Arizona Democrats need their own Bannock Street Project

You have been reading about the DNC’s “Bannock Street Project” focused on this year’s senate races, where the Democrats hope to replicate the voter turnout prowess of the Obama campaign in midterm elections to offset the midterm fall-off problem Democrats usually suffer with their base voters.


Molly Ball at The Atlantic has the latest, Inside the Democrats’ Plan to Save Arkansas—and the Senate:

This year, Arkansas is home to one of the nation’s most intense Senate races, as incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor faces a challenge from a first-term congressman, Representative Tom Cotton. Like many of this year’s competitive Senate contests, it features a Democratic incumbent desperately trying to survive in deeply hostile territory—in this case, a state Mitt Romney won by 23 points, or more than 250,000 votes. Other seats Democrats are trying to hold onto are in similarly tough states such as Alaska, North Carolina, and Louisiana.

To beat the odds, across the country Democrats have mounted an ambitious political organizing effort—the first attempt to replicate the Obama campaign’s signature marriage of sophisticated technology and intensive on-the-ground engagement on a national scale without Obama on the ballot. The effort is particularly noticeable in states like Arkansas and Alaska, which have small electorates and which haven’t been presidential battleground states for a decade or more. (In 2004, John Kerry initially tried to compete in Arkansas, but pulled out of the state three weeks before the election and lost it by 10 points.) In Arkansas, campaigns traditionally begin after Labor Day; this year, the airwaves have already been blanketed with campaign ads, from both the candidates and deep-pocketed outside groups, for months.

The Democrats’ Arkansas organizing effort kicked off with a canvass on June 7. “People were saying, ‘Robert, the election’s six months away! What are you doing?'” Robert McLarty, the director of the Arkansas Democratic Coordinated Campaign, tells me. “We are starting from a blank slate. People here have never seen what folks in Ohio and Pennsylvania are used to every year.”

Throughout the entire 2010 election the party recruited 1,210 local volunteers; that number was surpassed in the first 30 days of this year’s effort. Seventy percent of the volunteers recruited so far have never worked for a campaign. They have registered more than 6,000 new voters. The Democrats believe there is an iceberg-like mass of latent votes that are theirs for the asking but have simply never been mobilized before.

* * *

Republicans say they, too, are mounting a massive, never-before-seen effort in Arkansas, part of the Republican National Committee’s vow to beef up the party’s ground game and technological efforts post-2012. Last week, the RNC’s chairman, Reince Priebus, visited Little Rock and touted the party’s work. “We call it ‘Victory 365’: our plan to be everywhere, all the time, nonstop, ground game, data, and being obsessed with the mechanics,” Priebus told reporters at the Cotton for Senate headquarters on the top floor of a Regions Bank building. While some might consider such nitty-gritty work boring, he said, “I happen to believe races are won and lost on the ground. They’re won and lost now with data, infrastructure, and technology.”

* * *

But the Republicans’ effort pales in comparison to what the Democrats have built: Democrats are spending more than five times as much money in Arkansas, and have four times as many field offices and triple the number of staff. In the month of July alone, the Arkansas Democratic Party reported nearly $900,000 in federal campaign spending, while Arkansas Republicans reported $155,000. (Most of the money the Democrats are spending has come directly from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.) Democrats listed 64 staffers on their payroll; Republicans listed 22. The RNC claims it has 50 people on the payroll in Arkansas, including some being paid by other GOP committees, but I could not find a record of them and staffers on the ground were not aware of them. According to public records, there are Democratic staffers in places like Cabot (population 24,000), Marion (12,000), Arkadelphia (11,000), and Dardanelle, Tom Cotton’s hometown, with fewer than 5,000 residents.

Republican candidates also have organizing help from Americans for Prosperity, the conservative nonprofit supported by Charles and David Koch, which has sought to build its own ground game separate from the Republican Party. Many Arkansans told me the group had the state’s most visible canvassing effort. It has five full-time staff on the ground in Arkansas and offices in Little Rock, Jonesboro, and Rogers, spokesman Levi Russell told me. But AFP can’t work directly with the Republican Party, meaning the party has no control over its efforts. [If you believe that I have some swampland in Lake of the Ozarks to sell you.] And there are indications AFP’s Arkansas efforts aren’t meeting their goals. A memo written by a fired AFP Arkansas consultant that was leaked to Mother Jones in April lamented “declining tea party engagement” that was diminishing the group’s pool of activists.

If, as many believe and some studies have shown, the Starbucks-like proliferation of swing-state campaign offices and staff helped Obama win in 2012, Republicans appear to be in danger of being organizationally overmatched once again.

Democrats believe the ground game has powered them to victory in unlikely circumstances in the past. In 2010, the year of the Obama backlash and the Republican tsunami, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet managed to buck the tide and win by a narrow margin after his campaign invested heavily in data-driven field operations—a daring choice that went against the traditional campaign’s reliance on advertising. (Bennet, who chairs the senatorial committee, is the brother of The Atlantic‘s editor in chief and co-president, James Bennet.) Inspired by Bennet’s success, in 2012, Democrats built large field operations in Montana and North Dakota, two red states untouched by the presidential candidates. Turnout in those states exceeded the national average, and Democrats won both states’ Senate races even as Obama lost both states by wide margins.

This year marks Democrats’ attempt to roll out the program on a national scale. Dubbed the Bannock Street Project, after the Bennet campaign’s Denver headquarters, it will, by the time the election is over, comprise a 4,000-employee, $60 million effort in 10 states. The voter-contact metrics recorded in each state are uploaded in real time to the Washington headquarters of the senatorial committee. While such efforts are commonly described as turnout operations, Matt Canter, the committee’s deputy executive director, says there’s more to it than that. “This is about much more than [get-out-the-vote],” he tells me. “This is not just identifying supporters and turning them out. This is actually building sustained voter contact programs through multiple face-to-face conversations that can persuade voters to change their minds and vote Democrat.”

Democrats believe they have a technological edge in their ability to use data to model and target voter preferences. Republicans, who have invested heavily in technology since 2012, are working to catch up. But on a basic level, turning out voters relies on the simple arithmetic of the application of resources—bodies on the ground, close to their communities, tirelessly recruiting volunteers who will work to activate their neighbors and family and friends. On a recent evening in Little Rock, two retirees—Jim Hickman, a former social worker, and Susan Hickman, a former psychiatric nurse—were pulling their regular weekly phone-calling shift along with 21 others at the campaign office. Lifelong Democrats, the Hickmans are regular volunteers for the first time.

Arizona is not included in the Bannock Street Project because we do not have a Senate race. But there is no reason why Arizona Democrats should not be building a similar Get Out The Vote (GOTV) program. Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country and state and volunteer as campaign workers. GOTV takes boots on the ground, people.

And where exactly are those Obama for America (OFA) volunteers who like to flaunt their independence from party politics? Obama is no longer on a ballot, so what are you doing now? Do you mean to tell me that the direction of Arizona is not equally important to you? Statewide races and legislative races have far more direct impact on your lives as residents of Arizona. It’s time to put your skills to use working for Democratic candidates. It’s time to come in from the outside.

2 responses to “Arizona Democrats need their own Bannock Street Project

  1. captain*arizona

    This is what is needed. A commercial radio-t.v. Republican running for office “Get rid of Obama care!” Obama care recipient. “And replace it with what?” Republican. “Replace it with nothing! You have no right to health care! And besides Obama is black!” Obama care recipient. “Oh that is why I should vote for you to get rid of my health care is that your white and Obama is black?” “Republican” Correct.” Obama care recipient “That is mighty white of you!” This instead of usual democrat ads with coat slung over the shoulder!

  2. I’m a Phoenix home owner, and have been an OFA supporter (some $ – as much as we could afford) since moved here in 2007.
    But not “on the streets” in AZ.

    I admire the brave few who occasionally surface in areas intolerant of Progressive thought (read: everywhere except Flagstaff and Tucson).

    Its tough to be a Progressive in this state if you’re (1) in outside sales, as I am or (2) live in a Rabid Reeper neighborhood (as we do).
    I cannot afford to lose customers or antagonize neighbors.
    Around Greater Phoenix, even a bumper sticker can start an ugly exchange with drivers and even in parking lots (its happened).

    Two very intelligent candidates, both running for office in my District, canvassed our neighborhood last week. Their campaign materials had *no* mention of the fact that both were Progressives (!!). That candidates hesitate to self identify is a symptom of a much larger issue.

    So I concur with your premise that a concentrated, clearly defined and reasonably funded campaign to recruit fence sitting Independent voters, to register everybody that has the right to vote, and to motivate all who can to get off their butts and VOTE in every election.

    Quality candidates on every ballot – the magic ingredient for any political sea change – will run for Democratic office if they are confident of a respectable turnout (or mail in) that provides a chance to prevail.

    That stated, now the Problem is how to “Git er Dun” in Arizona.
    The task is – at present – too extensive if limited to an internal effort.
    It will require the seeds of herculean focus from the DNC, armed with whatever deep pocket donors they can muster.

    Don’t hold your breath for that to happen here.