Not anymore, according to Matthew Dowd. Elections results seem not to be influenced by the state of either party. The conditions that surround a given election (the state of the economy, whether we are at war, etc...) plus candidate characteristics matter far more than campaigns and tactics. He points to polls that suggest that a generic Democrat would have comfortably beat a generic Republican in the 2008 presidential election. Obama's campaign mattered little.
He argues that the "political-industrial complex" plus the need to fill the 24 hour news cycle with campaign details gives the illusion that party organization matters. This is a false impression.
We've hit this point before. Political scientists who forecast elections tell us it all boils down to the economy and who voters perceive as being responsible for it, and the have the models to back it up. Campaigns and parties may not matter as much as we think, or as political leaders would like us to believe.
