Yeeehheaaaaghhhh!!!!

Kaine feels like Matt Cassel to Dean's Tom Brady...

I remember when people said selecting Dean as DNC chair would be a disaster for the Democratic Party. Dean absolutely deserves to gloat a little.

Right on, Howard. I hope you remain a powerful voice in the Democratic Party.

If you don't have staffers in every state then it isn't a 50-state strategy, regardless of what Kaine labels it.

I like Dean as much as the next guy (ok maybe not as much as Kos), but dear God Howard be better than that. I mean Alaska? For real? Ted Stevens was convicted of 7 FELONIES and Begich still barely beat him (to say nothing of Young's re-election) and you think a campaign strategy is responsible for that? Or for the collapse in the GOP's popularity between 2004 and 2006?

I really don't understand the fascination with the 50 state strategy. On the one hand there's just no hard evidence it had any effect on anything, other than recruiting candidates (which I will give Dean a lot of credit for). I mean is anyone going to sit here and tell me that it was more responsible for the 2006 and 2008 elections than public disapproval of Bush (and Republicans) over Iraq, Katrina, and everything in between? But even more than that, the candidates who benefitted most from the strategy are Blue Dogs now, and much of the netroots will be talking about mounting primary challenges against them soon. Which tends to make me think that the people arguing hardest that the DNC needs to keep the strategy haven't actually thought that through, so much as they're refleively praising Howard Dean.

There's more in the link in tagline if anyone's interested.

Without the 50 state strategy the Democrats would not have had the candidates to take advantage of the opportunities they had. A huge factor in Obama's victory was that McCain was playing defense in many places he originally thought were safe.

and let's not forget Indiana.

I mean Alaska? For real? Ted Stevens was convicted of 7 FELONIES and Begich still barely beat him... -Brien Jackson

What if Begich wasn't getting DNC support? Would he have barely lost?

I'll certainly not argue that between 2004 and today it was a perfect storm for Democratic expansion, but you would be remiss to act as if Dean's strategy wasn't a component of that.

How do you plan to get someone's vote if you never ask them for it, I wonder? If you don't think being a truly national party make sense, by all means, what's the viable alternative?

"Without the 50 state strategy the Democrats would not have had the candidates to take advantage of the opportunities they had. A huge factor in Obama's victory was that McCain was playing defense in many places he originally thought were safe."

I don't really think that has much to do with Dean, so much as it has to do with the weak position of Republicans in general. When you look hard at 2008, McCain needed *Florida* to be safe for him to have any chance at winning, which it obviously never was because, well, it's a swing state. We can make a big deal about Virginia but, again, the truth is that the state on the whole is just becoming more Democratic thanks to migration, and the same with North Carolina to a smaller degree. But Obama's campaign has a good cautionary tale as well. They spent a good bit of time and money on Georgia up until late-Septemberish, hoping that they could win there. Ultimately it became obvious they weren't going to be that competitive in the state, because Georgia is a very Red place, so they moved elsewhere. Not that it meant much in the context of Obama's massive electoral victory, but that daliance might have cost them Missouri. And that sort of thing becomes very important when it's a national House campaign you're running, as opposed to navigating the Electoral College.

They spent a good bit of time and money on Georgia up until late-Septemberish, hoping that they could win there. -Brien Jackson

Again, I have to respectfully disagree. I doubt they ever really thought winning Georgia was a possibility. Aside from being brilliant subterfuge designed to get the Republicans to spend money to defend their home turf, you are underestimating the future value of the network that was established.

Georgia was certainly a long shot for a Democrat in 2008, but will it be in 2012 or 2016?

You're focusing too much on the candidates and election results and not enough on the backbone of the party: the staff and volunteers. Without them in every state, active for every election, how can you possibly hope to grow as a national party?

I really don't understand the fascination with the 50 state strategy.

It's a national party and there are 50 states in the nation. Get it?

Your entire way of thinking is offensive and dangerous to the success Democrats.

"We'll do some new things, because we can never rest on just what worked yesterday, but we will never again, never again, write off people or states or regions. The fifty-state strategy is now and forever what Democrats do!"

Oh, yeah---now and forever, you ReThug scumsuckers.

Now and forever....

"It's a national party and there are 50 states in the nation. Get it?

Your entire way of thinking is offensive and dangerous to the success Democrats."

That's silly. Any recreational observer can see that there are places in the country with heavy concentrations of one political outlook. That's a natural occurence. Republicans aren't going to compete in San Francisco the same way Democrats aren't going to compete in Utah. The only way to compete in those places is to change what makes you a Republican/Democrat, which largely defeats the purpose.

Now granted, there was a lot of that involved in the 50 state strategy (I'm looking at you Travis Childers), but the strategy's proponents don't really own up to that, and instead "blame" that on Rahm and the DCCC.

"Again, I have to respectfully disagree. I doubt they ever really thought winning Georgia was a possibility. Aside from being brilliant subterfuge designed to get the Republicans to spend money to defend their home turf, you are underestimating the future value of the network that was established."

As far as I know, the Republicans never invested anything in Georgia. Say what you want about the McCain campaigns message department, their electoral department remained as good as any and they stayed away from the bait of playing in Red states.

"Georgia was certainly a long shot for a Democrat in 2008, but will it be in 2012 or 2016?"

Of course it will. 2008 was an overwhlemingly Democratic year that's unlikely to be improved upon. That's barring major demographic changes brought on by migration, of course, but that's not really something a political strategy affects.

Any recreational observer can see that there are places in the country with heavy concentrations of one political outlook. That's a natural occurence. -Brien Jackson

Perhaps the problem here is that you are a recreational observer. :) Remember, it was within most of our lifetimes that California voted for Republican president, after all, and Indiana just voted for a Democratic one.

The only way to compete in those places is to change what makes you a Republican/Democrat, which largely defeats the purpose. -Brien Jackson

Perhaps. Or, perhaps the way to compete is to change what makes a voter identify with a political party. How are you going to do that without even acknowledging their existence?

I don't think you can be a progressive without a truly national strategy. If you're only defending the home turf, how are you making progress? It's about educating people, changing their minds, introducing new ideas, and building a network of engaged citizenry.

How in the world can anyone view that as a bad thing?

"I don't think you can be a progressive without a truly national strategy. If you're only defending the home turf, how are you making progress? It's about educating people, changing their minds, introducing new ideas, and building a network of engaged citizenry."

It's not about "defending the home turf" vs. expanding, (although that's going to be a consideration in the House not that Democrats have a gigantic majority), it's *where* you try to expand into. Do you devote resources to palces you have a reasonably good chance of competing, or do you go into Utah and Mississippi and other RED places?

i should probably clarify a little bit, I don't *oppose* Dean's 50 state strategy per se. I think some resources were wasted, but some resources are always wasted. Rather, I think it's important progressives not come under the impression that electoral strategies determine outcomes. They don't. They only work when they're built around the political landscape at the time. "The map" changes when *events* make it, and strategy should reflect that. But strategy can't change reality, and if you try to campaign that way, you're going to lose badly. Ask Karl Rove circa 2007.

I meant to add, again, that I also think defense of the strategy has really simply come to be shorthand for "Howard Dean is awesome and Terry McAullife is teh suck." Not that I disagree, but it's somewhat amusing to watch someone like Chris Bowers go from insisting the DNC needs to keep the strategy to arguing that progressives need to mount primary challenges against the guys that got elected under it.

2008 was an overwhlemingly Democratic year that's unlikely to be improved upon. -Brien Jackson

I guess that's the sticking point then. I'm not willing to concede that we can't improve, even in the short term.

...go from insisting the DNC needs to keep the strategy to arguing that progressives need to mount primary challenges against the guys that got elected under it... -Brien Jackson

I don't see a problem pushing conservative Democrats to be more progressive, even through primary challenges. I'd rather have the committee advantages that having a strong majority grants. I don't think there is a shred of cognitive dissonance created by advocating for more Democrats at the same time we push them to be better Democrats.

...progressives not come under the impression that electoral strategies determine outcomes... -Brien Jackson

Strategies facilitate outcomes. You may or may not oppose the 50 state strategy, but you begin from a position that we can do no better than 2008 and that Democrats will never make any headway in Utah, or Georgia, or other 'safe' red states. There are Democrats everywhere, more now than ever before. It's up to the leadership of the party to find them and organize them. Not ignore and marginalize them.

As someone who the better part of their life as a resident of Indiana, I can tell you right now, you couldn't be more wrong.

Not that I disagree, but it's somewhat amusing to watch someone like Chris Bowers go from blah blah blah...

It's somewhat amusing to watch someone like Brien Jackson argue the tired Clintonian/DLC line that some states simply don't count, and that Democrats would be better off sticking with the 50+1 strategy employed so effectively last year by our new President, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"It's somewhat amusing to watch someone like Brien Jackson argue the tired Clintonian/DLC line that some states simply don't count, and that Democrats would be better off sticking with the 50+1 strategy employed so effectively last year by our new President, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

1. There's a bit of a different dynamic between campaigning in a winner take all general election and delegate hunting in the Democratic primary.

2. I'd love to sweep Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, and Colorado. And that's obviously doable. What I'd rather not do is take resources away from those states, in a Presidential election, or from marginal House districts to go compete in a R+30 district or try to add 3 electoral votes in Wyoming or Idaho. Not because those states "don't count," but because they're incredibly difficult win in, the marginal return for winning them is very low, and because every dollar that goes there is a dollar that can't go to Colorado, Missouri, etc.

The only way to compete in those places is to change what makes you a Republican/Democrat, which largely defeats the purpose.

No. The way to compete in those places is to change what people think. That's hard to do when there aren't people in currently non-competitive areas pushing better ideas.

"The map" changes when *events* make it, and strategy should reflect that.

Passive approaches to anything rarely work well.

And not that I'm the biggest Bill Clinton fan in the world, but he got 5 more electoral votes than Obama while carrying more (and redder) states.

"No. The way to compete in those places is to change what people think. That's hard to do when there aren't people in currently non-competitive areas pushing better ideas."

Well that's not really what the 50 state strategy was, although it's a nice notion of it.

Well that's not really what the 50 state strategy was, although it's a nice notion of it. -Brien Jackson

Really? Then do tell what it was? If someone is a Republican, but would benefit from Democratic representation more, you've got to be there. If someone is apathetic, and you want them to get out and vote, you've got to be there. If someone is a Democrat, but doesn't make donations or volunteer, you've got to be there. If you want to be competitive in ever district in every state, you've got to be there.

It's *primarily* about changing peoples minds above all else. All politics is. The distinction is that this strategy doesn't dictate whose minds can be changed based on where they live.

You've crossed into absurdity in your desire to be contrary.

"Really? Then do tell what it was? If someone is a Republican, but would benefit from Democratic representation more, you've got to be there. If someone is apathetic, and you want them to get out and vote, you've got to be there. If someone is a Democrat, but doesn't make donations or volunteer, you've got to be there. If you want to be competitive in ever district in every state, you've got to be there."

Well of course, and "being there" was the crux of it. And i said I admired Dean's emphasis on recruitment. But "being there" is not the same as changing minds. For example, drilling in ANWR would mean more good paying oilfield jobs (and more royalty money) for Alaskan voters, so Alaskans are pretty supportive of drilling in ANWR. Mark Begich didn't win by convincing them to oppose drilling, he *favors* it, and he'll consistently vote to open ANWR in Congress. Same thing for Jim Webb and gun control (he opposes it broadly). Which is why I say I don't realy get the progressive obsession with it; at its heart the strategy was to get candidates who disagree with progressives in many places to run in right-of-center areas to take advantage of the median voter's disapproval of George Bush. And that's why progressives want to boot many of the people who benefitted most from it now.

And while that was a good strategy in 2006 and 2008, it just won't work going forward. Both because Democrats have a large House majority now, and because Bush isn't around anymore. There has to be a new strategy to conform with the new reality.

I liken Howard Dean to the baseball player, Curt Flood. Flood's lawsuit challenging the Reserve Clause made possible not only the huge salaries of baseball players (and subsequently other pro sports), but also the great increases in attendance at baseball stadiums and untold hundreds of millions of dollars in increased marketing. Prior to Flood the top players were making a whopping $100,000 a year, and 1 million attendance a year was considered normal for most teams.

In a word, Flood changed the lay of the land.

Howard Dean, with his 50-state strategy was, if you think about it, only doing what we all had thought they did naturally. Somehow, somewhere, someone had decided to scrimp and save. It took a gutsy guy to make that call and tell people the DNC was going to put on the ground people in North Dakota (which McCain had to then defend) and other GOP bastions.

The baseball players should all bow down to Curt Flood every time they look at their bank accounts.

Likewise, the Democratic Party should bow down to Howard Dean whenever they look on the sidelines and see former GOP Congressmen out of government. It is not to take anything away from the Dems putting up good and strong candidates.

But Dean changed the lay of the land.

Barack Obama himself should pay homage to Dean, as the man who made it all possible.

You go, Howard!

.

Kaine feels like Matt Cassel to Dean's Tom Brady...

Whoah! Wait a minute! I had Cassel on my fantasy team, and Cassel freaking ROCKED!

Cassel PROVED that it wasn't Tom Brady, but the players around him that made the NE offense go. Brady was just the poster boy for all those pro-bowlers around him.

Just as Steve Young outdid Joe Montana's performances, Cassel will outdo Brady's.

You just watch and see.

.

"It took a gutsy guy to make that call and tell people the DNC was going to put on the ground people in North Dakota (which McCain had to then defend) and other GOP bastions."

All fine and good...except for the fact that McCain didn't actually put any effort into defending North Dakota. Or Indiana. Or North Carolina. I mean, that campaign was run by (ostensibly) professional strategists. They knew good and well that if the faultline for the electin was Indiana then they'd already lost. So they identified what they needed to happen to win, and went out and campaigned in Pennsylvania.

They knew good and well that if the faultline for the electin was Indiana then they'd already lost. So they identified what they needed to happen to win, and went out and campaigned in Pennsylvania.

And Iowa. Inexplicably, both McCain and Palin spent many precious final days campaigning in Iowa. So much for the professional strategists.

"And Iowa. Inexplicably, both McCain and Palin spent many precious final days campaigning in Iowa. So much for the professional strategists."

The field for 2012 is wide open.

But that's not really the same situation. Iowa isn't a red state. Clinton won it twice, Gore won it in 2000, and Bush just barely won it in 2004. Christ even Dukakis won Iowa. Yes Obama was WAY up there, which is why it didn't make much sense (through the prism of 2008) for McCain to be there, but Iowa is the kind of state Democrats will be in every year, "50 state" or no.

Wow, Brien, yours of 2:53 is all over the map. I didn't say Iowa was a red state, nor did I comment on Iowa in relation to the 50-state strategy.

I was simply correcting your statement, "[The strategists] knew good and well that if the faultline for the electin was Indiana then they'd already lost. So they identified what they needed to happen to win, and went out and campaigned in Pennsylvania." They did campaign in Pennsylvania, which was fairly mirth-making considering Obama's lead there, but not surprising given that it really was their only option. They also campaigned extensively in Iowa, which was clearly going to be Obama's, during the final days--wasting precious time and resources and failing to demonstrate that they really understood the electoral map. And contrary to your statement, they campaigned and spent significant ad money in North Carolina as well, until very late in the process.