But How Good Will the RNC Turnout Machine Be on Nov. 7?

Following the successes of the RNC in the Rhode Island GOP senatorial primary this week and in the special election in California's 50th congressional district back in June, many on this side of the aisle have begun to fret that the superior GOTV apparatus of the Republicans will trump any advantage generally held by Democratic challengers this cycle. But how likely is it that Republicans will be able to replicate what they have achieved in these individual races -- contests in which the electorate was significantly smaller than it is during normal general election campaigns -- on November 7? Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza raise an interesting point in their article today in The Washington Post.

Chafee, who often clashes with the White House and congressional leaders over policy and political tactics, said the Rhode Island primary shows that the GOP strategy can work. "The proof is in the pudding," he said. He noted that the state saw a record turnout for a Republican primary and said that the turnout operation "made the difference." The RNC lacks the resources to replicate its efforts in Rhode Island in every competitive congressional race. But GOP officials said that the $30 million they plan to spend on turnout will allow them to run aggressive programs in most of them. Already, for example, they have more than 40 paid field experts in Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee and nine in Connecticut for the three competitive House races, according to a person familiar with RNC operations. [emphasis added]

The article cites as fact a claim by the RNC that it spent $400,000 on turnout efforts in support of Lincoln Chafee, though I would not be surprised if they had invested more than that. The NRSC, to my knowledge, has not publicly discussed its expenses in Rhode Island, but Greg Sargent over at TPM Cafe digs through FEC filings and finds that Liddy Dole dumped at least a half a million dollars in Rhode Island -- and that doesn't even count the tens of thousands of dollars given by GOP leadership PACs directly to Chafee's campaign. In the California-50 special election, the NRCC spent more than $5 million and the RNC's turnout effort included at least 100 congressional staffers flown in from Washington among 160 "deployed volunteers".

Will the RNC and other Republican committees be able to replicate these numbers during the general election, which is made up of not one, but dozens and dozens of competitive contests? On Tuesday, they were able to help Lincoln Chafee win a Republican primary in Rhode Island. Yet at the same time, the NRCC was unable to push favored candidate Steve Huffman over the top in the GOP primary in Arizona's 8th congressional district despite big bucks they spent on his behalf.

With the field of competitive races continuing to expand -- remember, as Charlie Cook notes this week, "14 Republican House members who had double-digit leads on October 1 [1982] ended up losing" -- I am far from convinced that the Republicans will be able to spend as much on GOTV for individual races as they have in in Rhode Island or California's 50th district. They may have sent 40 staffers to oversee turnout in three large states, but that is nothing in comparison to the 160 they sent to a single congressional district in June.

So while the Democratic Party no doubt must devote more resources than ever before to identifying and turning out voters, and the party's three committee chairs must get over their egos and differences and make sure there is enough money to get out the vote, this race is far from over and we can win.

Update (Chris): I have to emhpasize how much Jonathan is right about this one. I'm seeing lots of knock-kneed websites trembling over the supposedly fantastic Republican turnout in Rhode Island. What people forget is that the NRSC sent every single staffer east of the Mississippi to work on this campaign, and yet Chefee still significantly underperformed the final internal NRSC poll on the race. Why the hell are we supposed to be scared of that? Somehow using every staffer they had in one-half of the country to underperform their own poll makes them invincible? What. Ever.



Display:


Re: But How Good Will the RNC Turnout Machine Be o (none / 0)

As much as the Republicans were able to focus on these districts, Dems have had that luxury as well.  It isn't as though the Dem side of CA-50 was organic either.  It's not nearly as stark of course, but once all the races are getting decided on the same day, sources of hype and dollars like the netroots won't be able to pick a race or two at a time to hammer away at (a la Edwards/Wynn for a week) before moving to the next round of primaries.  Just sayin...it cuts both ways.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 11:55:31 AM EST

Re: But How Good Will the RNC Turnout Machine (none / 0)

Turnout only matters when there are voters out there who will actually vote for you.

The key for the Democrats to defeat the GOP GOTV operation is to turn voters against the GOP, so there are fewer GOP voters to turn out.

That means relentlessly hammering them on the one hand, and on the other hand relentless pumping up the Democratic brand, and demonstrating self-respect, projecting confidence and looking like a "winner."


by Hesiod Theogeny on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 11:55:33 AM EST

debunk the myth (none / 0)

This turnout stuff is a myth. I don't believe for a minute that GOP's turnout machine alone has saved Chafee. The story is purely based on reporters' desire to find any reason to explain Chafee's victory.

The truth is this is a very high-profile primary by the very end. For RI with over 600,000, an increase of 10,000 to 20,000 in a small GOP primary is absolutely nothing. You just can't compare it percentage wise.

CT primary was hotly contested and turnout was huge even independents were not allowed in D's primary. Has any reporter contributed to Democratic Party's secret turnout recipe?

The truth is people are just interested in participating in a very hotly contested race. This is ZERO evidence that chafee was actually lagging in the poll before the primary. The two polls on this race were completely at odds.

I don't believe the fancy 'micro-targeting' stuff. It's an absolute myth. Their turnout machine may be better. But It's hard to imagine you can erase a deficit more than 2 points by just turning out your base.

All the polls before 2004 election showed Bush had a slight lead. He won because of this not on some turnout myth.


by firestorm on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 11:56:17 AM EST

Re: But How Good . . . (none / 0)

Jerome, Matt & Co. --

I agree with your gut feeling that the GOP's ground game, however prodigious, may not be able to cover each and every vulnerable seat this fall. But as Markos and others have noted, at the end of the day, those people know how to close the deal and deliver their people to the polls. In droves.

Although I'm a progressive who has lived for eighteen years in New York, I grew up in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in a devout Baptist family, so I know first-hand how a plurality of voters in red and even purple states viscerally loathe liberals (even when they may agree with them on specific policies). I consider myself a denizen of the netroots but frankly, I don't see ANY effort on the progressive blogosphere's part to understand -- let alone win over -- swing voters in the South and Midwest. (There's been some effort to reach out to libertarians in the Rocky Mountain states, which is terrific.)

What are you doing to bolster, say, Harold Ford's chances in Tennessee? He's running a hell of a campaign but I've only read harsh criticism of his television ads in your posts, his "Republican lite" approach. Trust me on this one: there's no friggin' way he can win in Tennessee if he were to cast himself as a progressive. So why not pull out the stops as if he were Ned Lamont?    

Personally, I'd like to see the netroots show that they, too, can organize and compete in the groundgame arena, since it's plausible that control of Congress may pivot on GOTV. I wonder if all the obsession with Lieberman and "The Path to 9/11" and Fitzmas and Chuck Schumer could somehow be channeled into real, concrete strategies for winning elections.

Any way you could coordinate efforts with Jane Hamsher, the Kossacks, Matt Yglesias and the rest of the progressive blogosphere to target swing/moderate voters in competitive races?


by BrklynDad on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 11:56:28 AM EST

Re: But How Good . . . (none / 0)

I think you're missing the point of what the blogs are about and what they can do. Blogs and the "netroots" are NOT the Democratic National Committee or the DCCC or the DSCC. It's their job (and the candidates, the state, county, and local parties, and especially the local precinct officers) job to target voters and get them out to vote. Blogs are not going to run TV ads. They are not going to go canvassing in Tennessee. They can generate enthusiasm, they can raise small amounts of money generally, or large amounts of money for a very select few targeted races, but they are not the source of money for campaigns.

Blogs are good at generating information, providing alternative view points, and generating enthusiasm. They can't be surrogates for an effective Democratic Party.


by adamterando on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:18:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But How Good . . . (none / 0)

I completely, totally agree with you that the what the netroots can and should do in key races in no way compares to what the larger Democratic party must do to win. But the netroots' efforts must surely complement the party's if we're ever going to become a majority again.

On the other hand: I reject the notion that the netroots can't/shouldn't canvass in Tennessee when in fact that's exactly what happened in the Connecticut and Montana primaries. Why doesn't Harold Ford benefit from the creativity and dedication of the progressive blogosphere a la Lamont and Tester? It's simple: the netroots doesn't like him because he's a centrist. (For the record, I don't like his policies all that much, either, and if I still lived in Tennessee I would have looked for a credible alternative in the primary.)

Harold Ford won the Democratic primary fair and square and he's campaigning hard in my native east Tennessee, which happens to be one of the most conservative pockets in the entire country. His race begs a few questions: why would the netroots put 300% into Ned Lamont's campaign and not Harold Ford's, especially when Ford's race may actually be more winnable and could tip the balance in the Senate? Why pick and choose among moderates to support? He's the Democratic nominee in a competitive race, doesn't he deserve the same "love" from myDD, firedoglake and all the rest?


by BrklynDad on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 01:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Super post (none / 0)

Great post, I used to live in Brooklyn, too...

The idea that progressives can find and activate a hidden majority still persists.  In the long run it must be aimed for...but in the short run we must aim more towards the middle than much of the partisan left blogosphere seems willing to admit, IMO.  

The Republicans have a more reliable base.  Simple as that.  The poster above who doesn't believe in microtargeting is flat wrong.  

I think we'll see the complaint cycle again in '08 Presidential, with many progressives on the net complaining about somebody like ___ (fill in the blank) being "forced upon us."  Whether that becomes the majority blogosphere opinion remains to be seen.  Hopefully not.


by Andmoreagain on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:21:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But How Good Will the RNC Turnout (none / 0)

Charlie Cook's comment was about the 1982 election I think, for context.


by schwa on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:04:54 PM EST

Re: But How Good Will the RNC Turnout (none / 0)

Thanks.


Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.
by Jonathan Singer on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But How Good Will the RNC Turnout Machine (3.00 / 1)

Rather than concentrating on their turnout machine- i would like to know how the Dems GOTV machine is gearing up?


by bruh21 on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:42:49 PM EST

Top Ten Rep GOTV Strategies? (none / 0)

So, if they are so good at GOTV, tell me why? If their grassroots are so thin, how can they do effective GOTV? Can someone list the 10 most effective strategies that they are using?

There is a secondary utility in sending "every GOP staffer East of the Mississippi" to Rhode Island. Two months before the Elections, they just trained up all their staffers on GOTV strategies. They'll spend the next couple months analyzing, retraining and disseminating the skills.

All that money "wasted" on RI, was actually a good investment in training.


There's more of us than there is of them.
by MetaData on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 01:20:02 PM EST

Little to do with Rnc turnout machine (none / 0)

The Dnc and state parties seem to be continuing their failed Urban centric turnout policies. They fail to see that Cities are tapped out wells and they need to spend more time on turnout in the suburbia  


by orin76 on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 01:20:05 PM EST

Re: Little to do with Rnc turnout machine (none / 0)

I agree with this in general, but I learned something interesting this week.  The Leisure World retirement community in Montgomery County, MD has more Democratic voters than Kent, Somerset and Caroline counties COMBINED.  And they all vote.


by MDMan on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 01:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dem GOTV (none / 0)

It is up to all of us to support the Democratic GOTV effort.  I believe that it is similar to the the GOP effort, but not as finely tuned, nor is it likely as technologically advanced.  Still, we have the mechanism in place and it is working better than ever. I have been involved in MD state party activities, plus work for Ben Cardin in the primary.  The Cardin campaign had the best GOTV effort I have ever seen.  Still, we all need to volunteer and get our friends to volunteer, as well.


by MDMan on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 01:38:09 PM EST

Re: But How Good Will the RNC Turnout (none / 0)

Well, preference is undeniably more relevant than GOTV. In 2004 Bush unquestionably won via preference, namely white women preferring him due to national security concerns. But that reminds me in September 2004 we were denouncing security moms as a myth on liberal blogs. Result: 55-44, white women in favor of Bush.

So now we're similarly downplaying Republican GOTV. Interesting. And I would be very careful to define or project GOTV based on number of staffers. I've read dozens of articles on the subject and the GOP methodology has moved to relying on local contact via churches and neighbor to neighbor contact, along with pro-Republican businesses encouraging their employees to vote. I think we're stuck in the traditional mindset of evaluating GOTV by number of people in a small rented office making phone calls and sending out direct mail.


by jagakid on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 05:33:51 PM EST

Re: But How Good Will the RNC Turnout (none / 0)

No bush won because of the stupid strategy of cededing the suburbs and rural areas to the republicans and wasting thousands of man house in cities for min gain that were offset by even larger losses outside the cities.


by orin76 on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 12:49:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But How Good Will the RNC Turnout (none / 0)

opps hours


by orin76 on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 12:50:24 AM EST

Re: But How Good Will the RNC Turnout Machine (none / 0)

and i'm watching the same stupidity replay itself all over again this year


by orin76 on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 12:51:33 AM 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.