Is Howard Dean Right?

[Bruzilla]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400998_pf.html

Democratic Leaders Question Whether Dean's Right on the Money

By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza
Sunday, March 5, 2006; A04

Democratic congressional leaders aren't happy with the way Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is spending money. At a private meeting last month, they let him know.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) challenged the former Vermont governor during a session in Pelosi's office, according to Democratic sources. The leaders complained about Dean's priorities -- funding organizers for state parties in strongly Republican states such as Mississippi -- rather than targeting states with crucial races this fall.

I'm thinking that Dean is doing the right thing. This approach might not win back the Congress in 2006, but he's growing organizations where they haven't been before, and in the long run this may yield much better results than trying to fight day-to-day battles that are happening now. So, what do you think?

 

[SAHRAB]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400998_pf.html

Democratic Leaders Question Whether Dean's Right on the Money

By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza
Sunday, March 5, 2006; A04

Democratic congressional leaders aren't happy with the way Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is spending money. At a private meeting last month, they let him know.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) challenged the former Vermont governor during a session in Pelosi's office, according to Democratic sources. The leaders complained about Dean's priorities -- funding organizers for state parties in strongly Republican states such as Mississippi -- rather than targeting states with crucial races this fall.

I'm thinking that Dean is doing the right thing. This approach might not win back the Congress in 2006, but he's growing organizations where they haven't been before, and in the long run this may yield much better results than trying to fight day-to-day battles that are happening now. So, what do you think?

I Think Dean needs to keep doing EXACTLY what he has been, he's the best investment Bush and Rove has made yet

 

[SamSpade]

Probably not - but for altogether different reasons, from what I've read about the demographics of Democratic voters.

Both parties have part of their base support from knee-jerk voters - people who really don't delve much past the headlines and evening news, IF that. But the 2002 election - and in fact, exit polls in all off-year elections - show that the Republican party has a much higher proportion of die-hard political junkies than the Democratic party. The Democrats depend on a larger portion of their votes from what can only unflatteringly be called "the mob" - the mass of marginally informed persons who have only a smattering of what the issues are about.

BOTH parties have these - but the Republicans have a smaller portion of their base. This is why they tend to fare better than expected in almost all off-year elections, a pattern which almost always trended away from the party in the White House, but which seems to have changed. Exit polls have shown that the decreased voter turnout during the off-year elections trend towards Republicans and conservatives. Ditto for call-in shows and C-SPAN, which must rely on screenings to balance the content - which would otherwise tilt towards the right.

Again, this is NOT to say that right-wingers are more "informed" - but they have more numbers showing greater interest. This is partly why O'Reilly brings in the numbers, and Chris Matthews doesn't.

So why won't this approach work? Bush largely won on a strategy in 2004 which was to get out MORE of the base, to go vote, since such a large portion of voters in all categories don't show up. He got a higher percentage of voters who already count themselves as Republicans, to vote when they weren't planning on it. He didn't win Florida by changing minds - he won Florida by persuading more supporters to show up. But the thing is, there's just a larger portion of voters who are tuned in, that vote Republican. Dean ISN'T going to "convert" any of these with fundraisers. And he can't energize more of his base, because for whatever reason, they barely give a crap.

What WILL work - and it *still* might win *MY* vote - is for them to pick a few intelligent positions on issues away from the Republicans, that galvanizes the voting public. Simply being against Republicans is not going to work. You can't get a child to relinquish a toy by yanking it away from him - or telling him the toy is bad. You get it by persuasion - by showing him a *BETTER* toy. Adult voters are similar - you don't get their vote by saying Republicans are bad - or by saying Democrats are gooooooood. You get it by doing what the Republicans did in '94 - TELLING them what you'll do, in very concrete language. DON'T tell them you'll stop the evil Republicans from destroying Social Security - TELL them how you'll fix it. DON'T tell them you'll stop the war in Iraq - TELL them how you'll solve it. Because if you don't have any answers either, there's no reason to switch horses. American voters have had it up to here with opportunistic politicians who want power, but in the long run don't intend to do much differently than their predecessors. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - except now he's a Democrat. Doesn't work.

 

[Bruzilla]

I'm assuming that as the elections get closer, the Democrats will try to shift the election focus more on local issues as their national stands suck. I don't see Dean as trying to win over any Republican or independent votes, but if he does a good job of financing the local opinion makers, I see him standing a good chance of picking up a lot of votes for the party. Again, maybe not in 2006, but in 2008.