Deciding What's Next

After too many years of watching the Democratic Party and its national candidates lose the crucial ground games of American politics, organized labor, activist groups and wealthy progressives intervened in the 2004 campaign with the goal of creating a "shadow party" that would be faster, smarter and more flexible than official Democrats could be on a landscape redefined by new campaign finance laws and White House political czar Karl Rove's ever-evolving strategies. Groups such as America Coming Together (ACT), the Media Fund and MoveOnPAC succeeded, provided early advertising in battleground states, engaged in grassroots campaigns where the party was weak and drew millions of new and infrequent voters into the process. But in the most important sense--winning the presidency and key Congressional battles--the shadow-party initiative fell short.

The organizations and individuals who created this new infrastructure now have to decide whether and how to carry on. A few groups, such as the Media Fund, a tax-exempt 527 organization created to develop and pay for television ads in battleground states, will fold as planned--although Media Fund head Harold Ickes could resurface as the new chair of the Democratic National Committee. But most groups, including ACT, which raised and spent more than $60 million on voter mobilization, are already taking steps to make themselves permanent fixtures, while trying to assess what worked and what didn't. Now, says Progressive Majority executive director Gloria Totten, "we'll see just how strong our movement is." The extent to which these conversations lead to a coherent strategy remains to be seen; the Center for American Progress is attempting to pull together a meeting of key funders, such as George Soros and Peter Lewis, that could provide some impetus in that direction. And ACT, working with key players in the Service Employees union's political shop, may do the same with an evolving dialogue on tactics.

There is already a healthy discussion about the need to reach out to rural voters, whose overwhelming support for Bush and the Republicans offset gains in registration and turnout in urban areas of key battleground states. Another topic is whether Democratic-leaning 527s placed too much emphasis on paying campaigners, as opposed to the Bush campaign's model of training ideologically impassioned volunteers. One particularly controversial strategy that has come under scrutiny involved paying operatives based on the number of voters they registered--a move that Republican critics said encouraged dubious registrations and earned groups such as Project Vote embarrassing headlines around the country. Other issues include the role of celebrity campaigners and whether some of the money spent on TV ads might have been better spent on things like targeted mailings to base voters. And, of course, there is a deeper discussion about whether 527 groups will remain satellites of the Democratic Party or seek to use their voter lists and other resources to influence the direction of the party in a more progressive direction.

Subscriber Login

User Name

Password

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.