50 State Plan analysis from Harvard's Elaine Kamarck.

[madfloridian]

I noticed this article today. It was right after I read a post at the DFA blog. Someone at the Cincinnati fundraiser yesterday asked Howard Dean why he doesn't take credit for things. I thought this was a nice answer.

We talked a little bit more, I mentioned that he never takes credit for what he does and he said that he has found that if you let others take credit for what you do, more gets done.

MyDD has a write-up about Harvard University's Elaine Kamarck's paper on the 50 State Strategy. It sounds like it may be a pretty favorable review, though not totally definitive.

A summary:
http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol4/iss3/art5/

Assessing Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy and the 2006 Midterm Elections

Throughout the 2006 midterm elections, the press wrote about the conflict over campaign strategy between Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and his counterparts in Congress, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel, the heads of the Senate and House campaigns, respectively. Schumer and Emmanuel, as well as other Beltway strategists, disagreed with Dean's "fifty state strategy" to build the party across the nation, arguing that DNC funds should focus on the races targeted by the congressional parties. This essay explains, in part, why Dean's popularity suffers in Washington – even after decisive Democratic victories – and why he continues to have support outside the Beltway. It also provides preliminary evidence that Dean's fifty-state strategy paid off in terms of increasing the Democratic vote share beyond the bounce of a national tide favoring Democrats.
Recommended Citation
Elaine C. Kamarck (2006) "Assessing Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy and the 2006 Midterm Elections," The Forum: Vol. 4 : Iss. 3, Article 5.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol4/iss3/art5

I can not get access to the full article because apparently my library is not a subscriber. MyDD has a write-up about it, so I will quote from it.

Chris Bowers writes about the article:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/11/142551/346

"Harvard University's Elaine Kamarck has produced a paper that tries to quantify the impact of the fifty state strategy on House races in the 2006 elections, "Assessing Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy and the 2006 Midterm Elections". You can read the paper here, and guest access is not hard to get in order to peruse the entire text. It is worth a read for anyone interested in the debate over narrow targeting and television air time versus the fifty state strategy and on the ground organizing. From page four of the paper:

By the end of Dean's first year in office, the fifty state strategy was in full swing. The DNC was paying for 183 people working for state parties as part of their coordinated campaigns. Most of this work went on below the radar screen.

More from Chris Bowers:

"I admit I was unaware of the wide scope of the fifty-state strategy--183 paid organizers is quite a large amount. It is certainly a very expensive electoral and party-building strategy that shifts a huge amount of funds away from television advertising during the final few weeks of the campaign in selected, narrowly targeted districts. Assessing the effectiveness of this strategy with an objective eye thus becomes increasingly important, since tens of millions of campaign dollars are at stake, and both those within the Democratic party infrastructure who favor the fifty-state strategy, such as state party chairs, as well as those who oppose it, such as consultants for Democratic campaign committees, stand to either gain or lose a huge amount of money depending on the scale to which the strategy is implemented."

He quotes from Elaine again...wish I could see the article.

As Table 1 indicates, those congressional districts where the DNC had paid organizers on the ground for over a year more than doubled the Democratic vote over what would have happened due to forces outside the control of the Party, such as the war in Iraq and the unpopularity of a Republican President. This is a powerful testament to the value of a long-term party building approach. Gains in the Democratic vote occurred where the Democrat won and where the Democrat lost. The Democratic candidate won in 20 of the 39 districts where the DNC had organizers but this should not detract from the accomplishment of dramatically increasing the vote in those districts. In some places the organizer's initial and primary responsibility was to increase the vote in order to impact statewide races. In others the Democrats created a swing district where there had been none before.


...."For the sake of brevity, Table 2 summarizes the results of the analysis. It suggests that, in the absence of significant amounts of DCCC money, the presence of a DNC organizer in a congressional district puts the average Democratic increase in the vote significantly above what would be expected simply given the anti-Republican currents in the country in 2006.

Chris presents a little summary.

"While I am not convinced by the amounts of money she lists as independent expenditures by the DCCC in the districts in question (her figures seems very low), overall, the message is clear: the paid organizers in these key districts led to a substantial increase in the Democratic vote share over 2002. Some may question whether a gain of three to eight percentage points is worth the huge amounts of money the DNC spent to employ these organizers, but I think it definitely was. I believe that field organizing has much longer-term effects than television-based forms of voter contact, which will benefit Democrats in the targeted areas for many election cycles to come almost no matter who the future Democratic candidates in those districts may be."

[madfloridian]

1. It's really about money. Just like Robert Reich said.

One of Chris's comments.

"both those within the Democratic party infrastructure who favor the fifty-state strategy, such as state party chairs, as well as those who oppose it, such as consultants for Democratic campaign committees, stand to either gain or lose a huge amount of money depending on the scale to which the strategy is implemented."

It is about money, but it is about whether the power resides inside DC or whether the rest of the country gets a say.

Robert Reich addressed this topic when Dean was attacked after the elections. He gave 3 reasons for it...here is one of them.

2. Dean’s strategy of putting money into state party infrastructure takes money out of the pockets of Washington insiders – away form Democratic consultants and key congressional party activists. That makes insiders angry.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/652

[madfloridian]

2. One further comment on this before it is archived.

I know it is a boring read, but it is important that a Harvard study gave a good report on this strategy.

There is one problem though I am noticing, one we thought might happen, one that will hurt the party's growth and the DC folks kmow it. If they try to keep him from speaking out, let's see how can I word this...if he is afraid to speak on issues before congress it will hurt the party and the grassroots overall.

I get the impression he is not supposed to speak up on the stuff congress might do. He was asked about withholding funds, he started to talk a little, then backed off.

DEAN: I think that, you know, first of all, I don't have a vote here, so I think -- I think I'd like to make it as easy as possible on the leadership. There are differing opinions. There's pretty much unanimity of opinions among Democrats that we don't belong in Iraq.

Elaine Kamarck in the survey above said that the success of the 50 state plan is why this is happening.

This essay explains, in part, why Dean's popularity suffers in Washington – even after decisive Democratic victories – and why he continues to have support outside the Beltway. It also provides preliminary evidence that Dean's fifty-state strategy paid off in terms of increasing the Democratic vote share beyond the bounce of a national tide favoring Democrats.

Just some observations that really mean nothing at all. Just seeing a pattern here since the elections.

[Orangepeel]

3. The 50 state plan is important for the future

I think it might have helped somewhat in the 2006 midterms, but I don't think that's the important issue. Situations change, candidates emerge and implode, and opportunities arise. Areas that aren't viable today might be viable in the near future, and we can't wait to put an organization on the ground once they do.

[madfloridian]

4. I can tell you what the party leaders in Florida thought of it.

But not tonight. Later.

Kamarck seems to be saying it made some difference. But what Dean said in the video he made with Politics TV was even more important...the importance of people who ran because they were inspired. I transcribed part of it.

"Nine out of the 35 races that were selected by the DCCC were winners...the rest of them were all folks who started on their own with enormous grassroots organizations."

(Key word here is selected. Most started out on their own with grassroots groups and DCCC and DNC helped fund some eventually. I had to listen a couple of times to get what he was saying.)

That is truly amazing, really. The majority ran because they were inspired and wanted to change the country."

Video...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/899

Did you read where Luis Navarro left the state party to work with a presidential campaign? I can't remember who he is working with. He really disliked the 50 state plan and said so.

The funny part of all this is that Dean never once claimed the 50 state plan was a factor yet, in fact it seemed to surprise him. It was others making sure no one thought it was.

[blm]

11. Candidates need a strong infrastructure to TAP INTO once they become known.

Especially in presidential years, when the nominee isn't even known until 6 months before the election. The structure needs to be built, strengthened and maintained throughout the years in between elections.

Every primary candidate in 2003-4 saw firsthand the weakness of the party structure all over the country. No surprise that Dean was itching to get in there and FIX what had needed fixing for many years.

[ellisonz]

5. How sweet it is...

:bounce:

[jcrew2001]

6. 50 state plan is good / copy Republicans

As much as I think the Clinton people know how to win elections - I strongly believe that having staff on the ground will increase voter turnout, loyal donors, volunteers, activists, future candidates, and long-term growth.

The time is right for action, and Dems need to strike now to ensure growth, it can't just be about a 1-time issue like Iraq, but about instilling strong Democratic believers.

I also wonder about the Republican strategy and how many paid organizers they have in each state, because I've always thought that the Republicans had more money, and more staff.

This strategy has been successful despite inferior republican candidates, etc. and the DNC Needs to look into "copying" this grass-roots structure to maintain long-term growth.

In many ways, this is about running a business, and getting loyal customers and maintaining those loyal customers.

[blm]

7. They are exactly right. You can't win ANY elections in states where party organization doesn't exist

or has been weakened to the point where there is no discernible structure.

Too many states were given up in the mid90s and left to collapse by those who concentrated all the extra party money into a DC-centric game plan that served only those immediately involved, but not the party itself or the candidates in states that weren't already dominated by Democrats.

The years of neglect is still in the process of being corrected - my large county in NC has finally gotten a HQ of its own and is OUT of the backroom of a floral shop.

Dean STILL has a way to go to fix the enormous mess created by former heads of the DNC, and it is up to us to support him every step of the way into 2008.

[madfloridian]

8. I never realized the bad shape some parties were in until I read The Next Hurrah.

I knew things were bad in some states, but I just did not realize all this. I know the DNC had to bail Florida out in 05..I want to say last year hard to remember it is 07.

This post at The Next Hurrah really surprised me. And it makes me angry that one of the directors of our state party was dissing this strategy because it was not that good for Florida. But he is running a prez campaign now, Biden's I think. I don't know the new guy.

This post opened my eyes.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/680

First it refers to the 80s and the conditions here then.

I was in a good position to argue for the program because in the 1980's while chairing Alan Cranston's campaign here, I had discovered how pathetic many of our state parties actually were. Many were literally bankrupt, the office supplies and machines (typewriters) had been taken for unpaid debt, and padlocks were on the door. The State Committees that had the franchise were held in one or another lawyer's file cabinet, (In Georgia it had been Bert Lance's for about 20 years), and the reason for this condition was frankly racism. The Southern States would not allow the release of the franchise to a newly elected Central Committee or Board, because it would be Black. They could do this because the parties were in bankruptcy, and whatever lawyer had the letterhead in his files was also the court appointed trustee.

The she refers to what Howard Dean had to deal with when he took over the chair in 05.

When Dean took over the DNC -- this was the condition of about twelve of our State Parties. He actually had to find lawyers to go into court and get the parties out of this kind of "Trusteeship" before he could even begin to reorganize. In fact, one of the reasons some of the Field Organizers Dean appointed are on the staff of the DNC rather than state parties is because it avoids dealing with old trustees and old court judgments.

...."According to reporting on KO, Hillary Clinton's office is saying they did not "sign off" on the Carville attack on Dean. As Keith said, that is a bit nuanced, and it needs follow up. The language of "sign off" bothers.

..."Indeed the ultimate question is whether local party organizations can select their own representatives or whether that power will be taken away from the state parties by the DSCC and the DCCC who substitute themselves (as elected officials) for the party organization or the DNC and what creates it. That is what is at stake."

Just a fun picture from MLK day in Boston with Deval Patrick. Literally "leaning to the left." :D

[blm]

9. It was so bad in so many states, it makes it hard to believe it wasn't intentional

to make certain that Dems couldn't prevail in 2000, 2002, and 2004, even when they earned the most votes.

[madfloridian]

14. I just have to post this part, it is amazing.

I wish Dean would defend himself more on this, but I guess that is not his style. Seems like there are plenty waiting to grab credit.

From The Next Hurrah listed above:

The really sad thing is that Democrats all around the country don't know about all this -- about how the party structure was sabotaged essentially over the matter of race over a long stretch of years. By not actually dealing with the matter -- and it should have been argued out and dealt with in at least the 1970's -- it has festered, and now we have this assumption by James Carville that he is the great white master, who can dictate the structure of the DNC, including which African American should head it as opposed to Dean, or whom ever else the properly constituted DNC should elect.

Yes, given what Dean has done, in 2008 the DNC will be still supporting state parties and field organizations that might elect a Congresscritter or two in the really red states, but may also progress in electing state legislators, county commissioners and all the rest. But he has also created the model for the "voter file" -- the microtargeting that the Republicans call their Voter Vault -- and it was rolled out in a number of states this year, and is ready for National roll out next year. Every state now has the technical ability to use it, access it, and apply it to all sorts of requirements. In 2004, using old fashioned methods, we came within two seats of controlling our State House. Using these new methods we picked up 19 seats, nearly a veto proof House. Of course it has maintence costs -- but it is worth it. Dean also introduced the idea of putting field offices in every Congressional District, not just in the State Capitol. Off years, the staff will do organization, election seasons they will coordinate all activity in each district. It is so simple minded it boggles the mind. But yes, it does mean that a Washington DC operative cannot actually control how local parties operate. And with Carville, that is the crux of the problem.

Amen.

[madfloridian]

12. Oops, forgot the article to go with the picture.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/16/unity_on_martin_luther_king_day/

[crispini]

10. Excellent thread.

Lots of material to read here! Bookmarked!

[tishaLA]

13. I can access the article

one of the few privileges of academic life. If anyone wants me to email it to them--it's a .pdf file--just ask.