You are absolutely right: nothing beats personal contact in terms of influencing voters. I hope one of the lasting benefits to the Dean campaign will be a greater longterm appreciation of personal mobilization of voters as opposed to the endless increase in the number of television commercials.

Are there any plans to watch polling places?
The whole BBV thing should have any, other than Republican, voter worried.
If possible maybe international observers should be brought in.
On the other hand, Dean will not roll over like Gore did.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Dean knows how to organize. Period. He's the best out of the field that I see (and I don't even like many of his positions--Kucinich represents my views better). What I hope he brings to Democratic Party that lasts is a committment to ground-up organizing. He knows how to attract people and how to put them to work. And he ought to be commended by the national folks, not villified, for these efforts.

Of course, I'm a union organizer, and this would appeal to me.

Nothing moves SOME voters more than personal outreach.

All this grassroots on our behalf is a good thing - but don't kid yourself that it can overcome mistakes in message and a lack of understanding of how to communicate. E.g. if people go door to door and say Bush sucks, or exude a weird vibe, or make other mistakes, the value is lost. And a lot of people don't like to have their doorbell rung or be called on the phone. Take it from someone who's been there recently.

Remember that 99% of voters will only see the candidates on TV, and will form the base for their impressions that way.

I do think in the future, with Video on Demand and the decline of TV, that grassroots will become even more important. But I'd be amazed if Dean "crushes" Bush. Unlike Clark, I think he'll have to work like hell to minimize mistakes and get lucky with external events (e.g. no Osama capture or spike in jobs created). The grassroots are secondary.

I agree with Dan Chambers that the higher-ups in the Democratic Party ought to be commending Dean's campaign instead of vilifying it. Most of these higher-ups haven't actually seen the grass roots in years. They've been too busy smoking whatever the Democratic Leadership Council's been selling, which has lately been a steady diet of Dean-bashing.

jacko2 quoth: "99% of voters will only see the candidate on TV"

Well, let's look at that a bit.

US Population[1]: 290,809,777
Current signed-up Dean supporters[2]: 557,982
Proportion of population that has signed up on Dean website: 0.20%
Total votes cast in 2000[3]: 105,405,100
Proportion of voters who have signed up on Dean website: 0.55%

If each Dean supporter has talked to _one other person_, then that's already less than 99% who have only seen him on TV. Note that those signups aren't just some large crowd of weak support, either; nearly a third[4] are also signed up to attend Meetups.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that on average, they're talking to a lot more than one other person.

I'm finding it hard to get good numbers on other forms of support, like people going door to door. One data point is that there have been 157,483 personal, handwritten letters sent to Iowa[5], which is rather a lot -- in fact, more than 5% of the population of the state! This is on top of the hordes of Dean volunteers coming into the state to campaign door-to-door and via the phone.

There may be some measurement error in these various numbers, and it's not really correct to assume, say, that 2004 turnout will be the same as 2000 turnout -- but they're probably within some percent of correct. Certainly this error is dwarfed by another problem: I'm looking at data on the supporters of a single candidate out of a field of 9, before the primaries have even started! If/once Dean gets the nomination, those numbers will all go way way up. And, of course, it's having a lot of committed grassroots organization that is putting Dean hugely ahead of any other Democratic candidate ever in raising money; and that's what will pay for those TV ads to influence everyone who isn't reached personally.

I think I would be wary about underestimating the effect of the grassroots in this election.

[1] July 2003 estimate, http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/tables/NST-EST2003-01.php
[2] As of 7 January 2004, http://blogforamerica.com
[3] http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
[4] As of 7 January 2004, http://dean2004.meetup.com
[5] Again, as of 7 January 2004, http://commons.deanforamerica.com/lettersIndex.php

i believe the analysis, but when will dean's poll numbers start reflecting this?

If this analysis were true, wouldn't Dean be crushing the rest of the Dem field, by 10, 15, 20 point margins everywhere? More than 60% of Dems, according to polls, are not with Dean.

I'd be wary of wildly overestimating the impact of grassroots. And early indications are that we're looking at the first decline trend for Dean right now. The race was never "over." Only the inexperienced would believe so......we could see 10 point switches within a week - both ways.

Having worked in grassroots campaigns in the '60s, I can tell you they have far less impact than you seem to believe. Jacko2 points out one problem when he writes "if people go door to door and say Bush sucks, or exude a weird vibe, or make other mistakes, the value is lost."

That's true, but there's more, and Jacko2 nails that, too when he (she?) writes "Nothing moves SOME voters more than personal outreach." If people don't agree with someone's positions, most aren't going to be impressed because some canvasser comes to their door. Almost nobody's going to say "well I was for the war in Iraq, but this nice young person came to my door and told me how stupid I was to believe that, so now I'm gonna vote for Dean."

My own opinion is that you're still hoping for some sort of major meltdown in either the war or the economy, which puts the Dems in the position of rooting for bad news so they can win. One or the other certainly can happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

And if one or the other does occur, it won't be the personal touch that turns the tide. It will be the events themselves.

Hey, this was just the first part of my argument. There are several more reasons, when combined, that lead me to believe Dean will crush Bush.

Wait until all my reasons ar out there until you conclude I'm nuts.

Dean will certainly a far stronger grass roots movement behind him than any Democrat nominee in recent memory ... but so will Bush.

Republicans caught the grass roots / GOTV bug in a big way in 2002, sweeping to a number of suprise victories, and are devoting tremendous resources towards cultivating it for this fall.

You won't see the Republican grass roots organization reflected in Meetup.com registrations or campaign website signups simply because the core of the Bush grassroots movement doesn't need an Internet intermediary to find one another. They are already organized in evangelical churches from one corner of the U.S. to another, and they are primed and ready to go against a guy who's public statements around his spirituality boil down to an admission that he changed religions over a bike path and a claim that the book of Job is in the New Testament.

I frankly find it quite exciting -- this November is going to the first election in a long time where a statistically meaningful percentage of voters are going to be lobbied by their neighbors and coworkers in a systematic way. The addition of 527 funds to help drive this further may only make it more interesting.

As an anarchist, I will not be voting this year, which is one of the ways that I practice my politics. Around half of America will join me in not voting. On the other hand, as a neutral outside political observer, I will say that I picked Dean to win several months ago. Dean has the momentum, he has that outsider feel that is appealing to disaffected working folks, and he has the grassroots of diehard Democratic activists. Much will be made about Bush's millions, but any veteran activist can tell you that a well organized grassroots campaign beats big money every time. And with Bush driving wedges into his core support with stuff like this immigration "reform," I anticipate that pissed of Democrats will swing the elction for Dean over disaffected Republicans who stay home.

I hope you're right, Chuck.

Feel free to do something constructive to make it happen. For example, in the time it took you to type that, you could've registered to vote.

Hahahahah! Folks, I'll lay a nice fat $50 that Bush repeats. There is NO WAY Dean beats Bush, simple as that, and no, I'm not getting my opinion from the Pat Robertson PAC. Any takers? I'll give you 3-2 odds even.

Great minds think alike, apparently. I posted on a similar topic on Tuesday, too. Rather than a state-by-state analysis, it went something like this: Bush barely won in 2000 on a minority of votes and has since collected a number of negatives. Dean is the only candidate--well, only major candidate--who will cast himself as a contrast to those negatives while offering a positive alternative. The question really shouldn't be how bad Bush will beat Dean, but the reverse. (My analysis here, FYI.)

Emma writes "Bush barely won in 2000 on a minority of votes and has since collected a number of negatives." True enough, but here's what my girlfriend said after 9/11: "Up to now I was mad because Bush is President. Now I'm thankful."

Don't for one minute underestimate the power of that little phrase, because it's an attitude millions of us share.

Domenick,

If there is a verifyable way to make sure that I'd get paid after I the bet (Beyond trusting the word of a Republican that you'll send me that promised money. After No Child Left Behind, we aren't that stupid.), I will happily take you up on it.

The bet being that Bush loses in 2004, to whoever the Dem. nominee will be, at 3:2 odds, which presumably means your $50 vs. my $33.34.

I want all of this to be true, but I have to say that I think a little skepticism, especially before the first caucus or primary vote has been cast, is in order. That old truism, that a week is a lifetime in politics, should cause some caution in announcing the war won before the first bullet is shot. Hell, even Bush did not issue his premature statement of victory in Iraq until the American troops were in Baghdad.

Moreover, McCarthy, Kennedy and McGovern all mobilized unprecedented grass roots support, and while America would have been a better place if they were elected, the last time I looked, it didn't happen.

And I am not sure that prophesying victory is even the best way to mobilize the maximum number of troops.

Kevin, email me at judoka1978@hotmail.com. We'll set something up.

God I hope you are right...

I take issue with the notion of Dean crushing Bush because I am still skeptical as to whether Dean can actually win the nomination. (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/campaigns/09VOTE.html?pagewanted=all&position=) If Dean does emerge as the candidate, I am sure he will not “crush” Bush, but I do think he can win, if he checks his mouth. Here is how I look at it...

The Bushes held on to Florida (key state) and will probably do so in the general (remember, old people will not fully feel the effects of Medicare reform until after the election). The governor of California has installed Pete Wilson, back again, as head of the state Republican party (having learned the 187 lesson). Although, California will still go Democrat, the California tendency not to pay taxes will be reinforced from Sacramento. Warning: Pete Wilson did not capture the largest state in the union, twice, by lacking organizing skills; something a lot of progressives have never fully recognized (another story, for another day).

Yet the key swing states in the Midwest (Indian, Ohio and Pennsylvania) are still in play. The question remains how well the grassroots on both sides organize in those states. Karl Rove has done much to develop the grassroots in those states with neighborhood block parties and so on already underway.

The Southwest is not quite with the Democrats just yet. We need about another ten to fifteen years for demographics to change, but we ALSO need a candidate AND a party platform that can address suburban-middle-class-tax angst. Dean does not and cannot do this. His early mistakes on the tax issue will be exacerbated as time goes on. The hope that this key issue will fade for any candidate is political mindlessness. The tax issue is THE issue for many middleclass-middle-of-the-road voters. Period. Again, if Dean is the candidate, I still think he can win but, because of the tax issue, there is no way he will “crush” Mr. Bush. He will win by GOTV only.

Yes, you are right, it will be a ground war, to an extent, but do not underestimate what is happening on the Republican side. With total Republican control of the Congressional agenda and Dean’s early ambiguity regarding his tax position, it would be short-sided to suggest this is a cakewalk.

On the latter, Dean has galvanized both the Left, AND unwittingly so, the Right. Many Republicans want to take Dean on, but the smart ones see his game and have decided to spend big cash on the ground. This has done much to wake and solidify the Republican party. Never mind the fiscal conservatives saying they will stay home. They hated this last budget but the last thing they are going to do is sit on their ass and give Dean (the tax raising-gay marriage-Liberal from Vermont) the keys to the temple (watch Alan Greenspan get behind this Bush during the General).

I say to all progressives who are reading this: I do not think Dean is the best choice but I understand that you are angry. Anger, however, will not carry over the airwaves or at the doorstop. So, please think of a better message (or messenger) for the swing states, but more importantly, for the long fight ahead.

Don't be confused by the seeming agreement between me and Michael Brown. I think Bush stinks, that he's beatable, that even Dean could do it - but not as easily as Clark or probably even Edwards. But I do think a lot of the justifications for Dean (i.e. grassroots dominance) are overstated and his prickliness is too easily dismissed.

But Bush's 9-11 bump is about 90% worn away. If 9-11 hadn't happened I don't see any way Bush would be competitive in this race.

Actually, there's something very interesting happening with polls these days.

The "refuse to answer" rate has been steadily going up. It's very high now, approaching 50% in some polls.

This means that the polls are no longer getting random samples. If we assume that people opposed to the current totalitarian administration are more likely to refuse to answer (a reasonable guess), this means that Bush's numbers will turn out to have been high all along.

This has to be combined with further aspects:

* The polls are *still* using the random-landline-telephone-number method. People without phones are more likely to vote Democratic.
Young people are more likely to vote Democratic, and also more likely to have cellphones only.

* The polls poll "likely voters". If more "unlikely voters" vote than expected , they'll probably vote Democratic, because "likely voters" are in demographic groups more likely to be Republican than "unlikely voters" are.

* I can't find any similar potential systematic biases in favor of Bush.

So it's perfectly possible that the polls overrepresent Bush's chances in the general election and underrepresent the Democratic challengers' chances. Even by several percentage points.

I thought that Dean had the nomination pretty well wrapped up, before I even chose a Democrat to support. But now it looks like I may be wrong about that. We'll see.

I would strongly caution everyone not to count on the Democrat automatically inheriting the Gore vote totals in every state. Many things have changed since 2000, not just 9/11.

For one thing, the incumbent/nonincumbent polarity is reversed. Some regions (e.g. the Dakotas) tend to get alienated by the party in the White House, while others (e.g., Hawaii, upstate New York) tend to move toward the party holding the White House.

2000 was a close election, but it just does not follow that this behavior in a forced-choice situation shows electorate is sharply polarized. Activists are, sure, but not the public. I bet that at least a third of the people who voted in 2000 don't have any accurate idea of who they voted for and why. There is no reason to expect them to line up precisely the same way.

Moreover, only politicos and pundits have precise positions on an ideological scale. Individual voters have little interest in ideological consistency. The notion that each voter is a point on the ideological continuum and will vote for the closest candidate is somebody's tidy fantasy. If you have ever spent much time talking to actual voters, you understand how little this model matches reality.

"Some regions (e.g. the Dakotas) tend to get alienated by the party in the White House, while others (e.g., Hawaii, upstate New York) tend to move toward the party holding the White House."

Heh. No *way* is Bush carrying NY. Not in a million years.

I'm with jacko on this. The left has an unfortunate tendency to fantasize about the nature of the American electorate. The best combination is Clark's resume at the top of the ticket plus Dean's organization. And even then it will be a challenge to win (although far easier than it would be with Dean at the top of the ticket).

Dean or Clark or perhaps both will win the following states:

WA
OR
CA
WI
MN
MI
MA
RI
VR
HI
NM
DC
MN
some votes from ME

all other states will go to Bush

Bush will win the popular vote by 10%

I am a Democrat by the way, I want Bush to not win but I think he will win

In New York State (not a battleground state, I realize), the Dean campaign gathered over 105,000 signatures on petitions to put him on the ballot.

He needed 5,000 signatures.

That's a measure of the intensity and the effectiveness of Dean's supporters.

Marist College's poll shows Dean way ahead in New York now. I've got an item on it at www.hudson.typepad.com ...

For the record, Domenick just weaseled out of the bet, after all his previous bluster.