Jean Schmidt campaign reaction to Hackett's campaign, that is going negative and blowing a lot of money on a race that should be a sure win for the Republicans got me thinking. I think we are missing something. Now for those , like Kos and others, who have been involved in national campaigns these ideas might seem ludicrous, but I'll give the Kossacks a chance to think about them. Bear with me as I try my best to express them....
More below:
My theory is simple. What Hackett has done is expose a vulnerability in the way Republicans campaign. We all know that today's politics are based on one thing, money. The more the merrier.
Right?
However,in politics, like in war, a good leader knows that no matter how vast his resources appear to be, they are finite. Thus he must conserve his resources for use at the most oportune time.
National politics are the same. Both Dems and Repugs tend(ed) to concetrate their efforts on those races they can win, while executing holding actions in those races they can not. The idea is to gain ground in one front, while protecting your flanks.
Think of the Senate as a vast battlefield, each seat a battleground. Each party fights to maintain the ground (incumbents) the already hold while attempting to expand their positions (contested seats, usually left by congressmen who retire or die) and give token resistance in the opositions battlegrounds (sure wins for the other side) so that their issues are kept alive and those congressmen do not launch new offensives when they join the big battlerfield (the floor or the House and Senate respectively).
Have I completly confused you? You already rated me to oblivion? For those who have not, I hope that I am still making some sense.
Continuing the war metaphor (or is it allegory, even as a Lit Major I always got those two confused!;-/ ), the Republicans won a lot of ground because they seized areas where the Democrats didn't think were irrelevant, like elections at local school boards. These were so insignificant (or so the DLC thought) that they were not worth fighting for. So the Republicans came at the Democrats from the places they did not expect, outflanked them and took over. Today, they seek to consolidate their ground and solidify their hold on power.
However, they made a grave miscalculation. As any astute student of warfare knows, capturing ground is one thing, holding it is completley different matter. Simply put, they Republicans can't be strong everywhere, in every district. Enter Howard Dean and the Internet.
You see when Dean declared that the Dems would contest every race, in an effect he declared war on the Republicans. But not just any type of war, but guerrilla war. His tool is the internet. With the Internet, every race becomes a national race and everyone across the nation can join in. Because of quick action by the left-side of the blogosphere; Hackett's campaign is getting volunteers from as far away as California and money from across the 50 states. Plus national media attention, which never hurts.
How does this change anything?
Now, with the power of the internet to raise money and awareness the Dems can challenge the Republicans everywhere forcing them to do two things:
- Spend a lot of money on every race and;
- Go negative early and often.
They spend their ammo while the Dems strike often and surgically, using the Net to gather and direct resources rapidly and effectively. Every local race can now be treated as a national one (especially in today's Congress, were very vote counts). It also means that when the Republicans go down the YellowRove Road, people from around the country (like many a Kossack) can do some quick fact checking and redirect the flow of filth back at the enemy.
To put it bluntly with the Net at their side all politics will be both local and national. Let the games begin...
