Vox: Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble.

[mhatrw]

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble

While Democrats worry about the Presidential election, Republicans are busy buying and rigging all the smaller elections.

[appalachiablue]

1. K & R. Yep, the way it is-

[elleng]

2. Yes, and has been this way for years.

[msongs]

3. what idiots did away with the 50 state strategy. that's one group to thank for this nt

[hifiguy]

6. That would be the POTUS,

who replaced Howard Dean, the author of that strategy, for reasons unknown and replaced him with the absolutely corrupt and completely useless Hillary shill and Repig supporter (and probably closet Repig) DWS. Who has run the party into the ground (by accident?).

There's your idiot. And that's the truth, as Lily Tomlin's Edith Ann used to say.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Wasn't DWS picked to run the DNC after Democrats ...

complained, mightily, about all the "DINOs" and "ConservoDems" the 50-State Strategy got elected?

[TBF]

16. Who knows why POTUS picked her? It's his decision. nt

[MsLeopard]

36. I've been thinking

Obama "picking" DWS was part of the deal to get Hillary to be SoS. It makes sense, in a politically cynical way, that HRC would want certain concessions from the guy who needed her at that time to star in his 'team of rivals' show. He also probably needed to shore up his bond fides with the corporate bankster class and what better way to do that than to cozy up to the Clintons, give her the DNC. It's just politics, but here we are.

[TBF]

38. Bingo. nt

[Agschmid]

53. Oh come on.

[MADem]

126. Yeah--that's the most convoluted load of conspiracy I've seen in a long time! nt

[joshcryer]

89. The rumor mill is that actually an endorsement...

...and support was in exchange for SoS. Clinton accepted her defeat but wanted to stay "in" rather than fall to obscurity or stay a senator. The trade off was "we'll bust our ass for you in the elections and you give us something in exchange." At the time it's unlikely that SoS was on the table or being mentioned openly, but implied, sure.

And no one can say Hillary Clinton didn't bust her ass for Obama in 2008 and that Bill Clinton didn't bust his ass for Obama in 2012.

I think that Rahm Emanuel was the reason for the end of the 50 state strategy. Dean didn't employ it in 2008 because it was a tough race and Rahm's pick as chief of staff pretty much lent his own ear to Obama, and Tim Kaine's pick resulted in the 50 state strategy being completely scrapped. After that point the focus of the DNC was electing Democrats at the presidential / national office and letting the states races go where they would go.

Rahm Emanuel never wanted the 50 state strategy to begin with and he got his way because Obama just is a reasonable person and listens to his advisers (for better or worse). Dean supporting Hillary may be his way of trying to get back "in" and prove once and for all his strategy can work. The feud between Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean is epic in that respect.

And let's be honest, people wanting the 50 state strategy here don't really want to elect blue dogs, but they'll throw out the strategy to score points.

[yardwork]

102. Obama's campaigns never coordinated with down-ticket races.

Obama for America focused on Obama, period.

Blaming this on the Clintons is laughable. Bill Clinton had long coat tails. His campaigns helped the states.

[joshcryer]

106. Where did I do that at all?

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here.

[yardwork]

107. Yes, I was mostly agreeing with you.

I strongly disagree with the idea going around DU that somehow Hillary Clinton is responsible for the choice of DWS, loss of 50-state strategy, etc. Thise decisions were all made by Obama.

[joshcryer]

109. I think Obama going with Rahm did it.

I blame Rahm because he had it out for Dean going back as far as 2006 and Obama gets a little blame for putting him in the inner circle like he did. You put someone like Rahm in the room with a reasonable person like Obama and he'll listen and do what he thinks is best.

Unfortunately what was best for the Presidency (arguably) was not for the party.

[yardwork]

138. Rahm has a lot to answer for. /nt

[MADem]

127. ...people wanting the 50 state strategy here don't really want to elect blue dogs, but they'll throw

out the strategy to score points.

Damn, you NAILED it.

[MoonchildCA]

146. The thing about blue dogs is they're better than republicans...

...especially tea party republicans. At least they'll caucus the majority of time with the Democrats, and we have a better chance of holding the Senate and thus, heading committees.

It's far from ideal, but better than the alternative.

[1StrongBlackMan]

168. Someone ran the vote numbers, during DU's "Blue Dogs must go" days ...

Even the bluest of the dogs voted WITH the caucus 85% of the time ... even though their presence meant the watering down of legislation (e.g., No Public Option).

[1StrongBlackMan]

167. This ...

And let's be honest, people wanting the 50 state strategy here don't really want to elect blue dogs, but they'll throw out the strategy to score points.

Was the exact point of my post ... The same people mouthing "50 state strategy" are the same people that complained about its results.

[emsimon33]

99. Makes sense

Obama did away with the 50 state strategy, had his surrogates call liberals idiots, sold us out with his appointees... .

[yardwork]

101. Why would Hillary want DWS?

[hifiguy]

149. She's a bootlicking toady of the first order?

HRH seems to like bootlicking toadies.

[yardwork]

150. Is this DU or FreeRepublic?

[hifiguy]

154. That DWS is a bootlicking toady of HRH

is a fact, not an opinion.

[hifiguy]

148. When the line is that straight and the connections

and motives so obvious, it's a 99% certainty that you have hit upon the truth and nothing but.

[Gmak]

161. Sounds plausible, but why can't Bernie's campaign organization recruit young Dems to run in local

and state elections and bypass the DNC, who are NOT going to give them any money anyway, and see if aligning themselves with Bernie makes a difference in their chances. Right now, an awful lot of local and state offices aren't even contested and it doesn't take tons of money to get elected. A surge in voting next Nov. should mean Dem victories all over the country but only where there is a contest!

[rhett o rick]

166. The President is a Conservative Democrat. They love DWS. She is doing exactly what they want andt

to hell with the Party grass-roots. It's time to throw the bums (The Third Way) out.

[TBF]

173. I couldn't agree more -

and full disclosure - I did volunteer on Obama's campaign. I think as a transition from Bush he probably did about as well as can be expected to get this country back on track (in terms of not attacking other countries or having them attack us). The military has been more active than I'd like (drones, ugh), but he did OK.

If I may use an analogy, he stopped the hemorrhaging. Now it's time to take the patient (the US) out of the ICU to a regular room and get them ready for discharge. You want them to be healthy - make better choices. Income inequality, climate change, civil rights - who do you pick to guide that patient after discharge? I'm not picking Hillary. I'd like someone like Bernie who has been steady through the years in his support of people over corporations.

[Volaris]

18. The 50-State Strategy as put on paper by Howard Dean was twofold:

First, get Democrats elected.
Then, get BETTER Democrats elected.

He was fired before any attempt could be made to implement Phase 2.

[hifiguy]

24. Eeyup. And he was well on his way.

[Volaris]

29. Yeah he was.

And he knew damned well that as a 'cold open', you were gonna have a DemCongress filled to the rafters with Blue Snakes. But even if you could get something from them (the ACA sans Public Option) you could use that to hammer the point home:

'Look what we did with Moderate Dems. THINK what we could accomplish if half of those again were Liberals. You know they're out there in your districts, let's find them and SUPPORT THEM.'

I think what Dean wanted to do when he ran for Prez was a lot of what Sanders is doing now, but I also think Dean thought the only way for it to be possible would be to trojan-horse the thing from inside an Establishment, Party-approved (and funded) campaign. I support Sanders in the primary because I don't think that's true anymore. Yes he still has to run on a democratic ticket, but if nothing else he is demonstrating that Good Ideas are worth more to a campaign than Good Checks.

[joshcryer]

85. And we can thank Rahm for that.

[Rex]

152. Rahm...ugh...one of the worst picks ever.

The ugly side of the party imo.

[hifiguy]

163. He's the ugliest side of

ANYTHING he is ever affiliated with. A corrupt scumbag.

[Rex]

151. Yes that is the sad fact. They couldn't wait to get rid of HD.

Tossed aside for more profitable ventures.

[joshcryer]

87. You could say the focus away from electing Dems...

...and toward national office was to bolster a future run for President, including Obama, and to maintain control over the White House. It worked, kind of. They should have kept the 50 state strategy for the midterms and went back on the national focus in the general, if they wanted to keep power. But they didn't even attempt it.

However, it is true that many DUers wanted to do away with "DINOs" and "ConservoDems" and "Blue Dogs" and rejoiced both at their losses in 2010 and their losses in 2014.

So I am highly fucking skeptical about many DUers' "support" for the 50 state strategy.

[rhett o rick]

165. Are you asking because you don't know? If you know, why not just make the statement?

DWS is a tool of the wealthy elites that run our Party.

[DFW]

79. Does the name Tim Kaine ring a bell anywhere? n/t

[Marr]

82. I fear it's because the establishments of both parties are very happy with their status quo.

It plugs them, personally, right into lots of money and influence, and that's all they want. The vast majority don't want to actually accomplish the things they flog. Like a Mike Huckabee-- the last thing he wants is to actually repeal Roe v. Wade, or at the very least, he doesn't actually care to try. He just wants an issue that whips up the rubes.

[joshcryer]

88. The erosion of the 50 state strategy started in 2006.

Emanuel did not like the strategy and bemoaned it all the way up until election day. We won in 2006 and it verified that the strategy could work (and yes, blue dogs got elected). Dean did not employ the strategy in 2008 (because there were not enough resources to do it given how contested that race was). By the time Obama came into office Tim Kaine, with Emanuel having Obama's ear, destroyed the 50 state strategy.

To get Obama reelected in 2012.

All focus after that has been placing most of the effort on the national sphere.

[Phlem]

66. That would be POTUS and the Thirdway of which

I completely went off the rails about them after the last midterms. It was brewing for a while but after the midterms I couldn't stand it anymore. I spewed and didn't care.

Third Way = HRC

Check Obama's acceptance speech video. Candidate Obama = Populist:

Acceptance speech; "I am a new Democrat". = Neo-Liberal = Third Way

Tried looking for the speech but it's been scrubbed from the internet pretty good. You will, however, find residual comments if you search for: Obama "I am a new Democrat"

It was known for quite a while.

[joshcryer]

86. Yeah, we should be electing blue dogs.

[Warpy]

4. They are if all those Third Way morons in DC keep calling the shots in state elections

The "business as usual" promise didn't get many Democratic butts off the couch last November and it will motivate even fewer this time around. The recovery has simply not extended down to where most of us live and business as usual is killing us even as it fattens the porfolios of the Third Way morons pushing it.

Sanders is a symptom of a total disconnect with party leadership. While people might back Clinton in polls, that is unlikely to translate into enthusiasm at the only poll that counts.

Every single day, I see another business in my part of town close its doors forever. Those power brokers had better wake the fuck up and soon or that's going to translate into another drubbing.

[hifiguy]

5. Yup.

Buy and gerrymander. Corrupt to the core.

[djean111]

7. And Debbie Wasserman-DINO is helping them with that. n/t

This is why i cannot get all excited or misty-eyed about the "D" on the jersey. The DNC actually seems complicit.

[Arugula Latte]

8. Exactly.

I don't understand all the death-of-the-Republican party threads here lately.

[zeemike]

21. Don't you remember all the talk about the GOP

Becoming a regional party after 08?...And then we lost the congress to them.

[Arugula Latte]

22. I remember that all too well.

[Nevernose]

26. It was even more pronounced after 2012

Granted, Democrats have historically sucked at both education and GOTV during midterms, but lacking a midterm plan PLUS the GOP-dominated statehouses is a recipe for destruction on multiple levels.

[Gman]

9. 10 year old news

And people have yet to realize it.

[Stuart G]

10. Yes...nt

[lovemydog]

12. Vote in State elections!

Run in State elections.

Get good people to run for office in State elections.

Get more liberals, more democratic socialists, more genuine progressives to run and support them like crazy.

Get those red mofos out of office.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. Sometimes, a state's party apparatchiks work against good candidates

The Arkansas State Democratic Party, for example, essentially forced a good Democrat out of the 2014 gubernatorial primary before the people had a chance to vote, replacing him with their hand-picked ho-hum conservative Democrat who then lost to his Republican challenger by a wide margin.

I have heard similar stories from DUers in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

[lovemydog]

14. Yes, they do.

I've seen it in my state too. The old fraternity mentality. Or the 'well, he paid his dues for many years by being a stooge for big business interests so we owe him this.' I hate that kind of crap. I want to see younger people, fresh faces of all colors and sexuality, democratic socialists, all types of new voices allowed into substantive roles in the democratic party. I don't have anything against older people. I just think we all benefit greatly from new blood.

[artislife]

136. Which sounds like a national candidate, to me. nt

[Thespian2]

164. I agree

and I am a really old white man...

[blackspade]

42. Wasserman-Schultz is an excellent example of this...

At both the state and national level.

[lovemydog]

76. I agree.

We need more democracy, not less.

[AlbertCat]

59. What you said....

"Run in State elections.

Get good people to run for office in State elections. "


This is Sanders' message....that "revolution" thing ....that "People must...." do something for their own government.


He's trying to end the general complacency.

[MisterP]

15. but if Dems win how can they blame us activists for our neighbors not voting for them?

[DrBulldog]

17. And this is yet another reason to vote for Bernie.

If Bernie is the nominee, much of the 75,000,000 millennials in this country will not only vote for him but also for local Democrats.

If Hillary is the nominee, few of the millennials will even vote. And you know what that means.

[Codeine]

32. So essentially you're saying we're being held hostage by petulant children

who won't vote unless their special buddy is nominated? I hope they aren't that silly.

[crim son]

35. Petulant children?

I think not. More like "inspired youth." It's their future we're negotiating, after all.

[thesquanderer]

51. I think DrBulldog has a point.

It is notoriously difficult to get youth to turn out in big numbers. Hillary will get the usual Dem turnout, and will probably win. But I think Bernie actually generates an enthusiasm among the young (you can see it in the rallies), and has the potential to flip some more seats downticket.

It's not like the kids are going to say "Bernie or nobody!" It's not a "statement." It's more like they just need some more motivation than the rest of us to get off the couch.

[Agschmid]

55. The irony is before Obama the next most recent president with a higher youth turnout was...

Bill Clinton.

And it appears he may have even beat Obama with the youth vote turnout wise in 1992.

I'll find the link at some point I read it the other night.

[Codeine]

61. I'll admit that bothers me.

I didn't need "more motivation" to vote when I was young -- my first presidential vote was for Micheal fuckin' Dukakis! There's an "inspirational" figure. That whole attitude makes me irritable, I suppose.

[HooptieWagon]

62. Youth need someone to vote for.

If their choices are republican TweedleDee and DLC TweedleDum, they're gonna say what's the fucking use, and stay home. Choosing not to vote for either two unacceptable candidates is a form of voting.

[Codeine]

67. There's always a choice.

How many elections did YOU skip because you weren't completely 100% thrilled with the candidate? I'm guessing none.

[HooptieWagon]

70. I voted straight Dem ticket for 20 years.

The past 20 years I've voted some third party or not voted in some local elections. I've always voted third party for Bill Nelsons Senate seat. He's an alchoholic asshole lying pos. I will not vote for him. I'm getting old, and tired of having to choose between a corporatist republican and corporatist Democrat.

[malokvale77]

108. ^^^ This ^^^

The Party pushes the lamest candidates and then blames the young for being too lazy or unmotivated to vote.

The younger generation is not responsible for the piss poor Party.

[davidpdx]

97. A perfect example is that I live in the 5th CD in Oregon which is Kurt Schrader

He is a bluedog (it even says it on the bottom of his official page). I voted for him in the past, but in 2014 got fed up and decided not to vote for him in either the primary or GE. Both his primary and GE opponents were unacceptable. In 2016 I once again won't be voting for him. I have begged people that I know in the district to help find someone to run against him (while I vote in the district, I don't live there because I am overseas). I'd be more than happy to do what I can to elect a progressive to the seat.

[Bluenorthwest]

116. When I was a youth, the someone I was voting for was me. The reason I was voting was us.

I went to the polls because there were legislative proposals like 'Should we fire all the gay teachers, Yes or No'. Briggs Amendment.

So in reality the reasons to vote are often not 'someone' but 'something' and it is not always 'something to vote for' it is often something to vote against. Would today's youth skip voting on Briggs because it was not about 'someone' but rather about laws? Would they not oppose it because they 'need to be for things'?

These are young adults, not children. I have never seen even one ballot which had just one question and two choices. Not voting on one's State Legislature is what this OP is about. Not voting on proposed laws is an act of negligence. Voters of any age who 'need' Presidential Superstar Roadshows to get them excited enough to do their duty are not people I respect much.

[hfojvt]

171. that wasn't true when I was a youth

and it is still kinda silly to equate George W. Bush and Al Gore

[TBF]

39. They are not silly and certainly not stupid -

and the party would be wise to learn that before they lose across the board to the other side.

[Codeine]

41. It still seems to me like we're being told that if we don't nominate their guy

(who, truth be told, will probably get my primary vote, assuming it makes any difference at all by the time my state votes) then they're going to refuse to participate. I've seen dozens of DUers flatly state that they won't vote for Clinton, which I find gobsmacking and utterly baffling. If it ain't Bernie, they ain't voting.

And that's fine, I guess. It's certainly their right -- nobody HAS to vote. But it's weak sauce, and it's not how I look at politics. I'm not here to be inspired by a politician. I've never held the perfect to be the enemy of good. And I've never felt like saying "Fuck it -- let it go to shit if I can't have Howard Dean/Jesse Jackson/Jerry Brown/whoever as the candidate for my party." I'll ALWAYS vote for the Democrat, because even a "corporatist" Dem is far, far superior to the alternative.

[TBF]

45. This is pretty early in the game to demand loyalty oaths -

and there have been a lot of them. Why is that? Why are we not talking about substantive issues?

[Codeine]

58. There's a vast difference between a "loyalty oath" and the reasonable expectation that an

active member of a political party will refrain from declaring she simply will not vote for one of the two likely candidates come the general.

As to why we aren't talking about substantive issues? Because it's the internet; this a a global argument and porn machine. It doesn't lend itself to the kind of meaningful conversation that a roomful of thoughtful adults can have over dinner and boardgames.

We'd ALL like to believe that we're here to discuss issues (I'm a smart guy in real life, honest!), but for the most part we stake out positions on Post 1 and defend them viciously against all comers. We choose our teams and line up our allegiances accordingly, then start dishing out beatings and hugs as appropriate.

[TM99]

129. But right now only 30% of registered voters

Last edited Tue Oct 20, 2015, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)

are active members of the Democratic Party.

Y'all can't win with those kinds of number, a shitty neoliberal New Dem, and dismissals of the Gen X and Millennials who are disenfranchised, hopeless, and angry as hell at the status quo which is destroying our economy, our environment, and educational & health systems.

Many of us are not going to join the 'team' when the team sucks. Change the team, and maybe the numbers will rise, loyalty will be regained, and national and local elections will start to swing back to the blue side of things.

[whatchamacallit]

134. +1 Well put n/t

[Oilwellian]

159. Exactly

I would love to see some polls of just the Independents because they really do decide elections. Most people who choose to be independent of both parties, do so because of the corruption.

[TM99]

160. Yes.

I was raised in a moderate Republican household as a boy. When Reagan and the religious right ascended, I went independent. I was always further left than even my parents who marched with King so I looked at the Democratic Party but the rise of neoliberalism had already begun. I have simply remained disconnected ever since. I am not alone.

I, too, would really love to see some polls but that won't happen until the GE when independents really matter. I suspect they matter much more so this primary season than in previous ones.

[blackspade]

43. That's some agest shit there.

[Codeine]

47. As the message I responded to specifically referenced a youthful age group I would disagree.

But of course I would, as I'm unlikely to see my own words in the same light as would another.

Is "petulant youth" better?

"Petulant millennials", so as to add more specificity?

I'm no angel, and I'm sure I choose words poorly at times.

[Bluenorthwest]

117. This OP is about Democrats losing State Houses. 2014 midterm Youth turnout was 21.5%

They are not habitual voters. Youth in both Parties tend to skip midterms and local elections. This is a fact of political life. If the youth did vote more consistently this would greatly benefit the Democratic Party.

21.5% Youth Turnout: Two-Day Estimate Comparable to Recent Midterm Years
http://www.civicyouth.org/21-3-youth-turnout-preliminary-estimate-comparable-to-recent-midterm-years/

[jeff47]

130. Except you have the causality backwards.

It's not up to "the youth" to vote for Democratic candidates. It's up to Democratic candidates to attract "the youth".

When a candidate fails to do that, it's the candidate's fault.

[Codeine]

140. I guess I see the responsibility of voting differently. nt

[jeff47]

142. Then we lose.

It's really that simple. We either have to start giving "the kids" candidates they like, or we lose.

[blackspade]

147. That has nothing to do with my point...

Which was that it is some ageist shit to call Millennials or other young voters "petulant children."
It's uncalled for and does nothing to foster youth voting for the Democratic Party.

[uponit7771]

100. +1

[artislife]

137. I think you have who the real petulant children are, confused...nt

[Codeine]

139. Every Clinton supporter I've seen

will enthusiastically vote for Sanders in the event he wins the nom. They aren't the ones throwing their toys out of the pram.

[artislife]

141. But most Hillary supporters

are willing to prop up Democratic lite and for years. Why is it that we have had a toothless Democratic Party since Reagan?

I see them as the petulant children, lets have crappy candidates for whom we don't have to work as hard to elect instead of standing for the principles that made this Party the Greatness it was.

I voted for President Obama twice, and looking at his two terms, I am proud of things that got accomplished. I am not proud of some of the things that got accomplished, too.

I know President Carter put in solar panels in the White House and Ronnie tore them out. Bill should have put them back in.

My main issue is planet health. I think we have 100 years left if we proceed to move as slowly to fix the sh*t we basically did in 70 years. H and her surrounding supporters who are over the age of 45 will probably not live through the dire earth changes. The under 45s will be up close and personal with it.

It is the short term actions of those petulant children of the Me generation that has caused the rest of the generations to pay. We have elected officials all up and down the tickets who haven't pushed for planet health in the way that this planet needed.


She is going to shake us fleas off, take a rest and if she is smart, not grow people again.

[Bluenorthwest]

115. The subject of this OP is about State Legislature elections, this includes mid-terms which the

younger voters don't tend to turn out for. The problem being discussed in this thread can not be solved in Presidential years alone, it requires consistent voting in all elections, the most vital being those between the Presidential races.

2014 Midterms the Youth vote turned out at 21.5%. That has to change and we can't rely on 'coattails' and popular candidates for President for that change.

http://www.civicyouth.org/21-3-youth-turnout-preliminary-estimate-comparable-to-recent-midterm-years/

[Zorra]

175. I agree. Bernie will bring out the millenials, the independent left, and

many apathetic Dems.

We will win more seats on both Federal and State levels if Bernie is the nominee, and we will keep those seats if he is elected, because people will remain engaged due to Bernie's continuing populist agenda.

Hillary will bring out the middle of the road Dem voter, and some stragglers from other groups, but not in the numbers it will take to pick up new congressional seats at any level.

[McKim]

19. Our Democratic Caucus in Oregon Costs $250 to Attend

Our Democratic Caucus here in Oregon is at an expensive resort far from population centers. It costs $250 just to attend. What does that tell you?

[Nevernose]

27. That's actually why I didn't help the Gore campaign

At the time I was poor, and $250 meant the difference between living in a crappy apartment and homelessness, food for my child or hunger.

Every time I called the Nevada Democratic party, they told me they didn't need volunteers, just money. So guess what they got? They got nothing. I wore out shoes walking precincts for Kerry and Obama; I wore out shoes walking neighborhoods for Clinton, and THAT was when I lived in Texas! I'm still bitter, and it's been fifteen years.

In my personal experience, state parties (often) eventually ignore -- to their own peril -- the reason that they're a political party in the first place.

[KoKo]

31. ...!

[joshcryer]

92. I know that feeling.

It doubly sucks that you have to "pay to play" as it were but that tends to happen all the time. Say you're poor and you're meeting up with local officials to get a position (if even unpaid but essentials paid for) and they go off to some local restaurant that has a $30 plate. You can go and maybe drink water. Say you have a stomach flu. But that sort of strategy can only last so long. "I never see you eating. Oh you poor thing, are you sure you should be involved politically? Shouldn't you be out working instead? Looking after your kids?"

A lot of people in the state party have been there forever and there are cliques on one level or another. It's sucky. You really need to be that kind of personality type that can muster through it all. Get in at a low level or something and get lucky that they put you on a payroll...

...long shot.

[BuelahWitch]

40. It's legal to charge someone to vote in Oregon? n/t

[Agschmid]

56. It's not a vote technically...

[joshcryer]

91. It is against the Party's own rules...

At no stage of Oregon’s delegate selection process shall any person
be required, directly or indirectly, to pay a cost or fee as a condition
for participating. Voluntary contributions to the Party may be made,
but under no circumstances shall a contribution be mandatory for
participation. (Rule 2.D & Reg. 4.4)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/DPO/convention2016/2016dsp_plan.pdf

I assume the poster wanted to become a delegate and yeah there are a whole host of personal costs involved in going to all the meetings, getting nominated, etc. That's not free. It never is free to get some political stature, unfortunately.

[Bluenorthwest]

120. It's not a caucus, it's a 3 Day workshop/conference. Oregon has a primary, not a caucus for electing

candidates. Oregon has automatic registration at the DMV, we offer registration opportunity when applying for public assistance, we vote by mail, on paper and we have each election one of the highest turn outs in the country in general, and always one of the very highest young voter turnouts.

[joshcryer]

90. I assume to become a nominated delegate.

Not to vote.

At no stage of Oregon’s delegate selection process shall any person
be required, directly or indirectly, to pay a cost or fee as a condition
for participating. Voluntary contributions to the Party may be made,
but under no circumstances shall a contribution be mandatory for
participation. (Rule 2.D & Reg. 4.4)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/DPO/convention2016/2016dsp_plan.pdf

[Bluenorthwest]

121. The event which is $250 bucks is a weedend conference/party and it is not about delegagtes, platform

and the doing of Party business. The Democratic Party of Oregon's Platform Convention took place at the end of May, that is where elected delegates convened to construct the platform. That costs $50 and you have to be elected, it took place at the Plumbers and Pipefitter's Local 290 Training Center in Tualatin.
Platform:
http://www.dpo.org/events/2014-05-30/dpo-platform-convention

The Oregon Summit
Get energized with a weekend of high-caliber political workshops, strategizing, engaging speakers and topics, networking opportunities, and fun.
http://oregonsummit.org/home

I have attended the Platform Convention in the past but the Summit thing I'd never bother with. Maybe if I intended to run for office, but other than that it's like other special interest conventions, full of information, liquor and whatnot....

[Omaha Steve]

20. Nebraska is not nonpartisan no matter what they say

It is GOP controlled.

[WinkyDink]

23. PA. has a Democratic Gov., and will go Blue (as always) for the next POTUS.

[malthaussen]

30. So? The legislature is wall-to-wall GOP

They're the ones who make the laws.

-- Mal

[WinkyDink]

111. Okay, governors are irrelevant entities.

[former9thward]

176. And legislatures are to, I guess.

[Kablooie]

25. If Republicans ever get their party to pull together they could sweep the whole government in a massive way.

The only thing really holding them back is the extreme right that won't let them politic to the rest of the country.
If they ever get over that hurdle and move a little bit more to the left the Dems could be the party out of business.

[craigmatic]

28. It's been this way though. Democrats have never since the 60's been a local oriented party.

We've always had our eyes on federal elections. None of this will matter if we win the presidency in 2016 and get new liberal court justices.

[Agnosticsherbet]

80. In order to legislate liberal policies we must control Congress.

The z president will hold ythe line against the worst crap. Control of the Senate forces the House to Negotiate. Governors control the people who count the votes. State legislatures control the voting districts.
We need to elect an entire government.

[Chicago1980]

33. That's because democrats are lazy ass voters.

When they don't get what they want, they stay at home and pout, cross their arms, and stomp their feet like infantile little brats.

Here in Illinois, (R) Governor Bruce Rauner ran on absolutely nothing. He was the anti Quinn (democratic incumbent) candidate and ended up winning, while the legislature remains solidly democratic.

[Codeine]

37. Ain't it the truth? nt

[ProfessorGAC]

103. Ran On Nothing

And he's got nothing. And, he's been a disaster for the state so far. I don't expect that to improve. Can't believe that know-nothing, got-nothing won.

[lostnfound]

128. Did you LIKE Quinn?

I'm a relatively new Chicago resident but he didn't impress me at all.
Not saying I like Rauner - obviously I don't - but Quinn didn't exactly inspire confidence.
How about Blagoyevich?
What's wrong with our party that we tolerate such mediocre and/or shady characters for major offices? Could it be that our party leadership likes what they bring to the table more than honest liberals? Ethical purity gets scorned, by the leadership of the party, rather than developed.

[Chicago1980]

145. Liked him better than the twat that's there now.

I wan't paying too much attention to politics when Blago was in office.

We've tolerated mediocre because that's all that's really been offered.

There haven't really been any grand ideas.

I do know one thing though... I've always voted.

[jeff47]

131. No, our candidates run lazy ass campaigns

relying on "Republican bad!!"

You have to give voters reasons to vote for the Democratic candidate. Not only reasons to vote against the Republican candidate.

Voting is not zero-sum.

[chervilant]

143. I have heard this assertion before --

usually on the M$M, which has a vested interest in slamming Democrats. I have a hard time believing this assertion, especially since we put Obama in office twice.

[ellie]

156. So true

I live in Colorado. In 2014 Mark Udall ran against Cory Gardner. Fucking Cory Gardner. The man is a disaster. Guess who won?

Democrats are lazy fucking assholes. I ALWAYS vote. It seems Democrats want their candidates to perform magic or something. Guess what? I want someone who knows the system and can get down and dirty and fight. The repukes are scum sucking fuckheads who are hell bent on ruining this country while Democrats stand on the sidelines and whine about not "feeling" the Democratic candidate. Assholes.

[redstateblues]

34. TN was Democratic 10 years ago until the speaker of the House

tried unsuccessfully to ram through a state income tax. Out of touch bunch of idiots now it's all Republican.

[Drunken Irishman]

44. Lots of people commenting without reading the article.

The gist of it is that Democrats need to nominate more conservative candidates to win.

I doubt people here would like to hear that.

[Kalidurga]

65. I have heard that theory before.

In reality it doesn't pan out. Blue Dogs lose elections. So, no I would say the opposite. We need to nominate and promote liberal candidates. More importantly though I think we need to educate people on what liberal thought is rather than keep letting conservatives define us.

[Drunken Irishman]

78. 2006 proves you wrong.

Lots of moderate/conservative Democrats won in House races that hadn't voted Democratic for years.

Democrats didn't lose their majority because they lost liberal-leaning seats to the Republicans in the House. They lost because they lost moderate/conservative seats to Republicans.

A liberal isn't going to win in Mississippi anymore than a conservative would win in New York City.

[HooptieWagon]

84. And they lost in 2010.

DLC took a beating.

[Drunken Irishman]

93. And a good amount of liberals took a beating too.

You know, like Russ Feingold and DU's favorite Alan Grayson.

Do you think Mike Huckabee could ever be the governor of Vermont? No. Do you think Bernie Sanders could ever be elected senator of Alabama? No. It's foolish to pretend every region is the same.

[malokvale77]

112. Right here.

Texas put up a whole slate of uninspiring Blue Dogs and we lost them all to bat shit crazy, criminally corrupt, RWNJs.

I'm being bombarded with pleas for donations to elect Texas Democrats, but I have yet to see the name of a single candidate. I did however get a nice little news letter with a list of all the losers from the last election who are endorsing Hillary Clinton.

Jeez!

[mhatrw]

94. The gist of it is the Democrats are shitty at fighting infinite Repuke money

and have given up organizing labor, young people and everything else at the local level.

The gist is that the rich guys are winning because they have bought off both sides.

[Hortensis]

133. Overcynicism is as self-deceptive as none. More Americans vote Democrat than

Republican -- consistently. Our problem is that most Democrats live in urban districts, while Republicans are spread out in more districts. We, Democrats that is, win our districts by huge margins of "wasted" votes. That's the Democrats' big problem.

Even the gerrymandering in 2010 would not have happened without this basic structural problem.

Big Money would not have taken over without it.

We need a sign on our cyber wall: IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION, STUPID."

[Drunken Irishman]

169. The gist is that they haven't lost ground in liberal areas...

They've lost ground in moderate/conservative areas.

Look at the map - states Obama won are competitively Democratic at the House/Senate level. States he lost aren't.

The problem isn't in California or New York or Illinois - it's in the South, midwest and interior west where Democrats have been pretty much shutout and it ain't because they're too conservative.

[mhatrw]

170. Yes, it is because they are too conservative.

Here is the whole problem with "the third way" as I see it. If you compromise your ideals before it is absolutely necessary to do so, just to supposedly appeal to the widest focus group of low information voters, you end up with the complete mess our great nation currently faces. The problem all our recent Democratic leaders face is that they "compromise" before they even put the matter on the table in the interest of a "bipartisanship" that works only one way.

The only way to win is to proclaim your winning position loudly over and over and over. You only compromise, just as you only go to war, as a last resort. If you don't stand up for what is right as strongly and as vociferously as possible, regardless of what the corporate media addled public supposedly "thinks" according to corporate polls, your defeatism becomes self-fulfilling, and you end up with the political mess our country now faces: a government of the 1%, for the 1%, and by the 1%.

If Democrats want to win state and local elections, our candidates are going to have to start working to energize the disaffected masses that the Republicans keep trying to disenfranchise both by law and by apathetic attrition. Democrats are going to have to go after the rich, powerful, and entrenched interests that are ripping Americans off and offer some tangible relief to the average citizen. Simply not being quite as bad as Republicans is no longer a viable strategy. Democrats are going to have to work hard to channel the anger of average citizens against the corrupt oligarchy that currently controls our government at almost every level. Until the rigged system is changed, Democrats have no choice but to reach out to many people who have completely given up on participating politically and give these people some compelling reasons to engage.

[Drunken Irishman]

174. lol that's a load.

The Democrats didn't lose their majority by losing liberal seats. They lost it in conservative areas of the country - places like Utah, Idaho (they had a Democratic rep up until 2010), the South and midwest - states that heavily favor Republicans. The Democrats only managed to reclaim the House in 2006 because they ran moderate candidates in right-leaning areas and beat out conservative candidates.

The fact is, the Democratic Party became a shell of its former self at the height of liberalism as conservative Democrats were pinched out and switched to the Republicans, taking a whole region where Democrats dominated out of contention. It's remained out of contention.

Every major Republican sweep has come through winning moderate/right-leaning seats. That isn't because those seats, and states, are electing too conservative of a Democrat. That's just absurd.

[treestar]

119. lol

oh my! good catch!

[treestar]

122. lol they were so eager to jump on what looks like bad news for Democrats

that they did not even read far enough:

Whatever you make of this agenda substantively, there's no way to actually enact it without first achieving a considerably higher level of down-ballot electoral success than Democrats currently enjoy.

But instead of a dialogue about how to obtain that success, Democrats are currently engaged in a slightly bizarre bidding war between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to see whether Congress in 2017 will reject a legislative agenda that is somewhat to the left of Obama's or drastically to its left. The differences between them are real, of course, and at least somewhat important.

But the much more significant question facing the party isn't about the White House — it's about all the other offices in the land. The problem is that control of the presidency seems to have blinded progressive activists to the possibility of even having an argument about what to do about all of them. That will change if and when the GOP seizes the White House, too, and Democrats bottom out. But the truly striking thing is how close to bottom the party is already and how blind it seems to be to that

[AZ Progressive]

46. Its time for Debbie Wasserman Shultz to go - she let this happen

Even if it's not 100% her fault, she's the one responsible and she has done nothing about this.

[Initech]

48. While we're worrying about the 2016 election...

The Republicans are busy buying local and state elections. This is how we get the Scott Walkers and Marco Rubios of the world. This is how the hope of passing any meaningful legislation, let alone any sort of constitutional equal rights amendment remains impossible.

[captainarizona]

49. the road to hell is paved with good intentions

Minority districts sounds like a good idea but the effect has been a disaster. In pennslyvania all the minorities were put in 5 congressional districts most of which were 90% minority. In the 2012 election democrats got 100,000 more votes for pennsylvania congressional seats then republicans but lost all eleven non minority districts. Across the united states democrats got a million more votes then republicans but gerrymandering gave the house to republicans. State house races are even worse.

[former9thward]

71. I have posted what you posted a 100 times.

No one seems to understand it.

[Agschmid]

50. Kick.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

52. This is the concern I've been trying to get through

to Bernie people. If he is nominated or elected he faces a strong possibility of dragging Democratic Socialism down that bathtub drain with everything else Norquist et al have been doing for the past 20 plus years.

We need allies and a national revolution. Not just a party - wide one.

[HooptieWagon]

73. Present an alternative to corporatist democrats then.

I agree with Bernies positions more than any other presidential candidate. Been a long time since I had a candidate to be excited about. Not going to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils...it's still evil.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

75. That's what you got from what I wrote?

My point aligns with what the article says. Republicans control the races, not Democrats. Big, blue states like CA & NY are so populous that voting is very difficult. Lonnnnnnnnnng lines are offputting. And small states get the same two Senators with far viewer votes in states that are gerrymandered. The deck is stacked

When a return to FDR style socialized democracy is acceptable by blue dogs and all working class Americans, we may have a chance to shake trickle down for good. We have too. This level of inequality is unsustainable. I just fear an effort backed by only 30% of the country would set back that return.

Oust Debbie Wasserman Schultz now!!! She hurts everyone.

[Bluenorthwest]

124. In 2014's two elections in CA, 61% and 69% of votes were cast by mail. Easy to do. Here in Oregon

it's all vote by mail and we register at the DMV and when people apply for public benefits and give people with physical disabilities a wide variety of options including 'we bring the adaptive device to your home'.
Not a single line to stand it, no polling place to find, and citizens are asked to register, including those who are often left out of such things entirely. Washington State also votes by mail.
NY, I don't know much about their elections but I do know this: 2014 Turnout New York Sate was 28.8 while here in Oregon it was 69% and we thought that was embarrassingly low.

[whereisjustice]

54. This is what Debbie Wasserman Shultz wants, focus on the key states, fuck everyone else

besides she's hard right, just like Hillary. A few Wall Street Republicans here and there don't bother them at all.

To be fair - Democratic Party is transparently pandering - lip service to disparity while loving those off-shore tax breaks that help CEOs become billionaires.

And for sure, the DNC hates liberals. Yes, hates. They hate the left.

With two parties who marginalize and hate the left, why be surprised when the right wing captures American elections?

Democrats should be embracing the left and backing them up.

Nope - it's fuck you liberals, 24/7. And just to show how much we hate you (and the middle class) here's the TPP. And Hillary.

[malokvale77]

113. Very well stated. nt

[thesquanderer]

60. I think the best paragraph in the piece...

is

Democrats are currently engaged in a slightly bizarre bidding war between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to see whether Congress in 2017 will reject a legislative agenda that is somewhat to the left of Obama's or drastically to its left.

The author is right, in a sense, that we're arguing about two sets of plans that are likely to largely go nowhere. But as idealistic as it may sound, at least Bernie has a plan, it's about motivating the voters. To march, to call their congresspeople, to vote them out two years later if they aren't listening. You can say that it's a real long shot that he can get any semblance of that to work. But what's the alternative? And what's Hillary's plan for working with a Congress that is likley to be no more cooperative with her than it's been with Obama?

(And as discussed elsewhere in the thread, the best hope is probably to try to flip more House seats... and as difficult as it will be, I think that is also more likely with Bernie thand Hillary, because of potentially being able to motivate more voters--especially the young--in perhaps some less likely places.)

[gregcrawford]

63. And the Third Way "limousine liberals" driving the Democratic Party off a cliff...

... are such arrogant, self-absorbed idiots that they refuse to see that DWS is so grotesquely incompetent that she does more to serve Republicans than the party she supposedly belongs to. Dean's 50-state solution was the most effective strategy the Dems ever had, but the jerks would carve their own eyes out with a rusty spoon before they'd ever admit they made a mistake.

[mhatrw]

95. They WANT what America has become.

They have theirs and that's all they are worried about. Pro-top 1% gridlock with a "stupid other" punching bag perfectly fits their agenda.

[gregcrawford]

105. You got it!

Love that song!

[malokvale77]

114. Thanks for the tune.

It describes my feelings to a tee.

[HooptieWagon]

64. Rahm Emmanuel has already said what the RW of the Party thinks of the left.

And Hillary supporters have made it clear they don't need our votes. So I have no problem with the Third Way going down in flames. When they continue to lose elections, they'll lose their corporate donors. We can take our party back then, and rebuild it better than ever.

[Truprogressive85]

68. Will the party only be about white house ?

I thought the Democrat party was fine ?

Map looks pretty red to me ?

So instead finding better candidates to run and run a liberal platform that win
the DNC chooses centrists who don't have a fighting bone in them.


Only person I'm putting the blame on is DWS
dont complain about low turnout when you put up shitty candidates

[brooklynite]

69. I agree...my wife and I are targeting support for State Houses and Legislatures...

...hard to find accurate data as to which races are in play.

[kelliekat44]

72. I have been screaming on this board and on all other boards i post on about state and local

elections and getting out the Dem vote. It has been falling on deaf ears.

[Fast Walker 52]

74. this is why I hate the single-minded focus on the presidential race

It really helps the GOP

[Codeine]

77. You're right. I wonder if the internet has helped make the national scene

so ubiquitous that we forget about our local political scene?

[Fast Walker 52]

104. Good point, I think that's part of it for sure.

Personally I know local politics is well, boring. It's just hard to get excited about the small, local issues and it's also hard just to get information about candidates and elections. It's fairly ridiculous how hard it is, actually. But obviously it is important!

[treestar]

118. amen!

you'd think the POTUS "runs the country" for real. Then they are surprised and disappointed that Congress can get in the way. Meanwhile they pay zero attention to the less glamorous state elections.

[Fast Walker 52]

172. it seems like the Dems attract a lot more superficial voters

whereas the GOP base votes *religiously* in every election.

Not sure how to change that, except to nag Dems to vote in every election!

[jfern]

81. That's the worst since the 1800s

Thanks Tim Kaine and DWS for running this party into the ground.

[pablo_marmol]

83. This article is nonsense, and Ed Shultz is full of sh*t.

[BainsBane]

96. This is a fundamental problem with Democrats

and the relentless fixation on the presidency. We relinquish far too much political power in midterm elections because our voters don't turn out.

[Hortensis]

135. Yes, but fixable. Let's auto-register everyone at 18 as HRC plans.

That'll make a real difference all by itself. Expand early voting. Fix voting machines! Make vote and voter tampering a fast track to the penitentiary.

Further, though, I'd like to see our representative democracy make voting a duty, like 13 nations currently do. No fines or community service for not voting, though, to protect conscientious objectors. Instead, we could allow people to opt out like we do jury service, by having them submit a signed and notarized statement that they would not be participating that election.

You know, act like we think democracy matters.

[Shankapotomus]

98. I just saw this article via duckduckgo's

mobile app at 2 in the morning. Now I can't get out of my head the importance of the state level.

I think it can only be a good thing that more democratic voters are made aware of this. The more of us that know where the problem areas are, the more of us that can focus our efforts, energies and resources on fighting Republicans where they need to be fought.

[mmonk]

110. This is the problem. The party let too many things go in pursuing one office.

[Xyzse]

123. Agreed...

[WillyT]

125. K & R !!!

[UCmeNdc]

132. Agree!

The Democratic Party has no plan to deal with the statewide elections.

[marmar]

144. Both major parties are in deep trouble....

..... they way underestimate the anti-establishment sentiment on both sides.

[Rex]

153. I agree, it never occurs to them that we want change and won't vote them out.

They are the ones that are scared of progress. Long past time they figured it out.

[Bohunk68]

155. I have been looking at all of these remarks and I substantially

agree that the local races are often ignored. Looking at 2014 election for Congress locally, I saw NO action whatsoever by our County Dem Party to support the Dem running. Nada, zilch, nothing. The candidate was Sean Eldredge, husband of one of the founders of fb. The current chair of the county is the longest reigning Dem chair in all of NYS. He does nothing for the Cadillac he gets to drive as party chair, furnished by the county. Useless. Useless. Useless. Nor, is there anything done by not just our county people, but not even the town people. I am running for Town Council and only because no one else would. Will I win election? Very doubtful, as the registration is heavily in favor of the Rethuglicans.

[raindaddy]

157. The Democratic party hasn't been interested in spreading traditional Democratic Party principles ...

in many years. We're living in times when FDR populist ideology should be spreading like wildfire.

Unfortunately all that remains from the pre-Reagan Democratic party is the rhetoric. All of our Representative get their bread buttered by the same Wall Street banks and global corporations. The incentive is gone, they'll still retire millionaires. The current system works pretty damn well for them. The fire in the belly is gone, nothing but a spark remains. Just enough to ignite enough old school democratic party shtick to get reelected...

[SleeplessinSoCal]

158. we live in a very conservative area of orange county

We get involved with local politics. The most active and persistent activists are Republicans angry with tea party types who have taken over OCGOP. The tea party agenda is rejected at the ballot box, but their people get all the support. I think mainly by dividing Republicans on the issue of public employees.

It is so hypocritical you'd think it would be easy to expose and exploit. But nooooo....

[BlueStater]

162. Yet the GOP is doing great?

They have the highest majority in Congress since 1929 yet they haven't been able to accomplish jack shit, they're at each other's throats, and their approval ratings are in the toilet with their own voters. The fact that clowns like Trump and Carson are crushing all their establishment candidates in the polls should tell you something.