James Carville and I wrote this post, very conscious of the choices that party leaders, activists and funders will have to make.

I read you're whole post and at the end, I'm not sure what the choices are that you're talking about.

Choices between what and what?

At the end, you say some things about Medicare, lower drug and health care costs, raising the minimum wage, Iraq and energy independence.

Are these really controversial questions within the Democratic Party? Do you really think there isn't consensus to do things on these issues? The only difficult one I see is Iraq.

On the others, what exactly are the points of contention that would prevent us from doing anything on these issues if we gain a majority in either house?

Point us at the exact problem so we can hash it out.

This is a corollary to the maxim "Look like a winner to be a winner." 

 If the Dems look like they're afraid, or if they look like they aren't confident they can pull off the upsets, people will recognize that and it will color perceptions.  Last minute deciders will not go for Dems in the same numbers.

On the other side of this coin, if the Dems express supreme confidence, undecided, independents, and republican voters will notice.  Maybe they'll ask themselves whether it is worth getting out to vote for a losing cause.  Maybe they'll switch sides, or com down on the Dems' side to be with a winner.

I don't want to start the standard Rahm vs. Dean fight here, but I notice you couldn't help but toss a jab in the direction of Dean/DNC --

I don’t spare anybody in this call for change. The big donors from 2004 haven’t stepped up; the DNC is hardly a player; activist on-line groups are doing impressive things but operating in fewer states and districts. The two party committees have raised historic amounts of money and now have to make choices about how much debt and how broad a playing field.

Quite the slight of hand, Stan... Six months ago - it was the DNC wasting it's money on "kids picking their nose" in hopelessly red areas, while the wise elders of the party were insisting on tightly focused financial carpet-bombing a the same triple bank shot as always.

I realize it's counterproductive to be having this fight internally when we've all got an election to win in a few weeks and we should be focusing on the GOP, not our internal issues... but dammit - no way will I or many others let someone try to lay claim to the broader 50 state strategy turf.

Finger pointing aside -- Hotline reported that the DNC is taking out a 5-10 mil loan (see here) to supply the DSCC and there's word they'll be doing the same for the DCCC.

I applaud the DNC - and will be increasing my Democracy Bond monthly contribution to help cover it - for taking the loan rather than listening to Schumer and Emmanuel demand the 50 state strategy be put on hold.

Those nose picking kids (and yes -- I know it was Begala, not you or James that said it... and yes, I also know he's since apologized) are precisely what's made some of these former longshots viable in places like WY, ID, and elsewhere. Left to the DSCC and DCCC devices - we'd certainly be well-positioned to take advantage of opportunities in places like NY, PA, and maybe OH.... but I don't see how any rational person can't say the DNC has put us in a better position in places like IN, WY, ID, and FL. These were areas the beltway had long written off -- but it was the DNC, Dean, and the Netroots that created the buzz and provided the early yeast to folks like Trauner.

What's more - every supposed expert on the left keeps worriedly pointing out the GOP's superior ground game... no doubt - but again, it's those nose picking kids that are going to help equalize that.

I do realize we're talking about slightly different meta-issues (expenditures in the immediate term vs. long-term strategy) - but frankly -- there are an awful lot of folks that have been scoffing at what "we" have been trying to do ever since us barbarians put our chieftan atop the DNC, and I'll be damned if we're going to just sidle off our platform because it's now what all the cool kids believe, too.

He's talking about election strategy, i.e., urging Dems to put more money into the longer shot House races, and borrowing to do so, not issues.

accidental double post

How many seats do you envision targeting? I can see the case for working hard in 40 or maybe 50 seats, but to challenge 80 or 100 seats and hope to get 50-60 of them seems out of reach.

Looking at individual district polls, all that seems to have happened is Dems are sealing the deal in a few districts where they were already slightly ahead, and they are suddenly 3-4 points behind instead of 8-10 in many places. I haven't seen any districts flip, other than MN-6 for Patty Wetterling. I am pessimistic about the ability of Dems to change the game and find the $8-20M they would need to put another 30-40 seats in play. Gerrymandering runs deep and it's going to be difficult to overcome.

Yes, the 50 state strategy works. Unfortunately the 50 state strategy was the very thing these authors fought when Dean proposed and Dean's nomination was also fought by these authors 'cause he wasn't one of the DC insiders like the authors.

Jumping on the train a little late, huh fellows?

No hard feelings, just glad you finally are on board and can see the wisdom of challenging the GOP every time, every where. And give the DNC and Dean the credit they really do deserve before you piss me off and wuit with the cute little jabs.

A couple other points...

First and foremost - and I'm not certainly not suggest we/the netroots put our wallets away - but let's face the fact that we're entering the turf where netroots money going to cut it. We did our fundraising and put a lot of these races in positions to be competitive... but once we get to crunch time and we're talking about half a mil, 1-2-3 mil for last minute ad buys - the netroots simply can't do that.

Second - I think you're missing the fact that it's not the uber-sites like Kos, Atrios, FDL, et al where these tier 2/3 races get their juice... it's the locals.

There are some truly great local net denizens (RaisingKaine, BlueNC, countless others) that have helped position these candidates. Folks like Darcy Burner, Larry Kissell, Jerry McNerny, etc -- are competitive precisely because it was the netroots that got behind them.

Finally -- I'm puzzled by the "too few" comment (activist on-line groups are doing impressive things but operating in fewer states and districts).

Have you seen the "Netroots" Act blue page? Check it out

There are 15 states represented here -- everywhere from the suburbs of Philly and Chicago (Murphy, Sestak, Seals) to the mountain west (Trauner, Tester) to the south (Courage, Kissell) to the midwest (Walz) to the West Coast (Busby, Burner) to the Northeast (Hodes)... and that's not even mentioning plenty of other dems in those lower tiers (Kleeb in NE, Wulsin in OH, etc) that have gotten lots of pub in the last few months.

Flame away because I know this isn't what this discussion should be about... but with all due respect -- Welcome to the Party... Those tier 2 and 3 races are exactly where we've been fighting since all year.

I have to join in the chorus here in support of the DNC. Dean's been lucky, but even so, I think the point has been clearly made.

The only reason that Stan can talk about the possibility of a 25 seat majority is that the DNC got candidates--pretty good ones too--in races where the republican would have been unopposed or facing a very weak opponent.

The only way to take advantage of these once in a lifetime moments is to be prepared for them to happen. If you don't contest every race, you can't catch a wave.

That said, hell yeah, borrow ten million dollars. Hell, yeah, get Hillary to cough up some of that money.

"These moments come once or twice in a political life time."

Exactly the reason for everyone, big donors, presidential candidates in 08, and smaller contributors alike, to open the wallet NOW.

Dems have come close to gaining narrow majorities before, but this year could be a golden opportunity to accomplish a lot more. With a bid win, we could change the national dialogue for the first time in my lifetime.

You don't get a chance to redefine the terms of the political debate often; it's time to go for the kill.

We should dump the DLC along with the Republicans. We need to get the liberals back in control of the party.

Just so I don't come off as a total Deaniac zombie kool-aid drinker...

Dean's been lucky - I do agree with this... again, off topic and apologies for derailing the converstation, not to mention inverting cart and horse -- but if the meta-story post-election, after we see a Dem majority, is what a magician this Dean character is and how powerful the netroots have become --- I don't think that's quite right, either.

When the 50 state strategy was incubating, it was a long-term plan. It was being hatched while most of us we're still coalescing after 2004 and the thought was that it would become a maybe a 2-3 (or more) cycle project before it really began bearing fruit.

We got lucky. I do believe it's going to play some early dividends -- Check out Chris Bower's post at MyDD about voter enthusiasm, if nothing else.

The bigger meta-advantage (sheesh... do I love to use 'meta' or what ;-) -- what's it's done is really provided folks like myself, tucked in safe blue districts, great ways to get involved in other races.

Two years ago, I could barely tell you which of ID and WY had a single AL seat. Today, not only could I tell you who's running for all 3 of those seats, but I've donated to 2 of those campaigns directly and have even cracked open the old address book to see if just maybe I've got some college friends, etc in the area that I could excited about those races.

Money does talk - and we need it now, but another lesson I think we netizens and Deaniacs learned a few years back -- money alone guarantees nothing. GOTV, phone-banking, knocking on doors, tactics and strategy -- controlling the message... all these things matter to. We're not rookies anymore - and I think we're quite deftly tending to our lessons....

It is about the money...

The dems have a very rare opportunity.  Not often does the opposing political party meltdown like the repugs are doing now.  It could be a repug bloodbath on November 7th.  I agree with Mr. Greenberg why be happy with a 5 seat majority when a 25 seat cushion is a very real possibility.  To quote the late singer Warren Zevon...send lawyers, guns and money the sh*t has hit the fan.  The dems need to throw everything including the kitchen sink at the GOP...

I think you're (and Mr. Greenberg) are equating far too much with pure $$$$.

If the DNC had just banked the funds -- and let's not forget, the DNC broke fundraising records, too, a point conspicuously absent when it's pointed out that the DCCC and DSCC broke fundraising records -- and waited till now to splurge, I don't think we'd have so many promising targets in tier 2 and 3.

Many of the seats now in play are in play because the netroots and the DNC have been working all over the country -- in places where we weren't supposed to be. A lot of these races that are now on the beltway radar - the places Mr. Greenberg and company now want to spend - are places "we've" been watching and working for months. Had it not been for Hackett and the netroots pounding on Schmidt - no way you can tell me that OH-02 is in play today. Ditto WY-AL. Ditto CA-50. Ditto Kissell.... and on and on...

This isn't about 'credit where credit's due' -- it's about building that national party that doesn't have to wait for years like this year when you pull a natural straight on the flop.

Beyond that, there's also the largely untouched upon issue of not just where but how to spend the money. Will it go to the same below-the-Mendoza line consultants and ad folks that are 0 for a generation? Frankly - if that 5-10 mil DNC loan is just going to go into Frum's pocket like it did in 2000, 2004, etc... might as well cancel the loan.

Another item is that -- it's those big money donors that can help right now. My $50 -- even with a 100 folks like me hitting ActBlue -- isn't going to buy those ads in IL-6, IL-10, PA-7, etc (though it might in WY, etc). There were a number of well-publicized "the DNC is dead to me" articles following Dean's chairmanship victory. Frankly - a lot of those big money donors have acted rather petulantly ever since early 05. They're not getting kow-towed to like they were used to... Sorry, I truly am - but we're building something different here. We'd love to have not just their money, but they themselves along for the ride - but the paradigm has shifted in the Democratic Party and it ain't shifting back. Nor has it just been purely $$$ -- read this NY Sun article on data mining fights.

I mean, I understand folks across the divide would say the same thing - but I just don't get this serial inability to even work with, to say nothing of at least credit the folks on the DNC/Dean/Netroots side of things.

The fact is, the "old way" hasn't worked since before I could vote. We learned our lessons from the last 2 cycles, we got our guy in place to chair the DNC -- and we've even largely gotten 'our' candidates on the ballot in a number of primary fights (McNerny, Webb, Hodes, Burner -- among others). Even where we lost -- Duckworth v. Cegelis -we've sucked it up (I know a number of former Cegelis backers that have been working their butts off phonebanking and knocking on doors for Tammy, for example).

Like I've said in every post -- I recognize there's a more important battle here, but it's almost pathological the way 'the learned few' have utterly and completely fought us virtually every step of the way, especially considering the fortunes of the party pre-2005.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DNC'S MONEY, NOT THE DNC'S STRATEGY!

For those who prefer cold hard facts to the rampant speculation in these comments, here's a fact for you: Dean and the DNC are getting crushed in fundraising by the RNC ($39.3M to $10.9M cash on hand), while the DCCC is close to the NRCC ($34.9M vs. $36M), and the DSCC is actually ahead of the NRSC ($29.8M to $18.6M).

Leave Rahm and Schumer alone -- they are the ones filling the Dem coffers, and they are the ones who are going to be responsible for whether the Dems take back the Congress, not Dean and the DNC. Organizers in Alaska aren't getting us any additional seats, but if Dean did a halfway decent job fundraising, maybe we could afford to do both organizing, GOTV, and matching RNC funding for candidates this cycle, without having to take out massive loans in order to stay in play (collectively we are down $18.3M).

Here are the numbers:

At the end of August, the Republican National Committee (RNC) had $39.3 million in cash, nearly four times the $10.9 million in the coffers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Through August in the 2005-06 cycle, the RNC has raised 80 percent more than the DNC ($185 million vs. $103 million). Interestingly, through June 2004 in the previous two-year cycle, the RNC had outraised the DNC by 75 percent ($219 million vs. $125 million). But during the last six months of 2004, the DNC, led by legendary moneyman Terry McAuliffe, outraised the RNC by nearly $100 million ($269 million vs. $173 million) in order to surpass the RNC by $2 million ($394 million vs. $392 million) for the entire 2003-04 cycle. Current DNC Chairman Howard Dean is unlikely to duplicate that feat, especially in a non-presidential year.

In the battle for the House, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) had $36 million in cash on Aug. 31, insignificantly different from the $34.9 million that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had in the bank. For the 2005-06 cycle through August, the NRCC has outraised the DCCC by 44 percent ($124 million vs. $86 million). That seemingly large difference, however, is well below the NRCC's 100 percent fund-raising advantage for the entire 2003-2004 cycle ($186 million vs. $93 million). On the margin, that plunging advantage could make a big difference.

In the fight for control of the Senate, the NRSC had $18.6 million in the bank on Aug. 31, $11.2 million less than the cash ($29.8 million) in the coffers of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Through August in the current two-year cycle, the DSCC has achieved a total fund-raising advantage of $12 million ($81 million vs. $69 million). During the entire 2003-04 cycle, the DSCC raised $93 million, $14 million more than the NRSC. However, due in part to the strategic funding-allocation decisions made by then-NRSC head George Allen of Virginia, Republicans gained four Senate seats in 2004 by winning the five tightest races and seven of the nine closest contests.

At the end of August, the collective coffers of the three national Republican fund-raising committees ($93.9 million) exceeded the cumulative bank accounts of their Democratic counterparts ($75.6 million) by $18.3 million.

To be honest, one or two more organizers in lots of states and some money for state parties is most decidely NOT what's making this election competitive. The disastrous Iraq War, unpopular incumbent, and Foleygate and other scandals are what are making this election competitive.

What we need to do is take advantage of it. To do that, we need the DNC to spend every last penny. It would have been mighty helpful if the DNC had done better at fundraising so that the RNC didn't have 4x more cash on hand right now.

Good fundraising = money for 50-state organizing AND 2006 candidates.

Bad fundraising = not enough money to do either one well.

No one is matching Bob Perry's $7-8M for the GOP. It would be nice to at least be even in the 527 category.

Thanks to both you and the others who cleared this up for me.

It just wasn't clear to me what he was talking about. It is now.

Dean and the DNC didn't get the candidates. Schumer and Rahm got the candidates! That's their job, not the DNC's job.

Rahm and Chuck are fierce competitors, and they are the reason why we are closing in on this election. Calling them names is stupid.

It's fine to disagree with them on policy, but that's not the issue here. They've raised a hell of a lot of money and should get massive amounts of respect for that.

According the the Daily News Hillary is spending a great deal of her money on other races. More to the point she and her husband are two of the best fund raisers the Democrats have. Both have been around the country raising money for fellow Democrats.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

"Um, who cares?"

Yeah, who cares. The Constitution was old and the principle of habeus corpus even older. We'll just clean up the mess later. Just like with Iraq and Alito and the environment and campaign finance and.....

Short-sightedness always pays off.

I think it's only fair to point out that the DNC is the REASON so many of these seats are in play. Because Howard Dean heeded the call to build a 50 state party we are positioned to take opportunities like this and win. So what if the DNC is tapped out (before the loan)? If the Howard Dean wasn't running the DNC there wouldn't be so many races that are winnable with a little more money.

Anyhow, you thank James Carville next time you see him for stating the obvious in this memo and mention that he's already late to the party. We don't need him and his brand of campaigning (see Our Brand is Crisis) now. But he's welcome to jump on the blogger/activist/Dean bandwagon.

Mary Matalin will have to walk along side the wagon though. Don't worry, we'll get her a pair of running shoes.

If they aren't with us on policy, and they're raising lots of money, who are they promising to pay back?

OK -- either you're being intentionally dishonest - or you're ill-informed.

The fact is -- the DNC set a fundraising record in 2005, raising 51 million - a record for an off year, and 20% more than Terry McAuliffe (the beltway approved master fundraiser) raised in 2003.

In the current cycle (i.e., 2005-06 combined). The "hard money" receipts in the previous non-pres cycle (soft money being allowed in the previous off cycle, not this time) -were 67.5 mil for the McAuliffe DNC, 102.7 mil for the Dean DNC. (source- Opensecrets.org and FEC.gov)

I hate to be snarky -- but your near complete failure to either honestly or correctly identify the facts calls for it -- you don't seem to understand the difference between funds raised and cash on hand.

Dean has done well raising funds - but he's also spent a lot of it -- and frankly he spent it on precisely what folks like me that helped get him elected wanted him elected to do.

If you want to have that discussion -- whether that money was spent wisely or not - fine... but we shouldn't be arguing about fundraising numbers because frankly -- the facts aren't on your side.

Who are the big donors?

What are their politics?

I believe Greenberg's post is essentially a coded message to these big donors, hence people's confusion about what his point is.

There is a delicious irony here. Stan says there is a historic opportunity here, because of the fiasco in Iraq. And he's asking the big donors to open their wallets now and not wait until 2008.

But as he also knows, many of those big donors also got pretty weird post-9/11. They probably support continued US troops in Iraq. What do they care about casualties, it's just white trash and niggers after all. There is a correlation between HRC's continued refusal to repudiate Iraq and her big war chest.

Those big donors still have firm control of the DC Democratic party. Why do you think a loser like Elmendorf keeps showing up on presidential campaign staffs?

Now I lived in Canada when the Conservatives went from being the majority party to having 2 (yes, that's two) seats in parliament. And I will buy and frame a copy of Pravda on the Hudson if anything like that happens in the next few weeks.

But don't kid yourself, there are still big battles ahead in 08 for the soul of the Democratic Party.

At this point, my hope is with the Fighting Dems. Maybe they will be like the post-Watergate Dems that came in and really shook things up.

Oh yeah, and a question for Mr Greenberg: WTF is your position on universal healthcare?

Hah.

Sara

I think that the Dean concept is find. But what I have seen at the grass roots level here in Minnesota is a mess. I think your posts are the most thoughtful. Please get back to me. I am active in the DFL here in Minneapolis. Stephen grassrootsminnesota@gmail.com. Thanks

I ment "fine" not "find". Sorry

The problem with Minnesota is that the DFL is a machine-aristocrat party. Also we've never really been pwned by Republicans like the national party has because Republicans are forced to occasionally be sensible or lose the state so we lack incentive to change. It's difficult to get the DFLers in greater MN to change anything.

Believe me, I've tried.

I agree with zonk -- how do you figure this?

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Well, while all the bickering.... I posted this at the beginning of the month when Foley broke:

Time to bring this into some kind of action.
One thing I haven't heard in all this news is that, like every other rep, Hastert is up for re-election. His opponent is a vet [John Laesch], and from what I can acertain, a decent guy. How's about the democrats pouring money into this election, bringing the problem home to Hastert? How's about asking VoteVets.org if they know how Hastert voted on their prime issue? Can you imagine the panic that would follow this? If Democrats want to get tough, this is probably the best place to start.

You've had a chance to go for the speaker of the house, and half of the time between then and the election HAS PASSED.  Why isn't Hastert answering questions from an onslaught in his own district?

dc