What went right; What went wrong; What can we do better next time?

[RogueTrooper]

One thing seems certain: Howard Dean will run again. Whether it is as chair of the DNC or as a Presidential candidate I believe we have not heard the last from Howard.

I am not sure if Howard will win his fight to become the next chair of the DNC. Whilst he is more than capable of becoming a great chair we should not understimate this one truth: The people we are up against are far better at putting the boot into their fellow Democrats than they are at standing up against the Republicans. They may very well win this fight an install the limp Tom Vislack as DNC chair.

If that is the case then I say let it be. Whilst they play with their baubles and convince themselves that they have relevance we shall take the over the Democratic party from the ground up.

However, this thread is only tangetly about the chairmanship or our man's next run for President. It is meant for Deaniacs to discuss their experience of our past campaign and what we can do better next time.

To kick off: I would say that to most important thing Howard Dean did was not his work with internet campaigning but his work with George Lakoff. I would say that internet, as a progressive organizing and funding tool was already there and waiting. Howard Dean happened to be in the right place at the right time: That is not to say it was blind luck but rather he saw a good idea and run with it.

To me, the real value Dean brought to the game was George Lakoff. I always wondered where his inspiration language came from but it was some time until I heard the name George Lakoff. Ever since then I have been convinced that this was the most improtant aspect of the campaign.

Somewhere along the line the campaign forgot that. We became enamored with the internet and forgot that there is a world outside the hallowed confines of blogforamerica.com; dailykos; atrios; and, of course, this site.

People have often talked about the mediocre adverts the campaign produced but, in my opinion, that was a symptom of a campaign that prioritized a new medium over an old. In short, our spots sucked because we did not take that part of the campaign seriously.

[Cheswick2.0]

1. something I think was a problem

we didn't have the loyalty of party mahine democrats and didn't know how to play their games. We needed more experienced LOCAL grassroots organizers.

[NoPasaran]

2. Experienced local organizers

A lot of people (like me for example) who knew nothing a year ago learned a lot over the course of these campaigns. I know that in Austin our use of the internet was one very important tool that aided our success. Of course, we are a very tech-savvy town, but each year more and more people have internet access, so things that wouldn't have worked in some places this year will be more feasible in future election cycles.

Here are a few of the things we did with the internet:

We set up a couple of websites. One was used during the big voter registration campaign http://www.registertexas.org . We had somewhere around fifteen hundred people become deputized as voter registrars. Naturally, there are a few fanatics who really made it the focus of their lives for several months and ended up registering hundreds of voters, a larger group of volunteers who were willing to come out and help at an event for a couple of hours per week, and also a number of people who became registrars because it sounded like a good thing who registered maybe one or two voters. The way the website worked was any voter registrar could establish an account. Once you were logged on you had access to a calender showing upcoming voter registration opportunities. You could create your own event or you could sign up to help at an already-created event. There was also a field showing the next half-dozen or so events that had openings for registrars, and another listing the events you had already committed to attend. Using the website wasn't mandatory, but it was a great tool for some of us activists when the number of registrars and events grew beyond what any one human could hope to schedule.

Our second website was http://www.austinforchange.com . This was basically a home page for our county coordinated campaign. It had links to all our candidates' websites, an on-line signup form for volunteers, information about upcoming events and print-your-own fliers, signs, and voter registration forms.

And of course, there was email, email, email. There was a steady stream of emails letting everybody know what volunteer opportunities they could help with over the next few days: phone banking, blockwalking, sign building, whatever. And we also used email to organize three flash mob events where we had several hundred people show up with signs for impromptu rallies which got us lots of media coverage and cost essentially zero to stage.

There was also a weekly Democracy for Texas project, also organized by email, which would get one or two hundred people out on a weekend to hang voter registration packets on apartment doors, blockwalk, etc.

[LSdemocrat]

6. This was a major problem in Iowa

I'm from Missouri and from the people I know who went up to Iowa, it seemed that the Iowa operation had a poor idea of how to organize for the caucus, whereas Kerry's people chose experienced caucus organizers who knew what it takes to win caucuses.

[a new day]

8. I agree, we caucused in Washington, too

The Kerry folks were generally better organized, I think. The poor person who was trying to get all us precinct people out of their depth -- me, too!

We held our own at the precinct level, and I picked up some useful knowledge if WA continues to do caucuses.

For the legislative district caucus, it was even worse. Without the campaign organization on the ground, folks spred to the wind. 3 days before it happened, we got a frantic call to host a house party for our district. Amazingly, we got a bigger turnout that we expected, and did a pretty good job keeping our delegate count for the state convention.

[WI_DEM]

3. he ran a national campaign early when he should have concentrated

on a few select states. If Kerry proved anything it is that the publicity you get from Iowa or NH is enough to cause a domino effect with uninformed Democrats who will get on the bandwagon. Dean was campaigning everywhere in 2003: California, New York, Texas, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, ect--when he probably should have been conserving resources and concentrating on the early states. I know what he was trying to do, but it seems to me that if you win someplace early that takes care of the name recogntion problem and gives you momentum going into the next primaries and caucuses.

[RogueTrooper]

4. There is a truth to that W_D

Part of the problem, I think, was that we were very strong ( in terms of numbers and resources ) in these states. Whilst this was heartening it did cause the problem of what to do with all that enthusiasm. In retrosepect we need to give all of these people something to do.

An area I thought we were weak on was political education. We had a lot of people who were new to political campaigning and I think we neglected the need to educate them: Not just in campaigning techniques but in policy and issues.

Many years ago I attended a political education meeting that was organised by a Union. At the meeting the union organizer talked about child labor; both it's effect on the children ( missing schooling ) and on their adult members ( child labor was a risk to their rights and jobs ).

[LSdemocrat]

5. Dean got too enamored with the grassroots campaign and forgot the message

It seemed that nearly all of Dean's speeches and ads in the month before the caucuses and primaries focused on the grassroots campaign, energizing youth, $100 Revolution, etc. By the time the majority of people were deciding who to vote for Dean had almost stopped talking about the things that drew people to Dean in the first place, notably his ideas, outstanding record as Governor of Vermont, and willingness to stand up for Democratic values.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. Okay, I didn't see that but you could be right

thanks, I am trying to remember and it seems to me you may have a very good point.

[a new day]

9. Losing focus was a problem

We were doing so much stuff off the internet, campaign headquarters lost control. Bush had his big 4 -- terrorism, Iraq, family values, Kerry's a flip-flopper -- and hit them over, and over.

I think I hammered the war too much.

[belle]

11. The thing is, though, pretty soon it'll be key to hammer the war...

*I* think. It's only going to get worse in the next few years. We've already lost what, 1200 Americans in a year and a half?

I'm disgusted that the tipping point hasn't hit yet for enough Americans to see what a crock this war is; but, I guess, as with Vietnam, it takes a certain amount of death before people will let themselves see it.

[belle]

10. This is all really interesting, thanks.

[Rose Siding]

12. "I am not sure if Howard will win his fight..."

I've heard he's exploring the possibility but not that he's fighting for the DNC chair spot. Have you heard or read that he's said he's fighting for it?

If we incorrectly define his "interest" as a fight, then even an outcome he favors, but that doesn't put him in the position could be considered a loss.

[madfloridian]

13. Rose, here is what Tom McMahon posted about it at the blog.

I love the title: Elephant in the Room

Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Elephant in the Room
As many of you know, there continues to be a strong outpouring of support for Governor Dean to run for the DNC Chairmanship. In fact, a great number of our supporters have created websites and petitions urging the Governor to run.

This outpouring of support from the grassroots community continues to amaze all of us at DFA. Since the speculation continues to swirl about what the Governor plans to do, I wanted you to hear first-hand the story on what has occurred up to this point.

Let me begin by saying Governor Dean has not made a decision whether to pursue the job.

Since the election, many people have reached out to us to express their support for Governor Dean. Since so many people that the Governor respects have requested him to give this idea his full consideration, he has been reaching out to different people (both inside and outside the party) to get their thoughts on the party's future.

Governor Dean continues to speak with Democrats with a variety of backgrounds—elected officials, members of the DNC and the thousands of supporters that have written, emailed and called asking him to consider being the party's next chairman.

Whatever the Governor ultimately decides, the DFA community will be the first to hear because you continue to be the foundation of our success. Thanks again for everything you all do and stay tuned!

—Tom McMahon
Executive Director, Democracy for America