Showing up

I wasn't expecting this reaction at all, but having read the article I think Matt Bai really nails it, writing about Howard Dean, his "50 State Strategy," his conflicts with the DSCC and DCCC, and related matters:

Most analysts in both parties now believe that Democrats have better-than-even odds of winning at least the House. But if they don’t, rather than dissect the mechanical failures that cost them a few thousand votes here or there, Democrats might be forced to admit, at long last, that there is a structural flaw in their theory of party-building. Even a near miss, at a time of such overwhelming opportunity, would suggest that a national party may not, in fact, be able to win over the long term by fixating on a select group of industrial states while condemning entire regions of the country to what amounts to one-party rule. Which would mean that Howard Dean is right to replant his party’s flag in the towns and counties along America’s less-traveled highways, even if his plan isn’t perfect, and even if he isn’t the best messenger to carry it out. As another flawed visionary, the filmmaker Woody Allen, once put it, 80 percent of success is just showing up.

Another thing I would add, that Bai doesn't really get into, is that just about every election looks uniquely crucial. Which isn't to deny that 2006 does, in fact, look uniquely crucial. But I recall 2004 and 2002 as having looked the same way. This is just a natural human bias toward over-emphasizing the present, but there it is none the less. Everyone agrees that the long term needs to be addressed sometime or other and, really, there's no time like the present.

Comments

I had the same reaction, including surprise at Bai's half-conclusion. The title-image picture of Dean is weird, though.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 1, 2006 2:57 PM

Seems to me that even the fact that a Democratic victory isn't a foregone conclusion at "a time of such overwhelming opportunity" suggests that there's something deeply wrong with the Democrats' approach.

Posted by Matthew Longo | October 1, 2006 3:22 PM

The fact that a Republican defeat isn't a foregone conclusion suggests there is something deeply wrong with America's critical thinking process. This should be news to no one.

Posted by MDtoMN | October 1, 2006 3:29 PM

Due to the sophisticated science of slicing and dicing issues, the unchecked perfidy of Diebold, canny redistricting, and the inertia of voters, were the Democrats get a 1 vote majority in either house, it would be (and require) a miracle.

At any rate, a scant majority (among thieves) would be small use. I don't forsee any change in the way business is done in this country.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 1, 2006 3:43 PM

"The fact that a Republican defeat isn't a foregone conclusion suggests there is something deeply wrong with America's critical thinking process. This should be news to no one."

This will undoubtedly be a great comfort should the Dems lose again. It's no substitute for actually getting some power to make a difference. Rather than hold our breath and wait for America's critical thinking to improve [assuming that an abstraction like "America" thinks at all], we do need to focus our attention on getting a majority of American voters on our side--critical thinking flaws and all. We go into elections, to paraphrase Rummy, with the country we've got.

Posted by David | October 1, 2006 3:52 PM

Racism cloaked in religion and security is a tough nut to crack.

Now that the cloak is in tatters...it's shouldn't be that hard for Democrats to win.

Posted by monkyboy | October 1, 2006 3:52 PM

The Republicans just made torture legal. The Republicans just passed a bill prevent attourneys who successfully challenge Establishment clause violations from collecting attourneys fees. As the Washington Post stated, "The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion."

And in case you haven't noticed, there's a war going on, ripping the limbs from our soliders & them from their families & puting the country in Danger.

This is NOT just some random mid term. We need to stop the bleeding NOW!

Posted by DRR | October 1, 2006 4:22 PM

One one hand I am sad the Democratic victory isn't a forgone conclusion. But it's important to remember the House elections don't really reflect what people believe about the party's, just the CHANGES in the House reflect that.

Ie, if Republicans are unpopular, they tend to lose 20 seats no matter what they have right now . So it takes a few bad elections to bring a majority party into striking range. This is how the Democrats held power for so long, after all.

Posted by Tony v | October 1, 2006 4:22 PM

The big argument for pouring money into Congressional races this time is that we have a shot at some seats we probably won't have a shot at again. Winning those, and using the power of incumbency to defend them in less Democratic years, has a lot to be said for it. There's also the hope of winning just one chamber to investigate Bush.

I don't think winning 2 chambers is as important this year as it will be in 2008. If we get President Edwards and both chambers of Congress, our chances for enacting real progressive policies will be better than any time in the last 40 years.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 1, 2006 4:24 PM

Matt, your blogroll link to Lindsay Beyerstein doesn't work. I think you may have gotten "http" in there twice.

Posted by SqueakyRat | October 1, 2006 5:04 PM

The big argument for pouring money into Congressional races this time is that we have a shot at some seats we probably won't have a shot at again.

I think the 50-state strategy is meant to increase the number of shots we have at those seats down the road.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 1, 2006 5:12 PM

Bai's article is his usual mix of half brilliance and half idiocy.

I think the fundamental idea behind the 50 state project is very important. But I think another crucial pull quote in Bai's piece is this:

But you can accept Dean’s premise and still wonder whether his 50-state strategy is really the best way to go about building the party. Even some Democrats who support Dean’s larger vision have doubts about whether he has built enough accountability into his model for financing state parties. Republicans, as I saw firsthand in Ohio during the 2004 campaign, demand certain metrics of their local organizers. Field workers are expected to sign up so many new voters, or knock on so many doors, by a given date, and people who don’t meet their quotas and deadlines can find themselves replaced — even if they’re volunteers. Republican staffs in the states are required to take part in an unrelenting succession of conference calls with Washington. By contrast, Jonathan Teeters, the 25-year-old activist I met in Anchorage, told me that he wished he spoke more often with his superiors at the D.N.C.

Dean's Presidential campaign mismanaged and wasted resources at an incredibly high rate even for the genre of Presidential campaigns. I have pretty severe concerns that Dean is going to expend limited resources on the 50 state project that don't achieve the results a competent 50 state project could achieve.

That's one thing. The other is the issue of the current election. Matt writes:

"every election looks uniquely crucial. Which isn't to deny that 2006 does, in fact, look uniquely crucial. But I recall 2004 and 2002 as having looked the same way."

There are two points here.

First is Neil's criticism that we have a chance to put incumbents into seats that we might not have a decent shot at for decades. This is not an unimportant concern.

You take advantage of your openings in politics. Democrats probably stalled off the GOP takeover the House by more than a decade by taking advantage of a big opening in 1974. We have a similar big opening this year. Everyone should be making sacrifices to take advantage.

Second is an important point that Bai didn't touch on.

The DNC needs to provide GOTV, candidate support, and demographic targeting power because no one else in the party can do this on a reliable basis, election after election.

It's what the RNC does, to great effect. They've built a fearsome November machine. Dean must devote energy and resources toward making the DNC competitive in these areas.

Up until now, Dean has abdicated this role, and that means long-term disaster for the party, not just this year's election. Without the DNC taking on the responsibility, these tasks will always fall to ad hoc organization, all constantly trying to re-invent the wheel.

If we continue like that, e will always be operating from a deep hole on the November battlefield.

Posted by Petey | October 1, 2006 5:22 PM

Bai is no friend to Democrats, Matthew.

If Democrats win, the Dem establishment will say it was in spite of Dean. If they lose, they will blame Dean. Bai knows this as well as anyone but suggests it would be better that Democrats not win. Why? To teach 'em a lesson.

I say Democrats don't need to learn any lessons by losing. Better they should win. Why? For the sake of the country. My God, a George W. Bush with two years more of a rubber-stamp Congress?????

Bai is no friend to Democrats. But he is also no friend to his country.

Posted by tristero | October 1, 2006 5:48 PM

"Seems to me that even the fact that a Democratic victory isn't a foregone conclusion at "a time of such overwhelming opportunity" suggests that there's something deeply wrong with the Democrats' approach."

There is, indeed, something deeply wrong, and there has been something deeply wrong for almost 40 years now.

If you're looking to understand the root causes of the problem, I can't recommend highly enough Thomas Edsall's Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive For Permanent Power.

Posted by Petey | October 1, 2006 6:03 PM

"Rather than hold our breath and wait for America's critical thinking to improve ... we do need to focus our attention on getting a majority of American voters on our side--critical thinking flaws and all. We go into elections, to paraphrase Rummy, with the country we've got."

Hear, hear!

Posted by Petey | October 1, 2006 6:08 PM

And finally, for an example of what the RNC is doing that Dean's DNC should be doing, but isn't, check out this Mike Allen piece.

This isn't about one-time expenditures, this is about building a November machine that brings results every two years, and that's keep innovating its techniques to get better.

Posted by Petey | October 1, 2006 6:20 PM

If Democrats win, the Dem establishment will say it was in spite of Dean. If they lose, they will blame Dean.

Just what I was going to say... if we end up with a near miss, Dean will be blamed for hiring a few people to, as Paul Begala said, "go to Utah and Mississippi and pick their noses," instead of forking the cash over to buy a few lame 30-second spots in Missouri.

Posted by latts | October 1, 2006 6:27 PM

The Mike Allen piece cited above is comic in its obviousness. "Learn from the past"? "Draw in new voters"?

Where does one go to get paid for coming up with stuff like that?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 1, 2006 6:35 PM

this is about building a November machine that brings results every two years, and that's keep innovating its techniques to get better

On Dean's behalf, I'd say that his approach has a good chance of doing that. Give money to campaigns, and you get the one-time boost of a bunch of ads. Give money to state parties to organize precincts, and you get something that lasts longer.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 1, 2006 6:55 PM

Dean will do fine. As he acknowledged, he'll make his share of gigantic mistakes along the way. But he's smart and he really does want the Democratic Party to be the majority party. That makes him a better fit as leader for the Democrats than, for example, Emmanuel, who would seem to prefer being a top dog in the minority party to being shuffled slightly down the order in the majority party. If we don't catch the Republicans this time, we'll catch them in '08, and if not, then in '10.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 1, 2006 6:58 PM

"On Dean's behalf, I'd say that his approach has a good chance of doing that. Give money to campaigns, and you get the one-time boost of a bunch of ads. Give money to state parties to organize precincts, and you get something that lasts longer."

There are two long-term things the DNC needs to be doing: strengthening the local parties and building a November war machine. The RNC is doing both of them, and Dean is is only aspiring to do the former.

Giving cash to campaigns is a separate thing from both of these tasks.

Posted by Petey | October 1, 2006 7:10 PM

How did Matt Bai go from:

It's easy to make fun of Matt Bai; he's a People magazine writer suddenly trying to write for Foreign Policy. His piece in yesterday's Times magazine read like someone vaguely trying to repeat something he heard someone else say without quite understanding the point or asking questions.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/19/132357/33

To:

I think Matt Bai really nails it

In just a few months???

Some kind of payoff?

X number of shoutouts to TPM "thinkers" per year, maybe?

Posted by monkyboy | October 1, 2006 7:20 PM

> If Democrats win, the Dem establishment
> will say it was in spite of Dean. If they
> lose, they will blame Dean

Too late - petey already implanted that meme in Matt's brain a few posts before yours.

Petey - if you're so smart, why aren't you a Senator? Or a state Democratic Party Chairman? Or DNC Chairman?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 1, 2006 7:40 PM

"How did Matt Bai go from (bad) to (good)"

I think it's a lot easier to hold Bai in contempt when he's writing about something you know well. He was expressing his customary light grasp of the material in Mark Schmitt's area of expertise, so Schmitt slapped him. Here, he's talking about something somewhat off Matthew's beat, so Matthew doesn't see his light grasp of the material.

Posted by Petey | October 1, 2006 8:08 PM

"Petey - if you're so smart, why aren't you a Senator?"

Maybe I am. On the internet, no one can tell if you're an unusually well-educated golden retriever or Barack Obama.

Posted by Petey | October 1, 2006 8:11 PM

I don't know, petey.

Schmitt himself doesn't seem to have accomplished much in the field.

I'm fascinated by the groups of mutual ass-kissers who have risen to prominence in America in fields like science, the military, entertainment, politics, etc.

Journalism and blogs seem to fit the pattern.

I was hoping for a little inside info here.

What's the entry fee?

Posted by monkyboy | October 1, 2006 8:18 PM

Schmitt himself doesn't seem to have accomplished much in the field.

You mean, as compared to you? Well, course not.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 1, 2006 8:38 PM

Schmitt was a speechwriter and top staffer for Sen. Bill Bradley! He's accomplished more than any of us wankers.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 1, 2006 8:43 PM

"Schmitt was a speechwriter and top staffer for Sen. Bill Bradley"

And he seems to have particular expertise in the area of entitlements, which is what that Bai piece was all about.

Posted by Petey | October 1, 2006 8:50 PM

Petey writes: "There is, indeed, something deeply wrong [with the fact that a Democratic rout in '06 isn't assured, given the widespread discontent with Republican rule], and there has been something deeply wrong for almost 40 years now.

If you're looking to understand the root causes of the problem, I can't recommend highly enough Thomas Edsall's Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive For Permanent Power."

That's part of it, but not all of it. The perception of Democrats as weak on national security, coupled with the Iraq War, has put Democrats in a politically untenable position. Democrats that opposed our going to war are painted as "weak," "cowardly," and "soft on national security." Democrats that supported our going to war are seen as either pale shadows of Republicans or traitors to the party base. This leaves few options. One of them -- remaining vague about the war and waiting for Republicans to self destruct -- was the Kerry strategy, which failed (because, I think, at the end of the day, people now prefer the toughest guy in the election, even if that candidate isn't the smartest or the most competent). Another of them -- criticizing the way the war is being waged, not the basis upon which we went into it -- leaves Democrats to answer the difficult question "What would you do differently?" And the truth is that Iraq is such a mess that there aren't easy solutions, and the solutions that I've heard proposed (e.g., rechannel our efforts away from smoking-out terrorists and toward improving safety inside Iraq cities) don't make good soundbites. That's why I think Democrats will have trouble in November. The Iraq War is unpopular, but that doesn't mean voters will turn to us.

Posted by Daniel, Esq. | October 1, 2006 8:51 PM

While i agree with Dean that the Dems must try to compete in all 50 states, I'm not at all impressed with Dean as the messenger to get the Democratic Party competitive in all 50 states, and I think it is abundantly clear that he is at best a mediocre fundraiser. (At worst he is utterly incompetent and could cost the Dems the election). The 50 state strategy would work iff the DNC was flush with cash, not when it is virtually penniless compared to the Republicans.

I'm in graduate school, so I can't follow everything closely, but i did read an op-ed of Dean's in the Wall Street Journal the other day. One of the first rules of writing is to consider your audience -- his op-ed, while perfectly reasonable, seemed to be written as if made for the Boston Globe. His idea of writing for the WSJ is a good one, but the Op-ed itself was terribly disappointing, and would not have drawn any friendly businessman closer to the Democratic Party. I think we need a DNC chairman who is more methodical, scientific, and keeps his nose to the grindstone trying to make the DNC a lean, efficient machine and tries to increase the Democratic base. I haven't seen any data points which suggest that Dean is that guy... Can anyone picture him using advanced statistical and econometric techniques to decide where money is spent like Ken Mehlmen does? No f*ing way. When you spend money in close elections like this, you've got to maximize every dollar subject to tight constraints. Pissing away money in places like Alaska at a time like this when republicans are outspending dems 3 to 1 in tight races in Indiana (where dems usually aren't competitive but, do to nothing but luck suddenly are) is utterly preposterous, no matter how you try to spin it.

Posted by doug | October 1, 2006 9:25 PM

Schmitt was a speechwriter and top staffer for Sen. Bill Bradley!

Wow, him and a million other hacks?

Hehe, a regular Churchill.

Something must be up here.

Here is Matt, one of the legacy "intellectuals" of the blogosphere, writing about Bai less than a year ago:

Josh already noted this travesty from Matt Bai on the new economic order, but really trying to critique Bai's "argument" is pointless in this case. The whole article is total nonsense from top to bottom.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/18/142847/21

Bai went from being ridiculed by the blogging offspring of the famous to worthy of Yoda-like encouragement from young Matt.

What happened?

Posted by monkyboy | October 1, 2006 9:28 PM

I would argue that the reason 2000 went down the way it did was because it didn't seem particularly crucial at the time who won. America faced a choice between a DLC Vice President and George Dubya, who looked stupid, but not yet malevolent. Hence Nader's siphoning.

Posted by dj moonbat | October 1, 2006 9:33 PM

Party affiliation and party identification in a two-party systems is almost spiritual. It tends to be more tribal than ideological, and its tendency to persist thru time does make some elections more important and decisive than others, because the party identifications adopted in moments of high political excitement tend to persist into quieter periods.

Right now, we're experiencing the results, in part, of a peak in Republican identification among voters, whose initiation into political awareness came with Carter and Reagan. The intensity of dissatisfaction with Bush has the potential to do the same thing that dissatisfaction with Carter did: to brand a generation with a relatively favorable view of the Democratic Party in comparison to the Republican. The ability of Democrats to take real advantage of this opportunity, however, is seriously undermined by three factors:
1.) the leadership of the Democratic Party is lackluster and gunshy; Reagan may have been made of plaster of Paris, but he looked like marble, next to Carter; Democratic leaders seem peculiarly unable to stand up and portray the Party, positively.
2.) mainstream politics is whatever makes it onto television, which is a conservative wasteland, totally controlled not by a liberal profession (as it is rumored to have been back in the day), but by a corporate and purely Republican hierarchy with deep financial ties to the Republican Congress;
3.) the Democratic tribes are more concentrated geographically than the Republicans, and less politically active, which allows the Republicans to hold power, even when they are only 40-45% of the whole, numerically.

Dean's efforts to build state Democratic parties addresses number 3, but not 1 and 2.

Regarding 3, the Parties can divide political ideas and interests on a relative basis, locally. This overcomes regional tribalism and gerrymandering, two of the most powerful political tactics of Republicans. If Democrats can compete for legislative control in Mississippi and Oklahoma -- and they can and do! -- then, Democrats can elect Congressmen, Senators and Governors in those States, as well. Democratic Senators and Congress critters from Mississippi and Oklahoma will certainly be more conservative than Democrats from Massachusetts and New York.

That brings us to another fact of political life in the U.S.: the two-party system exists because of the structure of Presidential elections. The two national Parties are, in effect, amalgamations of local and State Parties, the Congressional Parties and the Presidential Parties. It is the Presidential Parties, which force the two-Party system, because any third-Party Presidential candidate inevitably elects the Presidential candidate the third-Party's supporters like least. Third Parties, therefore, self-destruct.

But, it is worth remembering that both the Congressional Parties and the State Parties are not comfortable fits in this system. If Oklahoma or Mississippi Democrats, although numerous enough to elect a legislature, have difficulty electing a Democrat to national office, it is because national Democrats are a poor fit to local political attitudes and expectations. Chris Shays has the same problem in Connecticut.

Notice, in particular, that first past the post voting in single districts, does not prejudice a legislature toward a two-party system. In Britain, it results in three plus Parties in Parliament. And, the truth is that it results in three plus Parties in Congress, though our Congressional Parties try to hide it, for fear of the consequences for the contention among Presidential Parties.

If Emmanuel seems reluctant to embrace Dean's vision of strengthening the State parties, it might have something to do with the risks to the dynamics among the Congressional Parties.

The November 2006 election, and, perhaps the 2008 election as well, appear likely to draw a number of refugees from the Republican Party into the Democratic Party. There is certainly a detectable trickle among the elite; whether there's a shift in voter identification remains to be seen.

In Congress, conservative Democrats, after years of eroding numbers, will be resurgent. Will they be a different type of conservative Democrat, from the racist and corrupt reactionaries of yesteryear? Certainly. But, it is not clear what the implications for Democratic power in Congress are likely to be.

If Democrats are to become, again, the presumptive majority Party, they must re-grow a conservative wing. The hope that a significant fraction the American people will give up their conservative outlook for a liberal one is a vain one. However, horrific the outcome of the Iraq War, very few will convert to an antiwar ideology. No matter how costly health care, very few will become socialists.

But, quite a few conservatives might prefer the leadership of sincere and honest liberals to the leadership of mean, stupid reactionaries. For this reason, a small, but significant fraction of the Republican voting bloc might migrate to the Democratic Party, after years of intense dissatisfaction with Republican policy and rhetoric. It is most likely to be a secular conservative slice of Republicans, who are repulsed by corruption, stupidity and religiosity.

In Congress, and in the Presidential sweepstakes of 2008, the question will be whether the conservatives are willing to let the progressives lead, and, of course, whether progressives can find a way to lead conservatives without alienating them.

All of the great political issues turn on this simple dynamic of how a growing, but reborn Democratic Right will be reconciled with the long out of power Democratic Left.

The Iraq War is not least among these issues. The Democratic Left have been insisting that everyone admit that the War was a mistake from the outset -- some on the Left naturally adopt this view as a outgrowth of their doctrinaire belief that all war is wrong and futile. The more important task for the Democrats is to resist Republican efforts to blame the Democrats for losing in Iraq, and to unite, not upon Progressive ideals, which, unfortunately, will never be shared by a voting majority, but on principles like reality-based competence, which conservatives seeking refuge from the Republican insane asylum might wish to share.

Similarly, Democrats need to find a way to address the health care crisis, which invites conservative Democrats to accept Progressive leadership long enough to start down the road to a national health care system, but which doesn't require conservatives to convert to Socialism as a first premise for policymaking.

In this respect, the 50-State strategy, which, in effect, accepts the need to grow the conservative wing of the Party, brings Dean into conflict with the Congressional leadership, which fears a recreation of the self-destructive dynamics of Reagan Democrats, and which Congressional leadership would prefer to win a slight majority with liberals elected in place of conservatives in New England and New York, to winning a more solid majority with conservative Democrats from Tennessee, Virginia and Montana.

The country, however, appears to want to elect conservative Democrats more than they want to elect liberal Democrats. Don't color me surprised if Tester and Webb win with larger margins than, say, Brown and Lamont. (And, Lamont is not all that liberal, he just gets played that way in the Media).

It may well be that a Congress with slight Democratic majorities will provide a needed 2 year period in which the inability to pass legislation, which can get past Bush's veto will free the Democrats to forge a new modus vivendi, which allows the progressives to lead the conservatives in an effective Party. A conservative, who can shepherd progressive policy, or a progressive, who can bring conservatives along, would solve the Democrats number one problem.

But, even if 50-states works and Bush's screw-ups manage to force power on Congressional Democrats, the Media will remain.

The corporate Right-wing Media will have to be thoroughly and quickly destroyed, should the Democrats regain the Presidency. Somehow, we have to all come to understand the necessity with out talking about it, where "they" might hear.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | October 1, 2006 9:37 PM

Another point -- I worked for the Kerry campaign in Ohio in 2004, and what I saw was this: In the big cities, like Cleveland and Columbus, the Dems had a huge, strong, organized ground game. In Cleveland, boatloads of 20 year olds had come down from the northeast to canvas, and were put to work right in Cleveland where their jobs were basically redundant b/c every house in cleveland was canvassed by the dems & by move one at nearly a once-a-week rate. Columbus was about the same story. However, in Steubenville, where i went only b/c I have distant family there, the Dems were almost non-existant. This was a Catholic town with high unemployment, and the dems could have won a lot of votes on economic & values issues, and i actually was able to talk to a lot of undecided voters there, but other then the two days i was there, there were no other volunteers from out of town and i was the only guy who canvassed it during the last couple weeks of election '04. What the dems need in close elections is to ferret out ripe places like Steubenville with advanced data collecting techniques and then put resources into them, not blindly have 30,000 volunteers in the big cities and nothing everywhere else... that's just mindless anarchy, as dumb as paying for another full time employee in alaska while having nobody in stuebenville (which lies in an area with a perfectly tight race at the moment). I just don't believe dean's the guy who is going to discover the stuebenvilles of the world... Dean seems much more like a novice who is going to get his lunch eaten by the republicans...

Posted by doug | October 1, 2006 9:40 PM

Bai went from being ridiculed by the blogging offspring of the famous to worthy of Yoda-like encouragement from young Matt.

What happened?

Monkyboy, you're responding to an argumentum ad hominem that was never made. Matt Yglesias first critiqued, then lauded, individual pieces written by Matt Bai. He did not make a general appraisal of Matt Bai, as a person or a writer, in either case. That you fail to make this distinction seems to suggest that you have some weird hang-up about either Matt Yglesias or Matt Bai.

Posted by Christmas | October 1, 2006 9:45 PM

Christmas,

According to young Mr. Yglesias,

It only takes a few months to transform from a chronicler of the hijinx of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan worthy only of derision into a sage political commentator worthy of quotes, links, praise and encouragement.

Or...

There's another way into the club.

Just sayin'

Just askin'

Posted by monkyboy | October 1, 2006 9:58 PM

While Dean may not be the perfect messenger, he is the only one in the Democratic Party willing to stand up and actually do what's needed for the future of the party. I love him for it, but I have no other choice. The idea that we should concede the region of the country with the largest percentage of African-American voters is beyond stupid, it's insulting. It's as if the black vote is only worth courting when they are neatly packaged in urban ghettos but not when long trips down dirt roads are required to reach 30-40% of a state's population in AME churches. It's simply laziness. I agree with those who feel that the most crucial aspect of the strategy will be the GOTV. Nobody works very hard to GOTV when they feel the party has already written them off. I think Dean's strategy will pay big dividends in 08, building on the experience of 06. It will be interesting to see if Dean is willing to hand over the DNC to the control of the nominee.

Posted by Just Karl | October 1, 2006 10:19 PM

Monkyboy:

The first quote you're alluding to - the "People's Magazine writer" one - comes from Mark Schmitt, not Matt Yglesias. There has been no flip-flop. Either drop the subject or admit you've screwed up.

Posted by Christmas | October 1, 2006 10:38 PM

I'm with you on the black people thing, Karl. Mississippi is a state that's 36.8% black. Our presidential candidate really should be getting more than 39.5% of the vote.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 1, 2006 10:47 PM

Christams,

Have I got the wrong Yglesias?

Less than a year after getting his bachelor's degree in philosophy he was cheering on the invasion of Iraq and acting as a gatekeeper to the nascent world of blogs?

I have nothing against philosphy majors, btw. I went to school with a few who were kinda bright. One odd quirk they had though:

Every time a new takeout menu was posted in our common room, they'd run over to it, mark it up with all kinds of odd doodles and then argue about its "true meaning" into the wee hours...and they weren't even stoned!

Posted by monkyboy | October 1, 2006 10:54 PM

Dean's passionate. He's not a visionary. The American left needs the latter.

Yeah, it's called populism. It beats everything.

Posted by Murph | October 1, 2006 10:59 PM

Monkyboy, what the hell are you on about? Does your weird issue with Yglesias have anything at all to do with the linked Bai article or not?

Posted by Christmas | October 1, 2006 11:04 PM

Yes, Christmas,

Matt's post I linked to on TPMCafe was what caused me to remove that site from my favorites list.

Kinda like when I canceled my HBO subsciption right after the scene where Furio was decorating his kitchen.

Imagine my surprise when I see Matt had linked to another Bai article and actually deemed it...not bad.

Posted by monkyboy | October 1, 2006 11:13 PM

Monkyboy, you're a twit.

Posted by Christmas | October 1, 2006 11:21 PM

Yeah, probably, Christmas,

But at least I was always against our invasion of Iraq...

Posted by monkyboy | October 1, 2006 11:30 PM

I'm waiting for the story on the collapse of DNC fundraising. Bai hints at it in the paragaph on Trapasso, but the real problem is in low dollar and Internet fundraising.

And I agree with Petey, Dean has to be able to walk and chew gum. Re-build the party and build the machine. The 50 state project costs him about $8 million a year, one or two month's revenue. He's putting maybe $3 million in Congressional races. Where did the rest go?

Posted by tib | October 1, 2006 11:39 PM

"As another flawed visionary, the filmmaker Woody Allen, once put it, 80 percent of success is just showing up."

Just for the record, this is incorrect. Close, but not quite what he said, although a million google links wrongly claim (without sourcing it, because it's impossible) otherwise. See here. (Yes, as usual, I go sideways, over a trivial point.)

Posted by Gary Farber | October 2, 2006 12:45 AM

As long as we are thinking long term, the DNC better planning how they are going to deal with reapportionment after the 2010 census. If you want a more competitive House, Democrats and the CBC will need to give up the idea of majority minority districts. Such districts guarantee one House seat but make the surrounding districts much more Republican. It is partly the reasone the GOP dominates the states with the highest proportion of African-Americans. In addition to being good politics it also has the advantage of being the right thing to do.
Dr. Carol Swain formerly of Princeton and now at Vanderbilt Law School contends, "majority-minority districts do not necessarily maximize substantive representation of minorities. Instead, even though such districting schemes may maximize minority representatives, they may actually dilute substantive minority representation by pigeonholing minority interests into one single district rather than distributing those interests broadly across a number of districts." Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress Harvard University Press 1993
DonkeyRising also has also touched on the subject.

Posted by Five Year Plan | October 2, 2006 3:27 AM

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001497.php

Posted by damn you html | October 2, 2006 3:29 AM

Only demographics will kill the paranoid strangelhold that whites/protestants have on American politics.

A failed war or three won't even make them blink.

Posted by Don | October 2, 2006 5:55 AM

Perhaps the Democrats need to stop giving the impression that they hate white people.

Posted by Glaivester | October 2, 2006 7:26 AM

Emmanuel and his ilk remind me, not surprisingly, of Richie Daley. Daley came into office on a new-broom, reform-and-clean-up, non-partisan platform. And for the first four years or so he did a lot of great work getting Chicago cleaned up and running in the right direction (not "back on its feet": the late Harold Washington and even much-maligned Jane Byrne had actually done that).

But after those four years were up Daley turned to the usual pursuits of the South Side politician: Pure political power. Graft. Taking care of friends. Skimming off billions. Crony dictatorship.

Many have pointed out that the Washington DC insider Dems need only hold on to 35 or so Senate and 150 House seats in order to maintain a comfortable life for themselves and a few thousand hangers-on. They don't have to fight to win, and in fact doing so stands a good chance of putting their comfortable life at risk. They don't want to take chances, they don't want to take on the Republicans; they just want enough seats to stay in the game and get a $500,000/year "job" at a thinktank upon retirement.

That is the faction that wants to destroy Dean, and that Bai is carrying water for. Notice the _five_ mentions of an "incident" that never actually happened (the so-called "scream" that was manufactured by CNN)? Just a coinkidinks.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 2, 2006 10:05 AM

"Which isn't to deny that 2006 does, in fact, look uniquely crucial. But I recall 2004 and 2002 as having looked the same way. This is just a natural human bias toward over-emphasizing the present, but there it is none the less."

I don't know that I would use "uniquely", but otherwise it should be clear that 2002 and 2004 really were valid opportunities for the Democratic Party to make strides which were not capitalized on. The reason we keep having election after election where the Democrats semm within striking distance is that they have had lots of opportunities and haven't come through on them.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | October 2, 2006 1:14 PM

And finally, for an example of what the RNC is doing that Dean's DNC should be doing, but isn't, check out this Mike Allen piece. This isn't about one-time expenditures, this is about building a November machine that brings results every two years, and that's keep innovating its techniques to get better.

Ah, but for a young progressive like Matt, getting out there and doing research on GOTV ground efforts and precinct-by-precinct surveys, and either reporting on them or actually getting involved in it, that just isn't SEXY enough. Much more fun and important-feeling to spend a year writing a whole tome about The National Security Strategy That The Democrats Need. Real politics? Too boring.

Posted by TheManofKStreet | October 2, 2006 1:48 PM

On the 'showing up' thing: there are districts where the Dems have a shot this time that, in previous cycles, might not have even had a candidate. There are districts in Idaho and Wyoming (Wyoming!) with genuine contests. There are gifts like TX-22 and FL-16.

Where the DCCC and DSCC don't get it, too, is that Dean is looking down-ticket, at state legislatures and county positions and school boards. In a state like Mississippi (60/40 Bush in 2004) there were still 450,000 who voted for Kerry. Get them voting in down-ticket off-year races and you can put Democrats in charge in cities and counties -- and especially state capitols, where the congressional maps are drawn.

Posted by ahem | October 2, 2006 2:21 PM

My favorite part of the article was when Dean disappeared for 30 minutes for an "impromptu" video game... WTF? Is this guy serious?

And when is Dean going to get hit by his supporters for dropping the ball on the special election in California for Cunningham's old seat? Sure, the Republicans only won b/c the RNC dropped 5 million into the race (otherwise people power surely would have prevailed), but why don't we have a DNC which was bold enough to drop at least 2 or 3 mill into it? That's something that has nothing to do w/ left vs. centrist, that's just stupidity and poor planning.

Posted by john | October 2, 2006 3:38 PM

Hey Cranky, just curious, but why are you such a Dean fan? Don't those fundraising numbers make you blink?

i.e., Mehlman 38 mill --- Dean 11 mill

Didn't the Cali special election make you balk?

Mehlman drops 5 mill -- Dean allegedly puts people on the ground.

somehow i just can't picture Mehlman off playing video games a few weeks before a big election

Posted by john | October 2, 2006 3:45 PM

> Hey Cranky, just curious, but why are
> you such a Dean fan? Don't those
> fundraising numbers make you blink?

Never said I was a Dean "fan", but the Democratic Party had basically been using the same strategy since 1992 with disasterous results. And everything I learn about the Kool Kidz Klub clique in Washington DC reinforces my opinion that it is not something that I want to support. So any reasonable-sounding new approach, which Dean's is, is worth a good hard try. And I am opposed to stabs in the back by the same people who brought us 14 years of the previous strategy.

As to fundraising: perhaps it has escaped your notice that the Radical Republicans are the party of rich people? Dems are going to have a built-in disadvantage from now until doomsday on that one. My understanding is that under Dean the DNC's year-over-year numbers look quite good.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 2, 2006 4:06 PM

Dean's predecessor at the DNC raised money one-for-one with the RNC during a period when the republicans had the 9/11 gift & the President, who can always raise money easily. Now that the president is unpopular, the 9/11 gift is getting old, and dems have a huge advantage from Katrina, Iraq, and from elsewhere, dems should have a fundraising advantage, as big business starts to spread it's money around to both sides.

If Dean's year-over-year numbers are really good, then show me the link. If you're right, I'll recant. The story I see is that Dean started very slowly out of the gate, came in for a bunch of criticism from DC insiders, and then hired a DC insider, since which time the DNC has been doing better, but is far, far short of the Republicans.

I'll admit, when I look at Dean i see an inexperienced guy who had a big idea which sounds great -- the Dems will compete everywhere! But has no idea how to accomplish it.

Posted by john | October 2, 2006 8:08 PM

doubtless this is just more anti-Dean propaganda...

"Mehlman to spend $60M, five times Dean’s $12M"

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/091306/mehlman.html

Posted by john | October 2, 2006 8:25 PM

even more anti-Dean nonsense...

"The committee’s finance directors for the two biggest hubs of Democratic fundraising have quit. Bridget Siegel, finance director for New York and the surrounding area, resigned last week, and Lori Kreloff, finance director for California, left the committee last month.

A third top DNC fundraiser, Nancy Eiring, the director of grassroots fundraising, has also resigned, citing strategic differences with aides to Dean, according to a report yesterday in ABC News’ “The Note.” '

Posted by john | October 2, 2006 8:30 PM

this was in business week -- looks like a sheer lie probably put out by Karl Rove himself:

Dean wowed the faithful in '04 with his Web-based fund-raising magic. But major business donors still count, and in his new role as party honcho, the feisty doctor seems to be struggling to connect. After achieving money parity with the GOP in 2004, Democrats have fallen far behind. According to the Federal Election Commission, the DNC raised $14.1 million in the first quarter of 2005, vs. the Republican National Committee's $32.3 million. Dean drew about 20,000 new donors, while his rivals picked up 68,200. The bottom line: Republicans have $26.2 million in the bank vs. $7.2 million for the Dems.

Posted by john | October 2, 2006 8:32 PM

i bet this hit came from washington insiders who just have it in for Dean...

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060424&s=scheiber042406

Posted by john | October 2, 2006 8:35 PM

Are you being purposefully obtuse, john? Numerous people have said that they don't see Dean as the sort of magical savior you seem to want. Rather they see him as someone who is heading in the right direction strategically. They acknowledge that he will make a number of big mistakes along the way, but they also recognize that even small steps in the right direction have the virtue of being in the right direction. No sane person trusts the DLC or its legislative apparatchicks (like Emmanuel) to head in the right direction--there's no percentage in it for the DLC. The basic claim is that "an inexperienced guy who had a big idea which sounds great...[b]ut has no idea how to accomplish it" beats experienced guys with good logistics who are rationally committed to a losing strategy.

All of which makes your criticisms inapposite to their support. You can see that, right?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 3, 2006 9:25 AM

"Numerous people have said that they don't see Dean as the sort of magical savior you seem to want."

While a magical savior would be nice, I think there are lots of folks who simply want a competent DNC that are dissatisfied with Dean.

Posted by Petey | October 3, 2006 9:41 PM

amen to that...

Posted by john | October 3, 2006 9:51 PM