Better strategy to win elections - 50 state strategy or targetted state strategy?

What say you, DU?

Terry McAuliffe and his targetted state strategy during his terms as chair of the DNC concentrated national strategy only on states where Democrats were already strong, thinking it was a waste of money and time to try and compete in red states.

Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy concentrated national strategy on rebuilding the state party infrastructures in states that had been neglected for years due to the former strategy of targetting states, and put money and time into those states.

Which of the national strategies is the one that is healthiest for the Democratic Party, its voters and its candidates?

for the party and that his years of strategizing for the party was NOT the weak point in 2000, 2002, and 2004 - see, it was only the candidates. My take is that it was the candidates and voters who performed well enough to win 2000, 2002, and 2004, but the party infrastructure was too weak and unprepared for the competitiveness of the races, and completely rolled over in 2002 and 2004 expecting no one could beat Bush after 9-11.

So, they were completely unprepared once Bush's numbers started dropping and Kerry won all three debates. They had never bothered to secure the election process or strengthen the infrastructures in red states that had, by fall, turned into purple states.

I won't fault him for that. It remains to be seen what he can do with the current national race.

For now, we won in 2k6 using the 50 state strategy. We definitely need to continue to use and build on it.

What happened, IMO, is that the past few elections got sidetracked by personalities. Dems usually win if the race is about issues. The RW noise machine managed to make the elections between 2000-2004 about personalities instead of issues, and managed to sneak through some 'victories' that were not majority based.

in states that were ready to go blue, like Ohio, Florida and NC, but instead the party infrastructure was even worse in 2004 than it was in 2000 and 2002 - that was PURE NEGLECT.

And after the revelation sof election fraud after 2000, letting the party get weaker in those CRUCIAL states was CRIMINAL neglect to many of us who watched those 2000 hearings and believed Terry McAuliffe when he said it would never happen again, and that his Office of Voter Integrity would make certain it never happened again.

Well, what did he do those four years in those crucial states?

What a contrast to the crap they've been getting.

When everything around you is RW talking points and you have to go out of your way to hear some objective reporting via internet or a run to your library to see other newspapers.

Realistically no Presidential campaign is going to spend money in Wyoming or Utah or Alaska...

However I am a supporter of the 50-state strategy...it is reviving moribund party organizations is many states, and I think will make the difference in some close states that perhaps have gone red for several cycles but have a significant core of Democratic support...

Targetted strategy NEGLECTS more than 25 states assuring there is no chance of winning the state when the race tightens or turns for the Democratic candidate.

There is no use putting money into Utah or Wyoming or Alaska during this Presidential cycle...I'm not saying spending money in those states to rebuild the party infrastructure is not a good idea...but no advertising money etc is going to be put into those states...that is a fact...

However there are states like Virginia, North Carolina, even Alabama where spending this type of money may be warranted...and in conjunction with rebuilding the local party infrastructure may put those in play...

The 50 state vs targeted strategy is more about party infrastructure than advertising. Sure, you target advertising based on bang for buck. But infrastructure is about long term investment and committment, and Dems can't just abandon so many states to the RW noise machine. As much as we hate the message, the Repubs had been beating Dems on organization and grass roots politicking in the late 19990's and early 2000's.

Sure there is a lot of election fraud issues that still need cleaning up, but concentrating on grass roots infrastructure in ALL states allowed the natural majority status that Progressives enjoy to win out.

One builds, the other weakens. And Terry McAuliffe running around blaming Gore for 2000, the 2002 candidates, and Kerry for 2004 has been pure coverup for his YEARS of NEGLECT in too many states.

The 'targeted states' strategy was what allowed a minority of Christian extremists to take over our government. I want it back.

The truth is that most Liberal/Progressive policies are more pro-family and values friendly than conservative agendas. The targeted strategy basically let Repubs win unopposed on issues that we should be in front of conservatives on. Ignoring so many geographic areas lent credence to the RW meme that we are anti-church and anti-religion, when in truth there are many Christian, church-going liberals in this country who weren't really being represented by the fundy tidal wave that wasn't.

Remember, the Moral Majority was neither.

I heard McAuliffe talking up the targetted strategy the other day and said to myself "Hillary will never be president". You don't get votes unless you ask people to vote for you, and writing off half of half the population is not a winning strategy.

What about statehouses and party control of Congress? During the 1990's we saw how the targeted state policy left Clinton without a supportive Congress. We also saw in 2000 and 2004 how neglecting the states allowed Republicans to focus on certain strategic states-the same ones that the Democrats were targeting-for their objectives of defrauding the voters. That is the fundamental weakness of the targeted strategy-Republicans get a pass on other elections because they know where we are targeting too.

And I happen to think that progressive mayors and Governors count too. This makes a difference in everything from law enforcement to how taxes get collected.

THAT is where the GOPs maintained a strong hold and positioned people of power who rolled right over the nominal figures that the Dem party had.

I saw in SC where in major counties, the Dem party didn't even have an office in 2002 and 2002.

In NC, the HQ I reported to in 2004 was in the back room of a flower shop - and this was in a major city. They now have their own building because Dean saw the need.

We can forget about the deep south, but focus on the swing states.

I do agree that infrastructure and state party staff are needed to maintain momentum.

Those seats could have been gained in 2004 with a stronger party infrastructure.

...... but it differs in the goals.

The targeted strategy of McCauliffe focuses heavily on just the Presidency. It counts electoral votes and, hopefully, leads to a victory. 2000 and 2004, however, give lie to the viablity of that strategy. It worked in only a Bill Clinton cycle. Whether you love him, hate him, or are in between, no one will argue that Bill Clinton, the man, lacks charisma and winning ways.

Howard Dean's 50 state strategy works differently. It is longer term and more universal in its outlook. The goal is to win **everthing*. And its viability was clearly demonstrated in the just-passed cycle. We not only won overwhelmingly, we did it without losing even a single national incumbency. We even won where we weren't supposed to win, in places ignored by the McCauliffe strategy. To be sure, our victory was also a product of the times and of the public's fill of Republican leadership. But logic tells me that our wins would not have been so widespread under the targeted strategy.

I voted in your poll for the Dean strategy.

I also want to say something about the selfishness of the "McCauliffe strategy" and the narrow faction of the Democratic Party that it serves ....... but I'll exercise personal restraint. That part of the issue wasn't part of your poll. :)

The party was UNPREPARED for Kerry to sweep the debates so decisively in September and October.

The increase in voter turnout in 2004 was FAR BEYOND any increase in past elections. How prepared were the state parties for that phenomenon? They weren't prepared at all, and many of the votes were lost to that failure to secure them at the state and county levels where they needed to be cast and counted.

.

Yes, he lost his election, but by less than four points in a 70% Repub district. That's all the proof I needed that all politics is local infrastructure and that Dean had the right end of the stick. I therefore have only two words for the 50-state strategy: IT WORKS!

:headbang:
rocknation

As a campaign hand, I know a lot about how the national money is allocated, and how it is needed. First off, you're crazy if you think during a hotly contested Presidential race, it is wise to spend money and candidate time in places like MS, UT, AL, TX and the other reddest of the red states. They're simply not competitive, and there's so little to go around.

That being said, I think Dr. Dean running the DNC is the best thing to happen to our party since computerized voter file databases. I worked on the Senate race in Rhode Island last cycle and saw firsthand the destruction of the local party structure. We had to literally build the party ourselves. The were no real precinct captains, city chairs didn't have control over their councilmembers, there were no volunteer databases, local party meetings were a joke and a waste of our time, and this was in one of the bluest states in the country.

It is crucial to the vitality of our party that state and local parties like these be built up again for exactly the reasons we saw last cycle. Sure, we won. However, it is important to note the incredible amount of time, effort, and money that made those wins possible. Imagine what we could have done if the state parties were already built up.

I feel odd coming to a place called "Democratic Underground" and preaching the gospel of grassroots organizing and things from the bottom up. However, I also feel like the fervor for more resources to certain states during a national election could get out of control and take away rare and heavily needed resources from swing states that need them desperately.

Let's not get tied up in who's strategy is right. If you think your local party needs help, go to their meetings, volunteer, become a precicnt captain. On the Senate race, I had people who would come in every night after work and make phone calls, talk to their neighbors, donate the little money they had. That's how you build the local parties. Sure, we got some help from the DNC, but it was the local grassroots that pulled us through last cycle and it's the grassroots that will restore this party to what brought me to it in the first place, being a party of the people.

the party needs stronger infrastructure IN PLACE.

The Dem candidate needs a strong, functioning party infrastructure to TAP INTO once they become the nominee. Having that accomodates ANY Democrat, North-South-East-West Democrat. Period.

There is no good that can come from allowing so many state infrastructures to collapse out of the party elites like McAuliffe's disinterest in those states.

2006 showed that we CAN win even in some of the deep-red states. Does that mean we should spend as much in Georgia as we do in Ohio? Of course not. But we can, and should, run a national campaign targeting all Americans.