|
Is it possible that all literal-narcissist candidates are actually the same person, but like wearing literal masks? Because they all seem to say the same things and think the same. It's really weird.Josef bugman posted:I have been reading a lot of very "left" issues about the Democrats at the moment and one of the key ones being that the DNC is constantly broke because of a variety of factors (the ones like constantly having to go cap in hand to wealthy people, being under the leadership of someone who didn't actually get on with anyone and continually shovelling money to consultants instead of doing any actual work.) Would you say that is accurate or fair in your experience? A huge problem with funding groups like the DNC or the State Party is that a lot of the work they do isn't necessarily sexy and is hard to convey. For instance, my state party needs to raise some more money so that we can have a second data guy, because our one data guy also has other duties and we've got like two hundred or something committees and campaigns all of whom sometimes need to work with the state party data admin and that person is swamped. "Hire us another nerd" is not at all a sexy pitch to make, because it's something you only notice if you're in a certain position, but it'd really help. Most donors instead like to hear that their money is going directly to electing candidates, which is why a long-shot House special election gets tens of millions of bucks, and keeping the data flowing in a light-blue state gets ignored. Josef bugman posted:Alongside that would you argue that it is possible to change a set up like the DNC or the democratic party more generally into something that is not continually focussing on being just "the lesser evil" as it were? So long as we've got a two party system, it's going to be tough to find a party that exactly matches your policy preferences (and in a multi-party system, your ideal party would be great, but also stuck in a power-sharing coalition with "lesser evil"s). But you can help pull the party in the direction you want by getting involved, especially with the more under-the-radar stuff like primary elections and party leadership elections. Similarly, who gets into the state legislature is determined in primaries that are surprisingly low-dollar and surprisingly small - a few of my (relatively progressive) folks avoided centrist primaries a few years ago because strong groups of activists and some initial grassroots donors lined up behind them. Now that they're state legislators they haven't voted *perfectly* but they've been solid most of the time. Your state party central committee members (who elect your State Party Chair and Vice Chair, both DNC members) are in some areas completely uncontested, and in others only lightly contested. I have my role in the party leadership because several dozen grassroots activists stepped up and supported me when I asked. Some of your DNC members get elected when you pick who gets to go to the national convention every 4 years. These races require you to have a base of support state-wide, but they're hardly unwinnable in many states if you plan ahead. Mooseontheloose posted:
A good chunk of it is luck and flexibility. Not moral flexibility, but a willingness to grab what opportunities pop up. Because this stuff is so competitive and because incumbency is so powerful, you have to be willing to strike when the iron is hot and you have to be willing to re-plan when the situation changes. All of this stuff is so inter-connected that opportunities can come up unexpectedly. Some state senator gets elected to Congress and next thing you know, there's an opening to run for Supervisor or State Legislature or something in a snap election - better get in now while the getting's good! But my experience is that competence and hard work go a long ways - the campaign staffers and candidates want to get stuff done, and they're going to work with whoever they think can get stuff done for them, and they're going to remember who helped them out. I know House of Cards and all that emphasizes backstabbing and threats because that's sexy and dramatic, but in real life it's actually giving and getting favors that powers a lot of it.
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
DTaeKim posted:Hey, I've started to get involved in local politics by getting to know the candidate for state house in Indiana. We've offered to volunteer for his campaign even though he has an uphill battle in what I would consider deep red territory. Any words of advice? I mean, if he's got an experienced staff who've worked in the area before, step one is to listen to them. They might have a better sense than we would of what they need to do to win. Fundamentally, most of the work of a campaign is arduous but necessary. Everybody wants to be a "policy consultant" or "help tweak messaging" but that's about 5% of the man-hours involved in a race, and the other 95% is stuff like making phone calls and knocking on doors and stuffing envelopes and so forth. If someone asks you to do that stuff it's not because they don't like you, it's because that's what's needed most of the time. My Imaginary GF posted:It depends why you're having folks call/knock. Generally, in Federal elections, IMO, good field can move between 3-6 points, or at least save 3-6 for you - enough to sway a close election - while advertisements get you 30 points. At the local level, field is what you live and die on. Every door you knock is another vote, and when the total votes cast for your seat is less than 5,000 or so, you have an opportunity to meet every single vote and get to know them by name. Field is also more valuable in local races because it's more personal. In a statewide or national race, Field is some volunteer getting bussed into a swing precinct to read a script written by some dude in Brooklyn/Chicago/DC about a candidate they've never even seen. In a local race, canvassers are campaigning in their county/city/neighborhood for someone they've probably met and maybe even actually kind of know, which makes them more effective advocates.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 14:01
|
|