you know Chris is going to weigh in on how this can't possibly work in Georgia or some stat on how NC really failed or something that contradicts success by including activists.

can't wait to read his Party-line thoughts or maybe he tired himself out going against JerryT on that other thread. I could just save him some time and cut and paste the comments he made here: http://www.blogfordemocracy.org/archives/2007/01/the_real_questi.html#c14854

Hey I'd comment if my posts weren't stuck in moderation hell. Meeks has done a good job. However, they start out with an incumbent Governor and with majorities in both houses of the legislature, which were put in place before Meeks's time.

Apparently the NC GOP is also in complete disarray. According to this page http://www.northcarolinaconservative.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1166212120&archive=&start_from=&ucat=& the NCGOP only funded one legislative race.

The Republican Party here has basically unlimited money for the time being. So I don't think you can really expect to see electoral outcomes similar to NC's, even if an exact clone of Meeks were installed here.

That's my "Plan B"- wait until the Repubs self-destruct and then make our move.

That's actually an excellent plan Jerry. Eventually the sh*t will hit the fan for them. Why else would we continuously lob ethics complaints at them. While I believe all of the ethical issues we raise are true, some have more resonance with voters than others. Eventually something will stick to the wall, and it may not even be an issue we've raised. We're just trying to create a toxic stew for the Republicans to exist in.

I certainly don't want to discourage anybody from pointing out ethics problems, but we should also be able to fight the battles because we believe our ideas are superior.

it's possible that Republicans will ultimately fail because their policies are mostly geared to catering to big business at the expense of workers, trying to impose a narrow social agenda on a diverse population, and lately, conjuring fear of various demographic groups.

That's possible, but look at the major political developments statewide and in Georgia over the past 15 years or so.

1994 - Unethical Democratic Congress loses to Republicans.
2000 - Bush wins the Presidency (stole whatever, but he got close enough to steal it) based largely on a "restore the office" campaign by linking Gore to Clinton's ethical shortcomings.
2002 - Perdue defeats Barnes on a mostly ethical driving campaign (how ironic). Sure the flag was part of it but it was just a convenient symbol for a lot of his other charges - northern arc, redistricting, etc.
2004 - Georgia Republicans take over the state house, and yes our Democratic majority did have a number of ethical problems, including but not limited to conflicts of personal interest with some in the leadership that prevented an ethics reform bill from even getting a vote!
2006 - Dems take over Congress from unethical Republicans. The war played a big part of it, for sure, but so did the culture of corruption that Democratic leaders and outside groups and the DNC/DCCC/DSCC had been drawing awareness to for years.

I vehemently disagree with the policy stands and direction that the Georgia GOP under Perdue and Richardson are taking us in. Unfortunately, most Georgia voters and particularly the ones we need to convince to vote for us do not. Convincing voters that they personally are wrong is tough, convincing them that the leaders they trusted are scumbags (particularly these scumbags) won't be nearly as hard.

I think that's like playing chicken with a bus, Chris. Not a good idea. Also, playing the waiting game allows them to establish the frames. Brains change more dramatically durring times of trauma, such as Katrina, 9-11, or the Depression. Which way will they change, conservative or progressive, if we're not out there combating them on the value of our ideas vs theirs? Jerry is right, Chris, we have to fight them on the basis of their ideas vs ours.

Well obviously we need to be a suitable alternative and that includes ideas and proposals if we want to take over. To be clear, I don't mean to advocate an either/or approach, but I do think you have to overweight the ethics side, since it is generally more profitable as far as these things go.

Back to the topic, the NC Democratic Party reported raising $8 million in the 2006 election cycle on their final report. I only looked at the final quarter of 2006 (which includes the aggregate numbers).

Almost all of the money came from legislators and PACS in very large contributions. The President Pro Temp of their state Senate appears to be the largest individual contributor, with his campaign giving more than $1.1 million alone in the cycle.

They report small individual donations (less than $100) on single lines. They don't report the donor just that it is a small individual donation. Total small donors for Q4 2006: 117. Total money raised: less than $6,000.

It seems like the legislators and big money interests are still controlling the vast majority of money that comes through the NCDP. Meeks is certainly doing a good job and seems to be getting along with the establishment just fine. If most of that money is caucus money to be spent on legislative and Congressional races (also some DCCC in there) then it appears Meeks may only be spending a small chunk of the total money raised.

Now, to be fair, a small chunk of $8 million in two years is still going to be a substantial amount. In Georgia where there is no Governor and no majorities in the legislature, where do people think the equivalent of $8 million is going to come from, especially in light of how few "grassroots" contributions the NCDP actually reports?

Chris, I'm sorry but you are really being deceptive there and you know better. PAC donations are often made up of hundreds- if not thousands- of small donations. Trying to argue that there are only 117 small donations is really pretty lame.

Jerry, while I haven't done investigative work into the makeup or missions of the PAC's on the page, I will tell you that a substantial amount of money came from legislative candidate accounts, there were a few pacs like the NC Equality Pac which gave $1,000 (and has given $9,000 over two years) but mostly it looked like business as usual and not GFD type PACs.

And anyway, since there are no giving limits for the state party in Georgia or North Carolina, why would someone give through a PAC if they wanted to make a direct contribution, or if they wanted to be sure the money ended up with NCDP?

So let's see if I have this right:

High priority:
- Ethics complaints

Low priority:
- Broad fundraising
- Bridge differences
- Party has it's own voice
- More responsive to local activists
- Web pages, training, organization
- Ideological based
- Attract young activists

BEZERKO, it is not simply conservative or progressive where people fit on the political scale.

And I disagree with chris, telling people their ideas are wrong is not tough, its the wrong way to do politics and it will never work.

Im sorry but its not just simply our ideas or their ideas and we win. The GOP did that for 130 years here in Georgia. For the past 6 years we tried it nationally and nothing happened. Most often its not ideas that switches people's voting preferences, its scandals, bad situations, candidates etc.

You have to do both. I would argue that DPG needs an attack dog "office" that will bedevil the GOP each and every time they mess up. I'm sure we could find donors to staff 1-2 people full time to just look things up and file complaints, signed by the chair.

But we need to do the rest of it too. We need to bridge differences, put out our ideas, respond to local activists, create NEW activists, etc. It's not an either/or approach. And it can't be all geared toward one side and not the other.

Deep down, I don't think the two perspectives are horribly far apart. We CAN all work together quite nicely, if everyone is willing.

IRE raises another point, for 130 years we were the only game in the state. Except for a few isolated pockets around the state this was a 1 party state. The equilibrium has shifted and it will take a while for it to re-balance.

By that measure, I think outlining a statement of reasonable goals and purposes is more important than ever. I don't expect us to win back the legislature in the next two cycles and if you want to be honest, I don't expect us to win the next Governor's race.

Although it is certainly possible that we could do either of those things, I would never say that the effectiveness of the party should be determined by one or more of those two things. Winning back the legislature, or winning the governor's office will depend on things largely out of our control (like who the Republican nominees are).

I either completely or in part agree with every one of your/my "low priorities". All I've been trying to get through all along is that no one seems to be willing to realistically assign prices (and hey to be fair what they think the benefit is) and how the money will be raised to all of the magical fix-it proposals that are out there.

Even in the case of NC, activists asserted themselves in electing Meeks as chair and he went to a bargaining table that contained a sitting Governor and majority leaders of both houses of the state's legislature.

Our bargaining table contains no such figures. The truth is that Mark Taylor has almost singlehandedly over the past four years raised the lion's share of money for the operating expenses of the Democratic Party of Georgia. At least 50% over the past four years. He is gone. North Carolina has not replaced the institutional money with the activists, it's more like they've integrated the two's missions.

If someone back's a candidate for an office, they should ask these questions. But no one seems to want to. If Thurbert Baker, Tommy Irvin, DuBose Porter, Michael Thurmond, Robert Brown, Tim Golden, Jim Butler etc decide that they don't want to be a financial part of the Democratic Party of Georgia, how will the shortfall be made up?

The only suggestion that I've seen on here is that they could pass an (unenforceable btw) bylaw that says they have to support the party. I await a serious answer to this consideration.

No IRE, "it is not simply conservative or progressive where people fit on the political scale," I didn't include biconceptuals, or people who are partial conservatives like Joe Lieberman or partial progressives like Lincoln Chaffee. We have to convince biconceptual voters to apply their nuturant parent instincts to their politics rather than the strict parent version. Because between Democrats and Republicans, it's basically "You're on your own" vs "We're all in this together."

"If Thurbert Baker, Tommy Irvin, DuBose Porter, Michael Thurmond, Robert Brown, Tim Golden, Jim Butler etc decide that they don't want to be a financial part of the Democratic Party of Georgia, how will the shortfall be made up?"

Now Chris, why would they not want to support the party? It shouldn't become a personality pissing match. Hopefully we will be able to get beyond all the temper tantrums after the election on Saturday.

Meeks proved that an outsider can sit and work successfully with the 'establishment' as well as the Democratic activists.

The money is out there, we just have to be more aggressive in getting it. And, more frugul in the spending department.

If we can TEACH local cmtes how to raise money for their operations and candidates, they burden is lifted a bit from the DPG.

Personality pissing matches are our specialty.

Folks don't give cause they don't get thanked, appreciated, or in some cases even asked. As long as their is a whiff of ingratitude I'm not writing checks. It's better spent in a million other places just now. Maybe in a few months, after the elections and when the dust settles.. just aint gunna happen right now.

Oh, and by the way, my thank you note from a certain Gov campaign came a month late and was addressed to the wrong person. The assumption over who wrote the check was arrogant and sexist as all hell. I blame a staffer not the candidate, but hell people, you see who signed the thing and oooh my name's on the check too.

I've saved this letter and will use it as a training tool for any candidate I ever help... My "what not to do" pile is huge.

You say Mark Taylor is gone as if he's "gone" including his money and support. Is that the case? If so, then he wasn't really supporting the Party anyway was he? He was supporting himself getting elected. I hope it's not true. Same with Baker, Porter, et. al.
$25 x 5000 is $125,000. What can we do with $125,000? Surely we can find 5000 people in the whole state who have $25 to chip in for some project.

Sure Jerry, but what about the $700k or so that Taylor raised on an annual basis the last 4 years?

In fairness to Taylor, does anyone really expect him to come in here and slave over the phones trying to raise money now that he's no longer the party's standard bearer?

In fact, YES! We do expect all Democrats to participate in the party even when they lose. Now more than ever. We need all hands on deck.

Look at the thousands of party supporters who gave money, time, creative talent, and shoe leather to Mark's campaign - we expect them to continue to participate in the party, don't we?

To suggest that Mr Taylor wouldn't participate is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the party. I think Mr Taylor would be disappointed to learn that you are suggesting his was merely an opportunist seeking to be elected, and since he wasn't he gets to take his toys (and his money) and go home. I don't know Mr Taylor but I have more respect for him than to assume that.

Chris, this is exactly the problem "the grassroots" would like to correct! There can be a large pool of small donors to supplement the heavy hitters who (apparently) come and go.

You are dependent on a small number of individuals with access to a lot of money. If and when one of them moves offstage, you have to find another one. It must be horrible for you. It is all driven by individual campaigns with no continuity or sense of purpose.

Mark probably has a cell phone, and he can probably make calls from his car or his home if he wants to continue to support the Party. Let's ask him what he wants us to do... what is he willing to help us raise money for?

Catherine, Jerry, I don't expect Mark to drop off the face of the earth, but you can't seriously expect him to maintain the same level of support now that he doesn't have the same level of activity.

To wit, I see that Mike Berlon has pledged to give the party $25,000/year if he becomes Chair. By your logic, shouldn't that be an unlimited gift for as long as he lives, and also...why hasn't he done it at that level in the past?

Oh, and when will Cathy Cox be signing up to do her calltime next year :)

Back to North Carolina. I realize that waiting as long as I have to post this may have let this thread get out of hand, but I have been reading the North Carolina Democratic Party Platform for a few weeks, and, folks, this is what we need here in GA...a reason for us to exist as a party, apart from the anti-GOP party.

http://www.ncdp.org/platform

Chris, I think those are very good questions for Mr Berlon and Ms Cox. I actually wondered that very thing when I heard Mr Berlon make that announcement on Saturday.

And, in all honesty, I do expect all Democrats to maintain their level of activity. As I said, we need all hands on deck!

I've run for a post seat in Fulton two times now, and both times have been defeated but that has not stopped me from giving time, money, and in-kind contributions on numerous occasions. By your logic, since I can't influence the agenda I shouldn't do so. Is that really what we're aiming for? Surely not.

Chris, you are looking for the cart, but we have no horse. There is no reason for CC or whoever to stay active. By your own words you describe a campign/individual driven party.
I am suggesting we create a reason for people to saty involved.

Here are just a few more. There are plenty out there to get ideas from.

http://www.vademocrats.org/Who_We_Are/Platform.asp

http://www.arkdems.org/OurBeliefs.aspx

http://www.montanademocrats.org/platform/MDP%202006%20Platform.pdf

http://coloradodems.org/content/view/393

Thanks sndeak This will give us a starting point in March when we begin to rebuild the party.

You know, a lot of those platforms sound very familiar to what a certain candidate for governor campaigned on. And I don't know if AK is what we would like to base our future party on. the entire leadership is white good ole boys.

You know, a lot of those platforms sound very familiar to what a certain candidate for governor campaigned on. And I don't know if AK is what we would like to base our future party on. the entire leadership is white good ole boys.

Here is the AK Platform ; )
http://www.alaskademocrats.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/809637

These are just examples that can be used for content, format or both.

Jerry, I think I've been consistent in my position which is if you don't believe in the mission of the party at any given time, why should you give money. When I say where is Cathy Cox these days, I personally don't care but if Catherine expects Taylor to raise a lot of money for the party this year, she should also expect Cox.

Additionally, I've seen people on this site say multiple times that they've got a million other things they want to give their money to before they give it to the party. That is perfectly fine with me, but why don't they receive the same hypothetical finger wagging that Taylor does?

I'm just trying to figure out the consistency or lack thereof of the argument. Catherine, I think its awesome that you are so involved with the party even though you haven't won a post seat. In all honesty, I expect that Taylor will still be involved in some level, you don't just go from being a plugged in operator to completely disengaged over night unless you are a complete egomaniacal ass!

That said, the issue of budgeting and operations is a serious one, and I haven't seen many people be willing to seriously tackle it. I agree with Jerry that it's probably not too hard to find 5,000 people who want to give $25 each. But at the $25 level you really need 10 times as many people to fund an organization.

We've actually increased our number of small donors through our DNC coordinated fundraising effort (dollars for Democrats), but there's still a long way to go (and it may actually be impossible) to be completely self sufficient just from small donors. If you could do it right, it's a good goal, but even during the transition you'll need to lean on more traditional funding sources to get to that point, as it's always expensive to set up a fundraising operation.

Late night. That's all for me.

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)