If predicting the outcome of the election was the national sport in the weeks running up to November 7th, interpreting the results has been the obsession of the aftermath. Republicans have drawn comfort from some mystic streak of "conservatism" in the new class that's undetectable to anyone but themselves (and their pals in the media). The DLC sees a triumph of "the third way" despite the fact that an economic populism that's the opposite of DLC policy seems to be the one universal among the victors.
But rather than dwell on how so many interested parties are desperately scanning the bottom of the cup, looking to find something that looks like a hopeful sign for the failed policies of conservatism and corporatism, there's another set of tea leaves equally open to misinterpretation. Instead of worrying about the meaning of the election, I'm more concerned about the meaning of the campaigns.
Since many people in the netroots worked hard both in the physical and the virtual worlds this season, there's a natural tendency to feel that this campaign season represents not only a victory for our causes, but also a victory for our ability to organize and fund raise. The perception of many in 2004 was -- aside from the boost Republicans received through iffy actions in certain secretary of state offices -- that Democrats were simply out-hustled. The Republican "72-Hour Plan" was credited with turning out legions of unexpected "values voters" who turned up at the polls to slam godless, unpatriotic, pro-gay Democrats
For 2006, the Democratic motto might as well have been "never again" as both nationally and locally Democrats worked to equal everything that the Republicans had done. Massive mailing lists providing targeted mailings on every subject under the sun? Check. Complete media saturation? Double check. Not only did Democrats match or exceed Republican fundraising in districts where they'd had difficulty in the past raising a serious contender, but Democratic campaigns saw increases of volunteers that ran in the face of recent trends in which voters have been willing to donate dollars, but not time. In numerous districts, Republican turnout was actually higher than in 2002 -- or even than in 2004 -- but Democratic turnout was up even more.
As someone exceedingly pleased by the results, it's easy for me to be happy with the campaigns that delivered those results. But I have a big fear, two fears actually: a fear that 2006 was the last campaign that can be waged on these terms, and a fear that it wasn't.
As a foot soldier in many campaigns since 1979, I've attended half a dozen workshops for would-be political workers. Truth is, we may feel that we're being innovative, but when it comes to the way campaigns are being staffed and operated, the advice from workshops sponsored by Tip O'Neil and those sponsored by Howard Dean is much the same. One thing that has turned up since I've been in attendance -- and probably for much longer -- is the idea that there is no such thing as too much. "People will tell you they have had so many calls that they're not going to come," says the instructor de jour. "But that's not so. They'll come." The message has been, and is, that too much is never enough. Four phone calls is better than two. Six mailings better than three. Thirty commercials better than ten,
Quantity had a quality all its own. That statement has been quoted and requoted so many times that experts aren't sure of its origin. Stalin said it, but he wasn't the first to express the admiration military commanders throughout history have shown for sheer numbers as a battlefield tactic. Left unstated in this aphorism is the idea that quantity's quality is always to the good.
Coming off this victory, too many campaigners on either side are likely to read the tea leaves this way:
- 2004: the Republicans did more advertising and organizing, and they won
- 2006: the Democrats raised the stakes and they won
- 2008: the winners will be those who do even more than last time.
It's a convenient analysis for consultants whose pay and prestige often revolves around funds raised or advertising purchased, as the prevailing trends promise more of both. But there are tipping points. There are values beyond which an invigorating rain becomes a devastating flood, and times when a single grain of salt can trigger the crystallization of a much larger amount of saturated solution.
When it comes to elections, we're there.
Organizers who have preached the "too much is never enough" advice for three decades may scoff. Check that, will scoff. Loudly. They'll never want to believe that voters could get so much contact that they'll turn away. But the public isn't just saturated, it's supersaturated with commercials, and mailers, and phone calls, and the bile that comes with even the best of campaigns.
If you think you're going to win in 2008 by doing more of what you did in 2006, you're in for a November that makes Rove's experience this year look rosy. Whoever turns up on the battlefield of 2008 with ten billion dollars worth of what we've always done before is going to defined by a very simple term: loser.
Many people, myself included, have been generous with advice to the incoming congress, and I really do believe it's critical they move as fast as Nancy Pelosi and crew have stated. They're going to have to work hard to show that they're not cut from the same cloth as the failed Republican congress that came before them.
For the rest of us -- campaign workers, organizers, and interested amateurs -- we have even less time to complete our task. We have to face up to the fact that the old tools are losing their punch. Two mailings may be better than one. Four mailings may be marginally better than two. But ten mailings can be worse than no mailings at all. When it comes to phone calls, one is good, two is pushing it, and the thirty that many people got this season does far, far more harm than good.
The new Democratic congress has two years to show their stuff. We have much less. Already people are gearing up for 2008.
Someone is going to figure out how to get a political message across in a new way. Someone is going to revolutionize how campaigns are staffed and organized. Someone is going to be brave enough to throw all the things we "know" our the window and discover, as Galileo did when tossing objects from the Tower of Pisa, that what everyone knows is wrong.
That someone had better be us, or the story of 2008 will be "Democrats tried to do more of the same old thing, and ended up in the dustbin."