Heavier investments should also be made in state legislative races where Democrats want to prevent Republican super-majorities, and where they have a chance to gain Democratic super-majorities. Likewise, there are some really important state supreme court races. Yet another are of focus should be important Secretary of State and election…
Heavier investments should also be made in state legislative races where Democrats want to prevent Republican super-majorities, and where they have a chance to gain Democratic super-majorities. Likewise, there are some really important state supreme court races. Yet another are of focus should be important Secretary of State and election board races.
All too often, much of this flies under the radar. The investments are likely to be extremely cost effective!
National and local campaigns complement each other. And both drive turnout.
I agree that GOTV operations and high turnout are key, nationally as well as locally, but people need to be made aware of how to vote in down-ticket races. Bear in mind also that e.g. judicial candidates are *not* necessarily labelled by party everywhere.
Edit: Added the word "not" in the last sentence, which I accidentally omitted.
I think you miss my point; I am all about the ground campaign(in my day as a professional campaign manager, we called it 'the coordinated campaign'); basically meaning the entire Democratic slate was a unified entity, but rest assured it was driven monetarily from the Governor\President downward; the grunts were on the ground and the commanders were at the top
I hear what you are saying and respect your extensive experience. But today, I just don’t think this is necessarily as top-down as you’re suggesting.
Also, 2024 is unique in that there is a stunning amount of organic organizing and spontaneous grassroot effort going on – more so than ever. This amazingly varied network, many of them totally independent groups/organizations, and not necessarily even linked to specific candidates, are not easily described by the "grunts-and-commanders" model.
Heavier investments should also be made in state legislative races where Democrats want to prevent Republican super-majorities, and where they have a chance to gain Democratic super-majorities. Likewise, there are some really important state supreme court races. Yet another are of focus should be important Secretary of State and election board races.
All too often, much of this flies under the radar. The investments are likely to be extremely cost effective!
I don't agree; we really need to focus nationally; imo if the turnout is driven nationally, then the locals will benefit
National and local campaigns complement each other. And both drive turnout.
I agree that GOTV operations and high turnout are key, nationally as well as locally, but people need to be made aware of how to vote in down-ticket races. Bear in mind also that e.g. judicial candidates are *not* necessarily labelled by party everywhere.
Edit: Added the word "not" in the last sentence, which I accidentally omitted.
I think you miss my point; I am all about the ground campaign(in my day as a professional campaign manager, we called it 'the coordinated campaign'); basically meaning the entire Democratic slate was a unified entity, but rest assured it was driven monetarily from the Governor\President downward; the grunts were on the ground and the commanders were at the top
I hear what you are saying and respect your extensive experience. But today, I just don’t think this is necessarily as top-down as you’re suggesting.
Also, 2024 is unique in that there is a stunning amount of organic organizing and spontaneous grassroot effort going on – more so than ever. This amazingly varied network, many of them totally independent groups/organizations, and not necessarily even linked to specific candidates, are not easily described by the "grunts-and-commanders" model.
I am talking about the money aspect; apologies for not being more clear