It seems to me that frequent DK readers and contributors are aware by now of the need to drastically increase the turnout of Democratic-leaning voters in midterm elections (and hell, every election). It's an idea that's ingrained in our heads, and one that is frequently pointed out in diaries and comments, but I have seen very little discussion of how to actually solve the problem outside of very broad solutions.
These are less plans for action and more sub-problems of the overall turnout problem, and I'd like to discuss field especially. I've always found field to be both a fascinating and disappointing. On one hand, it is literally the only way to reach some voters in a productive way. A good field program (or rather a field program with good people) can get a Republican to vote Democrat. A good field program can get a non-voter to the polls in ways that mail and television are incapable of. But any field expert will tell you that it has limits, and even a great field program can only move an election by a few points.
I see a lot of people suggesting that the path to victory in every race is to pour money into field operations, but these posts often lack nuance, which leads me to believe that most people who suggest this don't have much experience actually working in field. Anyone who's spent hours and hours knocking on doors knows the drill. Most people aren't home, half the ones who are aren't interested and even the best canvassers can be left looking like idiots when people bring up the strangest issues you've ever heard about. Oftentimes, Democrats will tell you that they only vote in Presidential elections, and nothing you can say will change their minds. On election day, people get so sick of the campaigns calling them they choose not to vote out of spite. It's not as simple as just pouring more money into field.
Election Day is always a disappointment for me, win or lose, because Democratic turnout (and turnout of independents in Democratic-heavy areas, who are pretty much Democrats in my mind) is always abysmal. It's very typical to look at even red areas and find that the margin we lost by is less than the number of registered Democrats who didn't vote. You're never going to get 100% Democratic turnout, but is, like, 75% too much to ask for in an off-year? What are we doing wrong? What can we do to motivate these people to get out there and cast a vote?
I also have to say that I'm sick and tired of hearing about how people don't vote because the political system is this, or the Democratic Party is that. There's a subset who are like that, but anyone who has ever worked elections knows that people don't vote because they're unengaged, lazy and don't find voting to be important. This is not because they have deep philosophical problems with the system; after all, we're mostly talking about people who do vote in presidential elections. So, I think we need to cut through the crap and figure out how it is we reach the lazy voter. The person for whom election day is a normal, unanticipated day where they get a few reminders here and there to vote, but are too busy doing their thing to actually do so. Let's solve that problem, and we win.
As far as solutions go, here's my two cents. I think the best thing a campaign can have is local networks of committed volunteers, down to the precinct level. I think organizing precincts is the most important thing a campaign can do at any level, and that even pretty red areas can be won if you have a committed team of three or four people helping you in each precinct. By motivating a small amount of the voters who really do care and turnout to volunteer their time, you can give them the resources and support they need to help Democrats win in their neighborhoods. Campaigns and parties can't just depend on the current pool of activists; new blood is desperately needed.