This subject has come up in several threads lately, and seems to deserve its own discussion.
Howard Dean has now been DNC chair for several months, and the early results don’t look promising. It seems to me that he has taken a bombastic strategy designed to rile up the base, rather than efforts to build the party and its warchest.
Fundraising for the Democrats in the first quarter of this year was less than half of the Republican effort. And while Dean has been talking to labor and state party groups in an effort to shore up the base, his counterpart, Ken Mehlman, has been talking to minority groups in an effort to peel even more voters away from the Democrats.
I realize it’s still early, and that Dean could still turn things around. But he hasn’t even named a political director yet, the fundraising will continue to be a problem, and Dean’s rhetoric is so hot that people in the middle could easily be chased away.
Anyway, that’s my entry to this discussion, and I’m curious how it looks to other folks.
This kind of says it all IMHO and goes with my hispanic thread (which didn’t really ever get off the ground):
Bolding mine. Its a good contrast, and shows the different strategies. Which will be more effective in the long term? IMO courting minority groups (especially hispanics) and showing them that perhaps they have more in common with republicans (especially on the quasi-religious type issues) will probably pay off more in terms of voters moving over than attempting to energize your base…after all, most of them are already going to vote for you. In that respect I don’t think Dean is doing the job he needs to do if the democrats expect to pick up some seats in '06.
I’m interested in seeing what some democrats have to say though…do THEY think Dean is doing a good job, thats really the question.
I’m not informed enough, but I’ll just point out that since the Republicans and Democrats are in rather different positions right now, it only makes sense that their chairmen are pursuing different strategies.
My general impression is that the union base has been dying a slow death for a long time, so perhaps spending a lot of energy on that is a bad use of time.
However you can see right there in xstime’s post that Dean is speaking to Democrats in traditionally Republican areas, and I can tell you as somebody who regularly gets his e-mails that that’s always been part of his strategy and a one of the positive signs he points to. I do think that makes sense and it’s a form of outreach, not just speaking to the base.
Nobody casts their vote based on who the chair is. But money does buy votes. And if Dean is the most effective fundraiser, then he’s right for the job.
It seems to me that Dean is not the sort of person who would be best at taking the Republican strategy. He is at his best when riling up the base. Going after republican states is probably better (for him) than focusing on swing voters that are turned off by him anyway.
There were still a lot of people who didn’t vote last election. More than enough to have changed the results. What Dean is probably trying to do is give the impression that the Democrats are not Republicrats and that there is actually a choice so it’s worth getting up off of your ass and voting.
Democrats where not excited about Kerry. I believe it’s because he didn’t provide a real alternative, he was simply “Anyone but Bush.” I can’t cite at the moment, but I seem to remember that likely republican voters were more enthusiastic during the last election.
Mr. Moto:Fundraising for the Democrats in the first quarter of this year was less than half of the Republican effort.
But as Bob noted, the Dems simply don’t have as deep pockets as the Republicans, so that’s only to be expected. We need to establish mutually agreed-upon criteria for what counts as “screwing up” before we can answer the question in the OP.
Money does indeed talk, BobLibDem. And a party that can raise $3.4 million in three weeks won’t be as effective against one that recently raised $15 million in a single night.
As to your first claim, about Democrats always having less money, weren’t you one of those trumpeting the fact that the Democrats outraised the Republicans late last year?
Please note what I said about Democratic fundraising last year, which was quite good. This link demonstrates this.
And I don’t know if we can come up with strict success-failure metrics until the next election, at which time things will be crystal clear. But when Howard Dean calls Republicans “evil”, I see it as counterproductive to his own cause, and not the way I’d approach business. You, on the other hand, might just love it.
If you think he’s doing great, just say so. I’d love to hear why.
The Dems indeed did a fine job last fall in raising funds. But on the whole, the Republicans are going to have an edge in raising money year round.
The questions I see are:
Is Dean raising more money than was raised by his predecessor? Based on the first few weeks of his tenure, I’d say that’s true.
Could anyone have done better? Hard to say. But given his proven ability to raise funds online in 2004, I don’t think other Democratic contenders can come close to him in this regard.
Do we need a high profile guy? I think so. We need to keep the energy going. Dean’s message resonates with the Democratic faithful. Keeping them on board is job 1.
Mr. Moto: *But when Howard Dean calls Republicans “evil”, I see it as counterproductive to his own cause, and not the way I’d approach business. You, on the other hand, might just love it.
*
:eek: And I thought we were so happy together, in our ideologically-adversarial-but-mutually-respectful style. Was it something I said?
2004 post election analysis seems to be that Karl Rove felt that the swing voters did not exist - or if they did, the weren’t going to be motivated enough to come out in droves. So he just kept pumping up the base.
All conventional widsom pointed to undecideds swinging towards the challenger. So, driving resources into the base seems to have worked.
I think that may be confusing the short term goals of a candidate and the long term strategy of a political party.
For instance, nobody thinks the Democrats can take the House next election cycle. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be working toward this eventual goal.
I think it’s counterproductive as well. Along with adds loke the new MoveOn add with elephants charging the white house. There ar elots of moderates, republicans, democrats and independents that don’t like this administration.
We need to have a realistic and respectful dialogue aimed at those people.
If ypou use the same nasty superficial tactics that your opponents use then you’re no better. People tune out that kind of rhetoric and turn off to being involved.
I don’t think Dean’s performance can fairly be measured against his Republican counterpart, but rather against his Democratic predessessor. In this regard, he’s doing as best a job as can be expected this early in the game. He had a lot of damage to repair. Terry McAuliff was extremely ineffective as chairman. As has been noted, Dean is outperforming him in terms of fundraising and he is riling up the base–which had been apathetic at best before his tenure.
It’s not reasonable to expect him to outperform the Republican party at this point. First he must lay the groundwork, then he can join the competition.
I think he’s doing a great job, and in large part it’s because his personality is a refreshing contrast from politics-as-usual Terry.
cosmosdan: *Along with adds loke the new MoveOn add with elephants charging the white house. There ar elots of moderates, republicans, democrats and independents that don’t like this administration. *
To be fair, that ad did explicitly praise the “courageous Republicans” who were said to be standing up to the radical ones represented by the charging elephants. A lot of people reacted to that image as a sweeping criticism of all Republicans, but that wasn’t what the ad was actually saying.
Congressional Democrats appear to be growing a spine recently, most notably facing down Bush on Social Security and DeLay’s “nuclear option” filibuster-busting plans. Can those successes be attributed to Dean, as well?
I don’t think so, and neither would I pin any Republican legislative successes on Ken Mehlman directly. Far more credit would go to the party leadership in the House and Senate, of whichever party you’re talking about.
The head of the DNC (or RNC) would be far more concerned with fundraising, party building, party organization, and candidate recruitment.
