Ever since joining the site, I've seen many differences of opinion regarding our chances to win back Congress this November. Some folks believe we'll sweep the House and Senate using Dean's fifty-state strategy, while others subscribe to the Emanuel theory to target races in congressional districts and states that lean towards the Democrats.
My suggestion to Dean and Emanuel:
Why don't we put them together?
We know of the rift that exists between our top two political strategists, and that it must heal. The Washington Post, a reviled newspaper on this site, wrote an article on the schism and claimed that "many Washington Democrats think Dean is unwise to spend on field organizers and other staff in states where House and Senate candidates have little chance of winning."
Emanuel is afraid of Dean's extravagant spending. Dean fears Emanuel's overcautious approach to winning the election. As more GOP congressional seats come into play, the two must reach a consensus on how to attack these seats while rebuilding the national party.
The fifty-state strategy has its advantages. The more money you spread out to fight Republicans all over the country means the Republicans play more defense. For the past decade the Democrats have acted like a regional party, and the presidential election results bear this out. Dean's theory on the Democrats' failure lies in the party's focus on attacking a few "swing" states while completely ignoring the rest of the country. By reducing the number of state party organizations funded, you let them rot on the vine. Therefore, they cannot function correctly and a GOP machine takes its place. Dean vows that the Democrats can and will win in every state, every county, and every precinct. The only way he feels this is possible is to fund every state and county Democratic Party branch to the full extent the DNC allows.
There are problems with the fifty-state strategy, and most of them are based in the sheer finances. The RNC is far better funded than the DNC, and it is far easier for them to adopt a fifty-state strategy due to a larger warchest. Dean feels that the more he can branch out into red territory, the more money he can raise locally for Democratic candidates in NE-1, CO-4, CO-5, CO-6, CO-7, TX-22, TX-32, WY-AL and senatorial challenges in Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona, Montana and Missouri. His strategy is feasible if the money is there; someone close to Dean needs to budget wisely for his idea to fly.
Emanuel feels the Democrats should spend more money to lock down the base and strengthen areas already blue, while attacking a few districts that lean blue. He would subscribe more to a Northeast Strategy where Republicans in districts with a higher percentage of Democratic voters would be targeted. The majority of money spent would target districts like CT-2, CT-4, CT-5, PA-6, PA-7, and PA-8, where either the majority of the voters are Democratic or the demographic trend favors the Democrats.
The issue with this plan of attack is the large amount of money you need to successfully run a campaign in the Northeast. The costs of political advertisements are super-high in markets like Hartford, Philadelphia, Boston, New York and Albany as opposed to an area like Colorado, where GOP incumbents look just as endangered. A dollar in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Minnesota goes a LOT farther than a dollar in the Northeast, especially when it comes to buying a 30-second TV ad.
My suggestion to Dean is to focus more of the cash on the elections in the Northeast which are much easier to win. A strong GOTV campaign can already be established in the bluer Northeast, California, and parts of the Midwest. This doesn't mean Dean is wrong; the chances of mobilizing a greater base of Democrats is much higher in the blue states, where Bush, Iraq, and Iran are included in George Carlin's list of dirty four letter words.
Emanuel needs to control the spending, but he must let Dean fund candidates in states where the dollar goes further. Rahm cannot allow legitimate candidates like Maxine Moul, Bill Winter, Jay Fawcett, Angie Paccione, Harry Mitchell (AZ-5), Gary Trauner (WY-AL) and others in cherry-red states to starve financially.
Personally, I'd give 2/3 of the cash on hand and warchest to the folks in blue states and the remaining third to strong Democratic challengers in red states (because ad costs in those states aren't as high).