SHOWDOWN 06: The Washington Monthly

October 27, 2006

ON THE GROUND: I don't mean to be a downer to the exuberant Democrats out there, but I do want to inject a little bit of caution. The latest round of polls show a number of races tightening and a whole host of 'em are neck and neck. That's unlikely to change in the next week and a half, and so the much-discussed "ground game" is likely going to determine the outcomes. Bush, himself, said as much recently, boasting that the GOP has a "fantastic grass-roots organization to turn out the vote." Sure, it's a boast, but there's some truth to it.

To oversimplify, there's two ways to do "get out the vote" (GOTV) operations on election day. The first involves calling and/or knocking on the doors of those voters who you already know are supporting your candidate. (Generally called "pluses" in the argot of field operatives). These folks have been identified by your campaign over the previous months and have told you consistently they are with you. You need to make sure you get them to the polls. Then there's what's called a "blind pull." To do a blind pull, you use past voting history, polling data and, in the GOP's case, consumer data to find demographic groups -- the elderly, Latinos, gun-owners -- who are favoring your candidate by a significant margin. On election day you go to the doors of folks that fit this demographic description and remind them to vote, betting that even though you don't know who they are voting for, their demographic profile weighs in your favor.

But good GOTV isn't made in the last few weeks. To have the most effective GOTV operation you need a lot of investment ahead of time. You need good data to help you identify voters who are likely to be with you, and a lot of volunteers and paid canvassers to make the calls and knock on doors over the course of the campaign to gather the maximum number of pluses, and then do the "knock and drag" on election day. Volunteers are hard to get without some kind of pre-existing organization -- local Democratic clubs, churches, meetups -- providing them. And, of course, you need money.

Well, suprise, surprise, in a lot of the country, the Democrats don't have much organization, and up until recently, a lot of candidates didn't have much money. In fact, in one fiercely contested battleground state, I've heard the DCCC is running its own field operation because they don't trust the state party to do even a minimally competent job.

Whether Democrats win or not, rebuilding robust local organizations that can turn out voters is possibly the single most important strategic objective over the next few years.

—Christopher Hayes 2:12 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Comments

Without DNC head and former Gov. Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy", democratic GOTV efforts in many states would be less than they are today.

You could have mentioned that.

Also, republican "72 Hour Project" GOTV efforts are heavily dependent on republican activist volunteers, many of whom are evangelical protestant, social conservatives who, if opinion polls are any indication, are less motivated to participate this election cycle.

Another factor to consider.

Posted by: Aaron Adams on October 27, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

We are Democrats. We don't belong to an organized political party. Since the beltway losers just want our ad money for their "air wars" it is up to each of us to get people out to vote. What are you going to do. I am going to make sure my Democratic friends are called and if necessary delivered to the polls. Don't depend on anybody else to do it for you.

Posted by: Ron Byers on October 27, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Problem for the democrats is a lot of progressive voters, like myself, feel like the Democratic Party no longer represents my values.

They didn't speak up against the Iraq War, they voted for the Patriot Act, many of them supported tax cuts for the rich and corporations that have led to our exploding debt, and their 'star' candidate, Ms. Clinton, is for a flag-burning amendment, supports the War, and the Patriot Act for the most part.

I used to give a little money and burn a lot of shoe leather for the Democratic Party. Not anymore, sorry, although I do try to support individual progressive candidates with a little money here or there.

The democrats need to convince me that I am making a good investment if I give them my time and money. All I see is Republican-light, which is a losing formula as the democrats will always be the 'wishy-washy' party without the backbone to propose aggressive new initiatives like the fully right-wing republicans.

The democrats need to propose real progressive government that will work on all the huge problems we face that the corporate media ignores. If people won't elect them for that then let the people suffer long enough until they do...

Posted by: Brian on October 30, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Brian - While I hate centrists as much as the next liberal (I hate the word progressive - what does it mean? How is it different from liberal?) as far as taking control of Congress goes, there is no doubt that Democratic control will mean:

The end of fake evidence to start unnecessary pre-emptive wars.
More oversight of the Executive branch.
Less overhaul of the Bill of Rights.
Fairer taxes.
Better judges.

Nothing will be perfect, but if I get half of those, I'll be a whole lot happier than I am today.

Support your local (and distant) Dem!

Posted by: K on October 30, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, Brian, you support the Republicans? That's sad, because you should know better. You'd prefer several more years of Republican fascism while you're waiting for the perfect candidate to come along? Nice, have a nice wait. Just don't bitch while the jackboots march past your house.

Posted by: CT on October 30, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

All I am saying is that the democrats are not going to build a long-term winning strategy being repub-light. The dems will get my vote, although if Hillary is the democratic nominee for Prez in '08 I might vote Green.

The democratic party needs to be the populist party. More than 65% of Americans want a single-payer healthcare system, but our democratic leadership like Joe Lieberman are in the pockets of the insurance and financial services companies insuring that no real reform will come. It's time for a class war and a war on corporatism (the core of fascism), and for the democratic party to lead it... even at the risk of alienating some of its potential donors. Because, those donors will always prefer the real thing - the fascist repugs over the dems and will work to sabotage any real progress.

It's also time for the democrats to propose a consistent foreign policy in the middle east that will also criticize Israel and Saudi Arabia when it is deserved. Criticizing Israel is not anti-semitic, ... ahh the dangers of a religious state are so apparent...

By the way, the difference between a progressive and a liberal is that a progressive believes in reform and that government is part of the solution, and in the importance of civil liberties and civil rights; but a progressive doesn't hyper-ventilate on gay rights, abortion rights, - it supports them but from a purely individual choice argument - and does not look at true Christians and other religious Americans as being a 'fringe element'. Liberal = Mike Dukakis, Progressive = Teddy Roosevelt (an old-fashioned Republican) or maybe John Edwards...

Posted by: Brian on October 30, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

If I had to choose between ideological imperfection and the last six years of the Bush administration, I know which one I would take.

Posted by: Renwick on October 31, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK