How exactly Blog P.I. came to be a sounding board for Democratic consultants and party operatives when I am not myself a Democrat, I’m not entirely sure. But this afternoon I bore witness (e-mail witness, that is) to a scintillating debate between two acquaintances who fairly represent the current split between insiders and outsiders of that party.
As the election approaches next week, I thought it would be interesting enough to share their electronic exchanges here. They’ve promised to let me do so as long as I protect their anonymity, and that strikes me as a fair deal. (Just for the record, neither is Not Paul Begala.)
One is a veteran Democratic operative. The other worked for Howard Dean in Vermont. For the purposes of this post, we’ll call them Democratic Beltway Insider and Former Dean Staffer. Will only one survive? Will one trick the other into eating their own liver? Or tie the other’s tongue to a launching spaceship? Read on:
DBI: I know this sounds dumb, but what exactly is the bloggers’ problem with Rahm. He is one of the ONLY democrats who knows how to WIN. Is it because he knocked candidates who had no shot out in the primaries? Puleeze. I think we should have a 3rd party for all these people. The 50 state strategy is a Dean PR sham anyway. In [state redacted], [name redacted] used her 50 state $$ to hire a driver.FDS: Yes the 50 state strategy is a sham. That’s why suddenly the Dems are competitive in states that 2 years ago all the insiders were saying the Dems should just forget about forever. Admit it, you’re a beltway insider.
DBI: Those races are not in play because Dean gave each state party some allowance money. Those races are in play because organizations like the DLCC, Emilys List and even Move On have been working with state and local candidates for cycles and recruiting. A lot of these races were set up to be competitive totally independent of anything the DNC has done. I may be an insider, but I’ve been around longer than the new DNC people and I remember stuff. Not to mention that Dems haven’t done shit to be competitive other than let the GOP hang themselves – the biggest and best reason that we have races in play that weren’t in 04. Case in point NC08.FDS: Ok well if those races are competitive because Democratic groups like DLCC and Emily’s List get involved with them, that basically proves the 50-state strategy correct, that by competing everywhere you expand the playing field and give yourself more chances to win. Thank you for proving my point.
DBI: Not really. The DLCC and Emilys List have regional programs they’ve been running for a number of cycles. The DNC is spinning that handing chump change over to state parties is going to revive them – guess again. The reason EL’s plan works is because its not affiliated with the DNC or state parties at all. Talk about insiders and hacks. State operatives are often just small-time crooks.
FDS: Well clearly there is no way I convince you as long as you are have are massively in love with Emily’s list. I simply point to the results:
Pre-Dean: Democrats are a bunch of pansies who refuse to challenge Bush on anything, especially the war in Iraq
Post-Dean: Democrats revitalize their party by trashing Bush, particularly on the war in Iraq, and make the country realize how awful he is, giving Democrats a chance to win in places like Wyoming and Idaho where no one thought they should ever even compete again.
Last I checked Emily’s List has been around for quite a while, I’m not really sure what they did differently in the last three years that totally reversed the political tide in this country. Thank you Howard Dean.
DBI: You are so easy manipulated and that is the point. Dean is taking credit for turning the tide, for fixing these state parties. But what has HE done that you can honestly attribute to HIM and the DNC. I’ll tell you: spin. You also just changed the point you were trying to make. Are we talking about the 50 state strategy per Dean or about whether Dean is more responsible than Emilys List for the electoral situation Dems find themselves in now? One point about Emilys List: they made Rahm work for his seat. They poured money and bodies into Nancy Kazack’s primary to beat him, but he still pulled it out. He busted ass and it was impressive. You of all people should respect Emilys List because they began as an outsider group – opposed to the workings of the party. The DCCC was primarying women with men, so Emilys List was started as an alternative to the DCCC so women could run and not be undercut. Here’s the point, groups other than Dean’s DNC have done Real work for a Long time to find good candidates and build infrastructure in the states. A one-time contribution from Dean that keeps the lights on has very little to do with this “sweep” we’re looking at. A party chair should be able to Raise Money, or Get Votes, preferably both. I rarely see Dean do either. The value of a chair is to be able to and RAISE MONEY from REALLY RICH PEOPLE. Wyoming and Idaho…. Yes, ID-01 was also potentially competitive in 2002 and I maxed out to the Dem candidate there, Betty Richardson. She ran a strong campaign and peeled off some Rs. If she had been running in this climate she would have won. Democrats can really suck a lot. You’re right. But Howard Dean is not the reason they are sucking less. A lot of them don’t listen to a word he has to say. And I would venture…he won’t be around much longer. FDS: I won’t claim that simply giving extra money and attention to state parties has had a massive impact in just two years, it takes longer than that to have an effect. But this election season is proving the premise behind Dean’s 50-state strategy to be totally right. Some of these states are going to be competitive for Democrats in 2008. Everyone seems to forget that in 2004 when Dean was saying we should compete in every state everyone was calling him an idiot and that all Dems money and resources should always be focused on the 15 swing states. We’re going to see many more “swing states” in 2008, and more states will be truly competitive again, not because Dean gave $400,000 extra to the Virginia state party, but because the premise behind the 50-state strategy is 100% good long-term political strategy. It’s just you beltway insiders stuck in the swing state mentality that don’t get it. (Yes I technically live inside the beltway, but I hate everything and everyone, so it’s not an issue for me) BDI: It can be a great political tactic to jump on a tide, say you thought of it, and take credit for it. I mean, THAT, is like the one smart thing Dean has done. FDS: Who’s jumping on a tide and SAYING he thought of it? He did think of it and he did start the tide. Oh no wait sorry, I forgot, John Kerry started the tide. He was so convincing with his shrewd and unafraid criticisms of Bush. BDI: What are you missing about farm team work that I thought I explained. Top of the ticket doesn’t a tide make. Generic ballot – people are saying they prefer Dems right? But they frequently don’t associate their local representatives with the top of the ticket. This is calling ticket splitting and it happens a lot. Shitting on Kerry is lame. Everyone thinks he sucked. Remember other Dems who won in spite of Kerry? He wasn’t going to fix the party. He was just trying to get the White House – different. FDS: Dean blazed the trail and made it ok to attack Bush when everyone else was afraid to do it on a grand scale. The reason Dems have a resurgence is because they have been able to show the country how awful Bush is. Name me one Democrat that is more responsible for the party going after Bush than Dean was. Go ahead, name ‘em. BDI: McCain [Editor's note: Just to be clear, BDI knows well that McCain is a Republican.] FDS: A) McCain is not a Democrat, B) McCain has gotten closer and closer to Bush each year. BDI: It’s not ok to trash Bush as a Dem when it wont help you. The political environment has changed only because GOPers have fucked up so bad. Liberal is still a dirty word in middle America. No thanks to Dean. Like I said, talking points aren’t about instinct. They’re about strategy and polling. FDS: A) It is ok to trash Bush as a Dem when it won’t help you, because that shows you have strength and principles, and if you’re criticisms are right, you can convince people of that in the end. B) No one would know that the GOP fucked up so bad if someone in the Democratic party hadn’t said they were fucking up. I have still yet to hear you name a Dem who was more responsible for the Dems stopping from shitting their pants and getting the guts to go after Bush. BDI: A: Maybe in Vermont B: Rahm Emanuel FDS: A) Oh lord. Well I stand by my claim that making the strong and principled argument will win people over to your side in the mid-range to long-term. You keep saying that winning a one seat in Arizona-7 is more important than the direction of the party for years ahead B) Yes that’s right I distinctly remember Rahm Emanuel being all over the news launching heavy criticisms of Bush back in 2003….oh wait, no I don’t. BDI: A – try that crap in Virginia and see what you get. FDS: A) We did try it in Virginia and look what it’s got us: Jim Webb about to win a Senate seat, and several Dems poised to win heavy Republican districts B) I’m still Googling to find those stinging criticism Emanuel was making of Bush before it became safe to. Having some trouble finding them though. BDI: Not really. Bush and Allen got Webb there. Its not how Warner won. And his effect on the state has been bigger than anything Dean has done. The whole premise of your argument is unproven and I disagree. You want to take a chance and push a scientifically unpopular msg because you think you’re right and that people will eventually come around to your way of seeing things. FDS: The premise of my argument is not unproven, it’s been proven already. Bush began dropping from high to crappy approval ratings when Democrats go the balls to go after him. BDI: And did they go after him because Dean thought it was a cool idea? Or because Bush pushed the public too far, they started to turn on him, it was evident in polling and focus groups, on the ground, etc and Dems concretely knew it was a strong message? This has been entertaining but I have to sign off and do some work. FDS: Ah yes, the Dems besides Dean started to turn on him after polling and focus groups showed it would work. Polling and focus groups, polling and focus groups. That’s how you get the country on your side, just don’t do anything at all until the public eventually gets sick of what they have. Well I think I’ve managed to pretty much refute every single point made here, my job is done. I’m going to spend the rest of my afternoon pouring through Google to see if I can find these stinging criticisms you claim Emanuel was making about Bush while Bush was still popular. It might take a while….or forever. BDI: Well, I suggest you run a campaign and try to get elected without listening to the electorate. Interesting concept. For a dictator or a Bush. FDS: No point in trying to convince the electorate that our position is right, let’s just wait until the polling shows they have settled on it by default. BDI: Sure. Tin ear. Always effective. No accountability to those who may disagree with you. The way to win people over is not to tell them something they aren’t interested in hearing. Now really. I have to stop. You can send one more email so you can make sure you have the last word ok?
So there you have it. I guess only one question is left: Which one is Itchy, and which one is Scratchy?
I think you’re making a very good point there