maybe the dems were hurt with no candidate for money. but maybe they were helped with lower turnout. if repubs come flocking to the polls because they are afraid of some ‘pac-man’ candidate, maybe lower ticket dems lose those close races. no point in beating a dead horse about not having a candidate. that’s the past and there is too much future to worry about.

It may be the past Dennis, but someone should still be held accountable for such a fatal error.

I agree with Polyanna (a.k.a. Exile). Depressing turnout is no mean no matter what the end. We need to increase the amount of public conversation about what is happening in local politics. Progressives can only compete in the arena of ideas. Put us in a room with open minded voters and we’ll change minds, but we can’t beat the republicans in the 30 second ad market. It’s easy to say “We’re balancing the budget and taking the medicare burden off of Monroe county tax payers” and make people agree. It’s much harder to explain where that money comes from and how it actually means your taxes will go up. Many of us who are involved in politics fool ourselves into thinking that people see through something when they really have no idea and don’t care to. Unfortunately it seems that things have to get out of control a little bit before the people stand up and pay attention. As progressives we need to take any chance we can get to speak to the voters and by not staging a candidate for county exec we may have seriously limited our opportunity to do so.

Complacency is democracy’s enemy.

i am not suggesting suppressing turnout is a good thing, i am merely pointing out that if you go back and change one event, it will change all others ala back to the future.
since most folks here are anonymous (which is fine following banky’s line in jay and silent bob strike back ‘that’s what the internet is for: slandering people anonymously’), i don’t want to make this a true ‘calling out’ because i can’t claim it is true, so this is in many ways rhetorical (and clearly rambling), but what did you all do to help mcdc convince candidates to run? mcdc is not minarik where they say, hey, (insert your preferred candidate here) you are running. the candidates actually have to agree and actually have the ability to say no. and they did.

i don’t mean for it to be out of line because, like i said, i don’t know people here. if you worked, then you worked. but if you didn’t, then i don’t think it is fair to complain about mcdc because they work hard. and if you are upset at the way things went down, get more involved next time so that things work out the way you want.

In addition to what Exile said, I know some who post here who ran for office themselves to make a difference. They entered the race PRIOR to the lack of a County Exec candidate and got sold down the river. And once you’re in - you’re in. Better question Dennis - what did YOU do?

One more thing: I think discussions like this are very healthy.

well, if everyone here is involved, then i take back the question and it is was never meant to be an attck, and i will even go so far as to apologize to all those that are involved. and the gray area is what makes democracy and freedom of expression great.
lastly, since simple research would give you much of this anyway, for my part, i am a democratic committee member, mcdc executive board member, assembly staffer, and i ran for the democratic nomination for city school board. my preferred exec candidate was dave koon and i talked to him at length about running.

Dennis: I don’t doubt that you tried to talk Koon into running. At the same time, I’ve been privvy to other conversations; its no surprise to me we didn’t have a candidate. I was hearing lists of reasons why we wouldn’t have a candidate by those at the top of our local Party even before 2007. It was clear to me we wouldn’t have a candidate way back then, given their mentality.

I’d also like to add from a previous comment that working hard does not necessarily equate to working smart.

I also want to add that Johnson’s race is not exactly a benchmark. He came into the race with HUGE negatives in the suburbs.

the farm system is an excellent point, but we are starting to see that now. obviously that is the best way to groom folks for higher office. identifying candidates and setting up meetings with party leaders is first. i know it kinda sucks, but you gotta pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues. whether they are committee leaders or elected officials, these are the folks that need to know someone is interested. if they don’t think someone is serious, they get dismissed quick. party officials tend not to stray to far from the familiar in terms of recruitment, so for newcomers/outsiders, it can be difficult. next you must go through the committee process. it is (in the long run) cheaper and easier than a primary. you will only need to get 30 votes instead of a few thousand per election district.

I was working for WXXI’s New Department during the election (I’m not anymore) and through some of my research during our coverage, I dug out Maggie’s financial statements from June ‘06 to Oct. ‘07 and yes from what I remember the figures mentioned in the post were accurate. But what the story didn’t mention is how much hof her expenses were payments directly to Minarik…his salary I assume.

I don’t work there anymore, I’m actually living in New Hampshire working for RenewableEnergyAccess.com. You should all come check us out and sign up for our free weekly newsletter…the link is below.

http://www.RenewableEnergyAccess.com

That was supposed to read WXXI’s News Department…woops.

How cool that you’re in New Hampshire now and reading RT and care! Thanks for not forgetting us!

Dennis: Agreed, I personally don’t have any misgivings about potential candidates getting involved with local committees and showing they care. However, I think its also important that our Party demonstrate that we think Democrats can win anywhere and everywhere, because we can.

Out of interest, don’t feel pressured to answer if you don’t think its appropriate given your position. What do you think had more sway over potential Exec. candidates, Party funds or the perception that Maggie was impenetrable? Personally, I heard the latter emphasized more.

To the extent that funding played a role, what a great example of why current campaign finance rules totally stink. Why should a relatively small group of business leaders (or other professionals that run businesses, e.g. lawyers, doctors) play such an important role in deciding who the stronger candidate should be, starting out the gate. You know, in other countries, like Isreal (to my understanding), corporate contributions are even outlawed. Public funding totally supports democracy!

Oops, typo. Israel, not Isreal.

i actually heard a few different things from ‘candidates’. the common top end was maggie’s popularity though. another one was the ‘disorganization’ of the party in many of the burbs. traditionally we are not effective in the burbs. i believe this is a combination of not having to be effective in the city and lack of resources. the lack of resources flowing from the city to the burbs lead to a lot of losses, which over time drained the suburban committees of energy, people, and thus, candidates. with morelle’s fundraising, we are seeing a reversal in all those things. with the money to spend in the burbs, better campaigns are being run. that in turn helps energize the people, which also helps bring out candidates. and winning suburban offices helps build the party’s minor leagues and groom them for later office.

and yes, finance reform would probably help a lot. as a kucinich supporter, i know all too well about small, monied interests running people out of town.

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback Dennis. I’m a Kucinich fan myself.

Exile, I think you’ve generated some great discussion here.

no problem exile. i enjoy debating, local politics and this website. i find the divide perplexing at times as well. i fear some of it may be ‘turf’ battles in a sense and maybe some old fashioned lack of vision. in bridging (combining) the progressive spirit with the party machine, we can change the way this county does business.

Heck yeah!

I’ve lurked here for a while but this is the first time I’ve joined in. The first step to involvement is letting the base know how to get involved. The Perinton Dem Committee meets tomorrow night (and the first Thursday of every month) at Fairport High. See perintondemocrats.org for more details. I’ve been a registered democrat in Perinton for 15 years, but have never received mail, phone call or personal invite to join the meeting until a month ago (because I was helping a candidate who I know personally). Granted, I never sought it out, but sometimes all it takes is to be asked. I plan to go tomorrow.

My point, perhaps naive: To get involvement, sometimes you have to ask.

To get a good farm team, first you need a more recruiters and scouts.

First, I too appreciate Dennis’s comments and this discussion. But I think there are some fundamentals that have to be addressed and changed. For example, where is the recruitment of new members? It seems like the MCDC old guard isn’t really interested in developing a base, or bringing in fresh blood, new ideas, and contemporary strategy. Second, when new people are involved how is their input received? I’ve heard, at times, not so well. Third, your statement about having to pay your dues to sing the blues troubles me. As noted above, there are hundreds of people who do pay dues, doing petitioning, house parties, lawn signs, etc. who are not known to any at the central office. But they have every right to complain. And there’s been a ton of complaining about the failure to run a county exec. But maybe they didn’t know that Morelle was struggling to find a candidate, if that’s what was happening. Maybe the party could have encouraged someone other than the usual suspects to run. Fourth, where is the effort on the part of MCDC to connect with the grass roots or net roots? (And please don’t tell me the water authority video was it). Why isn’t there posting by Morelle here? Does he make an effort to connect with DFA in this town? Or the other blogs? And if organization is a problem because the MCDC is too complacent in the city, why isn’t there a more vigorous effort to get into the burbs? They’re turning, but with less help from MCDC then there should be. Here’s my suggestion for now - what if all of the very bright people here started generating a list of potential candidates for county exec and other races coming up - including the next set of leg races? And why doesn’t MCDC start major outreach, posting here, on other local blogs, and in other places likely to reach voters, about its interest in generating progressives to assist with local elections? That is, if they really want some new blood…

Speaking of Clean It For Beaver, was that 8K total, or 8K per? And…what the hell were you thinking?

You had to spoil the whole group hug moment, didn’t you Jiminy?

Yeah, that’s me, the ant in the sugar bowl. It doesn’t affect the taste Exile…

Wow, awesome comments Louis. For instance, I think its easy to ask why folks on the ground weren’t involved in recruiting an Exec. candidate, but when were they asked to participate in this process?

As for recruiting new members. I know there is a card that MCDC provides (or used to provide) that is a generic invitation for new registrants to attend a local committee meeting. Custom information about the meeting can be filled into the blanks. I’ve seen this work. I’m not sure how many towns use this tool.

As for community contact in Perinton. I knew the former town leader, and wouldn’t categorize this person as terribly effective, although I think he tried to be. From my interactions with Sue Davis, she comes across as a sharp cookie, but I think she’s still getting her footing. On top of this, she ran for county leg. Running for election in a new seat is a big undertaking, even for the pros. Given the district, she was definitely up against the tide. I can’t speak for Sue, but I have to imagine (from my own interactions with her) that any feedback you share with Sue, as long as its shared in an appropriate manner will be warmly received.

“It seems like the MCDC old guard isn’t really interested in developing a base.”

I would really like to hear more discussion about this from MCDC’s perspective. My sense is that their assistance in committee building has been uneven. I’m not sure why this is the case. I suspect there are multiple reasons.

“Third, your statement about having to pay your dues to sing the blues troubles me. As noted above, there are hundreds of people who do pay dues, doing petitioning, house parties, lawn signs, etc. who are not known to any at the central office. But they have every right to complain.”

I agree with this statement as well as the notion that potential candidates should do their part for their local committee if they want to better ensure acceptance.

“Fourth, where is the effort on the part of MCDC to connect with the grass roots or net roots?”

My sense is that they are afraid of airing dirty laundry, or making certain information about their decision-making public, even if its in an arena where only Democrats are present. From my perspective, most folks can already guesstimate certain facts, like how much money the Party has. Word gets around, because its impossible to conceal all evidence in a public organization. To the extent that there is confusion about this type of information, I’ve seen this confusion turn into assumptions and antagonism.

From what I’ve seen, there is no clear mechanism for the grassroots to register their concerns/frustrations. Via the few available channels that do exist (e.g. town leaders at MCDC meetings), concerns are sometimes reacted to in a defensive manner, or folks are afraid to raise objections, because they may pay the price later. Its safer to just smile. Here is where anonymity can play a terrific role! Study after study shows that people are not forthright, when there is even the slightest chance (or perception) they will be silently punished later. Without some safe means of exchanging information, people start to make assumptions and work against each other, which is totally counter-productive.

Let’s face it, we’re all working towards the same basic ends, in terms of seeing our Party succeed and dominate the local political scene (from what I can tell). Sure we have disagreements about how to reach our goals, but how can we move forward when there is lacking dialogue and information/strategy is privileged. I think we’re hurting ourselves more by avoiding frank discussion and reserving information; worrying what Minarik might do if he suddenly realizes our grand strategy and resources. There are only so many ways to effectively grow an organization and win elections, I’m sure most of them won’t be news to Minarik. I also imagine Minarik has a pretty good sense of what resources we possess.

This is the Democratic Party. Democracy is all about shared-decision making. Our belief that everyone matters, because we are stronger as one, is one of the major principals that unifies us as Democrats. In my opinion, active Democrats (especially leaders and elected officials) should support candidates endorsed by the Democratic Party, as opposed to Republican candidates, barring some serious ethical lapse on the part of the candidate. At the same time, this doesn’t mean that everyone in the Democratic Party should just accept everything HQ decides on how things should be run in a broader sense. There needs to be a feedback loop and shared decision-making.

Personally, I’d like to see more of a “Learning Organization” approach taken by MCDC, which has shown itself to be quite effective in the corporate world. Adopting such an approach doesn’t mean that those who lead the Party have to cede control to the rank and file, rather its a process of sharing information back and forth in the hopes that optimum decisions will be made by leadership. Anyone who thinks they know it all, because they are in a position of power is fooling themselves. Anyone who thinks their foot soldiers or machinists don’t know what’s best for them given available information is going to run their operation into the ground.

Democracy is what makes us stronger as a Party. Isn’t this why we’re called Democrats?

from my experience, ‘the old guard’ (meant mentality wise not age wise) does in fact brush aside new thinking because it is not their own. some of that is political snobbery/arrogance, some of it is simple power/influence lust. i am not proud of either as someone is pretty much a party hack, but that is how i see it. on the flip side, there have been new people who are too easily frustrated or put off by the lack of action. some folks want to start at the top and not do the little things (like the door to door, phone calling, etc) that do in fact make an impact.
not sure how this page works, but if you editor/contributor folks meet periodically, you should brainstorm candidates and post an article with your results. you guys come up with 5-10 names and why they are good. then let the comment posters weigh in. then start contacting folks to get their thoughts. you’d be amazed at how many campaigns started with little else than someone asking someone else, ‘have you ever considered running?’

It seems we’re on the same page for the most part, you party hack I also agree that people at the ground level may be wrong, because they don’t have all the information possessed by those at the top. I think everyone writing for this blog (from what I’ve read before) would agree that the grunt work of a campaign is incredibly important. Obviously, not every misnomer can be dispelled via a learning organization approach, but it does help to correct myths and provides useful information to those at the top and bottom.