More on how Democratic campaigning is fundamentally broken; plus some of the juiciest takes on the lessons Democrats should learn from this election. And a few signs of hope!
It's not bad data analysis. It wasn't close. Better GOTV would not likely have changed it. It should not have been allowed to become close. To do that would have required major sacrifices the party is unable to make. To recruit the few extra percent it would have needed to make it not close, the party would have to change so that it truly represented those people. And it would have had to stop oozing constant overwhelming hate at them; people will not join you if you do that. Harris was smart enough to try to tone down the hate, not to get tricked into calling half the country idiots and Nazis, but rank and file Democrats did it every day, with everything they said, and the voters felt it. "You are all fascists, it doesn't make any sense that this is close" is no way to win them over. And it turned out it wasn't close.
Love the 10 reasons why dems lost piece and the Pete Davis one in the Nation (he is a fellow Falls church city VA resident). The analysis on the dem platform is insane... I'm a man.
it is time to stop playing MBA-let's-get-51%-of-the-vote game and work in every state, every day, to involve everyone in becoming an active part of our communities and continually communicate with everyone about what we have in our communities, what is going on in our communities, and what we can do together to make our communities better.
The media system was known.
The electoral system was known.
The opposing campaign was known.
There was no lack of funds.
With all the given circumstances, we have to say "it is us"... and take appropriate action.
I will listen to your interview. I saw that you did a lot of deep canvassing in PA; were you with Changing the Conversation? We did a deep canvassing "pilot program" (so to speak) here in CO, and the results seem to have clearly proven the concept in terms of turnout, although our candidate was ultimately defeated. I am wondering if you have any thoughts about the post-election narrative around the Dem ground game (even Jon Stewart was lambasting door-knocking) and how that might affect perceptions of deep canvassing, moving forward (meaning: can we build momentum and support for this practice against a backdrop of a "canvassing is ridiculous and a total waste" message?) - the gulf between this approach and imported paid canvassers is immense, but I'm wondering if you have an opinion about how much appetite campaigns will have for this approach, moving forward.
I'm a big fan of deep canvassing and of groups like Changing the Conversation (i'm on their advisory board, fwiw). I spent a few days in Easton PA doing the Canvassing Connectors deep canvass there. But what's needed isn't better interaction with voters around elections, what's needed is year-round local party-building and/or movement-building. Parties play a unique role in our democratic system because they do everything from recruit/train/uplift candidates to organize voters around common goals and symbols to try to pass their programs once in office. Ideally we'd have more of them (which is why I write about fusion voting from time to time), and the competition and muliplicity of parties would get more people involved. Arguably the Democratic Party is too big a tent to work, and we'd be much better off with a system that allowed a variety of parties to organize, bid for and wield a share of power.
It's not bad data analysis. It wasn't close. Better GOTV would not likely have changed it. It should not have been allowed to become close. To do that would have required major sacrifices the party is unable to make. To recruit the few extra percent it would have needed to make it not close, the party would have to change so that it truly represented those people. And it would have had to stop oozing constant overwhelming hate at them; people will not join you if you do that. Harris was smart enough to try to tone down the hate, not to get tricked into calling half the country idiots and Nazis, but rank and file Democrats did it every day, with everything they said, and the voters felt it. "You are all fascists, it doesn't make any sense that this is close" is no way to win them over. And it turned out it wasn't close.
Love the 10 reasons why dems lost piece and the Pete Davis one in the Nation (he is a fellow Falls church city VA resident). The analysis on the dem platform is insane... I'm a man.
"Democracy is what you do every day".
it is time to stop playing MBA-let's-get-51%-of-the-vote game and work in every state, every day, to involve everyone in becoming an active part of our communities and continually communicate with everyone about what we have in our communities, what is going on in our communities, and what we can do together to make our communities better.
The media system was known.
The electoral system was known.
The opposing campaign was known.
There was no lack of funds.
With all the given circumstances, we have to say "it is us"... and take appropriate action.
"Leave No Voter Behind"
Let's get to work.
My interview with Tom Robbins on WBAI affirming much of your analysis.
https://www.wbai.org/archive/program/episode/?id=54003
I will listen to your interview. I saw that you did a lot of deep canvassing in PA; were you with Changing the Conversation? We did a deep canvassing "pilot program" (so to speak) here in CO, and the results seem to have clearly proven the concept in terms of turnout, although our candidate was ultimately defeated. I am wondering if you have any thoughts about the post-election narrative around the Dem ground game (even Jon Stewart was lambasting door-knocking) and how that might affect perceptions of deep canvassing, moving forward (meaning: can we build momentum and support for this practice against a backdrop of a "canvassing is ridiculous and a total waste" message?) - the gulf between this approach and imported paid canvassers is immense, but I'm wondering if you have an opinion about how much appetite campaigns will have for this approach, moving forward.
I'm a big fan of deep canvassing and of groups like Changing the Conversation (i'm on their advisory board, fwiw). I spent a few days in Easton PA doing the Canvassing Connectors deep canvass there. But what's needed isn't better interaction with voters around elections, what's needed is year-round local party-building and/or movement-building. Parties play a unique role in our democratic system because they do everything from recruit/train/uplift candidates to organize voters around common goals and symbols to try to pass their programs once in office. Ideally we'd have more of them (which is why I write about fusion voting from time to time), and the competition and muliplicity of parties would get more people involved. Arguably the Democratic Party is too big a tent to work, and we'd be much better off with a system that allowed a variety of parties to organize, bid for and wield a share of power.
Absolutely!
Political parties need to serve their constituencies 24x7x365 , not just show up once every couple of years asking for money and votes.
The more you think about it, the more bizarre the current system seems.