Another General Election cycle, another Democratic Party loss.

[That Guy 888]

165. The 50 State Strategy of Howard Dean was ended in 2010 do we at least agree on that?

Here's a link to a NY Times story about Dean and the 50 state strategy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/magazine/01dean.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

...Dean categorically refused to ante up. Having opposed the very idea of targeting a small number of states and races, he wasn’t about to divert money from his long-term strategy — what he calls the “unsexy” work of rebuilding the party’s infrastructure — to pay for a bunch of TV ads in Ohio. He wanted to win the 2006 elections as much as anyone, Dean told them, and he intended to help where he could. But Democratic candidates and their campaign committees were doing just fine on fund-raising, and the party couldn’t continue giving in to the temptation to spend everything it had on every election cycle — no matter how big a checkbook the Republicans were waving around.

For Schumer, Emanuel and their allies, this rejection was irritating enough. When they heard the stories of how Dean was actually spending the party’s cash, however, it was almost more than they could take. Dean was paying for four organizers in Mississippi, where there wasn’t a single close House race, but he had sent only three new hires to Pennsylvania, which had a governor’s race, a Senate campaign and four competitive House races. Emanuel said he was all for expanding the party’s reach into rural states — roughly half the House seats he was targeting were in states like Texas, Indiana and Kentucky, after all — but he wanted the D.N.C. to focus on individual districts that Democrats could actually win, as opposed to just spreading money around aimlessly. The D.N.C. was spending its money not only in Alaska and Hawaii, but in the U.S. Virgin Islands as well. Democratic insiders began to rail against this wacky and expensive 50-state plan. “He says it’s a long-term strategy,” Paul Begala, the Democratic strategist, said during an appearance on CNN in May. “What he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/23/1019707/-Where-did-the-50-state-strategy-go
Fri Sep 23, 2011 at 04:10 PM PDT
Where did the 50 state strategy go?

Where did the 50 state strategy go?

by
Cheesemanswife
Follow

20 Comments / 0 New

When Howard Dean became DNC chair in 2005, he put in place "The 50 state strategy". This meant that Democrats would compete everywhere. This strategy played huge dividends for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. However, when Barack Obama was elected he replaced Dean with party hack Tim Kaine, who pretty much ripped down the 50-state strategy and reversed all of the gains that Dean had made.

For instance, in 2007, Democrats competed in districts all over Virginia in that year's legislative elections. This year, Democrats don't even have candidates to face Republicans in what are Democratic leaning districts. This has been the case everywhere, from the Virginia to Suburban Philadelphia to Upstate New York.

Democrats had Republicans on the run with the 50-state strategy, but then ripped it all down under Obama and predictably, the Republicans are now the ones that are contesting Democrats everywhere.

I wish Obama and Kaine had realized the importance of party building and contesting Republicans everywhere. If they did, maybe Democrats would still control the House and most state legislatures and wouldn't be nearly shut out in the crucial redistricting process.

Ripping down the 50-state strategy has brought the Democratic party to its knees.

Those two stories sound opposite of what you want, Dean wanted a Democrats to challenge republicans in every race rather than key districts with easy victories. The DWS "50 State Strategy" sounds like a rigid top down system that wants access to "the better funded" state parties' funds. No doubt to put those funds into "sure win" elections.

Can you please supply some proof to your claim instead of assertions, deflections and rhetoric?