chrisishardcore.com

Comments: Out with the old?

A lot of the same questions were going through my head when I read that BfD post. I will say though, the grassroots-style activism they're behind doesn't always pan out right away, but sometimes does over time. The Democrats now look to me like the GOP did in the early 60s when they put up Goldwater. What he accomplished in his runs didn't really pan out until years later. I think it will take another couple of election cycles to see whether Dean's contributions pan out to anything lasting or not. I tend to agree with you it hasn't been proven effective on a national/statewide level, but I'm not as willing to declare it dead for smaller, local races.

Posted by rusty at December 5, 2004 07:43 PM

This is a good post and deserves a fuller response. For now I’ll just say that you breezed by an important point when mentioning “resource allocation”. The “remnants of the Dean campaign”, as you call us, gave $30,500 to Democratic candidates in Georgia this election cycle. That’s about 30% more than the Fulton Democratic Party, 80% more than the Gwinnett Party, and on and on. Of the candidates we supported, 3 prevailed. It’s not ideal, but it’s a start. Every candidate I’ve spoken with post election, both winners and losers, have all voiced the same complaint: there was little or no support from the DPG in 2004. By the way, I don’t like the term “grassroots” and never have. In fact, I consider it a pejorative. I prefer to think of my group as a well placed lever.

Posted by MelGX at December 5, 2004 08:55 PM

I am one of the former Dean supporters who was elected to the Georgia State Democratic Committee yesterday in Fulton County. I don't claim to have all the answers, or "clues", but I am energetic, smart and willing to work. I was deeply disappointed in the Georgia Democratic Party this past cycle, from the county organizations up thru the state. I was an active Democrat in Michigan prior to moving to Georgia, and I assure you that the Michigan Party did not turn volunteers away, or shun willing members because of their previous allegiance to a candidate the party leadership did not support.

I believe we must take full advantage of the current convergence of "old style" and "new style" politics. I was thrilled with the results of the State Committee races yesterday - a fair amount of new blood to serve alongside those who have served the party for many years and know the landscape and heritage of the state party. I'm excited about the work ahead - and there is a lot of work ahead.

And, for the record - I was a Democrat, long before I earned the unfortunate label "Deaniac". I've grown tired of being categorized that way - though I still have great respect for Governor Dean and believe that his inspiration (along with many other factors) are helping to "reboot" the party.

So, can I just be a good ole' Democrat, now?

Posted by Catherine at December 5, 2004 09:21 PM

What candidates had little or no support? Mike Jacobs? Eric Ponder? Kevin Levitas? Pat Dooley? Jan Hackney? Doug Stoner? The DPG paid (more or less) for every one of those races, with the exception of Ponder and Levitas. And Ponder and Levitas could have had more money if they had been a little more flexible on how to spend it.

In Levitas' case, he refused to go negative at all on Paul Jennings. Jennings voted against insurance red-lining pratices when he worked for a company that was engaging and being sued for those same practices. Something tells me that 70 odd voters may have switched from Jennings to Levitas if they had known that.

Posted by chris at December 5, 2004 11:15 PM

As far as resource allocation goes, it was good for the Dean organization to raise a total of more than $30,000. And it's certainly true that many county parties don't raise nearly as much money. It's also unfortunate that people like Don McDaniel, Eric Reed and Dawn Randolph can't have their races funded by the party like Mike Jacobs did. But the purpose of a political party is to get it's candidates elected and with VERY few exceptions the party was involved in races that it had the best chance of winning. In fact, I personally spent at least 10 hours during the months of September and October helping Dawn Randolph come up with mailing universes that would fit her budget (and she paid for the mail with her own money that she helped raise).

The only thing Don and Eric asked me for was a voterfile and I gave it to them. I did talk to Eric for a couple of hours about different questions he had and helped him out when I could. Partly there is a mentality that the party doesn't have a clue what it is doing, so many candidates don't get any help because they don't ask for any. But there is only so much we can justify doing in a district where Roy Barnes got 36.8% (Dawn), 37.2% (Don) or 39.2% (Eric).

In Jan Hackney's district Barnes got 44.8% and we did everything we could for her, she was a great candidate and she only was able to get 46.5%. So maybe Dawn, Eric and Don could have broken 42% if the party had gotten involved in their races but then maybe Mike Jacobs would have lost if that was 3 fewer mail pieces being paid for in his district.

Posted by chris at December 5, 2004 11:33 PM

On the other hand, you are correct that there is not much of a volunteer apparatus set up to give people that want to help something to do. This is something that myself and others inside the party organization would like to do something about.

Certainly the Republicans have a good setup using volunteers to put a personal and local face on their message. One problem our side has is that there isn't as much of a willingness to be part of something and more of an inclination that every volunteer wants to do their own thing, although that is only a small problem.

One big problem is the tendency of many "grassroots activists" to actually be trying to shakedown whatever campaign or party organization because they want to get paid for "get out the vote" or voter registration or something like that. That's why I'm always asking for a definition of grassroots activism because for many it is either "pay me" or "put me in charge of something." Though clearly this does not describe everyone.

Posted by chris at December 5, 2004 11:43 PM

My last comment got eaten up. Here is a summary: I do not think we are in a Goldwater like period because the underlying circumstances are not the same. When Goldwater first emerged, you had many conservative americans (millions of them) that still considered themselves Democrats. The Republicans started in 1964 branding themselves as the "conservative party" and eventually enough of those conservative Southerners and Westerners who had been brought up as Democrats realigned themselves as Republicans.

I do not think there are millions of liberals that are voting for Republicans right now and that a realignment would occur if the Democrats would just offer themselves up as the authentic liberal party. I also do not believe that there are millions of non-voters that would show up to vote if offered a "true liberal choice." I'm sure there are a few people but I think you'd definitely lose more support from already voting voters than you'd gain from new ones by pandering sufficiently to get people that don't vote to start voting.

I said some more but basically I'd like to hear some specifics. What candidates (winning and losing) have a beef with the DPG? It spent nearly $4 million on legislative races and I know many people that worked at the party that spent 80+ hours a week for the last year trying to win these races. They're just as upset and distraught as you and they are ready and willing to take the blame -- what would you have done differently if you were in the same position?

Certainly there is a tendency, like Creative Loafing to be SHOCKED to see how conservative some of the campaigns were. Many of these people lost but they also outperformed Kerry by 10, 15 and even 25 points in some districts. Do you really think running a liberal campaign would have made the difference?

So my challenge is to stop just pointing fingers but offer specific criticisms. Name names. Say what you would have done differently and say what you think should be done differently -- and get ready to defend your comments and argue persuasively for change. And also get ready to be wrong when you're wrong. Many activists wish the party were more in line with themselves ideologically, but we are not losing because we aren't getting the votes of like minded people. Keep that in mind.

I know that you want to win and that you'll do whatever it takes. I've been there. I worked an average of 80 hours a week since February for what comes out to about $7/hour. I'm upset that we had a bad year, but I also know that there honestly wasn't that much that we could do. We can win campaigns if the terrain is winnable, but currently in too much of the state it is not. And it is not because Jan Hackney doesn't have enough grassroots activists working for her, but any Democrat is not seen as credible enough to those voters. Keep that in mind. In order to win districts like that, the party may have to move in directions that you're not entirely comfortable with. It's also unfortunate to acknowledge that all of the money in the world would not have gotten Don McDaniel or Dawn Randolph or Rick Garnitz elected. Campaigns are tinkering at the margins. A good campaign can definitely make the difference between a close race lost and a close race won, and occasionally turn what should have been a 10 point loss into a bare victory. But a great campaign can't win in hostile territory.

It's kind of like dating, if two people aren't compatable all of the courtship in the world can't change that. It's a tough game we're in, and unlike Michigan or Vermont or New York or California we are not in a state as progressive as many activists are on a personal level. If I thought someone like Chris Huttman could get elected governor I'd probably be running next year. It's much more likely that Chris Huttman can help someone else who has broader appeal to the state of Georgia get elected -- that's what I'll be doing.

It's important to remember that your definition of a Democrat is not the same as someone like Tim Golden. But Tim Golden's definition of a Democrat is not yours either. We're all Democrats though and our goal should be to elect as many candidates that can do the most good for everyone in this state and country even if 100% of our own personal goals might not be achieved. I'm open to suggestions but it's got to be a dialogue. We can all choose to be on the sidelines casting blame and offering empty slogans after every losing election but it's a lot harder to actually put your ideas forward and them lose. It can be crushing but it's also the only way to eventually win. So let's hear it.

Posted by chris at December 6, 2004 12:32 AM

I actually have an anecdote about the problem I'm trying to discuss. It is a certain unwillingness to level with reality by many activists. Case in point is the Kerry Win Georgia organization. They were passing out a press release on election night that basically said "Kerry won and Georgia was close due to our effort. If only the party had gotten involved it would have been enough to put Kerry over the top in Georgia."

Now, clearly this was not what happened but it was what many people involved in that effort wanted to happen so bad that they believed it was happening. Many of the same people involved in this type of press release are now pointing figures and calling for change. In a way, it is almost a gambler's complex whereby the gambler acknowledges all of his winnings and will even tell his friend that they won money but doesn't ever bring up their losses.

Case in point -- one organization was bragging (after the election) that they had increased the number of votes for Kerry in Gilmer county over Gore. This is true -- but very misleading. Kerry got about 300 votes more than Gore got in Gilmer county. But Bush got nearly 3,000 more votes this time than last time. Kerry's overall percentage in Gilmer county was about 5 points worse than Gore's. So yes, he got more votes, but he also lost worse.

This same organization very much wants to take over the state party. But what successes do they have to show for? If getting more raw votes than previous Democrats is what you obsess about and measure your success by then population growth alone will make you a "winner" every year.

The only problem is that you won't ever actually win anything.

Posted by chris at December 6, 2004 12:43 AM

One thing the Democratic party could start doing is run better candidates. I live in the 81st district, and Eric Ponder (who may be a nice guy) ran a horrible campaign. Here are some major problems:

1. He was not a home-owner. Jill Chambers was able to make him look like a carpetbagger from Alabama with no roots in the community. This is the second time she has done this (she did it to the last Democratic candidate too). The next person to run in this district has got to be a homeowner with roots in the community.

2. He had a police record. Eric had been arrested by the cops 10 years before, and Jill exploited this for all it was worth. Practically every day, we'd get mailings letting us know that Eric Ponder was an untrustworthy criminal. He never responded to these in a satisfactory way, and it hurt him.

3. There was some kind of fishy "mistake" where Eric's campaign sent out a postcard claiming to be from Jason Anavitarte (Doraville city councilman) endorsing Ponder. Jason (a Democrat) then sent out an e-mail to a local e-mail list claiming he'd never endorsed Ponder, and that we should look at this as a sign of his true character. The day after that e-mail was sent out, Jill Chambers sent out a postcard with a copy of Ponder's original forged postcard from Jason, and then an excerpt from Jason's e-mail--basically calling Eric Ponder a liar. Anavitarte put out a flyer the next day claiming that it was all a mistake, but the damage had already been done. Why was this forged postcard sent out in the first place?!?

4. It seems like the Democrats were working against each other a lot in this campaign: Jill was apparently tipped off by a Democratic party insider about Eric Ponder's police record. She was also helped a lot by Jason Anavitarte's poorly thought-out e-mail.

If the new Democratic leadership in this state can get their act together and run some candidates who will actually put up a fight, I think that'd be a 100% improvement over what I saw this election cycle.

Posted by Joseph G at December 6, 2004 04:49 PM

I disagree with you somewhat re: the Goldwater scenario, but it's not really important. I think Joseph brought up a much more important point about running better candidates.

For example, here in state Senate District 32, you had Ahktar Sadiq. I'm being kind to call him a token candidate. Now, D32 is likely one of the "incompatible" districts you were referring to earlier, but does it not hurt statewide candidates (Majette) and nationwide candidates (Kerry) to have a joker like that be the local face of the party? Without a Democratic 6th District candidate, he's the only steward of the party in that area.

This is a place where I agree with the (sorry Catherine and Mel) Deaniacs: fight every race, even if you know you're going to lose. That doesn't necessarily mean dropping tons of money or DPG resources in, but these sorts of races might be a good place to focus some of this (sorry again) grassroots energy. A good candidate in one of those races may not win, but could put enough of a scare into the state GOP that they'd divert resources into it -- which helps candidates in more competitive districts. And it might pull in votes for the statewide/national candidates.

Posted by rusty at December 6, 2004 07:26 PM

Ponder is a good example of a candidate in a targeted race that did not follow the advice of the DPG at almost every turn.

1. I do not think someone needs to be a homeowner (I rent but have lived within 2.5 miles of my apartment for 23 of the last 24 years) but we'll obviously be looking for someone that can beat Chambers next time. Ponder took advantage of a lack of interest early on (2003) and raised quite a bit of money mostly from fellow trial lawyers and basically crowded out the field. His campaign fought the party every step of the way and dicked around way to long with subpar consultants. Compare this to Mike Jacobs who ran a very impressive "free" volunteer campaign on his own and worked hand in hand with the party (who paid) for his polling and communications and who used quality consultants the whole way. Believe me, being on the inside of the party the Ponder campaign was one long headache after another (more on this later)...

2. Re: the police record. Ponder did have an arrest that was later dismissed, but what a devestating copy of that police record, even if it just was a traffic violation. This would have been a great thing for him to have told the party about, which he did not. Like I said, one long headache after another. Interestingly, our House research team was top-notch, and researched both our own candidates (to try and prevent surprises) and the Republicans we were challenging. Our house research people didn't find out about the arrest (although we did find some great stuff about many Republican candidates and even some pretty bad stuff about a few of our own :) -- more on this later.

3. The whole mistake with Jason was poorly handled by all involved. Obviously be the Ponder campaign but then also by Jason too. By this point though (in retrospect) it was probably a lost cause.

4. THIS is very interesting. It turns out that Eric's arrest record was from Capitol Police. We were wondering how the hell ANYONE found out about this -- even our researchers don't generally dig this deep. The fact that Chambers could have been tipped off actually sounds very convincing to me. Do you have any leads as to who it may have been that actually did do the tipping off?

In summary, one thing that was unfortunate was that we had a lot of great candidates like Jan Hackney and Dawn Randolph that I am sure if they were in district 81 or 82 would have won. In the Senate we had some great candidates in totally unwinnable districts and some duds in some good ones. We'll work on that. We got unlucky with how little time there was between the new maps being unveiled and qualifying. Republicans did get lucky -- many of their candidates (in the senate especially) were still in the same or better districts they had planned on running in all along. Thems the breaks.

Posted by chris at December 6, 2004 08:53 PM

Re: Sadiq I know what you mean. Oddly, in 2002 he ran for Senate District 6 against Rep. Terry Johnson in the primary (the Senate district that Doug Stoner got elected to this year) and the AJC endorsed him! WTF?

Obviously if you're trying to get a candidate in unwinnable races you're going to end up with some duds. Certainly a primary focus in '06 will be the Governors race and other statewide slots. Many of the candidates we'd like to recruit wouldn't necessarily be in it to win (let's face it, we will not be winning places like SD32 or HD9) but would be there to help build a small organization that can help other candidates running for congress or governor or whatever.

This is actually a great opening for party activists that live in places like Gilmer county or Houston county or Lawrenceville or Kennesaw. Be willing to take one for the team while at the same time presenting a positive face for the entire party. And if someone like Akhdar Sadiq is running in your district (even if it's unwinnable) it only takes $400 to qualify and beat him in the primary!

Posted by chris at December 6, 2004 09:04 PM

Chris noted: "Pretty soon I'm going to start working on a website to try and qualify a candidate in every legislative race. Specifically looking for candidates in non-competitive districts (where Kerry/Barnes got less than 40%) to try and tie up some Republican resources."

Chris, in the Other Georgia, what may appear to be non-competitive districts are non-competitive only with regard to the national scene. As you know, many of these districts elected Democrats with Republican opposition on the local level.

Our goal needs to be leave no stone unturned, and no district uncontested.

Posted by Sid Cottingham at December 6, 2004 09:36 PM

Hello Sid and the Other Georgia.

You're right, not all districts where Kerry got 40% or lower are created equal. We did have a few holes in districts where state/local democratic performance is significantly higher than federal. Austin Scott, Tommy Smith, Bob Lane and the like should definitely get opposition next time.

But North Georgia and exurban districts particularly I'm interested in getting "team players" in that can represent a good local face for the Democratic party but probably don't have much of a shot of winning. Kind of similar to Republican efforts to get black Republicans to run in majority black districts.

I want to get exurban and suburban and small town Democrats to run in districts where even Taylor and Cox weren't able to win last time. That's more what I mean.

Who is going to run against Chuck?

Posted by chris at December 6, 2004 11:08 PM

Chuck will have competition or grits aren't groceries. I was corrected the other day. I made the statement in an e-mail that Chuck's goose was cooked. The correction: It is charcoal broiled.

I couldn't resist doing a little Ode to Chuck on our new website that I invite you to visit my friend, CoffeeCountyDemocrats.com

We are in the process of getting the counties without active local parties up and going, and life always has its strange twists. Sometimes we have to hit bottom before we collectively awaken and say, this must cease and desist.

Keep up the good work. In my work I am a detail man. In my blog I throw a splash here and one there. The foregoing to say, I damn sure am impressed with your detailed and indepth evaluations and studies. The devil is in the details, and as you and I know, Karl appreciates, practices and has made a science out of such.

Posted by Sid Cottingham at December 7, 2004 12:26 AM

Post a comment