The Case for a Democratic General Staff organization
Note, posted also as a comment at LGM blog:
I'm going to throw in a military history analogy...In terms of grand strategy, and even basic campaign strategy and tactics, Democrats have been substantially disarmed for a long time. All we have is the crappy overpaid consultants. Republicans by contrast have something more durable, in their various well-funded organizations and think-tanks - it is more like a General Staff organization. invented by the Prussians in 1814. The general staff was composed of a small number (about 50) of highly qualified officers whose duty it was to develop strategy, plan, make sure all basics were taken care of: mobilization, weapons, logistics, etc., and to subsequently advise the field units in the campaign itself. Often a staff officer could run an army as well or better than the commanding general himself, as in the case of Tannenberg, where the battle was basically won by a staff officer before Hindenberg even showed up.
When the Prussians fought the Austrians and French in 1866 and 1870 they walked over them, because their opponents had no similar organization to make sure everything was prepared for a campaign.
Democrats in 2024 were a lot like the French in 1870 - with substantial overall resources, but no real guiding hand and no real strategy except what Harris and her people could cobble together at the last minute. Unfortunately it seems like Democrats are always doing this. Wait for the nominee to be identified and only then put together a platform and a strategy to win. That is a horrible way to run a war or a political campaign either.
So, Democrats may not have all the right-wing billionaires, but in 2024 we raised huge amounts of money that was spent and resulted in basically nothing - not even any kind of long-term organization.
So Democrats can keep running campaigns like the French in 1870, or we can establish a durable organization whose job is to:
- Identify key platform issues and develop messaging to support the Democratic case
- Develop grand strategy - what are our long-term goals and how to get there - such as "take over 3/4 of the State Legislatures..."
- Develop detailed strategies - what states to target, what governorships, what court appointments
- Develop and game out theoretical cases for Presidential campaigns
- Identify logistical and fundraising targets and have strategies and means to achieve them.
And last but not least, the "Chief of Staff" could be a credible spokesperson for the Democrats, in the interim between Presidential races.
Why should we remain substantially disarmed?
If the fascists are out to destroy us we need to treat this more as a wartime organization.
= new reply since forum marked as read
the dems where bowled over by his intensity. 
Will Rogers -- I belong to no organised political party. I am a Democrat. 😫 During Obama's term, some Dem state legislators were massively opposed by the rpukes. The Dem might only have $30,000, while rpukes would spend $500,000 to unseat them. After a couple of cycles, the Dem would get tired of this and switch party. By becoming a rpuke, they did not have to spend a cent to get re-elected. The Democratic Party was vacuous. The Democtatic party in Appalachia could be in a death spiral. The pathology of the Scotch-Irish is an ugly one. The Scotch-Irish a minority in Appalachia, but they dominate. Then their influence spreads out