MyDD :: Election turnout

Election turnout

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 11:56:04 PM EST

The New Yorker on Rove profile from May, 2003, has been recirculating, and there's a nugget there that shows just how fast things in the past 5 years that innovations have moved toward the advantage of the Republicans, in terms of GOTV operations:

The Democrats believe that the reason for their late close was an unusually intense and effective get-out-the-vote effort, and there is evidence that Rove agrees. Ten days after the election, Morton Blackwell, a former national executive director of the College Republicans, who had been out of touch with Rove for years, picked up the phone and heard that familiar booming voice on the other end of the line: "Morton, how does it feel to have advocated something for decades and have it come true?" What Blackwell had been advocating for decades, ever since he trained the teen-age Karl Rove to be a field organizer, was that people in politics should pay less attention to consultants, television advertising, polls, and "message," and more attention to the old-fashioned side of the business: registering voters, organizing volunteers, making face-to face contact during the last days of A campaign, and getting people to the polls on Election Day. Soon, Rove had launched a project called the 72-Hour Task Force, which conducted scientific experiments in grassroots political organizing during the three days before Election Day in five geographically scattered races in 2001.

For Democrats who spend a good deal of their time looking for the Mark of Rove, an exciting moment came in June, 2002, when a backup computer disk was found in Lafayette Park, across from the White House, containing two PowerPoint presentations, one by Kenneth Mehlman, Rove's deputy and the White House political director, called "The 2002 Challenge," and the other by Rove himself, called "The Strategic Landscape." (Inevitably, speculation has begun over whether the Lafayette Park PowerPoint, as it has been referred to, is the Rosetta stone to the mind of Karl Rove or a piece of deliberate disinformation designed to throw the Democrats off the scent.)

Since that discovery, an even more interesting PowerPoint presentation has fallen into Democratic hands, and from there into mine. This one outlines, in ninety slides, the work of the 72-Hour Task Force. It acknowledges, much more freely than Rove does in conversation, that in the 2000 Presidential election the Democrats outperformed the final opinion-poll predictions in state after state, and attributes this to their superior organizing. In 2001, the presentation says, the Republicans conducted more than fifty separate tests, in New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Arkansas, often using paired venues, one for experimenting, the other as a control. The over-all finding was that grassroots efforts work, and that grassroots efforts by local volunteers work especially well.

Test-marketed with control groups in 2001, enacted with operational status in 2002, nationalized in 2004, institutionalized in 2005. That's what the GOP just did with their ground and GOTV operations over the past 4 years.

CNN still has "The Strategic Landscape" up in Powerpoint, if your interested. I've not seen the second PP presentation, consisting of 90 slides on the work of the 72-Hour Task Force, but it seems a straight-forward analysis of what the GOP did in 2001, built upon their examination of the Democratic success at GOTV in 2000, and improving it by going volunteer. I did run across, in searching, this amazing 377 page PDF file, "The Last Hurrah", detailing soft-money expenditures in the 2002, before the enactment of McCain-Fiengold's CFR that was to end the practice (not so last, hurrah).

For the 2004 election, the results show GOTV efforts on both sides were very effective, with one big difference. For Republicans, they've institutionalized their gains, for Democrats, they've out-sourced the effort. The questions now to ask ourselves:

Is our biggest fear another round of CFR that stomps out 527 efforts, which are largely now the professional GOTV operations of the Democratic Party?
Will Dean be able to institutionalize volunteer GOTV efforts that combine the best of what DFA did and mimic the success of the GOP's GOTV turnaround?

I think the Democratic Party is in a bit of a conundrum right now, as it appears there are Democratic Senators that want to go along with GOP efforts aimed at outlawing 527's. And yet, if they do, that means the Democratic Party is left to build in the DNC, what the Bush operation did (essentially a 4-year Presidential campaign study/operation inside the WH), now operating within the RNC. I would count myself as skeptical that the DNC is able to spearhead a nationwide professional and volunteer field operation that institutionalizes the effort very quickly. As Dan Balz notes, the DNC has kicked ass with it's financial operations:

Figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that in 2003 and 2004, the DNC raised $171 million in contributions of less than $250. That represented 42 percent of the $404.5 million raised from all sources by the committee. Four years ago, before large soft-money contributions were banned by the new campaign finance reform law, the DNC raised a total of $260 million from all sources. Kerry's campaign raised an additional $84 million in contributions under $250.

We all know that money was largely blown with purchases of ineffective TV advertising in 2004. Looking at the big picture of transforming the Democratic Party into an effective field-based organization is going to mean that the DNC invests in innovative grassroots and netroots tactics and organizing, and build up regional operations, instead of business as usual in DC. It's a tall order to suggest the DNC is up for that task to begin in 2005 what Rove kicked off in 2001, but if the GOP manages to get another round of CFR that makes 527 GOTV operations illegal, what's the alternative?

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 20 Comments :: Post a Comment

Democrats are damned fools (none / 0)

if they cooperate in shutting down or limiting 527's. They might as well just surrender the 2008 election. Considering the large percentage of small contributions raised byh 527's, I fail to see the problem. Are the Dems supporting 527 "reform" by any chance DLC?

With the combination of 527's and DFA Meet Ups the Dems have a chance to put together a great ground game. The last thing Dems should be considering is going back to large donation dependency of the DLC.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 12:23:42 AM EST

Re: Democrats are damned fools (none / 0)

The problem is the TV ads by MoveOn and the SwiftBoats of the world, that's what the politicians feel threatened by, although, I've no doubt that the GOP is targeting the 527's because of the ground efforts for Democrats.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 12:38:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats are damned fools (3.00 / 1)

Although both of you two know a lot more about this than I do, I think you're both missing the choice here. Its not about 527s or not -- the money will get spent somehow even if 527s are shut down -- and its not about "the politicians" vs. "MoveOn". Its really about whether or not the money goes to some sort of DC/NY-based national operation (Voices of Working Families, ACT, MoveOn, DNC subsidiaries) or to state and local based operations (state parties, 'non-partisans' with state and local chapters such as DFA).

Early in the 04 cycle, the big spenders on the Democratic side -- AFL-CIO, abortion-rights groups, conservation groups and some wealthy individuals -- faced the question of what to do in light of BCFR. Instead of funeling the money to start parties, which they felt were not well enough organized to handle it effectively, they decided to build their own operations, which became AmericaVotes and everything under it -- ACT, Voices, MoveOn.

This did not, as I see it, work out very well; these "independent" groups could not actively endorse Kerry or any democrat and they were so concerned about getting blasted by the GOP/FEC that they scrupulously avoided any coordination -- which of course state parties could have done.

Now, we're facing two issues -- Dean's agenda to reform the national Dem party by building, and funding, state parties; and what do if BCFR is amended to shut down 527s.

Seems to me the obvious choice -- ESPECIALLY for people who want Dean to reform the Demcoratic party -- is to encourage spending on state parties RATHER THAN independent expenditures like MoveON.

To represent it as a choice between "the politicians" and "the people" is actually to misrepresent the choice -- unless MoveOn were to adopt a DFA model of sustained local organizing/ issue ed/ mobilizing which is NOT what they have been doing for quite some time (and any quick look at their site with its buried and inaccessible discussion forums, lack of tools for finding local activists and lack of any opportunity for feedback other than making yet another donation).

I think MyDDers should be actively encouraing a sustained campaign to encourage big-money "soft" donors to give to state parties, ESP those state parties that need to build their infrastructure most aggressively, which are the purple and red states. That also means we need to help find and mobilize activists to get involved in the party in those states, so the money isn't wasted.

More MoveOn ads aimed at Berkeley and Cambridge is not, in my view, what "Reform Democrats" should want.

by desmoulins on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 02:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats are damned fools (none / 0)

Excellent points. I too thought that would be the ideal avenue once CFR was enacted. But now having seen the ASDC up close, I know exactly why Labor and the big donors chose to go it alone.

Let's hope that Dean puts the ASDC in order. Well, really, it's up to us to put the ASDC in order, through a complete overhaul of the membership of the DNC.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 07:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

put the ASDC in order, through a complete overhaul (none / 0)

Really don't you mean we need to push for reform in state parties, as opposed to the ASDC right? And we need to do this by getting activists involved at state and county party level, right?

Changing the membership of the ASDC and DNC would be the priority if our goal were only to give Dean a free hand; our goal is really to rebuild an activist Democratic party rather than support any one or another chair, right?

by desmoulins on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 09:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: put the ASDC in order, through a complete over (3.00 / 1)

The ASDC is composed of the state party ED's and Chairs, and yea, we do that by starting from the ground up. You can't effect the ASDC unless you are inside the decision-making body, and to do that, requires election at the very local level.

There's a multitude of goals here in reform: financial, organizational, and campaign. Through it all, we want the activist element to take control.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 10:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats are damned fools (none / 0)

They lose control of their message, sure. Of course, one big problem with Dems is that they don't really have a message. I think that's why it was so easy for O'Reilly et.at. to get the DLC made a Michael Moore. He had a message and the DLC didn't, so it was easy to pretend Moore represented the Dems.

The solution isn't getting rid of or complaining about Moore's message, it's getting a message of your own. Speak out dammit!

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 03:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems outsourcing GOTV? (3.00 / 2)

That seems like one of the great myths of the 2004 election. Being intimately involved with the K-E campaign in Ohio in the last weeks and months, they did a hell of a lot of GOTV. It was, in fact, virtually the only thing they did in the last month or so.

The 527's (ACT, Acorn, LCV, MoveOn, etc.) really screwed the pooch, in my opinion. They were in the battleground states earlier, had more $, and more staff. Moreover, if all that $ and grassroots energy were available to the campaign, we wouldn't have called the same damn people a million times or been able to actually talk to people in rural areas, instead of ceding them to B-C.

the lyceum

by mattgabe on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 12:34:01 AM EST

Re: Dems outsourcing GOTV? (3.00 / 1)

Good points, but the fact is, there was no way K-E could have been there earlier. My point was that GOTV needs to be institutionalized within the DNC, if we are not going to rely on 527's.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 12:37:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Blame Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold for the 527s (none / 0)

I want Feingold for president in 2008, but the Feingold/McCain act hurt us in some respects...and helped us in others.

In 2000, if you were a George Soros or Peter Lewis type, and wanted to spend a million dollars to help the Democratic canidate or hurt the Republican canidate, you wrote a check for a million dollars to the DNC for a soft money contribution. You couldn't do that post-McCain/Feingold. McCain/Feingold hurts us more that it hurts them, because we have a few really rich guys, and a lot of poor guys, while they have a lot of upper middle class guys-that is, we have a few people willing to give a million dollars, and they have thousands of people willing to give two thousand dollars.

Now, it helps us by making a top-down campaign (on our side) pointless-with Dean as chair, we can get enough hundred dollar donations to be within the ballpark-and with those, the party will have to actually listen to the little people, which they didn't if ten millionaires were paying for everything. This is the silver lining.

by Geotpf on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:45:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Outlaw the 527s (3.00 / 2)

The fact is, we're all forgetting that the GOP won the 527 matchup in one fell swoop: the Swift Boat Vets.

To take that sort of black arts politics out of the GOP bag would be debilitating to them. They do better with less of it than we do, because we're not psychologically prepared to do it in the first place.

Frankly, I doubt Dems have it in them to race-bait, queer-bait, and even veteran-bait.

The GOP does it like a Canadian teenager playing hockey. Effortless, natural, learned from birth.

Take the 527s away.

by jcjcjc on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 12:50:09 AM EST

Re: Outlaw the 527s (3.00 / 2)

The truth is though, that Swift Boat Vets could have just as easily been a PAC, they didn't need large soft money donations, most of what they got was free media, and with the blogs/internet, I doubt it would have been held back, had 527's not been around.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 01:10:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outlaw the 527s (none / 0)

It would have made it harder for the MSM to run with the story, or to let them advertise it on TV.

It wouldn't have changed the play-nice response of the Kerry campaign.

by jcjcjc on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 01:30:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outlaw the 527s (none / 0)

They do better with less of it than we do, because ....

... because the SCLM is, mostly, on their side.

The Swift Boat Liars wouldn't have had near the impact if it weren't for the media. They could only afford a small three-state ad buy. It was the rightwing echo chamber that amplified their silly charges a thousandfold and fed the "story" to the M$M.

I doubt Dems have it in them to race-bait, queer-bait, and even veteran-bait.

You may be right. I don't think we should be race- or queer-baiting our Repug opponents, but veteran-baiting chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney should be second nature to us. Same goes for outing hypocritial Repugs who are gay yet support anti-gay Repug policies. And with this crowd, I don't even think a little fascist-baiting is going too far.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For a party that hates science (none / 0)

They've certainly found it useful here:

In 2001, the presentation says, the Republicans conducted more than fifty separate tests, in New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Arkansas, often using paired venues, one for experimenting, the other as a control. The over-all finding was that grassroots efforts work, and that grassroots efforts by local volunteers work especially well.

Wonder if Democrats have ever done anything like that?

by Drew on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 01:08:19 AM EST

thinking two steps ahead here... (3.00 / 1)

This topic has the potential for real social change. While we look at this as a GOTV effort, Rove is looking for a Conservative Majority for the next 50 years. We need to understand this issue very clearly and find ways to not react to it but to leap ahead of not just what the right is doing but the next thing comming as well.

Lets see how the grassroots that we are counting on to save us can be a tool for the Right as well:
Here is the senario:
600,000 DFA members who all might contribute $10 a month to the DNC. That equals 72 Million for DNC projects.
Now look at the 4,000,000 "extra evangelical voters" that Bush supposedly got in the election. At $10 bucks a month that is 480 million a year to the RNC.

Now my assumptions about numbers of committed people may be faulty, I just am using two big numbers related to the election that I have heard, but what I am saying here is that we need to think of these things so we don't get blindsided.

by lookinforward on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 10:37:09 AM EST

Re: thinking two steps ahead here... (none / 0)

From the last paragraph (very scary)...

"In our last interview, I tried out on Rove a scenario I called "the death of the Democratic Party." The Party has three key funding sources: trial lawyers, Jews, and labor unions. One could systematically disable all three, by passing tort-reform legislation that would cut off the trial lawyers' incomes, by tilting pro-Israel in Middle East policy and thus changing the loyalties of big Jewish contributors, and by trying to shrink the part of the labor force which belongs to the newer, and more Democratic, public-employee unions. And then there are three fundamental services that the Democratic Party is offering to voters: Social Security, Medicare, and public education. Each of these could be peeled away, too: Social Security and Medicare by giving people benefits in the form of individual accounts that they invested in the stock market, and public education by trumping the Democrats on the issue of standards. The Bush Administration has pursued every item on that list. Rove didn't offer any specific objection but, rather, a general caveat that the project might be too ambitious. "Well, I think it's a plausible explanation," he said. "I don't think you ever kill any political party. Political parties kill themselves, or are killed, not by the other political party but by their failure to adapt to new circumstances. But do you weaken a political party, either by turning what they see as assets into liabilities, and/or by taking issues they consider to be theirs, and raiding them?" The thought brought to his round, unlined, guileless face a boyish look of pure delight. "Absolutely!""

by lookinforward on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 10:56:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thinking two steps ahead here... (none / 0)

It's usually when Republicans start talking like that when you know they're finished. They can't realistically accomplish this because good Democrats (like you and me) will rise up to fight them.

Case in point: Republicans were going to use Bush's $200 million warchest to nuke Kerry out of the water. Instead, concerned Democrats and independents helped Kerry rise to parity with Bush, even though he started at a major financial disadvantage. Kerry didn't win, but he wasn't "nuked" either.

by wilder on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 12:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thinking two steps ahead here... (none / 0)

They can't realistically accomplish this because good Democrats (like you and me) will rise up to fight them.

Really?

Tort reform: Already passed in several states, not to mention the new law restricting class-action suits to Federal courts.

Jewish community: I think the community is more progressive than the GOP is giving them credit for, but look at how Bush II has treated Israel, compared to Bush I or even Clinton.

Labor: the unionized sector of the workforce has continued to shrink since Reagan busted PATCO. Even Clinton offered labor little help. And let's not forget the entire Department of Homeland Security has been made a union-free zone.

Medicare: do I really need to remind you of the "reform" bill that was passed a couple of years ago?

Public education: Four lying words: "No Child Left Behind."

The only thing left is Social Security. And with the help of fainthearted Democrats like Joementum, they may well succeed in gutting that too.

Our party has (finally) begun to show a few signs of life this year, but face it: we're in trouble. Denying it won't make it less true.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:51:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democratic party hasn't thought strategically (none / 0)

The 527 issue is a distraction: of course the Dems should own their own GOTV effort. The 527s set them up because the Dems were not doing it competitively. They desperately wanted the Dems to do better and decided they better do it themselves. Calling it out-sourcing is a disservice because the Dems and 527s can't coordinate.

The Dem nationwide DB still can't reach down to county parties, etc. In my county, we still don't have info from Kerry, the state party on their contacts with citizens in our county.

The core issue is reflected in the comment by Jerome: "Test-marketed with control groups in 2001, enacted with operational status in 2002, nationalized in 2004, institutionalized in 2005."

Dems would never think of doing such a strategic move. They're like a mom & pop hardware store wondering what's going to happen to them after Wal*Mart has opened nearby. Too late!

The trick is learn from the Reps, but not do just do what the Reps did in 2001 ... or we'll just be one full election cycle behind all the time. We have to understand where our strengths are and play to them.

Dean seems to understands this.

by Will Neuhauser on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:56:15 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.