Out of power, state Dems frustrated with national committee
Over the past 8 years, the Democratic National Committee has deteriorated, following the expiration of Howard Dean's "50 state strategy." Despite Democratic control of the executive branch, the party's state branches have dwindled down to almost nothing because of their lack of funding; they now struggle to pay staff members at all. According to DNC spokesman Adam Hodge, "state parties are the lifeblood of the DNC," because people are unlikely to vote for a party in the general election if they never see candidates from that party even contesting for local elections. This poses an interesting question: would a better functioning DNC have allowed Clinton to win the presidential race? It is hard to say; however, Democrats nationwide seem committed to rebuilding their party at the state level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The organizational issues plaguing the DNC certainly have not helped the party withstand their many defeats in the 2016 election. Unfortunately, money wins elections. It's going to be hard for Democrats to win back Congressional seats without sufficient funding for state branches of the party. Democratic leadership just seems to be out of touch, especially when you consider the controversy of high-level DNC members colluding against Bernie Sanders, who arguably could have beaten president-elect Trump in the presidential election.
ReplyDeleteThe DNC needs to figure out how to get back to how they were, whether it's reorganizing, different leadership, a change in protease, etc. Obama shouldn't be to blame for this, considering he has plenty of things to worry about. The chairman needs to refocus on the state branches and strengthen those so they can strengthen themselves from the base up.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting question, but I'm not sure if that would have made a difference in Clinton's case. The DNC needs to stage a huge comeback in the coming years and a great way to do that would be to start locally. If there were a lot of Democarts winning local elections and doing great things for people on a local level, why wouldn't Democrats be able to do great things at the national level as well? The DNC really needs to start figuring out how exactly they're going to make a comeback at the local, state and national levels!
ReplyDeleteThe DNC has to fix its organization and funding problems before it can have a good shot at the White House. After its losses in 2016, the DNC will have to make a big comeback by establishing itself at the local and state levels before dumping its remaining funds into the presidency. It is important that the DNC establishes a solid base of support before they shoot for the White House.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt completely that the DNC definitely needs to focus on having a strong foundation before putting their focus into a task as large as the presidency. I mean now they have two years before the midterm elections to really put all their effort into a comeback so I think they'll be able to make an impact and regain some of the seats they lost. Although I'm sure the lack of DNC funds doesn't help anyone, I think that gerrymandering probably had a lot more to do with the 1000 seat loss than funding and organizational issues during Obama's terms. Maybe I'm just not making the connection, but I don't really see how a DNC focused on their state and local governments would have made a significant difference for Clinton. Even if it did, I feel like the DNC supported her with funds during her campaign anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think the first step to building the Democratic Party back up is to take Mr. Danson's offer to help the PADems during the summer. (Joking.) Like any drastic change that must me made to an organizational structure, It needs to be done from the ground up, and be decentralized. Let the PA Dems take care of PA Democratic things, let the Alabama Dems(If there are any) handle the Alabama Democratic things. Once the wide basis of nationwide Democratic party support is in place, then they can start to rebuilt the national scaled Party. Very similar to the revolutionary struggles in Spain, Ukraine, and Mexico, they must be done initially by small groups familiar with their local situations then conglomerate.
ReplyDeleteThe DNC has to have strong leadership before they can expect to be successful again. The fact that they blatantly rejected Bernie Sanders' campaign and then proceeded to lose the general election proves that the party has to reevaluate their values. The state level is a good place to begin the reconstruction on a smaller scale.
ReplyDeleteI think the DNC should work form the lower levels up. If they focus on the local and state election before the national election they will be able to have a strong base. I also think it is very important that the DNC has strong leadership because it will help make it easier to rebuild the DNC.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe DNC needs to fix its organizational and funding issues to be more successful in the future. Disorganization may have contributed to Clinton's loss, but it most likely wasn't the biggest factor. More funds should be channeled into local elections to increase representation at lower levels. The DNC should focus more on the congressional races as well. Greater democratic representation in congress may help to offset having a republican president.
ReplyDeleteA stronger DNC certainly wouldn't have hurt Clinton's chances, but it's hard to say how much of an impact it would have had. I'm not sure I believe that it would have won Clinton the race though. That having been said, it's still incredibly important that the Democratic Party works to improve the current condition of the DNC, starting at the local level and working their way up from there.
ReplyDeleteTheres no question that the DNC has to get back on its feet but I can't be certain it is to blame for Clintons defeat. I agree that the DNC should start to rebuild itself by starting at the local state levels, they can't expect to be success in a presidential election with out a steady foundation in lower level elections as well, they need a balance of focus in both.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that a stronger DNC would have much of an impact on the campaign results. I've seen a lot of speculation that spending the time leading up to the election campaigning in some of the swing states instead of doing stunts like giant concerts in major cities that she already had locked down might have changed the results, and I agree that this is a definite possibility. Technically she did win; she had millions more people behind her than he did.
ReplyDeleteI think the DNC needs more funding at the state and local levels and that will improve the status of the party. Reclaiming a better image for the party will gain them more votes overall and in the long run. It's a shame that the flaws in the DNC seemed to become evident during such a crucial election, but hopefully they'll fundraise and improve their system by the next election.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of people's opinions about the outcome of the election, it is a true statement that the DNC needs to make a comeback and establish new tactics for the upcoming elections. It is important to see a change of some sort in the following years and I believe that the DNC is definitely capable of doing so, as long as they put some work into it. Thy have no large excuses for the main reason why they have deteriorated in these past years but it is important to make a comeback so the democratic candidate possibly has a greater chance of winning in the future.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt and David, the DNC needs to focus first on fixing its organization before worrying about the presidency; they have bigger problems on their plate. After Clinton's losses, I think the DNC is definitely more likely to take fixing their organization more seriously with the time they have in order to make a comeback and avoid repeating the same mistakes.
ReplyDelete