-While I like dean, he has shown poor judgement on fl/mi primaries.
- 50 state strategy is fine for house seats but not so for presidential/senate...states like alabama, mississippi, utah are not worth the amount of hard earned DEM money!!! if they show up good in houses seats then senate monewy can be invested.
- dean needs to understand the DEM are a big tent!!
Just for fun, I think that Dean made the right call regarding the Fl/Mi primaries, they're claim-jumpers. But I'm in Nevada and we got the early primary fair and square by following the process. However, I don't see this as a blogosphere issue. (However, I think that we agree more about the primary process than it looks like from this statement).
If you don't think that the 50 state strategy is valid for Senate races, how do you explain Tester(MT) and Webb(VA). IMHO These are two Senate races that would not have happened without a 50 state strategy. They were not really supported by the DSCC until the last. They were so close that they were not decided until days after the election, our candidates did not concede, and they were blogosphere supported candidates.
I'm not looking for a big tent here, I'm looking at the blogosphere getting off the fence and starting to act in its own self interest.
virginia and montana have bveen turning blue...they have elected DEM gov/senators...so these were viable...
but can you make a similar case for Utah/alabama/mississippi.
I think a 45 state is right; there are some states we just have to play a minimal role at the DNC level until there is a very strong local prescence established through DCCC or stronng gubertorial election.
IMO the 50-state strategy is often misunderstood as "contest every seat," when it is really more about building state and local parties and infrastructure on the ground so that you don't have to start from scratch in these red areas every four years. The investment is relatively minimal, but it takes a determined DNC Chair to pull it off in the face of politicians who want to put every penny into the current election cycle for reasons of self-interest.
If he stays on great, if not fine. His work has been solidified. We'll continue putting resources into states we had ceded. Dean isn't great at getting the large contributions, but sure I'd love for him to stay on.
I'm not so sure that the 50 state strategy is on such solid ground yet. I'm afraid that the next President will view the DNC funds as a Presidential campaign piggy bank. This seems to be a past practice. IMO part of the reason Bill Clinton didn't have coat tails through two elections, and the main reason why Gore and Kerry lost.
What do you see as Blogosphere issues that should be advocated as a support/no support for a candidate?
The President selects the Party chair, he has already said hat he would be stepping down when a DEM was elected President.
Ii like the Gov, he was a great defender of President Clinton back during the coup attempt and I KNOW how fond Hillary is of him....
He will be a great campaigner for her when she is the nominee.
Wow. Why do you feel the need to defend Hillary? This wasn't an attack on her. It was a statement of concern that the blogosphere isn't advocating its issues. I think that Dean is a visionary and by putting together a 50 state strategy he developed Party coat tails for Dems that gave us a majority in the House and a controlling plurality in the Senate.
Dean has also said that he would be a great campaigner for the Democratic Nominee, whomever it is.
That's nice to know that the Clintons get along with Dean because, you know, you hear stuff and you're never sure what to believe.
If Hillary is the nominee, I sure hope she runs a campaign on the Dean model in terms of doing her best to ask everyone for their vote. I really hated the 50.01% strategy from 2004, we can do better than that.
person over a daily koss hat goes by NEVADADEM?
nope. Don't know that person. I go by NevDem there.
good
I think Dean has done well. He was my candidate in 2004, and I reluctantly supported Kerry (who gave me no excitement at all.) I agree with the 50-state strategy and believe that we are on our way in terms of funding progress to put the monetary means together to continue the strategy. If Dean definitely steps down after a Democratic candidate is elected president I hope the next DNC chair will continue on the 50-state track. I always disagreed with Shumer and Emmanuel on that one.
Somewhat unrelated, but I DO disagree with Dean on FL and MI. The punishment on the books is a loss of half the delegates, which would have sufficed as a penalty. The way it was done jeopardizes our chances in FL, which could be pivotal in this election. I will be watching with anticipation whether New Hampshire will be punished at all for moving its primary up.
I'm with you from 2004. Except after Dean dropped out, I worked my butt off for Kerry to get a Dem Elected. Damm depressing when the resources were cut and went to Ohio in the last two weeks as polling showed Kerry starting to fall behind in Nevada. And this just a week or so after resources were pulled out of WV as polling showed the same thing there (battleground state strategy).
I see the 50 State strategy working better in the blogosphere as it can bring together Dems in Red dominated areas. It's part of what attracted me here in the first place, to find people who think like I do. I really hope you're right, at this point I see the 50 state strategy as the only mechanism that can restore Democratic values to the Nation.
For the sidebar: I think the process was becoming insane. Ye Gads! A new first primary every week! It. Had. To. Stop. For the coming cycle though I personally believe that the four closest states from the general election should get the nod as the first four primary states for the next Presidential cycle, should they want it.
I could be wrong but, I think that we are seeing the last of the Iowa/New Hampshire model for primaries.
The best idea I've ever heard is that the state with the highest voter participation rate in each Presidential election would get to go first the next time. It would be a sort of badge of honor.
I don't know how doable any of these various plans are, but I think this is how I would do it if I ruled the world.
Right now we are doing well with fundraising, and we need to invest that into a 50-state strategy the likes we have not seen before (to put the fork in the GOP for a while.)
Kerry did well, considering how little excitement he brought to the table overall, which showed me at the time that an issues and values realignment favoring Democrats long-term was well under way.
I had worked my butt off for Gore, had taken 3 weeks off from work to fully concentrate on getting him elected in Florida. And, we did. :-) With Kerry I just did not have the same drive, he did very little for me. But now I have caught the bug again, am inspired and intend to work hard for Hillary Clinton, if she wins. Florida is pivotal. Every voter counts, we have to find them and turn them out.
I agree that after this cycle the primary model will be blown up and Iowa and New Hampshire will no longer be assured their "first" roles automatically. That is an archaic and silly system, and I fully understand where my state and Michigan were coming from. As for the punishment, we differ on that, I guess. The rules were clearly stated: IF, THEN. If you violate the DNC rule, then you stand to lose half your delegates. Can't be any clearer than that. I found it incredible that the rules were changed on the fly just like that. That is not how this should work. Then draft rules with draconian punishments from the start. The way this was handled by the DNC was downright ridiculous, IMO. I think, given that the rules were clear at the start, the DNC needed to abide by them. If they thought the rules were too weak, then announce that they would be changed for the NEXT cycle, that in case of violation THEN you would lose all your delegates. I believe the DNC has violated its own rules here, and I hope that the lawsuit brought forth by the Democratic party will address that and that a judge will restore that half of delegates Florida (and Michigan) should be awarded as per the DNC's own rules. What an embarassment this episode was, and, frankly, the GOP handled much, much better, with the exact same issues at hand.
brought forth by the Democratic party=brought forth by the Florida Democratic party
