I want to know why the Democrats still did not put forth effort in every race.

[saracat]

I thought Dean's 50 state strategy was to help with that.It still seems to me that certain races were written off.This is partially a state problem but the national party cannot be completely exonerated. In my state there were congressional races that were given zero assistance literally zero and yet, one race,in our state, that was previously considered un winnable, got assistance and won. We did little to nothing for our statewide candidates except for Gov and Atty General that we knew would win.As a result we lost all of them except Gov and Atty Gen., in spite of a Democratic Tsunami. We did nothing at all to help our leg candidates and acquired less seats than we could have .Some candidates in GOP dominated districts came close on their own efforts with NO party help. I know this first hand. We had absolutely NO help from the party in those areas that were not "targeted. It is a shame.There were many more seats we could have won with a bit more effort.I would like someone to explain to me why some candidates are completely neglected ? I understand pushing more for the "targeted" districts but I have never understood doing absolutely nothing for those candidates that have been gracious enough to run. Explain to me please why any of those candidates should ever consider running in those districts again? And why do party officials recruit these people if they have no intention of helping them?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoPasaran]

4. I have major, MAJOR issues with the TDP

But calling them "DLC Nazis" is way over the line.

[William769]

12. You know what you just did to your credibility?

"DLC nazi party". :eyes:

[OzarkDem]

2. Combination of factors

It was the first time for the 50 state strategy. It did exceptionally well to build up state parties (and their funding mechanisms) from years of neglect. Some states probably have much farther to go than others and will probably take another 2 years for their grassroots to get fully restored.

Second, as you suggest, part of the problem may lie with your state's party leadership. They have a lot to say about which state level races the funds go to. It may take a local grassroots effort in your state to add new leadership.

[Dr.Phool]

3. It almost sounds like you're talking about Florida

Except we didn't win the Governorship or AG races.

These are the most corrupt, incompetent buffoons I've ever seen.

I, along with several others, worked our asses off for John Russell's campaign in Florida's 5th congressional district. We got absolutely zero help from the DCCC, Florida Democratic Party, or 8 county DEC's. In fact they worked against us. I can explain more if people want.

John took out a $50,000 second mortgage on his house, and quit his job to campaign full time after the primary, and we couldn't get shit from the party. Now, he's in debt, unemployed, and very depressed. I seriously considering quitting my county DEC over it.

We probably had the best campaign team, all volunteers, in the state of Florida, but it didn't matter because we didn't have the money to mount an offense against a vulnerable opponent.

In the surrounding districts, they spent millions of dollars, and had fundraisers featuring Bill and Hillary, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi (who recruited us to run for this seat) and Obama. We got shit.

[madfloridian]

5. I have tried to explain to you about the congressional committees.

Now, since you are very involved there, you must know the differences in the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC.

Yet you do this a lot, you make it sound like Dean's strategy is to blame, when it is the total involvement.

We had some lack of involvement by the state party in Florida, but that is their problem.

You told me once that the involvement in your area is strong for PDA and DNC combined. We were trying to get that in Florida with our DFA groups, but we have gotten effectively snubbed.

So, why didn't PDA help more?

I am being facetious, but you do this all the time. Put the blame on every one...not just the 50 state strategy.

Talk to the DLCC...their website is easy to find. Talk to the DGA..good website.

Our party in Florida is stuck in the past ways, and they failed in many ways. I try not to blame, but figure out what to do next time.

AND I can not blame Dean for the Florida failings...because our party here DISTANCED themselves from him. Jim Davis did it..Rod Smith did not distance at all.

It is all a new thing, and when you keep posting this it confuses people who don't see the whole picture. That is not fair.

[Dr.Phool]

7. You're absolutely right.

I lay it squarely on Karen Thurmans Doorstep. And, PDA was supposed to do a nationwide blast e-mail for us, and it never happened. I would know, because I'm on their mailing list, and I got lots of them, but nothing for our campaign.

[saracat]

9. Stop patronizing me. I KNOW the difference between committees.

I do blame everyone. No one gets a pass, get it? The philosophy is entrenched. I will not exonerate the DNC. But they are not to blame alone. We just do not agree . I have the right to my opinion,and I am not confusing anyone. You keep inferring that I do not know anything about what I speak and that is not true and that is not fair.I respect your opinion MF but I do not agree and I do not have to. And by the way PDA did a lot for the federal candidates in my state but they were not strong enough to do enough. And I am a bit hesitant about some of PDA's stances anyway. But whatever.PDA has nothing to do with the lack of oversight on both levels of the state and national party.
They do not support everyone. And I think they should . Maybe not equally as funds are limited but all should be supported.End of story.JMHO.

[sandnsea]

10. Oregon loves Dean

For better or worse.. hehe.

Seriously, our candidate in eastern Oregon got no support from the DNC or DCCC, because she just couldn't get anything going. It's a tough region with one of the biggest manufacturers in the state supporting Republicans. Then there's the farmers vs. fishing, logging, guns, etc. Almost an impossible district for a Democrat to win. It's not like Montana, where Tester could put together a hodge-podge of a large population of environmentalists, traditional union counties, reservations, plus personal support in the eastern part of the state. Sometimes I think we just have to face the reality of the district, and if there isn't some distinctive draw, it really is a write-off.

[Tansy_Gold]

6. Some thoughts on this

Disclaimer #1: I can only speak for Arizona, which happens to be the state saracat is talking about anyway.

Disclaimer #2: I spent most of 2006 in the chaos of a cross-metro move and was unable to be active in either local district Dem activities or in the political campaign.

That said ----

1. I think it's unrealistic to expect the national party to be equally active in EVERY local campaign. There just isn't enough money or person-power to go around.

Therefore, it seems logical for the national party to select those races -- gubernatorial, statewide exec (AG, SOS, etc.), and congressional where they think there's a reasonable possibility of either winning or at least making a good show.

2. In my congressional district, the Dems didn't even mount a candidate. I won't put the blame for that on the national operation: that has to come from the district, and that's ESPECIALLY true in Arizona where we have public funding of campaigns. There's really no reason why a determined individual can't run, because anyone who raises enough "seed" money is guaranteed funding relatively equal to what the opposition spends.

3. There are always going to be some districts that one or the other party virtually can't win. Unless and until ALL districts --- either congressional or state legislative -- are drawn to be competitive, some are going to be "safe" Dem and some "safe" GOP. If previous election results and current polls show a district running 80% to one party, it doesn't make sense to pour good money into a losing effort. *IF* the local party can mount an effective campaign and put up a good competitive candidate and change the results so that item #1 above applies, then maybe next time the national party will pay attention and provide the boost to put that district into the Dem column.

4. Sometimes it's the fault of the candidates themselves. Sometimes they just aren't the best candidates and/or they aren't the best campaigners, for whatever reasons. But if NO ONE runs, whose fault is that? I didn't have a Dem to vote for in my CD; I had the choice of Jeff Flake or a Libertarian. The local Dems put out a voting guide and sent out several mailings about the election but couldn't find anyone to run against Flake. That's not the national organization's fault, is it?


I think there was a lot of emphasis in Arizona on the Pederson-Kyl race, and I suspect a LOT of money was poured into it, perhaps to the detriment of other races. But if there was a lack of national support for the Mitchell-Hayworth race, the success of Harry Mitchell seems to suggest that when there's a good candidate, lack of national support isn't going to prevent victory. (And another disclaimer: I don't know if there was national support for Mitchell or not, so the previous statement could be moot.)

I also think it's unrealistic to think the Dems are going to win in every district in every race in every election. But I don't think it's unrealistic to at least expect the Dems to make an effort to be competitive.


Tansy Gold

[saracat]

11. Cough. There was an enormous amount of support for Harry.

Harry was asked to run by Rahm Emmanuel. And he was able to race big money quickly as a result. Of course it is unrealistic for Dem's to win every race, but as you say we can make an effort to be competitive.And money doesn't have to be equal.Clean Elections candidates couldn't take it anyway but I E's could be done on behalf of ALL candidates.And they weren't.Most candidates weren't even mentioned by name by the Party. And great candidates like Israel Torres were virtually dumped. That was unforgivable.He was barely supported.And the leg races were ignored. That is where the GOP has us beat.They have farm teams and we develop NADA. We live in the moment and until we have long term goals we will always be susceptible to being quickly overthrown in upcoming elections.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. Well, I think it's unfair to dump on the DNC or demand

that Dean should have supported every candidate in AZ when we all/both know that the Dem party in AZ -- and maybe this thread should be moved to the AZ forum, I dunno -- has been virtually leaderless for years.

Maybe when AZ develops some internal competence then the DNC will take notice and do something.

Again, it's foolish to ask the national organization to support every candidate for every office in every district when in some cases there isn't one. As you yourself said, the GOP has us beat on the ground in AZ, and that's sure as hell not Dean's fault or PDA's or Bill Clinton's. That's the fault of the local Dems. You know that and I know that, non?


Tansy Gold

[saracat]

15. I didn't say Dean should have supported every candidate! I do think the DNC should

exercise moe oversight on the State parties as they are the ones that are hiring the influx of employees.And many came from DC.All are being paid by the DNC. Most employers have oversight.And I know for a fact the "local" Dems are being given their marching orders from DC. In fact too much DC is involved in AZ to the IMHO, detriment of the party.We actually need more local involvement and some Dems with spine to stand up to DC.
All politics is local and we have zip local game plan.

[Tansy_Gold]

16. You can't have it both ways.

I'm quoting you from ONE post --

"I do think the DNC should exercise mo(r)e oversight on the State parties as they are the ones that are hiring the influx of employees."

followed by

"In fact too much DC is involved in AZ to the . . . detriment of the party. We actually need more local involvement and some Dems with spine to stand up to DC. "

So, which is it, saracat? Do you want more oversight from DC/DNC on the State parties or more local Dems to stand up to DC? Make up your mind!


Tansy Gold

[saracat]

19. What I meant was too much DC influence without oversight.

And local Dems should stand up to the DC people about that lack of oversight and when the DC authority is wrongly excercised.

[Tansy_Gold]

20. But that still doesn't make sense

Do you want the DC/DNC people to have "oversight" as well as influence, or someone else to have "oversight" but not influence, leaving the influence (whatever that may be) to the DC/DNC people? If you want the DC people -- whoever they may be -- to have "authority," aren't they going to have "influence" just by virtue of having "authority"? And if they have "authority," what's the difference between that and "oversight"?

Forgive me if I'm sounding particularly dense or pedantic, but really your posts aren't making a whole lot of sense in terms of who you personally, in yho, want to have "oversight," "influence," and "authority." And then when you state very clearly in your OP that you're ticked off because Dean and the DNC didn't support every Dem but in a later post you say you understand why they couldn't and you didn't expect them to. . . . . . . . I'm starting to agree with madfloridian that you're confusing more than you're elucidating.

I won't go into my personal experience with the AZ Democratic (dis)organization back in 2004; that's water under the bridge and over the dam. Suffice it to say that based on that experience and what I observed during the 2004 campaign season, I'm not surprised that there wasn't as much DNC/DCCC support as some of us might have wanted because I really don't imagine the state apparatus -- which appeared to this really inexperienced person to be little more than Jim Pederson's personal campaign staff to set up his run for Kyl's seat -- has improved any since I last was involved. But the failure of the state apparatus shouldn't prompt a whine that the national campaigns didn't do enough, especially if that whine is ALSO (inexplicably) a demand that they not be so influential, or that someone (I'm not sure who) ought to have "oversight" over their "authority."


Tansy Gold, as usual

[saracat]

21. Sorry but you are really convoluting this. I am perfectly clear in what I intend.

I will state it this way. The Democratic Party has ,to my thinking, an obligation to support all its candidates. That support does not always have to be money. All candidates are entitled to some level of support.Our campaign would have been thrilled to have any volunteers.They took our district volunteers and gave them to another district! This is also the first year no slate cards were done for legislative candidates. There are candidates who received no support whatsoever from either the State, or local parties. That is wrong.

The DNC is paying employees of the various state parties. Because the DNC is paying those employees they ought to be responsible for what they do or do not do.I actually don't like the fact that so many DC people have been brought in at the state level but that was part of the 50 state strategy. I believe the money would have been better spent elsewhere than on less than competent people who arrive not only not knowing their jobs but having no familiarity with the state they are assigned.But no one is going to listen to me anyway so it is a moot point. I am just saying the DNC allegedly paid people to come in an assist candidates and they did not assist candidates fairly.All efforts were directed to either the Governor's race or Jim Pederson's Senate race. Towards the end Harry got help.

Personally,I think the DNC, should enforce some dicipline over both itself and the state chairs to ensure that candidates are supported. And again, I reiterate not all candidates will be equally supported but all candidates are entitled to some support from either the state or national party. Since the National Party has so entangled itself in the operations of the state parties at this point it becomes almost impossible to determine whose obligation is what concerning candidates.The candidates themselves never knew who was responsible for them. The state party intervened in certain instances , then the County Party , then the Coordinated Campaign, which was DC. It used to be that the State Party dealt with the State Races, and the County dealt with the Leg races, and the other smaller races. The Coordinated Campaign and the DCCC and the DSCC dealt with the federal races. Now everybody has their fingers in everything but concentrated mostly on the big races.This results in no one(except select race) getting truly supported and the confusion is immense.
Because the money and assistance so often does NOT go to any but a chosen few, I will not give money to the DNC. I choose to contribute directly to the candidates of my choice.

[sandnsea]

8. Chicago Trib article

This is very informative and I think explains a bit more of Rahm's thinking. Agree or disagree, the guy worked his heart out for Democrats, no doubt about that. It's well worth registering to read the article, or using bugmenot or whatever.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

[JNelson6563]

14. Much of it is a numbers game

Think of how many races there were. There was not enough funding to cover them all. When you have a set amount of resources to go around you have to place your best bets on where to put it. That's where baseline numbers come in.

Additionally, state and local parties play in too. Yeah there's been an effort to create a party in every state but come on! Dean's been chair for what? Less than two years? Seems to me he's made tremendous progress so far.

Lastly, do not forget how much money is poured into incumbant races. Sometimes it's quite a lot just to hold the seat. Those tend to take priority over challengers and then it's who's got the better numbers along with a few other considerations. I'm sure party strength within the state and the Congressional District/County parties may be looked at.

The sooner we gain a mindset as challengers for US House seats as wholly independent efforts the better. Run your race like you expect no calvary to show up. Work every region of the District every year as hard as possible. Get local parties established and even try to establish year round offices within them.

The Dems of the states and districts should play very large roles in supporting these campaigns.

Julie

[blm]

17. Trying to overcome 10 yrs of infrastructure collapse in every red/swing state is

going to be a four year job, in practical terms. Getting it done in two years is something I never expected to happen.

I am sorry your area was still in such a distressed state.

It also proves how CRUCIAL it is for every state to have a healthy party infrastructure. Your state was given up on since GOP took over in 1995. There is still much work to be done. Write everything you saw in a letter to the DNC and Dean.

[Liberty Belle]

18. I know of a race where a Dem had skeletons in the closet;

Insiders were rooting for anyone else to win the primary. The party didn't provide backing beyond the obligatory endorsement of the primary winner because of fear those skeletons would be used by Republicans if the popular incumbent Republican Congressman was seriously at risk of losing his seat.

Tarring the top of the Dems' ticket could have hurt Dems in down ticket races who actually had a good chance of winning.

[greeneggs708]

22. Get Over It

How long are you people going to blather on.

It is over, we won. Shut up and lead.

[saracat]

23. I am not "getting over anything" I am going to work to make my party better.

One does not have to accept losses or status quo just because we make have some federal wins. That does not cancel out local races we might have won if a little effort had been put forth. Are you seriously saying that I should shut up and not ask that the party take corrective action in those instances that we need to? Now who is blathering!