The DNC Needs to Get Started -- Without a Nominee

Suddenly, the DNC finds itself with the responsibility for saving the campaign of the eventual nominee, whomever that may be. But no one seems to notice.

If Super Tuesday had been decisive, then, by now, the presumptive nominee would already be two months into building the strongest national field campaign ever seen in U.S. politics. Both Hillary and Obama have brilliant field teams and, as the nominee, either one would have virtually unlimited financial and volunteer resources. It was going to be beautiful.

But now it's possible that decisive work on a national field campaign won't even begin until August. Essentially, that's what happened in 2004 (for very different reasons). I witnessed the consequences of that train wreck close up in a dozen swing states in September and October while working for the campaign. And I'm telling you, if that happens again, it doesn't matter how much more money the Democrat has than McCain: if its a close race where field organizing is important, then the Democrat will lose.

In 2004, the Kerry/DNC campaign proved that, without a long period of meticulous organization building in advance, no amount of money can buy you an effective national field campaign. The Bush campaign taught us the exact opposite lesson, with its meticulous preparation and high-accountability organization that extended all the way down to volunteer county chairs as early as 2002.

If you don't take the time to build an organization large enough and true enough to gather millions of accurate voter IDs, then money won't help you to turn out base votes effectively. If you don't have well trained and already-experienced field staff and volunteers in every important county and precinct, then money won't help you persuade swing voters. If you don't have the right field directors in charge of important states, counties and cities starting now (March) at the very latest, then they won't have time to build teams that are reliable and deep.

No amount of money spent on consultants or big names from past races will fix the organizational messes that the nominee is being set up for now. In fact, those consultants and big names will only mess things up worse, despite their best intentions.

It is simply impossible to build a multi-hundred-million dollar grassroots organization that works in less than six months -- let alone in one or two months. In fact, building it in six months will still require a miracle. And all that organization-building needs to be finished before September to give the organization enough time to do its work of winning the election.

For Democrats, the key step that begins that process in a swing state is the appointment of a talented and respected field leader by the presumptive nominee. That's not to say there aren't some amazing people at the state parties now doing great work. But anyone who seems to be in charge of a state field operation now will be subordinated to the nominee's person. They have a different skill set than what's required for a full-blown general election field operation -- they know it and they're waiting for the new leadership to arrive. But even if the old team and the new team get along perfectly (which rarely happens), it still means disruption and redirection. That's why it's so important that those appointments should be made now, not three or four months from now.

It's possible that each presidential campaign could today start to build its national field operation for the general election. Unfortunately, they are too busy trying to kill each other to think about that. And even if they tried to do it, they'd be forced to build without many of the best people from the other side, and without their own best people who are consumed with PA, FL, MI and the super delegate field.

That's why the DNC, like a scrawny kid who caught a ball he didn't mean to catch, is the only one who can save us now. In an act of unconventional leadership, the DNC should poach the best state directors from the primaries, put them in charge of the most important states, and let them start building. (And put its foot down, with the support of the grassroots/netroots, if the eventual nominee stupidly tries to replace them all arbitrarily when the primary is finally settled.)

It's true, the DNC doesn't have unlimited resources now, but the work that has to be done right now isn't costly: it's hiring a handful of key state field directors and letting them go to work hiring deputies, establishing structures and work habits, integrating with the existing state party infrastructure and integrating with the vast grassroots/netroots volunteer networks.

The problem is, the DNC has (correctly) been waiting for the presumptive nominee to appoint general election state field directors. The DNC has done its job well for this cycle: it built the DNC's first ever accurate and usable voter file (despite what Harold Ickes keeps telling reporters). It miraculously brought every state party on board with that unified voter file system. Also for the first time ever, it brought all the states onto a standardized set of end-user tools for field organizing (the Voter Activation Network). All of that amounts to an historic achievement for the party.

No, they haven't built a presidential-sized field organizing operation. But it would be unfair to expect them to have done that. Field organizers want to be in the middle of the action on the campaigns, not waiting patiently at the party for a candidate. The DNC did exactly what it was supposed to do: lay down the infrastructure that only the national party could.

But now the unimaginable has happened. And the DNC needs to step up to an unexpected challenge.

I know that insiders at the party and on the campaigns will chuckle at my suggestion that the DNC take the lead in setting up the general election field leadership. Yes, it's more than unlikely to happen -- and to happen successfully -- for many reasons.

But what is the alternative? The sequence of events that is now unfolding guarantees disaster in the field for Democrats this summer and fall unless someone starts building right now. And who else can do that except for the DNC?

Comments

[DanAncona]

Oh man, I wish I could get the "we're so screwed" feeling out of my head from reading this. Does the DNC even have a national field director? If so, who are they? How can we help them? One thing they do have is the same Blue State Digital tool that my.barack is built on. We could start organizing everywhere off that platform immediately, even without money and without VoteBuilder access.

If you are reading this and aren't signed up for the Democracy Bonds program, please - go sign up right now:

http://democrats.org/democracybonds.html

Something I wrote last week - this has tons of detail on the very interesting way the Obama camp deployed the VAN here in CA...

http://techpresident.personaldemocracy.com/blog/entry/22572/power_to_the_edge_obama_s_california_field_operation_from_the_future

OK, thinking about what we can do to get started, I'm feeling more like "let's lock and load" than "we're screwed." At least a little.

[ohnoyoudidnot!]

I would love to see Obama and Clinton spend the rest of the primary campaigning against McCain to see which of the two would be the most compelling competitor against him in the fall. I would hope all Democrats would agree that keeping McCain out of the White House is essential for national security - on all levels. So we vote based on who makes the best campaign against McCain as opposed to each other. I think Clinton needs to rethink her loyalties and priorities.

[dsigeorge]

Zack, not to worry, there is a grass roots organization in place and functioning well. It's known as the Obama campaign! Another reason to nominate Senator Obama and, with this organization in place and already well funded, to assure his election as our next POTUS. Yeah baby!

[SaintPete]

What a novel idea- Depersonalize the campaign as much as possible and make this about issues, not Hillary's hair style or Obama's middle name. Melding the two (whether they like it or not) is the answer to that. Quickly.

It is past time for the DNC to take ownership of its role in elections and assume a bigger profile in national politics. It needs to better define the problems and the solutions within a Democratic Party framework... within the profiles of FDR and what people think is Kennedy and Johnson -- do a little more flirting with sensible socialism like Social Security and Medicare-- ownership of a party wide HealthCare plan would be a nice start.

Then we can focus on educating the public about the various treasons committed by office holders over the last 7 years... from supervisors of elections in some states to gross misfeasance in multiple federal offices and our commercial News Industry. Democratic Party needs to educate about the differences and frame its own definitions of itself and the thing the Republicans have become... If we can't jail them at least we can expose and educate the public about them.

The Party can do this... not the government. But first the Democratic Party has to find its cajones, and then its voice.

[PauCK]

I hope Hillary and Obama read this...if they have time.

DON'T SCREW IT UP FOR DEMOCRATS BY FIGHTING EACH OTHER !

I support both of you. I hoped initially for Hillary and placed my own web site to support her in Florida. I have also recently posted a site for Obama in Florida.

After Hillary's "shame on you Obama" I am kind of leaning more toward Obama now.

Hillary is ambitious as is Obama. I just hope she does not continue to try to trash a fellow democrate risking the election for sake of personal ambitions. We need a Dem, either Dem more than we need a Republican.

This campaign needs to be about getting a Dem in the White house first and foremost. Which one is less important.

GET A CLUE because people don't want to listen to two Dems bashing each other any more.

We can't afford it.

[mengwise36]

If you want to find ONE to blame, blame it on Obama. He is the younger of the two and he announced his decision to ran a month later. He is the one who bashed Hillary for her vote before the war, when he was NOT even in the senate. He is the one who brought down the party. But I see you have leaned toward him and I wonder why.

[christieZ]

So, now we are attacking Obama based on his AGE, as well? Yeah, I figured it would come to that. Sounds a lot like the statements just made by Geraldine Ferraro: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." I'm sure you would not react the same way if someone was speaking to Hillary Clinton's notoriety as being purely a result of her gender, age or hair color, or anything else which is completely beyond her control. Can you believe Clinton's got type AB blood? The nerve!!! Obama is bringing the party down? What about Hillary Clinton's campaign resorting to the very tactics she decried only a few weeks ago as being "straight out of Carl Rove's playbook?" She has become what she professed to detest, and she'll pay for it. I used to take pride in Hillary Clinton's ability to prevail in a male dominated system of government, but now I am ashamed that a WOMAN would stoop so low as to adopt the same divisive, fear-inducing, oppressive techniques that women have fought to overcome. Obama is leading in delegates, leading in states, leading in the popular vote and yet Clinton continues her campaign in spite of its potentially ripping apart the democratic party. How, in the name of reason, can you argue that he is the one bringing down the party? Think about it, mengwise. Think hard.

[kageorgia]

You are absolutely right, but the DNC knows it and it's already happening. I'm a county chair and we have a neighborhood training session with the DNC. Dem Party of Georgia next week. The DNC has had paid people in Georgia for many months. Thank heaven for Howard Dean.

[Zack Exley - Huffpost Blogger]

I've commented on this issue below... You're right that the DNC has done great work in laying the beginning of a foundation -- but nothing near the scale that's needed for a presidential campaign. It wasn't their job, in many ways, to do that.

[abluevoice]

Dean needs to be a more aggresive leader. He needs to sit down with Hillary and Obama, and remind them much much more is at stake in 08 then, whichever one of them gets the nomination.
They need to map out talking points that attack all of the Bush failures and lies of the last 7 years and use that as an attack on McCain who is offering 4 more years of the same.
These talking points need to be the Democratic party's mantra until Nov. repeated by every Demo politician,and candidate every time they are in front of a mic or camera. It's a simple equation Bush and Republicans are bad for the country, look at all the evidence, and McCain is more of the same.
Say it over and over and over again, Hillary, Obama, and Dean.

[MrMurder]

Gov. Dean's idea was right, 50 states.

That means building up for Governors and state leg. These people will water and feed the roots.

The DSCC helps with cash to candidates, they're not as great picking candidates, but when they save resources until after the primaries, there's where they can help build up infrastructure.

Ad for the candidates now involved, there's this to say.

Which one has the leading absentee record? People who campaign better than they govern are in the White House right now. Acting like that's some kind of model to celebrate is horse radish.

"In an act of unconventional leadership, the DNC should poach the best state directors from the primaries, put them in charge of the most important states, and let them start building."

This makes it sound like you don't want a 50 state strategy. It makes it sound like some states don't count. Everyone thinks Utah and Wyoming should weigh in votes equal to Florida and Ohio. Well, not everyone, but some people willing to forgo the results of those important states.

Besides, who needs primaries? How quaint of you to note their importance. Let's caucus our way to the polls.

Basically you're saying we need Hillary's big state people and Obama's smaller state people. Sounds like Zach is on the unity ticket. Too bad you'll miss out on the Sharpton/Tancredo juggernaut that atrios always waxes eloquent over. Maybe the Bloomberg bandwagon will capture your heart and mind, or convincingly rendition it without causing organ failure.

The biggest problem is the lack of follow up in states already run. The ability to run a shadow cabinet, endorsements, surrogates, back through where you polled at. All of this with responsive feedback is what could reinforce those areas needing it most and make every state an item in the long run. That's something only Howie Dean has emphasized at this time.

You've got some great ideas, some matched what the overall strategic aim should be, but even the best points conflict with some of the other items.

As for saying the DNC should aim to develop items without candidates, and have people in place no matter who wins, but base their selection on prior results and success, one has to say what one says when you usually make a point.

Zack Exley, exactly!

[mengwise36]

What do you mean who need primaries? I say who needs caucuses? The caucuses have proved so out of sync with the primaries that they should be banded forever.

[Ironfox]

That's because primaries use touch screen machines. Go figure!

[moevaughn]

50-state strategy? Try 48! The DNC really screwed up on two critical states, FL and MI. The whole mess now could have been avoided if we had competent leadership at the DNC. And they're still trying to pass the buck and drag it out until nothing can be done. Dean said on TV he wants the two campaigns to come up with a solution and present it to him. I heard one of Obama's campaign people say last night, it's up to the DNC to take care of it; they don't want to be part of the solution process. So there you go; nobody wants to do anything; millions of Dem voters be damned. Howard Dean should be forced to resign for such pathetic incompetence.

[S1m0n]

You know, Obama is doing that work, in state after state after state. That's how he's winning. All those names of volunteers will still be there, and they're gong to have been rehearsed and tested in their primaries. Given that the most likely--indeed, presumptiv­e--nominee is Obama, its foolish to attempt to duplicate the wheel at this late date. His campaign is battle-ready and his volunteers have been contacted and trained. The DNC needs to build on that, not reinvent what isn't necessary.

[mengwise36]

Presumptive indeed. Let's see how MI and Fl will be handled first, shall we?

[dsigeorge]

And just how will the Clinton's contribute to the grass roots effort as they have completely ignored the people of many states?

[Zack Exley - Huffpost Blogger]

You're half right. Let's say Obama gets the nomination. He can have the strongest grassroots base in a state, but if there is no time for a leadership team to put down roots, integrate properly with that base, then it will be a train wreck. It doesn't matter how good the people he puts in charge will be, or how strong the leadership is: it takes months to build a fully-formed org that can get work done.

[KevinOrr]

I think this election is so unique, it's hard to say what for sure the DNC should be doing, if anything. I think we should have confidence in the amazingly energetic grassroots work of Obama supporters. Coming from Cincinnati, there are still quite a few folk who are planning to be engaged in Pennsylvania and do all we can in Indiana and Kentucky. I am confident that the energy will continue to be strong all the way to November.

Your basic point I agree with, though. There needs to be someone to channel the energy on the ground. Who will that be?

[JWLANDSCAPES]

Both campaigns, Senator Obama as well as Senator Clinton, have retained their volunteer base in each state and will surely call on them for the National election, however THE DNC definately needs to take an active role now to insure addtional organized systems in place once a nominee has been decided. It's mathematically impossible for EITHER candidate to win based on delegate count alone without MI or FL or a large mass decision from the superdelegates for one candidate over the other. So this won't be decided anytime soon, meaning the DNC needs to start mobilizing now.

FACT: Delegates awarded in caucus states like Wyoming have a VOTER TO DELEGATE ratio of 750/1 and in some cases even less!

FACT: Delegates awarded in Primary states like California have a VOTER TO DELEGATE ratio of 11,000/1

How does a miniscule delegate lead with these two facts taken into consideration equate to the will of the people? And combine that with the electoral map in a General election, don't you think Senator Clinton has won that argument? And furthermore, how does the logic that Senator Obama has won more states so therefore should win the nomination equate to a General Election win? By that logic the Republicans would win every year as they always win more states.

As far as I'm concerned, continuing our Primary is the best thing that has ever happened to our party, and has created an overwhelming turnout and participation of voters never seen before particpating for both candidates. Neither candidate should drop out, your personal feelings put aside, as they owe to their supporters, our party, the people of the upcoming primary states, and to all their volunteers. Let's stop disenfranchising people!

[musselmanm]

He has more delegates and more votes, he will end up after all primary events with the same spread in the numbers or very close. What part of math do you not get? If Hillary ends up with better numbers, then she should be our nominee. I have no problem with her winning with the most numbers. I will vote for her and let Senator Obama remain a Senator. If we end up with new mail in votes in our two rule breaking states, that is fine also. Why do we not agree with each other that whomever has the largest numbers of delegates and votes. And while I am at it, why don;t we end all of the name calling from any and all sides. I personally would be satisfied if the change we get is just respect of each others right to an opinion, and the respect to listen to these ideas of others. Dignity of any sort is called for in our current crisis situation in our country.

[mengwise36]

What happens if Hillary gets more vote but Obama gets more delegate? Who will you support then?

[Toerag]

"How does a miniscule delegate lead with these two facts taken into consideration equate to the will of the people? And combine that with the electoral map in a General election, don't you think Senator Clinton has won that argument?"

Ummm... No. No I don't.

"And furthermore, how does the logic that Senator Obama has won more states so therefore should win the nomination equate to a General Election win?"

Obama will still win traditional "Blue States", in addition to a few that Clinton would lose in a General (see Washington, Wisconsin, Oregon). He'd probably lose Ohio and Florida, but the projected electoral maps on SurveyUSA.com show him with more electoral votes than either Clinton or McCain.

I agree that neither candidate should drop out - but at the same time, we (Democrats) are running out of time to get the Presidential general election campaigns started.

[englishprof]

It's really time Howard Dean displayed the guts to return Hillary's favor. She said she thinks a fellow Democratic campaigner is not worthy. The DNC should say she's not worthy, does not have the delegate count, and needs to be removed as a Democratic campaigner. Let the Clintons whine and brawk. It's high time they were removed!

[mengwise36]

OK, let's say Obama does not have the delegate count and should be removed as a Democratic candidate.

[JoelNH]

We have a candidate. His name is Barack Obama. Hillary is all but mathematically eliminated. She needs to quit the campaign so we can move on.

[interestedinpolitics]

Senator Obama has an organization, and we are continuing to participate, even when our own states have voted in primaries or caucuses. We have communication throughout our numbers, and we already view this as a national campaign. He, and we, will hit the ground running for the general election.

[MetryJen]

Yep. I'm Louisiana and we've been working MS for a couple of weeks now, and TX before that. They were carpooling out to Houston to go canvas a week before the primary. The beauty of it is that it's all self-organized, for the most part. Volunteers take cues from the website, but set up everything else themselves. The DNC would be foolish not to take advantage of that.

[dsigeorge]

The beauty of what can happen when people are inspired by a true leader.

[OSUMercutio]

[It is simply impossible to build a multi-hund­red-millio­n dollar grassroots organization that works in less than six months -- let alone in one or two months.]

It's not impossible. We already have a multimillion dollar grassroots organization. It's called the Obama campaign.

Obama '08!

[Zack Exley - Huffpost Blogger]

All the volunteers are amazing! But if you don't think leadership matters, then please go back and check the results of NH and NV, where HRC out organized in the field thanks to months of meticulous planning.

A mass of volunteers can self organize, for sure. But they are made even more powerful by organized leadership at the campaign...and by having the time to harmonize with that leadership.

[dsigeorge]

More like last minute pandering through sniveling, Bill's manipulation of the caucus process by entering the MGM...not leadership. P.S. Obama came out with more delegates in NV.

[TommyMcCarthy]

My hope is exactly the opposite of Mr. Exley's....in fact , to my mind the best thing for the Democratic Party would be for Mr. Dean and his Politburo to be held incommunicado at an undisclosed location in the White mountains of Vermont and not released until after the general election so they can't screw this up any more than they already have.

We still have an excellent chace of beating the Republicans if the all powerful "Rules and Bylaws committee" ....(it even SOUNDS like something out of "Pravda", doesn't it?)...........can be restrained from monkeying with the schedule or disenfranchising any more Democratic voters....­..........­..........­..tm