asked for my vote, nobody left mailbox literature, no national candidate spoke on my local TV. The media covered warchests and polls. I saw two swift boat ads. In 18 swing states, voters received more attention but not much more substance. They heard little of kitchen-table issues that affect daily lives. Fear ruled. Fear about being kept safe. Fear about having one's Bible confiscated. Fear about abortion and gay marriage in far-off places that might be headed their way.  See, what happens is: K-Street tells candidates to sell their souls to big contributors so they can buy attack ads for the swing states and avoid the campaign trail except for an occasional airport photo-op, and when they win they can represent contributors, when they retire they can get rich lobbying.

If you think America needs more of the same, then back Rahm Emanuel. Otherwise, please consider Dean's qualifications as executor of the 50-State Strategy: Governors are executives, not legislators, and they know how to actually get things done. Dean's record reveals that Vermont children have funded health care coverage, DFA is alive and well with affiliates all over America when similar groups have folded, and the fabled McAuliffe fund-raising records have been exceeded in every quarter since he was elected DNC chair. What else can he claim?  Oh yeah, up-thru-the-ranks, under-the-hood, experience with the nuts and bolts of state-level politics.

Dean's money-burn rate is high because D.C. Establishment Dems have sold soap, as described above, since the days of LBJ and he must rebuild the infrastructure. He won't finish by November. So what's he gonna do?  Predictions: He won't waste a cent of the money spent in states without competitive races because those pre-trained
people can be temporarily moved and/or put to work via the internet on competitive races in other states. The DNC's state-of-the-art computer team will perform miracles. Thousands of Dean's supporters will rise to the occasion, volunteer and contribute surprisingly large amounts of money.

So, let every Republican candidate be opposed and forced to stand on a record. Let every candidate make a case to all of the voters, including the hostile ones, and ask for their votes. Let every candidate raise and spend money where the voters are. Let the voters decide, not the D.C. Establishment, and not the media. Let the winner
learn accountability to voters because the next election will be report-card time.
Is this worth the risk of losing a narrow Congressional majority in 2006?
Yes, because eventually America will achieve political balance which represents us all.

I'd still like to know how much it is costing the DNC to have some staffers in every state.  Even if their salaries and benefits are $50,000 a year, with three in every state (if that is the right number), that is only $7,500,000 per year.  The news reports say that the DNC has "burnt" $60,000,000. Does anyone have any real knowledge of the actual amoung of money being spent on state staffers and what is being spent on other stuff?  

The Rahm Emanuels of the Democratic party strike me like the oft-criticized corporate CEOs of a couple of years ago, whom were more concerned with quarterly corporate returns, rather than on the long-term viability of their corporate charges -- all in an effort to satisfy Wall Street expectations.  If I recall the corporate scandals of a couple of years ago correctly, there was pretty much universal consensus on the fact that short-term/quarterly horizons had hurt corporate America, and created a culture wherein CEOs flouted and skirted both law and ethics just to maintain short-term corporate revenue ahead of Wall Street expectations.  In fact, many corporate leaders, among them Warren Buffet, and business academics urged corporate America to abandon quarterly profit reports/horizons; and, in stead, urged that CEOs focus on core practices and that they take the long-view in an effort to get away from the corrupting practices of only looking at quarterly revenue reports.  

I see the Rahm Emanuels of the Democratic party as corporate middle managers, more interested on impressing their immediate bosses, rather than on creating/delivering innovative  services/products that can transform an entire industry.  Delivering and pursuing such transformative services/products takes vision, imagination and leadership.  Sadly, middle managers are not known for delivering any of the former.  Just imagine if  Apple had not taken the long-view... then consumers would've been the worst for it, never having been introduced to iLife line of products from Apple, which include the iMac to the industry shifting iPod.  Now, many years after coming close to the brink of extinction, Apple is considered once more an industry leader and innovator.

Since it won't be under his tuteledge then you can't have an answer. Incorrectly constructed question based on a faulty premise.

Of course that reality won't stop those who truly believe in that incorrect premise from continuing to believe in it.

Oh, it's not a gimmick. What Emmanuel is expressing is in fact the guiding principle of politics for the past 50 years. It may be past its sell-by date, but it's not anything particularly odd. Basically, the principle goes that if the candidate him or herself cannot get to about 45 alone, there's nothing any outside group can do to help. So you concentrate your money in the races where that is true. Now, because of how the national scene looks right now, there are a TON of races where that criterion appears to be met, many more than most people expected. So he's looking for every dime he can fine so that he can fully fund all the races in which the  Dem is that close. From his perspective, if he doesn't, the party loses its chance for a 1994-style revolution. The reason why this argument didn't pop up until now is that we never knew we would have so many close races to fund. He must get a poll a day with some random underdog Dem pulling within 5 points of his entrenched opponent. He sees party hero-status in front of him, but he also sees Dean pulling money away from those races toward some longer term goal, and so there you have it ...

The itemized FEC filings show them paying salaries averaging $2800 a month to "staffers" in many states. I know a couple of the field directors in a few states and see their names on the list.

1 month 4 staffers x 50 states x 2800 = $560,000.00
 or
$6.7 million a year

The 50 state strategy is good one but in reality it will not truly be a 50 state strategy.  I know of no party that is truly 50 state - both parties have their bases and always will.

I think we need to build the parties up in all states because even if you can't win statewide in most elections having party strength can help in down ballot races such as Congress and the state legislature.  We have ignored these races for too long.  It also lets you grab statewide offices when your opposition nominates weak candidates i.e NY and MASS Gov which have had Repub Govs despite their Dem tendancies.

However, we should also be realistic in our expectations.  We will get periodic victories in states like Mississippi by building up the parties but we are unlikely to flip them.  Mississippi has a history as a very conservative state.  The "Democrats" it used to elect like Congressman William Colmer and Sen John Stennis were Dixiecrats who would fit very well into today's Repub party.  That doesn't mean we should ignore them, it means we should have realistic expectations and use the resources appropriately within those states.  Overall we will benefit from building up the party in states like this even if they don't become bastions of progressivism.

I do not think the 50 state strategy and targeting Congressional and Senate races are incompatible.  One is a long term strategy to build up state parties while the other is to win now.  Resources are limited so the DCCC and DSCC must target races.  The real question is how they target them and when.  There are some obvious seats early on but you must save some resources for those seats that become competitive at the last minute.  We'll see come October if Schumer and Emmanuel have don't that.

Tom,

I trust you saw this:

Utah's Democratic Party chief responds to Begala

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5 /15/83439/7655

Here's just one sentence:

"By leaving the GOP unopposed in places like Utah, it frees them up to concentrate on making inroads in marginal districts."

He's absolutely right, of course.

If you happen to be in New York/New Jersey, come to Hoboken tonight and ask Markos and Jerome yourself!  Click here for event details.

/shameless plug

He won't be controlling anything but his office and the DCCC. It's that simple.

Gosh...Democrats being in charge doesn't impress you? Then join some party with no chance of being in charge...and see if that impresses you.

I think there are a combination of goals here.  One is reestablishing the party for even greater gains beyond 2006 and the other is winning back congress in 2006.  I think they go hand in hand.  Besides, Emmanuels way is a proven failure.  Dean is the boss.  Let him lead.