Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:00 PM

Reid Wilson: On The Trail

The DNC's Risky Surge Strategy

Updated at 12:49 p.m.

Barack Obama broke new ground in 2008 by winning states that were long considered out of reach for Democratic candidates, and he did so by substantially broadening the electorate.

Just two years later, some Democratic strategists worry that the electorate is reverting to normal size, and that the White House is pursuing a misguided election strategy that threatens many of the House and Senate Democrats swept into office along with the new president.

The disagreement has created a rift among Democrats at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and opened a quiet but intense debate as some move to cover their backsides in the event of a catastrophic Election Day.

Both sides of the family feud are focusing on ground game and voter turnout. The disagreement is over which voters the party should be expending precious dollars trying to turn out.

The White House strategy is focused on an unprecedented effort to turn out the voters who cast their first ballots for Obama in 2008. The Democratic National Committee has pledged $30 million in voter turnout efforts this year, largely geared toward those first-time voters through Organizing for America, the outgrowth of Obama's political operation.

The DNC estimates that 15 million voters cast their first ballot in 2008. Fully 72 percent of those voters backed Democrats. They are predominantly younger and more ethnically diverse -- in other words, the next generation of the Democratic base. Those voters could be key to a number of races in which Democrats and Republicans are running dead even.

Senate races in Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Washington state, and West Virginia are all within two to four points in both public polling and in private party surveys. Perhaps dozens of House races will be decided as much by turnout as anything else. Increasing the number of voters ready and willing to come out for Democrats could mean the difference between losing majorities and hanging on, however narrowly.

But this strategy relies on the assumption that Obama's 2008 campaign transformed the electorate that will decide the 2010 midterms.

Old school Democrats, mostly affiliated with the labor movement and congressional campaigns, aren't buying it. They don't believe the DNC understands what the midterm electorate will really look like.

"The notion that first-time presidential voters will come out in an off year is limited," said one veteran Democratic strategist closely aligned with labor unions. In 2006, massive efforts to turn out the Democratic base, coupled with a political wave, swept Democrats into power. "If only the party and operatives were focused on getting that turnout in hand before going for extra icing," this strategist said, "they'd have a far tastier cake."

Other Democratic groups have taken the more traditional route. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has invested millions in robust field programs in virtually every competitive race in the country, a move that looks likely to pay off in at least a handful of contests. Unions have spent most of their money on turnout as well, forgoing the massive advertising that has become a hallmark of every election season.

Democrats critical of the DNC's strategy believe the committee is focused more on Obama's 2012 re-election bid than on the party's success in the midterms. From the White House perspective, that may be an understandable act of self-preservation, given how dismal the landscape looks for Democrats. But it's not something Capitol Hill Democrats appreciate.

Publicly, party strategists say they are thrilled with the unprecedented level of help they're getting from headquarters.

"We've been very pleased with the activity, and we've been working in full coordination," said Jon Vogel, the DCCC's executive director. The DNC is "in the majority of our targeted races. They're organizing volunteers; they're organizing get-out-the-vote efforts. And I think that will show through in Election Day results." J.B. Poersch, Vogel's counterpart at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, echoed the happy talk. "The DNC's put a lot of energy in full-time organizers," he said.

Privately, not everyone is on board.

"We'll see if it works," a skeptical-sounding senior House leadership aide said of the DNC's strategy. "I think it's a better use of resources to go after more reliable voters. They have a 2012 strategy."

The new energy Obama created among the Democratic base meant a wave of new activists. The downside: Those activists have clashed with members of a Democratic establishment who have outlasted their party's presidents and nominees before.

Organizing for America, now part of the DNC, has irked some on Capitol Hill who think the group is more focused on re-electing the president than congressional Democrats. Others not in the OFA fan club include state party chairs, who spend the three years between presidential election cycles electing Democrats to local offices. Some chafed at the orders they were getting from party headquarters in Washington. OFA was a far cry from Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, they decided.

"There is a cultural gap of a significant sort," the labor-allied strategist said. "Most OFA folks couldn't draw a diagram of a union operation or understand how it works."

With big electoral losses come major recriminations. Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House will try to lay blame on each other if the party takes a beating this fall.

But whether Democrats can actually save some seats, given the DNC's new voter turnout strategy, will answer a larger question: Did Obama's 2008 campaign really alter the electorate, or will the candidate who inspired a wave of new voters be unable to bequeath them to his party? So far, all signs are pointing to the latter answer.

Update: DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan e-mails: "While there were nearly a half dozen blind quotes criticizing our strategy, we have elected to respond on the record to provide a semblance of balance to this story. This story and the concerns expressed by these strategists are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the effort OFA and the DNC are engaged in. First, our strategy is based on turning out base and reliable as we would traditionally do, AND turning out those who would otherwise be 'fall off' voters from 2008. Turning out so called 'surge' voters is not exclusive of turning out our base. In fact, and second, our base and the surge voter population have high level of overlap. Of the 15 million first time voters in 2008, 30% were under 30 years old; a majority were minority voters. Third, in order to run an expanded turnout operation we have raised and committed more resources both in terms of money and manpower to do so. The DNC has raised a record $165 million this cycle so far, and has committed a total of $50 million to 2010 efforts. $20 million in transfers to state parties and campaign committees (this is not including 50-state strategy dollars or other transfers) and $30 million in additional services. By way of comparison our total commitment in 2006 was $17 million. So, even the direct transfer amount alone, that would ostensibly be used in a way the state party and committees traditionally use those funds, is greater than our TOTAL commitment in 2006. That said, all $50 million of our resources are directed to turning out base, reliable, sporadic and surge voters. For example, we recently announced a $3 million advertising effort to reach African American voters, which is more than ten times what was invested in 2006. It should also be noted that the idea that we are committing nearly 3 times as much total as the last midterm cycle to this year's midterms clearly demonstrates that our focus is singularly on getting as many Democrats elected this year as we can. Fourth, with OFA Democrats now have the largest field effort in the history of the party for a non-presidential year with offices in all 50 states, organizers and volunteers in all 435 congressional districts, and with trained, experienced field staff that has been working in the communities they are going to turn out the vote in for the last 21 months."

"By turning out base and reliable voters as we would ordinarily do in addition to expanding the pool to turn out surge voters, and dedicating more resources by multiple folds to do so, we haven't taken on any additional risk. The risk would be incurred by not optimizing and leveraging our resources."