Blog for Democracy

No voter file for you!

Andre is reporting that the Democratic Party of Georgia will not offer the voter file to Democratic challengers of Democratic incumbents this year.

In other words, any person challenging Democratic state Rep. Sharon Beasley-Teague (you know, the lady under investigation for running up the tab on per diem) in the Democratic primary would be at an inherent disadvantage because they would not be able to buy the voter file for the 65th district.

In other words, any person challenging Democratic state Rep. Ron Sailor (you know, the guy who was arrested on a felony fraud charge for writing a $1,100 bad check) in the Democratic primary would be at an inherent disadvantage because they would not be able to buy the voter file for the 93rd district.

Under this new policy, Congressman Hank Johnson would be flailing around like a fish out of water when he challenged Cynthia McKinney two years ago. Democratic challenger Robert Nowak now has no chance against Jim Marshall in the 8th district. And Margaret Kaiser (she’s the one who beat long-time Democratic state Rep. Doug Dean); well, she’d still be business manager for her husband’s two restaurants (FYI, the Kaiser family’s pizza is very delicious).

I would add to that list Mike Jacobs, had he not switched parties, and Jeanette Jamieson among many others.

I’m not really sure what to make of this, but I’m having a very negative reaction. It makes little sense and seems very shortsighted, given what I’ve heard on DNC conference calls recently about the power and promise of VoteBuilder.

First, the DPG traditionally charges candidates for access and the revenue they collect is pure profit. Therefore, denying access to hundreds of Democratic candidates, combined with the loss of potential qualifying fees, leaves a significant amount of money on the table in ’08.

Second, the VoteBuilder system is enhanced when candidates and volunteers input data from the field. Presumably that’s another loss to the party, since it’s doubtful many incumbents would even purchase the file, much less run a grassroots campaign. In fact, the whole idea behind the DNC Neighborhood Leader program is to harness the power of the collective to help enhance VoteBuilder for the November election.

Third, what message does this send to new Democratic candidates? This year brought an unprecedented outpouring of voters and will likely bring a bumper crop of candidates. Most (like the guy running against John Lewis), don’t stand a snowball’s chance, but does that mean they should be actively discouraged from running by their own state party?

And what about our friends and others who will be running against terrible Democratic incumbents this year? Is it really better for everyone involved to keep these incumbents in place? Or is it only better for a select few who are serving their own egos and covering their own asses instead of working for the greater good?

Maybe it’s just me, but this all seems very wrong.

What about you? Do you think this is an appropriate policy for your Democratic Party? And if not, why not.

Posted

in

by

PaulaG

Tags:

Comments

63 responses to “No voter file for you!”

  1. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    Whether or not “trust” is the right word, trying to strengthen the relationship between elected officials and the Party seems like a virtuous goal. It is distressing that, of all the things the Party can presumably offer an elected official, it is perceived that making it just a little bit harder for new people to step up and run can be a good relationship builder. Challengers who DO win sure aren’t going to feel very connected to the Party.

    I would like to think of some things that the Party should be able to offer candidates- incumbents and challengers alike- that don’t (or shouldn’t) alienate other Party members. Shouldn’t the Party be able to support candidates through messaging, or GOTV? Shouldn’t the Party focus on selling the “Dem” brand? Wouldn’t that make it easier for us all?

    OK some of you ex-candidates and would-be candidates and maybe you fantasy-candidates too; what would you like to see the Party do for you, even in a primary? And surely we’re not reinventing the wheel here; what good things do other Parties do for their candidates that we aren’t doing?

  2. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    Whether or not “trust” is the right word, trying to strengthen the relationship between elected officials and the Party seems like a virtuous goal. It is distressing that, of all the things the Party can presumably offer an elected official, it is perceived that making it just a little bit harder for new people to step up and run can be a good relationship builder. Challengers who DO win sure aren’t going to feel very connected to the Party.

    I would like to think of some things that the Party should be able to offer candidates- incumbents and challengers alike- that don’t (or shouldn’t) alienate other Party members. Shouldn’t the Party be able to support candidates through messaging, or GOTV? Shouldn’t the Party focus on selling the “Dem” brand? Wouldn’t that make it easier for us all?

    OK some of you ex-candidates and would-be candidates and maybe you fantasy-candidates too; what would you like to see the Party do for you, even in a primary? And surely we’re not reinventing the wheel here; what good things do other Parties do for their candidates that we aren’t doing?

  3. Jules Avatar
    Jules

    In a comment a couple weeks ago I defended the DPG and tried to seperate the Caucus’s reponsiblities from those of the “party”.

    Sadly that was serious error on my part since now it seems this proves that the two are twisted together in a bad marriage.

    Here’s what’s even more puzzling: what trust needs to be built? I don’t get the need to do this? One entity should be about supporting the other.

    Healthy party=better support of candidates, better candidates=new blood and energy to the party.

    Oh I’m not so pollyanna to see how someones fiefdoms are challenged, but seriously it’s turning into a restricted country club of sorts, if you have money and friends you’re addmitted, if not you can pound sand at the end of the driveway. I call BS.

  4. Jules Avatar
    Jules

    In a comment a couple weeks ago I defended the DPG and tried to seperate the Caucus’s reponsiblities from those of the “party”.

    Sadly that was serious error on my part since now it seems this proves that the two are twisted together in a bad marriage.

    Here’s what’s even more puzzling: what trust needs to be built? I don’t get the need to do this? One entity should be about supporting the other.

    Healthy party=better support of candidates, better candidates=new blood and energy to the party.

    Oh I’m not so pollyanna to see how someones fiefdoms are challenged, but seriously it’s turning into a restricted country club of sorts, if you have money and friends you’re addmitted, if not you can pound sand at the end of the driveway. I call BS.

  5. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    plange, you hit it on the head, if DPG adopts this policy they would be in violation of their own charter by backing one Democrat over another.

    And yes Jules, this is just stupid stupid stupid, and DPG should be mostly blamed for not having candidates running in more districts come qualifying.

    How can DPG justify this as “trust-building”?

    I’m over it, only proves to me they’re not about building long-term. This is a short-sighted, stupid move that won’t bolster support for them from anyone.

    The Dems who pressured DPG to adopt this stance are from solidly-Democratic districts, i’d bet money on it, and they can kiss my ass if they think this is good policy for the party.

    In 2008, in this unprecendented year, when we have a chance to bring thousands, no, tens of thousands of new Georgians into the Party, the DPG is going to block some of these people from having the resources to even run!?

    Ass-clowns of the highest order.

    So does this mean that the promised “candidate trainings” also won’t be made available to challengers!?

    And what about multiple Democratic challengers to a Republican or an open seat? Is the party going to play favorites there too?

    This is so backwards and stupid and i can’t even begin to explain my outrage.

  6. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    plange, you hit it on the head, if DPG adopts this policy they would be in violation of their own charter by backing one Democrat over another.

    And yes Jules, this is just stupid stupid stupid, and DPG should be mostly blamed for not having candidates running in more districts come qualifying.

    How can DPG justify this as “trust-building”?

    I’m over it, only proves to me they’re not about building long-term. This is a short-sighted, stupid move that won’t bolster support for them from anyone.

    The Dems who pressured DPG to adopt this stance are from solidly-Democratic districts, i’d bet money on it, and they can kiss my ass if they think this is good policy for the party.

    In 2008, in this unprecendented year, when we have a chance to bring thousands, no, tens of thousands of new Georgians into the Party, the DPG is going to block some of these people from having the resources to even run!?

    Ass-clowns of the highest order.

    So does this mean that the promised “candidate trainings” also won’t be made available to challengers!?

    And what about multiple Democratic challengers to a Republican or an open seat? Is the party going to play favorites there too?

    This is so backwards and stupid and i can’t even begin to explain my outrage.

  7. Jules Avatar
    Jules

    Inner: we will know at the end of March how much $$ they have when they disclose it.

    Worrisome though is that I only am aware of one fundraiser and a since it’s the still the session I can’t imagine much going on with the fundraising activity.

    If someone knows, please chime in.

    Hey has anyone asked for the money back from Mike Jacobs? Might be somewhere to start.

  8. Jules Avatar
    Jules

    Inner: we will know at the end of March how much $$ they have when they disclose it.

    Worrisome though is that I only am aware of one fundraiser and a since it’s the still the session I can’t imagine much going on with the fundraising activity.

    If someone knows, please chime in.

    Hey has anyone asked for the money back from Mike Jacobs? Might be somewhere to start.

  9. plange Avatar
    plange

    I thought we (official party structures) weren’t supposed to take sides in a primary? So isn’t this taking the incumbents side on the part of the DPG?

  10. plange Avatar
    plange

    I thought we (official party structures) weren’t supposed to take sides in a primary? So isn’t this taking the incumbents side on the part of the DPG?

  11. CatherineAtlanta Avatar
    CatherineAtlanta

    I have heard that this policy may be a way for the DPG to earn trust from the elected officials.

    I imagine the elected officials have been frustrated with the party for quite some time – but this doesn’t seem the path to trust and cooperation.

    I think Jules has it spot-on.

  12. PaulaG Avatar
    PaulaG

    Has anyone heard any kind of explanation from the DPG for this? It’s hard to imagine what kind of legitimate rationale they have, but I’d really like to hear it if there is one.

  13. PaulaG Avatar
    PaulaG

    Has anyone heard any kind of explanation from the DPG for this? It’s hard to imagine what kind of legitimate rationale they have, but I’d really like to hear it if there is one.

  14. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    btw: anyone know how much $‚Ǩ$‚Ǩ$ the caucuses have? I’m just curious.

  15. Jules Avatar
    Jules

    While I agree with most everything said here, for me the most important aspect is that it sends a horrible message to those folks thinking about running.

    Even if you don’t run against an incumbent, some where along the line you could be perceived to be a threat, then what? The party takes other measures to shut you out.

    So does the senario look like this to anyone else:

    candidate “A” runs in a non-targeted race, runs a good race wins, builds a small structure for the local party. The candidate does all of this without the caucus, without encouragement of the “power structure”.

    Once at the legislature, isn’t really beholden to the “party”, they can take 2 different roads IMO, one to be a team player or one to thumb their nose at the establishment. Frankly I wouldn’t blame them for doing the later.

    How exactly does this “grow” anything? How does it build any future leaders if the control is so localized, cliquey and unwelcoming?

    Just don’t come crying to me come qualifying, how we haven’t even run enough candidates to statisticly achieve anything. it appears to me as a designed outcome.

  16. Jules Avatar
    Jules

    While I agree with most everything said here, for me the most important aspect is that it sends a horrible message to those folks thinking about running.

    Even if you don’t run against an incumbent, some where along the line you could be perceived to be a threat, then what? The party takes other measures to shut you out.

    So does the senario look like this to anyone else:

    candidate “A” runs in a non-targeted race, runs a good race wins, builds a small structure for the local party. The candidate does all of this without the caucus, without encouragement of the “power structure”.

    Once at the legislature, isn’t really beholden to the “party”, they can take 2 different roads IMO, one to be a team player or one to thumb their nose at the establishment. Frankly I wouldn’t blame them for doing the later.

    How exactly does this “grow” anything? How does it build any future leaders if the control is so localized, cliquey and unwelcoming?

    Just don’t come crying to me come qualifying, how we haven’t even run enough candidates to statisticly achieve anything. it appears to me as a designed outcome.

  17. sndeak Avatar
    sndeak

    Yes. It just depends on how dedicated they are to getting the info back to the party. And it doesn’t even matter if this is a primary or general.

    James Socas ran against Frank Wolf up in VA-10 a few years back. He put a ton of money into canvassing and put every voter ID data into the system for the party. The value of this data was incredible. He gathered data on over 100k voters. It was a great baseline. And every time I see him I thank him for it.

  18. sndeak Avatar
    sndeak

    Yes. It just depends on how dedicated they are to getting the info back to the party. And it doesn’t even matter if this is a primary or general.

    James Socas ran against Frank Wolf up in VA-10 a few years back. He put a ton of money into canvassing and put every voter ID data into the system for the party. The value of this data was incredible. He gathered data on over 100k voters. It was a great baseline. And every time I see him I thank him for it.

  19. chris Avatar
    chris

    sndeak, you make a valid point. But wouldn’t you also agree that incumbents are even less likely than challengers to enter this kind of stuff, attend trainings on how to do it, etc?

  20. chris Avatar
    chris

    sndeak, you make a valid point. But wouldn’t you also agree that incumbents are even less likely than challengers to enter this kind of stuff, attend trainings on how to do it, etc?

  21. Jules Avatar
    Jules

    Shelby, I’m thinking you have about a 30 day window before you are broiling in that suit. After May 1st, I can’t be sure it’s even safe for you to don the thing.

  22. shelby Avatar
    shelby

    OH! FINALLY! I’ve been wondering when I’d bust out the chickensuit again.

    B’gawk, mothafuckas!

  23. shelby Avatar
    shelby

    OH! FINALLY! I’ve been wondering when I’d bust out the chickensuit again.

    B’gawk, mothafuckas!

  24. sndeak Avatar
    sndeak

    Chris – this is assuming that the campaign does actually go ahead and tag the voters that they have identified.

    I know when I was calling from Wisconsin for Obama I felt sick when they said they didn’t have time to get everything in votebuilder and would persue that after the primary, if things went well. What is going to happen to all the handwritten notes on the call sheets?

    If they could turn those call sheets over to the DNC or state parties when the election is over, they could enter the info and it would be a huge benefit.

  25. chris Avatar
    chris

    Most candidates are not capable of appending election history, phone numbers, running the file through NCOA etc. By all means, the party shouldn’t make private campaign data available from one campaign to others.

    However the important thing is capturing the data from all campaigns in a primary because you never know how you could use it. Not to pick on DuBose, but lets say that hypothetically DuBose gets a challenger and someone new to the area volunteers for that challenger because they don’t know anything about local politics. When their candidate loses the primary, they call up DuBose and say congratulations, I’m glad to be involved, didn’t know who you were before then. If the challenger used votebuilder, this person is tagged as a volunteer that Jim Marshall can then tap in the fall, etc.

    Shortsighted, shortsighted, shortsighted.

  26. chris Avatar
    chris

    Most candidates are not capable of appending election history, phone numbers, running the file through NCOA etc. By all means, the party shouldn’t make private campaign data available from one campaign to others.

    However the important thing is capturing the data from all campaigns in a primary because you never know how you could use it. Not to pick on DuBose, but lets say that hypothetically DuBose gets a challenger and someone new to the area volunteers for that challenger because they don’t know anything about local politics. When their candidate loses the primary, they call up DuBose and say congratulations, I’m glad to be involved, didn’t know who you were before then. If the challenger used votebuilder, this person is tagged as a volunteer that Jim Marshall can then tap in the fall, etc.

    Shortsighted, shortsighted, shortsighted.

  27. sndeak Avatar
    sndeak

    Votebuilder vs voter file.

    Votebuilder not only has the voter file, it has a number of solid campaign tools. The voter file can be purchased from the SOS.

    The idea of holding data back from challengers is not new. Many states already do this.

    As a state cmte member, I am concerned that this was not even discuss, let alone voted on before a decision was made.

  28. sndeak Avatar
    sndeak

    Votebuilder vs voter file.

    Votebuilder not only has the voter file, it has a number of solid campaign tools. The voter file can be purchased from the SOS.

    The idea of holding data back from challengers is not new. Many states already do this.

    As a state cmte member, I am concerned that this was not even discuss, let alone voted on before a decision was made.

  29. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    I see that Chris. I didn’t mean for the whole post to be directed at you. Just clumsiness on my part.

    Cheers!

  30. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    I see that Chris. I didn’t mean for the whole post to be directed at you. Just clumsiness on my part.

    Cheers!

  31. PaulaG Avatar
    PaulaG

    One more thing, I’d very much like to hear from Jane or Matt about what the heck they were thinking on this.

  32. PaulaG Avatar
    PaulaG

    One more thing, I’d very much like to hear from Jane or Matt about what the heck they were thinking on this.

  33. chris Avatar
    chris

    Just to be clear Jerry, I’m opposed to this decision as well. But I think we’re on the same page.

  34. chris Avatar
    chris

    Just to be clear Jerry, I’m opposed to this decision as well. But I think we’re on the same page.

  35. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    Well Chris, I can see where having the voter file might increase some challengers’ chances someday in some race, but that’s still no reason to not sell it to them. If the incumbent gets it, so should the challenger. Keep the competition about ideas as much as possible, not tilt the field through arbitrary party rules. Heck, incumbents have a giant advantage as it is. Surely they can defend themselves without this extra leverage. Isn’t that what elections are for? They have to re-apply for the job.

    Not only that, the Party is supposed to be about supporting Democrats, not SOME Democrats. In fact, I might even suggest that this new rule violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the DPG charter:

    “”STATEMENT OF GOALS: We, the members of the Democratic Party of Georgia, are committed to the establishment of a Party open to all Georgia Democrats. We believe that a Party which is to call forth the best in our State will have to embody the best of our State’s traditions and heritage. We are committed to the wisdom and efficacy of the will of the majority;

    to a belief in the merits of a two Party system of government which allows for diversity of groups and individuals and to the belief that our party will be strengthened by these differences.

    We believe in the value of the individual and that government, while protecting life, liberty, and property of individuals, must also be responsive to their collective needs and wills. To this end, we encourage full, timely, and equal opportunity for all segments of the population to participate in party affairs.

    While pledging ourselves to an honest and open conduct of public affairs befitting the traditions of a people dedicated to a free and just society, we seek to protect and enhance political freedom of all people and to encourage the meaningful participation of all citizens within the framework of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States and the State of Georgia.

    We believe that this Charter and our Bylaws confirm a Party strengthened by its differences and armed by its devotion to the principles of a moral and ethical society.

  36. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    Well Chris, I can see where having the voter file might increase some challengers’ chances someday in some race, but that’s still no reason to not sell it to them. If the incumbent gets it, so should the challenger. Keep the competition about ideas as much as possible, not tilt the field through arbitrary party rules. Heck, incumbents have a giant advantage as it is. Surely they can defend themselves without this extra leverage. Isn’t that what elections are for? They have to re-apply for the job.

    Not only that, the Party is supposed to be about supporting Democrats, not SOME Democrats. In fact, I might even suggest that this new rule violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the DPG charter:

    “”STATEMENT OF GOALS: We, the members of the Democratic Party of Georgia, are committed to the establishment of a Party open to all Georgia Democrats. We believe that a Party which is to call forth the best in our State will have to embody the best of our State’s traditions and heritage. We are committed to the wisdom and efficacy of the will of the majority;

    to a belief in the merits of a two Party system of government which allows for diversity of groups and individuals and to the belief that our party will be strengthened by these differences.

    We believe in the value of the individual and that government, while protecting life, liberty, and property of individuals, must also be responsive to their collective needs and wills. To this end, we encourage full, timely, and equal opportunity for all segments of the population to participate in party affairs.

    While pledging ourselves to an honest and open conduct of public affairs befitting the traditions of a people dedicated to a free and just society, we seek to protect and enhance political freedom of all people and to encourage the meaningful participation of all citizens within the framework of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States and the State of Georgia.

    We believe that this Charter and our Bylaws confirm a Party strengthened by its differences and armed by its devotion to the principles of a moral and ethical society.

  37. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    at first i could kind of support their decision, now not so much.

    In other news, Milledgville rejected me. Also, I don’t know what I hate more, the Lakers of the Lakers winning.

  38. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    at first i could kind of support their decision, now not so much.

    In other news, Milledgville rejected me. Also, I don’t know what I hate more, the Lakers of the Lakers winning.

  39. PaulaG Avatar
    PaulaG

    This is really distressing, for all the reasons mentioned above. It seem so short-sighted, without any real advantage save consolidating the entrenched power structure. Perhaps the DPG should change its name to the Democratic Incumbents’ Party of Georgia?

  40. PaulaG Avatar
    PaulaG

    This is really distressing, for all the reasons mentioned above. It seem so short-sighted, without any real advantage save consolidating the entrenched power structure. Perhaps the DPG should change its name to the Democratic Incumbents’ Party of Georgia?

  41. Skyler Akins Avatar
    Skyler Akins

    I couldn’t agree more.

    I think its even crazier that they charge democratic candidates and affiliated organizations for it in the first place.

  42. Skyler Akins Avatar
    Skyler Akins

    I couldn’t agree more.

    I think its even crazier that they charge democratic candidates and affiliated organizations for it in the first place.

  43. Jen B. Avatar
    Jen B.

    Any ideas on what we can do to change the policy?

    The Clayton County situation, which Chris mentioned, troubles me greatly.

  44. Jen B. Avatar
    Jen B.

    Any ideas on what we can do to change the policy?

    The Clayton County situation, which Chris mentioned, troubles me greatly.

  45. cantonem Avatar
    cantonem

    And also, there already was a “feel good” incentive for incumbents at any level as they received/receive half off the cost because they are established, elected leaders of the party. Plus, through the caucus or on their own, they would always receive and have access to trainings, materials, or staff to help them along the way. Guess it didn’t feel good enough?

  46. chris Avatar
    chris

    The voterfile is one of the few assets the state parties have that can help them generate revenue. Put another way, its one of the few things they spend money on that actually gets a financial return. They share this with county/local parties at great cost but the return should be a stronger county party because they have access to this information. That’s why the counties can’t resell and this is pretty much how it works in every state (as far as I’m aware).

    Since the file is an asset, that’s what makes it even more maddening that they are refusing to sell it in these instances. I’ve talked to a number of legislators who agree with this policy, which is not surprising, but my friendship with these individuals does not get in the way of my belief that this is the wrong thing to do. Paraphrased, the argument is something like: why should the party assist DuBose Porter’s challenger? My response is pretty simple, DuBose Porter need not worry about a primary challenger and having the ability to purchase the voterfile will not increase that challenger’s odds (which are already 0) of beating someone like that.

    So what it boils down to is “feel good” protection of our good incumbents that actually does nothing for their chances and an actual, real assist to potentially corrupt incumbents who should have to stand on equal footing with their grassroots challengers when making their case to the voters.

  47. chris Avatar
    chris

    The voterfile is one of the few assets the state parties have that can help them generate revenue. Put another way, its one of the few things they spend money on that actually gets a financial return. They share this with county/local parties at great cost but the return should be a stronger county party because they have access to this information. That’s why the counties can’t resell and this is pretty much how it works in every state (as far as I’m aware).

    Since the file is an asset, that’s what makes it even more maddening that they are refusing to sell it in these instances. I’ve talked to a number of legislators who agree with this policy, which is not surprising, but my friendship with these individuals does not get in the way of my belief that this is the wrong thing to do. Paraphrased, the argument is something like: why should the party assist DuBose Porter’s challenger? My response is pretty simple, DuBose Porter need not worry about a primary challenger and having the ability to purchase the voterfile will not increase that challenger’s odds (which are already 0) of beating someone like that.

    So what it boils down to is “feel good” protection of our good incumbents that actually does nothing for their chances and an actual, real assist to potentially corrupt incumbents who should have to stand on equal footing with their grassroots challengers when making their case to the voters.

  48. MelGX Avatar
    MelGX

    It’s amusing that the provision was added to the contract to keep county parties in line when, as is often the case, they are not the problem.

  49. MelGX Avatar
    MelGX

    It’s amusing that the provision was added to the contract to keep county parties in line when, as is often the case, they are not the problem.

  50. MelGX Avatar
    MelGX

    Who knows Catherine? Like State Committee Members, the county parties were not consulted beforehand or even advised afterwards. What’s worse is that when a candidate calls the DPG, they are referring them to their county chair, who as far as we know, can do nothing to help them.

  51. CatherineAtlanta Avatar
    CatherineAtlanta

    Maybe a county party could share?

  52. cantonem Avatar
    cantonem

    Great follow up post, Mel – all points I agree with completely. For the record, I fought against this for months while at the State Party and was very vocal about the need to use VoteBuilder effectively and fairly, and as Catherine and others have mentioned, to truly build this party for the longterm not 9 targeted races.

    Just to answer a few questions, unless the VoteBuilder contract is amended and changed (and presumably resigned by all the chairs) then the local parties can not give their access to the candidates. It clearly states that all candidates are to be directed to the DPG for access. That was put in there as a way to prevent local parties from slipping into supporting “friends” or picking sides in the primary.

    Plus, ideally, when VB first launched, all money raised from VB users was to be used for grassroots action, spending money on specific targeted areas and counties where we could make gains, and funding the work to collect the data that makes this system great statewide so we are ready for the 2010 elections. I don’t know if that policy has changed but I don’t see how we’ll be as ready for 2010 in this direction. FYI, punishment is the loss of use of the file and no refund of money.

  53. cantonem Avatar
    cantonem

    Great follow up post, Mel – all points I agree with completely. For the record, I fought against this for months while at the State Party and was very vocal about the need to use VoteBuilder effectively and fairly, and as Catherine and others have mentioned, to truly build this party for the longterm not 9 targeted races.

    Just to answer a few questions, unless the VoteBuilder contract is amended and changed (and presumably resigned by all the chairs) then the local parties can not give their access to the candidates. It clearly states that all candidates are to be directed to the DPG for access. That was put in there as a way to prevent local parties from slipping into supporting “friends” or picking sides in the primary.

    Plus, ideally, when VB first launched, all money raised from VB users was to be used for grassroots action, spending money on specific targeted areas and counties where we could make gains, and funding the work to collect the data that makes this system great statewide so we are ready for the 2010 elections. I don’t know if that policy has changed but I don’t see how we’ll be as ready for 2010 in this direction. FYI, punishment is the loss of use of the file and no refund of money.

  54. chris Avatar
    chris

    In past years, the county parties were not to resell the file to any candidates. It is not their file to sell, the same way SEIU can’t purchase the statewide file and then start reselling it.

  55. CatherineAtlanta Avatar
    CatherineAtlanta

    To add to Jerry’s question: Can a county party sell the county voter file to a candidate challenging an incumbent in their county?

  56. chris Avatar
    chris

    Usually they’ll only sell an incumbent (or anyone running) their own district. Presumably the district of another incumbent will not be for sale to anyone – which raises two other questions:

    Sometimes an independent group purchases the voterfile in a primary to support one candidate or another in a primary. Imagine someone like Rep. Karla Drenner gets challenged and Georgia Equality wants to purchase the voterfile to do an independent expenditure mailing on her behalf…they are not an incumbent, so can they? And wouldn’t the party rather have a consistent rule so that it can get this money instead of another vendor out there.

    2. Every member of the Clayton school board will have a challenger either in this year’s primary or in a recall election. Unless Clayton gets a significantly different board, their system is likely to lose accreditation and many of the challengers will be Democrats. Will the party not sell the file to these challengers either, even though thousands are marching in Clayton County to change the status quo there?

  57. Jen B. Avatar
    Jen B.

    I agree with everything that’s been said so far and just wanted to add that I like the way Jerry thinks.

  58. Jen B. Avatar
    Jen B.

    I agree with everything that’s been said so far and just wanted to add that I like the way Jerry thinks.

  59. JerryT Avatar
    JerryT

    So what happens if an incumbent buys it and shares it with a challenger friend (presumably in another district)? Do they get punished somehow?

  60. CatherineAtlanta Avatar
    CatherineAtlanta

    This is yet another example of the difference between a party that focuses on short term campaign-style goals vs long term party-building goals.

    Party outreach to increase participation combined with increased voter registration is necessary to build a thriving Democratic party. These same activities are poison for the entrenched incumbent.

    Just think, if we increase voter and party participation these entrenched incumbents may have to actually represent these new voters and activists!

    And besides all the philosphical and ideological problems I have with this policy, as a donor to the party I am disappointed to learn that we are actively turning away a potential revenue source.

    Shortsighted, at best.

  61. CatherineAtlanta Avatar
    CatherineAtlanta

    This is yet another example of the difference between a party that focuses on short term campaign-style goals vs long term party-building goals.

    Party outreach to increase participation combined with increased voter registration is necessary to build a thriving Democratic party. These same activities are poison for the entrenched incumbent.

    Just think, if we increase voter and party participation these entrenched incumbents may have to actually represent these new voters and activists!

    And besides all the philosphical and ideological problems I have with this policy, as a donor to the party I am disappointed to learn that we are actively turning away a potential revenue source.

    Shortsighted, at best.

  62. chris Avatar
    chris

    I have often advocated that the party play a role as a surrogate and support organization for the Democratic candidates running for office and the officeholders who already serve. But part of the process that keeps this an honest exchange is the candidates and officeholders earning that support by winning a fair contest of ideas of the many voters in this state who participate in the Democratic primary.

    This is one of the many things that distinguishes us from the Republican party, which takes a much greater top-down approach in deciding who may carry its banner. The caucuses, which raise their own money privately may decide to favor one candidate or another in a primary (though this has historically not been a good way to invest their money) and if they want to give their incumbents an advantage, they can negotiate a bulk rate for voterfile access and purchase it for their incumbents or chosen candidates if they so choose.

    However, the actions of the larger party should be neutral when it comes to a Democratic primary. An organization which decides to attempt to perpetuate the continued domination of individuals and establishments over ideas and competition will always be worse off for its decision. This is my advice to Jane Kidd and others who make these decisions: Don’t worry about losing a (temporary) popularity contest among the 100 or so legislators who are constantly looking for the path of least resistance. The nearly 1,000,000 Democratic voters likely to participate in the primaries this year will be more than grateful for reversing this decision and helping to foster a neutral environment where ideas and ideals can compete for the future of our party and state.

    The establishment pulled out all the stops to get Jane Kidd elected in 2007 and in many ways she owes her victory to them. But this is not the time to pay them back in ways that will damage the long term health of the Democratic party. Non-member contributions to the party and DNC pay the largest share to financing party operations, oh which building and maintenance of the voterfile is one of the most important. “We” have just as much rights to the resources of the party as anyone else, especially the many people who will help to foster a better future by challenging the status quo, win or lose. A profile in courage from this organization is long overdue. Do the right thing by supporting every candidate once they’ve secured the nomination, and not getting in the way of any individual before the primary who is trying to get there.

  63. Trackboy1 Avatar
    Trackboy1

    Great post, Mel.

    If this stuff is true, it would be pure ignorance. There’s finally some momentum. Got everyone to stand together against Glenn and the GREAT tax. ‘Bout time to see some unity. Hope to see such unity on rail & mass transit, protecting the coastline from overdevelopment, coming up with a real water conservation plan instead of pinning all hopes on stealing h2o from Tennesee, PeachCare/SCHIP, etc.

    But there are some real clown elected GA Dems:

    Jenna Jamieson, Sharon Beasley Teague, Ron Sailor, Ron Ramsey.

    Take this from Ramsey:

    http://www.broadcastatlanta.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7100&Itemid=2131

    During the public comment portion of the meeting, Sen. Ronald Ramsey said, ‚ÄúI serve notice on the citizens of Dunwoody and businesses in the PCID, the consequences [of incorporation] will be dire, will be green. We will have an economic boycott against all the Dunwoody business community.”

    Great Ron, boycott Dunwoody, which is in the state’s most Democrat-laden county. And boycotting any businesses in these economic times. With “dire” consequences. Asshat.

    Anyway, Mel brought up the most cogent aspect of this: “Third, what message does this send to new Democratic candidates?”

    C’mon DPG, DuBose and Calvin, are you going to protect your lower end of the bell curve, or allow some fresh prospects to take on the chaff like Jamieson, Beasley Teague, Sailor, and Ramsey? Those four just bring the party down.

    Mel nails it and nails it well:

    “Is it really better for everyone involved to keep these incumbents in place? Or is it only better for a select few who are serving their own egos and covering their own asses instead of working for the greater good?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *