4 Comments

  1. Liberal Neil
    · Reply

    I think the ‘conflict’ between Dean’s 50-state strategy and Rahm’s targeting is overstated.

    Dean’s strategy is about re-building the Democratic Party from the bottom up after years of Democratic retreat.

    Rahm’s targeting was about ensuring enough gains in this one round of elections to win control of the House.

    The result of the first stage of Dean’s long term strategy

  2. Process Guy
    · Reply

    Maybe I mistook conflict between the individuals with conflict between the strategies.

    I wanted to highlight that particular aspect of the story because it seemed to be a good example of the tension between the demands of targetting and the need to build an organisation capable of generating broad based support. Something Lib Dems should be coming very familar with. Ofcourse the answer

  3. Liberal Neil
    · Reply

    I’m sure Rahm did believe there was a conflict between the strategies at the point that argument took place.

    As it turned out Dean’s strategy helped Rahm win more seats in the House. If the political circumstances had been different it might not have done, but then quite a few od Rahm’s targets would have failed too.

    And yes, you are right, it does highlight the tricky balance

  4. Anonymous
    · Reply

    Ah, now there’s the rub. That’s the challenge as a campaign manager, isn’t it?

    Neil’s one of the best at this, of course.

Leave a Reply to Liberal Neil Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.