It seems to me recruiting high-quality candidates is going to be the most visible indicator of the success or stalemate of reforms of the party and its main campaign committees (
DSCC,
DCCC). But, what makes for a high-quality candidate? And, what innovative methods can we use to recruit winners in this climate--particularly, is there something you or I and not, say, Tony Coelho, can do to persuade, cajole, inspire, get winning candidates to run? I don't have many answers--I merely hope to pose intelligent questions.
This seems especially appropriate today given Franken's non-announcement--we've still got an open seat that we need to retain. How can each of us make sure that the right combination of voices is heard in the primary campaign? I mean, it's either going to be us, or the serendipitous decision of an individual to run, or the usual--someone agrees to run based on a pitch from a party insider.
(more below the fold)
I don't know exactly how these interactions work, but generally it seems someone who is a consigliere for a party chieftan--perhaps, in the case of high profile races, the chieftan him or her self--gets on the horn or swoops down in a chopper and works their sausage-making magic. A big problem, it seems to me, is that the people doing the recruiting usually are saddled with one common bias, forged in a different political climate before small donor financing and when Democrats held Congressional majorities. They over-value a candidate who can raise money or is even that rarest of birds, a self-funder.
As I say, that over-arching desire for money can be self-defeating, because the ability to raise money in traditional top-down ways is not what correlates most closely with a winning campaign. All of this persuasive stuff we hear about is what both excites voters and gets them to open their checkbooks.
I'd also add that not only are high-rolling, well-connected candidates not necessarily well-equipped to run winning campaigns, but they're also the type of candidates least likely to run at all in an environment where Dems are in the minority, they'd have depleted influence, and actually seeing a payoff on the investment of hard work, mudslinging, risk--winning-- isn't such a sure thing.
So educating the recruiters about what makes a strong candidate seems like an obvious first step. For you Moneyball fans, these guys are cigar chomping scouts in a latte-drinking analysts' world. I think they'd respond to numbers, so I wonder--what commonalities do long-shot but passionate winning candidates (I'd be biasing the responses by citing Wellstone and Obama in the same breath, because I think more than passion and intelligence is required, but you get the idea)share?
I also wonder--is there a way to make the process of recruiting open source, beyond the "Draft So-and-So" movement approach? Howard Dean mentioned last night at an appearance in DC that the number one reason he seems to be on the verge of securing the chairmanship is that rank and file Democrats made polite calls and sent thoughtful letters to voting DNC members. Is there a way for us to say, you know what Jeanne Shaheen? We know running for HD #1 would be a demotion, but you'd have our votes, you'd have our dollars, you'd have our hours, and you'd have built a movement that transcends that race and that office. Or, more to the point, coordinate that alongside rinkside chats at the Beanpot with Howard Dean and lunch at the Union Oyster House with John Kerry--so that we can effectively make the sale with her and the hundreds of other candidates we're going to need.
Sorry for the rambling. What drives this, what drives so much of our political life here, is an increasing awareness of what the components of a successful and strong party might be, but great ignorance on how Democrats have gone about achieving them in the past and how we--meaning the individual you and I--can ensure the proceed along winning lines in the future.