All Party Chairs. Now Hear This; Now Hear This.
I did a 12-19-04 post entitled "A Los Angeles Times masterpiece: GOP Has Lock on South, and Democrats Can't Find Key."
I introduced an article from the L.A. Times with the comment: "The message is rough; I am taking it as a challenge, but the DNC must buy in also, big-time. Our Party cannot afford a misstep at this time."
My friend Steve in a comment provided a better word than rough -- ugly -- noting that that this was "an important article, and it demonstrates the ugly truth of what we Democrats are facing."
Steve is right. It is an important article, and Democratic leaders need to review the article every couple of months.
Today a second article is out there, one that is must reading for all state Party Chairs and those in the decision-making field on matters affecting the spending of Party resources and developing Party strategy for future elections.
The article is in the Washington Post, and is long, very long. I am going to summarize and highlight later (this time of the year is one of my busiest), but for now, just a couple of bullets:
-- But despite their fundraising success, Democrats simply did not spend their money as effectively as Bush.
-- The Kerry campaign, in addition to being outspent at key times, was outorganized and outthought, as Democratic professionals grudgingly admit.
-- "They were smart. They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said. "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery."
-- The ultimate test of the two campaigns is in the success of their efforts to increase turnout from 2000. Kerry and his allies increased the Democrat's vote by about 6.8 million votes; Bush increased his by nearly 10.5 million.
-- Surveys of people on these consumer data lists were then used to determine "anger points" (late-term abortion, trial lawyer fees, estate taxes) that coincided with the Bush agenda for as many as 32 categories of voters, each identifiable by income, magazine subscriptions, favorite television shows and other "flags." Merging this data, in turn, enabled those running direct mail, precinct walking and phone bank programs to target each voter with a tailored message.
-- Two days after Super Tuesday, the Bush campaign, anticipating Kerry would have no money to respond, began a $40 million, six-week televised assault designed to crush the Democratic nominee before he could get off the ground.
I did a bit more than I intended, but the point is that the article is not just conclusions. It tells what was done. Thus required reading. More to come.
I introduced an article from the L.A. Times with the comment: "The message is rough; I am taking it as a challenge, but the DNC must buy in also, big-time. Our Party cannot afford a misstep at this time."
My friend Steve in a comment provided a better word than rough -- ugly -- noting that that this was "an important article, and it demonstrates the ugly truth of what we Democrats are facing."
Steve is right. It is an important article, and Democratic leaders need to review the article every couple of months.
Today a second article is out there, one that is must reading for all state Party Chairs and those in the decision-making field on matters affecting the spending of Party resources and developing Party strategy for future elections.
The article is in the Washington Post, and is long, very long. I am going to summarize and highlight later (this time of the year is one of my busiest), but for now, just a couple of bullets:
-- But despite their fundraising success, Democrats simply did not spend their money as effectively as Bush.
-- The Kerry campaign, in addition to being outspent at key times, was outorganized and outthought, as Democratic professionals grudgingly admit.
-- "They were smart. They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said. "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery."
-- The ultimate test of the two campaigns is in the success of their efforts to increase turnout from 2000. Kerry and his allies increased the Democrat's vote by about 6.8 million votes; Bush increased his by nearly 10.5 million.
-- Surveys of people on these consumer data lists were then used to determine "anger points" (late-term abortion, trial lawyer fees, estate taxes) that coincided with the Bush agenda for as many as 32 categories of voters, each identifiable by income, magazine subscriptions, favorite television shows and other "flags." Merging this data, in turn, enabled those running direct mail, precinct walking and phone bank programs to target each voter with a tailored message.
-- Two days after Super Tuesday, the Bush campaign, anticipating Kerry would have no money to respond, began a $40 million, six-week televised assault designed to crush the Democratic nominee before he could get off the ground.
I did a bit more than I intended, but the point is that the article is not just conclusions. It tells what was done. Thus required reading. More to come.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 6:10 AM
1 Comments:
As always, Sid, you continue to inform us well. I know you have either read or will be reading about the sweep our people pulled off in Montana. I think that’s another one you should analyze for us. I am intrigued as to how a rough and tumble cowboy state went totally blue at the state level while remaining in the hands of the evil ones! I await your word!
Post a Comment
<< Home