And would Rosenberg, as DNC chair, do it any differently? And should he?
No, he shouldn’t. We shouldn’t pour money into Texas or Mississippi during a Presidential year. If there are winnable state races, and especially in the off years, sure: I think everyone running is interested in doing that for the long term future of the party. But even Dean’s rhetoric is just that. It’s GOOD rhetoric, and I expect every Democrat will make something like it (we want every vote, no matter what state! blah blah blah). But no one is going to be stupid enough to spend the same amount of money in New York or Washington D.C. as they do in Iowa or Ohio promoting a national candidate.
Did you have a strategy to get a high base turnout in just about every state, the way Rove did with the GMA/moral values issue.
I know it’s not as easy for Dems, because the base isn’t as homogeneous as the GOP. Even in hindsight, I still can’t think of a single issue that would have excited everyone in the Dem base.
But thanks again for the info, and good luck herding those cats in future. I’ll give Rosenberg another look.
I can’t speak for what was done in every state. We obviously hit our base up for as much as we could, but in non battleground states I’m sure that primarily meant money and travel/helping the campaign.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean about Rove. They didn’t spend money on GOTV in non-battleground states that I’m aware of.
Just so people don’t think I’m totally crazy: some other prominent lefty bloggers are Rosenberg people too:
Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_23.php#004584
Are you sure about that? I was thinking specifically of the FBIP grants. The RNC hired David Barton (WallBuilders) to push the FBIP as a way of targetting, mobilising, and influencing the “moral values” voters. Bush subsequently made overall gains with catholics and social conservative black and hispanic voters - decisive voting blocs in some states, but also adding to the pop vote margin in both red and blue states that weren’t in play.
You don’t think that counts as non-battleground GOTV strategy? (although I’m sure they put more effort/money into the battleground states in that regard) BTW, exactly where that FBIP money went in 2004 is still in question.
Well, I don’t think you’re crazy. I’ve read a lot of good things about Rosenberg too. IMO, the Frost backers are the ones who aren’t thinking straight…
AFAIK, Dean is now ahead of the pack in endorsements. Can Rosenberg pull out a win? Does he have potential support outside of CA/Silicon Valley?
Everyone puts SOME money all over the country. The question is what it goes into. I very much doubt they spent GOTV money in Utah. What they probably spent was fundraising/volunteer recruitment money.
What exactly is wrong with Frost?
I understand that. I think we’re missing each other here, because that doesn’t really address my point.
Was the Kerry campaign aware of the FBIP push over the last 3 years, and did they have anything comparable as a strategy, or counter-strategy?
He ran, and lost, as someone proud of being able to work with the GOP (did you see those ads he ran?). I’m tired of Dems who seem to be ashamed of being Dems.
Nothing against him personally, btw. I imagine it’s a tough go to be a Dem in Texas. I just don’t see him as a figurehead for the national party.
If you’re a Frost backer, then sell him to me/us. I’m open to info I might have missed…
I’m not familiar with FBIP. Actually, I am, because my wife is a doctor. FBIP stands for “Foreign Body in Penis.” But… I don’t think that’s what you meant. 
Ah. Sorry. Should have spelled it out: Faith-Based Initiative Program. Here are some links:
GOP Using Faith Initiative to Woo Voters
Top government officials overseeing the program, designed to funnel federal social service grants to religious groups, have appeared at Republican-sponsored events and with GOP candidates in at least six states.
Bush’s faith-based agenda alive and well in federal agencies
Opening up government coffers to religious and community groups probably won’t hinge on whether or not the President’s legislative agenda succeeds. Instead, religious groups’ access to government grants and funds will depend more upon the efforts of a handful of Bush appointees who have been quietly squirreled away in barely noticed offices at five federal departments–Education; Health and Human Services; Housing and Urban Development; Justice; and Labor.
Bush Rewarded by Black Pastors’ Faith
His stands, backed by funding of ministries, redefined the GOP’s image with some clergy.
[From WallBuilders site](http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=110
demographics):
*Urban Voters: Urban areas tend to be the most strongly-Democratic geographic regions of the nation (i.e., the blue areas on the map); yet in this election, urban support for Democrats fell from 71% in 2000 to 60%, prompting Democratic observers to lament that the blue areas on the map are becoming less blue.
African American Voters: While African Americans continue to be the Democrats’ most loyal constituency, President Bush increased his share of the black vote from 8% in 2000 to 11% in this election. While that gain seems small, it was actually greater than it appears. In 2000, Bush received 864,000 votes from African Americans; in 2004, he received 1.45 million votes – a 70% increase in the actual number of individual African Americans voting for President Bush.*
Oh that? How are you suggesting that Democrats use public funds to buy people off when they aren’t in power?
I should note that as far as I know, the stats quoted by Wallbuilders turned out to be bogus. Bush didn’t make any big inroads with African Americans. But then, Barton is the same guy who invented a bunch of bogus quotes from the founders praising the Bible as the foundational text of the Constituion.
Just curious about whether or not the campaign was aware of this, and if they had a counter-strategy. Was there significant outreach to faith-based groups as a GOTV strategy?
I double checked Barton’s claims with the NEP exit polls and they seems to agree. I don’t know of any other data to compare it to. Did your internal polls say something else?
To be honest, none of them excite me. Sorry. Maybe we need some sort of “Evil Genius”, like Karl Rove on our side. We need someone who knows how to pick a fight and win, and is not above “borrowing” from the Other Guy’s playbook. The last election should have taught us something. To simplify a lot, we had Kerry the boxer against Bush the street fighter. We had Kerry’s defense (or lack of any) vs. Bush’s offense. We know how that turned out. We had “I have a plan” vs. variations on a theme “You’re a liberal leftist elitist Commie traitor and boring too”. Who took the fight to whom?
Campaigns are like bar fights. If you aren’t out to draw blood, stay home.
As far as becoming more like the Republican party, my answer to that is, if I wanted to be more like a Republican, I would BE Republican. Each is an alternative to the other. If they were the same, why bother having two parties?
You guys are going about this the wrong way. From the sound of the debate, it seems like you guys are projecting what you want in a Presidential candidate onto the DNC Chair. Not the best way of going about it.
The personal politics of the DNC chair should matter not one damn. You need an organizer and fundraiser; the question of ‘acting more like Republicans’ (or the Democratic Party of John Kennedy, for that matter), is utterly irrelevant to the job. Or rather, it should be irrelevant to the job.
Don’t get me wrong. I hope the DNC pics some candidate based on ideology (Dean) over some boring technician (Frost).
Brutus, is it ok if we call your motives transparent here in GD, since it is such a minor matter, or should we take it to the pit? Choosing the practically pro-Republican Frost over a number of equally boring but not as far right alternatives was not an accident, and though you may defend it as one, we may doubt whether you are even being honest with yourself. Of course you’d like both parties to share your views. But what of it?
And that is what I am talking about, though it doesn’t seem to be sinking into your skull. It doesn’t matter what the hell Frost (or any candidate) is for or against. It’s a techinical job, not an ideologicial one. You leave the ideology to the politicians and candidates and their crew. The Chair runs the party. The Chair doesn’t set the agenda or any such crap.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream LALALALALALA all you want, but it won’t change matters. You guys need someone to run the party, not advance whatever the hell agenda you guys are going on about.
If you’d actually read this thread, you might have noted that I made exactly the same point.
However, neither Frost NOR Dean seem to agree with this: BOTH seem to want to set agendas. So your suggestion of Frost seems to me to be an example of you not taking your own poisoned advice.
I don’t think this is about coronating the next “King of the Democrats”, but I do think ideology (aka “setting the agenda”) is part of the job. If it wasn’t there wouldn’t be so much factional infighting.
Every time a Dem talking head appears on tv, unprepared for the right-wing noise of the day, and not on message, I blame the DNC chair, for not providing that message.
And what is that message? Who is in charge of defining and shaping it? Who distributes the talking points? And what are those talking points? What is the strategy?
Every time I ask specific questions like this, the Dems here go silent.
McAuliffe was a pretty good fundraiser, no? So where did he go wrong?
It’s a bit more than simply a technical job. Rove has shown, again and again, that without motivating your base, you’ve got nothing. He’s not that cunning; it’s been out there all the time.
I think Dean gets that. And I even think Rosenberg gets that - he saw the value of Dean, even when the DLC didn’t.
Frost wants Joe Lieberman to be the voice of the party. He doesn’t get it.
The agenda needs to be set by by consensus from the prominent Dems out there. Think ‘Contract with America’. You can’t and won’t get every Dem to agree on every point, but you need a broad consensus on a couple of big-ticket items.
Yep!
May I recommend a ‘We hate America and oh ya we like kicking puppies’ platform? No? Damn. Well, what the particulars of the message are is another matter. I think the Dems could make some serious (if misguided) hay with railing against outsourcing and illegal immigration, a sort of ‘American jobs for Americans’ sort of thing.
But again, the message is for you guys to decide. The dissemination and enforcement is up to the Chair.
Terrible organizer. Where is the DNCs ‘get out the vote’ framework? Heck, Dems are losing minority votes under him, and that is dangerous for the DNC. He really is a damned good fundraiser, though.
Ya, but Rove isn’t the RNC chair. Gillespie was (now it’s Ken Mehlman), and he focused on running the machine in a manner decided upon by the strategists; he didn’t pick the direction, nor the methods. (Though I bet he had input on the matters)
Dean will try to suck too much spotlight. Ya, he claims he won’t be running in '08 if selected, but…
Once upon a time, you guys had a great selection of party bosses that kept the ranks in order. Who knows, maybe you will again have such bosses, but it takes time.