DNC takes first steps to a 50 state strategy

[GlobeSoc]

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/democrats-take-first-steps-of-50-state-strategy/

[This account no longer in use.]

Lmao, they're actually donating to South Dakota, the absolute madmen

[Kamala]

Lmao, they're actually donating to South Dakota, the absolute madmen

Well, Noem is retiring to run for governor, which means the house seat is marginally more competitive.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Lmao, they're actually donating to South Dakota, the absolute madmen

Have to build capacity somehow. A 50 state strategy isn't about just the next cycle, but the cycle after that and after that.

[PAK Man]

Lmao, they're actually donating to South Dakota, the absolute madmen

Democrats held that seat from 2004-2011, and even in the 2010 wave Herseth Sandlin just BARELY lost reelection.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Lmao, they're actually donating to South Dakota, the absolute madmen

Have to build capacity somehow. A 50 state strategy isn't about just the next cycle, but the cycle after that and after that.

Exactly. We need to go back to basics and start by building infrastructure in states.

[Ebsy]

A good first step.

[KingSweden]

Lmao, they're actually donating to South Dakota, the absolute madmen

Have to build capacity somehow. A 50 state strategy isn't about just the next cycle, but the cycle after that and after that.

Exactly. We need to go back to basics and start by building infrastructure in states.

Bingo.

This is exactly the direction the DNC needs to go

[Adam Griffin]

I really wish there was a more effective way for the DNC to, err, bypass the state parties when it comes to building a 50-state strategy. Where the resources are most badly needed are at the congressional and county level; that's where the real decay has occurred and that's where the real spirit of "50 State Strategy" exists in terms of making big gains.

As alluded to in the article, there are really only two types of things that happen when the DNC gives struggling state parties modest, one-lump sums:

1) The state party reimburses itself for recent hires, using that money to pay their salaries while not investing additional money in field etc

2) The state party uses that money to hire a few more staffers, most of whom will be sitting at desks making calls or scouring through voter file data (valuable, yes, but scale is important here) - and when they do leave the office to do other field-related tasks, it's no more than 10-20 miles outside the state's largest city

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I really wish there was a more effective way for the DNC to, err, bypass the state parties when it comes to building a 50-state strategy. Where the resources are most badly needed are at the congressional and county level; that's where the real decay has occurred and that's where the real spirit of "50 State Strategy" exists in terms of making big gains.

As alluded to in the article, there are really only two types of things that happen when the DNC gives struggling state parties modest, one-lump sums:

1) The state party reimburses itself for recent hires, using that money to pay their salaries while not investing additional money in field etc

2) The state party uses that money to hire a few more staffers, most of whom will be sitting at desks making calls or scouring through voter file data (valuable, yes, but scale is important here) - and when they do leave the office to do other field-related tasks, it's no more than 10-20 miles outside the state's largest city

This is definitely true, but it's less the fault of state parties than the piddling nature of one-off donations. Most state parties are ~very~ strapped for cash, and so any donations from Paul go to yesterday's debts to Peter &c &c.

Like... I recently found out that the Indiana Democratic Party, a state of 6.6 million, had less than 25k on hand at any one time. That's a desperate situation.  

[cinyc]

Here's a description of what the South Dakota Democratic Party claims they are going to do with their $10,000:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The internships are supposedly summer internships, according to the AP.

[Shadows]

I really wish there was a more effective way for the DNC to, err, bypass the state parties when it comes to building a 50-state strategy. Where the resources are most badly needed are at the congressional and county level; that's where the real decay has occurred and that's where the real spirit of "50 State Strategy" exists in terms of making big gains.

As alluded to in the article, there are really only two types of things that happen when the DNC gives struggling state parties modest, one-lump sums:

1) The state party reimburses itself for recent hires, using that money to pay their salaries while not investing additional money in field etc

2) The state party uses that money to hire a few more staffers, most of whom will be sitting at desks making calls or scouring through voter file data (valuable, yes, but scale is important here) - and when they do leave the office to do other field-related tasks, it's no more than 10-20 miles outside the state's largest city

This is definitely true, but it's less the fault of state parties than the piddling nature of one-off donations. Most state parties are ~very~ strapped for cash, and so any donations from Paul go to yesterday's debts to Peter &c &c.

Like... I recently found out that the Indiana Democratic Party, a state of 6.6 million, had less than 25k on hand at any one time. That's a desperate situation.  

Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Chair, said the state parties can't afford a full time paid Executive Director, most of the Chairs are not even paid. They just don't have any money at the local & state level to build an organization, spread the message & build the party from the grassroots while 100's of Millions go into negative attack ads & Consultants, some of which should go to the State party.

I remember Ray Buckley pleading with DNC to give NH some money to have a long term strategy to solidify the state leg, Gov. races & have a team for door to door canvassing, phonebanking during off-election cycles. There is no other solution rather than building up state parties - You have to hold some1 accountable, give them money, time, training, maybe try & have standard guidelines in some areas, monitor performances, or donate only to a particular program of the state party - But you have to empower people in the state who have been living & fighting to turn the state blue !

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I really wish there was a more effective way for the DNC to, err, bypass the state parties when it comes to building a 50-state strategy. Where the resources are most badly needed are at the congressional and county level; that's where the real decay has occurred and that's where the real spirit of "50 State Strategy" exists in terms of making big gains.

As alluded to in the article, there are really only two types of things that happen when the DNC gives struggling state parties modest, one-lump sums:

1) The state party reimburses itself for recent hires, using that money to pay their salaries while not investing additional money in field etc

2) The state party uses that money to hire a few more staffers, most of whom will be sitting at desks making calls or scouring through voter file data (valuable, yes, but scale is important here) - and when they do leave the office to do other field-related tasks, it's no more than 10-20 miles outside the state's largest city

This is definitely true, but it's less the fault of state parties than the piddling nature of one-off donations. Most state parties are ~very~ strapped for cash, and so any donations from Paul go to yesterday's debts to Peter &c &c.

Like... I recently found out that the Indiana Democratic Party, a state of 6.6 million, had less than 25k on hand at any one time. That's a desperate situation.  

Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Chair, said the state parties can't afford a full time paid Executive Director, most of the Chairs are not even paid. They just don't have any money at the local & state level to build an organization, spread the message & build the party from the grassroots while 100's of Millions go into negative attack ads & Consultants, some of which should go to the State party.

I remember Ray Buckley pleading with DNC to give NH some money to have a long term strategy to solidify the state leg, Gov. races & have a team for door to door canvassing, phonebanking during off-election cycles. There is no other solution rather than building up state parties - You have to hold some1 accountable, give them money, time, training, maybe try & have standard guidelines in some areas, monitor performances, or donate only to a particular program of the state party - But you have to empower people in the state who have been living & fighting to turn the state blue !

NH is actually better off than most places - they generally soak the Presidential primary campaigns for all they're worth as they go through.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

$1 million for the whole country? That's not really worth talking about.

[KingSweden]

I really wish there was a more effective way for the DNC to, err, bypass the state parties when it comes to building a 50-state strategy. Where the resources are most badly needed are at the congressional and county level; that's where the real decay has occurred and that's where the real spirit of "50 State Strategy" exists in terms of making big gains.

As alluded to in the article, there are really only two types of things that happen when the DNC gives struggling state parties modest, one-lump sums:

1) The state party reimburses itself for recent hires, using that money to pay their salaries while not investing additional money in field etc

2) The state party uses that money to hire a few more staffers, most of whom will be sitting at desks making calls or scouring through voter file data (valuable, yes, but scale is important here) - and when they do leave the office to do other field-related tasks, it's no more than 10-20 miles outside the state's largest city

This is definitely true, but it's less the fault of state parties than the piddling nature of one-off donations. Most state parties are ~very~ strapped for cash, and so any donations from Paul go to yesterday's debts to Peter &c &c.

Like... I recently found out that the Indiana Democratic Party, a state of 6.6 million, had less than 25k on hand at any one time. That's a desperate situation.  

Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Chair, said the state parties can't afford a full time paid Executive Director, most of the Chairs are not even paid. They just don't have any money at the local & state level to build an organization, spread the message & build the party from the grassroots while 100's of Millions go into negative attack ads & Consultants, some of which should go to the State party.

I remember Ray Buckley pleading with DNC to give NH some money to have a long term strategy to solidify the state leg, Gov. races & have a team for door to door canvassing, phonebanking during off-election cycles. There is no other solution rather than building up state parties - You have to hold some1 accountable, give them money, time, training, maybe try & have standard guidelines in some areas, monitor performances, or donate only to a particular program of the state party - But you have to empower people in the state who have been living & fighting to turn the state blue !

Ray Buckley would have been better than either Perez or Ellison

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I really wish there was a more effective way for the DNC to, err, bypass the state parties when it comes to building a 50-state strategy. Where the resources are most badly needed are at the congressional and county level; that's where the real decay has occurred and that's where the real spirit of "50 State Strategy" exists in terms of making big gains.

As alluded to in the article, there are really only two types of things that happen when the DNC gives struggling state parties modest, one-lump sums:

1) The state party reimburses itself for recent hires, using that money to pay their salaries while not investing additional money in field etc

2) The state party uses that money to hire a few more staffers, most of whom will be sitting at desks making calls or scouring through voter file data (valuable, yes, but scale is important here) - and when they do leave the office to do other field-related tasks, it's no more than 10-20 miles outside the state's largest city

This is definitely true, but it's less the fault of state parties than the piddling nature of one-off donations. Most state parties are ~very~ strapped for cash, and so any donations from Paul go to yesterday's debts to Peter &c &c.

Like... I recently found out that the Indiana Democratic Party, a state of 6.6 million, had less than 25k on hand at any one time. That's a desperate situation.  

Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Chair, said the state parties can't afford a full time paid Executive Director, most of the Chairs are not even paid. They just don't have any money at the local & state level to build an organization, spread the message & build the party from the grassroots while 100's of Millions go into negative attack ads & Consultants, some of which should go to the State party.

I remember Ray Buckley pleading with DNC to give NH some money to have a long term strategy to solidify the state leg, Gov. races & have a team for door to door canvassing, phonebanking during off-election cycles. There is no other solution rather than building up state parties - You have to hold some1 accountable, give them money, time, training, maybe try & have standard guidelines in some areas, monitor performances, or donate only to a particular program of the state party - But you have to empower people in the state who have been living & fighting to turn the state blue !

Ray Buckley would have been better than either Perez or Ellison

It was widely speculated that Ellison had promised a major role to Buckley if he won. Shame that that never happened.