I agree (4.00 / 3)

this is fantastic news. I worked with a few of those people on the Perriello campaign and all of them are very good smart people. It's a pretty huge problem, progressive campaigns have generally been extremely poorly run. They either raise a decent sum of money and spend on on bad consultants (Bennett) or pretend that raising money or spending it on paid media is selling out (Fallon, Laesch, Thomas). Donna Edwards and Tom Perriello showed that if progressives are willing to run serious campaigns, raise money and hire smart people they CAN win. I have high hopes for PCCC and hope to learn more about them.

Also, they are already backing Tom. They've also raised some money for him on ActBlue.

http://www.actblue.com/page/ge...

If you head over to the BD ActBlue page you can donate to Tom, BlogPac and the PCCC. So go do it!

http://www.actblue.com/page/bd...


John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 21:37:23 PM CST

I interviewed to be Bennett's field director early on... (4.00 / 6)

Speaking with her new(at the time, still in dc and hadn't yet reported to the campaign) campaign manager, who had never run a real campaign before (hill experience and junior campaign experience on landslide incumbent campaign and an issue campaign), I was told what her plan was and asked to respond to it...I told her her plan was exactly the plan used in the district in 06 and 04 (I had done the research and known people in the district), and was going to fail exactly the same way (I said this politely of course) and was greeted with a response of "no, it is the best way."  She went on to ask me how I would handle the field program, my budgetary expectations, etc and I answered in detail.  She found my expense projections for field to be ridiculous and my notion of working the outlying areas of the district with field, not counting on the coordinated campaign for anything and working a strict pattern of voter outreach/contact with emphasis on strong dems/lean dems early as moronic.  She said the first priority was going after indys and Republicans.  Yeah, wow.

Her resource allocation idea was better than 80% of the budget for paid media and consultants.  I wanted 25-40% depending on actual fund raising, for field resources and staff - I think my number was 140k for staff, plus materials, lit, stamps, envelopes, etc.  She responded that the Field Program would likely be allocated a maximum of 60-70k.  After my pay that would leave less than 45k.  I asked for clarification... the 70k was to include all event costs, all lit to be distributed, signs (which I abhor as an expense anyway), staff (including me), and any event promotion (robocalls, ads promoting events, and she was clear that ANY event was a field event, press conferences, speeches, everything comes from that budget.)  I was pretty blown away someone hired this person to run a House Campaign.

I actually told her there was no point in continuing the conversation as I would not work for her under such a plan.  I spent time with more than a dozen house campaigns up and down the east coast during the 08 cycle.  Not one of them was "Done right.", a few were "Done good." with specific strengths and most everything else weak...but there is no doubt that Republicans still kick our ass at running campaigns in general.  Props to the Grayson team for the best pure "voter contact" program I saw from a house campaign, to Team Perriello for message delivery, to the finance teams for Christine Jennings and Jim Himes.  The money was certainly available in 2008, it was sad to see how poorly campaigns spent the money they brought in, particularly Jennings, Bennett and Kilroy (who won narrowly despite making many of the same mistakes of 2006 over again).

The biggest and most common problem I saw in 2008 campaigns?  Campaigns being run by Finance and/or Media experienced staffers, no field or strategic understanding at all.  The media folks narrow everything down to the hard hitting negative ads, the finance folks make it all about money and funneling the money to consultants (and that flows to more negative ads).  Hill experience does nothing for you on a campaign and the ability to raise million+ dollars is only good if you defer to someone who knows how to spend it wisely.

I should also note that looking at the final totals for fund raising is very deceiving, money spent in the last 20-30 days is VERY ineffective, though it is much easier to raise money in that period.  Look at the totals of fund raising through the middle of September, that is the measure of a campaigns true fund raising ability.  It isn't unusual for a house challenger to raise 40% or more of their money in the final 5-6 weeks, quickly dumping it into mostly awful ads.

I'm a proud liberal, progressive, lefty, whatever you want to call me.  I'm also idealistic and will not work for candidates who don't meet my expectations for what a Congressperson should be.  Makes it pretty hard to get work.  In the humor of the world, between mid June and Election Day, I received more than 20 job offers, all from Blue Dogs or would be (challengers) Blue Dogs, with the highlight being Tim Mahoney.  Give me a good proud progressive candidate and I'll work endless days until the election, leave it all on the table.

---

by: mp @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 23:21:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I suspect (4.00 / 1)

there are many like you.

Grayson was another good example of a campaign well run. Hopefully with PCCC that won't be so uncommon and people like you will be in high demand.

A few basic things all successful progressive campaigns should keep in mind.

-Devote at least 25 percent of the budget to field. Closer to 50 in some places when you've got good fundraising.

-Hire a good ad maker. Steve Eeichenbaum or Bill Hillsman preferably who do real, creative ad work that makes a real impact. Those two have done ads for Wellstone, Feingold, Grayson, Perriello, Polis, Lamont, Hickenlooper  and Novick.

-Start early and settle on a message that resonates with your district and the issues that affect real people.

Just a few basic things.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 00:06:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hillsman is really hit or miss (4.00 / 1)

When's he on, he's really on.  When he's off...you don't want his work product.  

---

by: northcountry @ Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:40:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

True (0.00 / 0)

And he's somewhat of a jerk which is why I generally prefer Eeichenbaum.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 17:48:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Probably my favorite passage (0.00 / 0)

from your book is your critique of the lack of internal democracy in a lot of "movement" organizations like MoveOn.org. I'm glad to see MoveOn getting behind really strong progressives like Geoghegan, but the real test will be whether MoveOn will throw its heft behind something big that its membership really wants regardless of what the power players in DC think about it.

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.

---

by: Liberaltarian @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 21:54:27 PM CST

MoveOn.org has been in the front lines often, not always, (4.00 / 2)

not everyone is looking for the front line. There are a lot of people providing leadership, and a lot of coalitions. I think this is one of MoveOn.org's best moves. Certainly their best move lately.

I wish them well, they have massive power, and seem to be listening and acting wisely.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 22:24:00 PM CST

The 5th District will certainly be a test (4.00 / 2)

The timing is just 7 weeks and the field is very crowded.  There are the machine types and at least one we suspect that is picked by Rahm to be a place holder.
  There are also some very progressive candidates that are already office holders and have already been raising money.  Sara Feigenholz  and Mike Quigley come to mind and rumor is that John Fritchy is also looking to enter.

 In addition they have a volunteers and staff from their previous campaigns.

So an organization like PCCC  will need to help raise money but will also need to assist in getting good staff and volunteers.   The locals are probably going to be split because they have relationships with some of the office holders.   I would hope the PCCC finds progressive candidates that are looking to run in 2010 and works with them over the next two years.  That would allow a progressive to build the base needed to win a congressional district.

If all the people that have filed get through the petition process then there will be 10 or more Democrats running in the primary. It seems that there will be a need for a strong ground game but there will also be a need to go on TV and of course a mail campaign.

Each serious candidate will spend between one half and one million in the next few weeks and I would not doubt that some have already booked TV spots.

---

by: Gibson @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 22:40:24 PM CST

PCCC's credibility non-existent (4.00 / 1)

Any "progressive" organization that explicitly rules out backing anyone other than members of the Democratic Party lacks all interest to me. This is not just because I am and have been a registered Green Party member my entire adult life, but because of simple political reality: progressive Democrats will always be to loyal to party over principle, and thus their agenda and votes are hostage to the most conservative and/or corporate wings of the Democratic Party. Their ability to speak with an independent voice in progressive issues is inherently compromised by their need to get along to go along.

There are many credible and competent progressive individuals whose political home lies outside of the Democratic Party -- Ross Mirkarimi (Green Party), who holds the District 5 seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (Harvey Milk's and Matt Gonzalez's old seat) is one example. Until and unless I see organizations like this a) making a pro-active effort to foster the careers of progressive politicians, regardless of party, and b) willing to challenge bad Democrats and Republicans in general elections, they'll still be nothing more than a house organ for the Democratic Party in my book, and part of the problem, not the solution.

---

by: tvleavitt @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 23:04:28 PM CST

I used to subscribe to this notion... (4.00 / 9)

...and there have been no shortage of rants from me about the Democratic Party's failings...

...but as long as the third parties collectively and individually continue to flounder and in fight, the best solution is to change the Democratic Party from with in.  I sat with high ranking members of the Green, Libertarian and Constitution Parties a few years ago for a nice informal lunch.  They asked me how they could make real progress, to make 3rd party candidates truly viable.  I told them to stop running 300 candidates each, diluting their own organizations resources and making them more of a joke than a plausible option, instead to run a Green candidate in a California, a Libertarian candidate in New Hampshire and a Constitution party candidate in Utah, focusing on their own candidate and assisting each other however they could - rallying volunteers, spreading the word, etc...

After taking 3 seats (1 cycle? 2? 3?), use those Congressmen to get 2 more each, 9 seats total...then from 9 to 15...15 seats is a great deal of leverage in the House of Representatives.  Leverage that would allow them to influence campaign finance rules (public financing?) and other restrictions impeding 3rd party candidates.

All of this would require them to essential have a truce for 5 to 10 years, to get along and work together to actually make progress to their own goals, instead of as they have for four decades (or more), continue treading water making no progress.

The responses from these three?  "Sounds great but we could never work with the XXX Party, they support YYY", "We could really change things by doing that, but we would never allow one of ZZZ's candidates to go unchallenged by one of our people."  They went on like this for 10 minutes or so.  Civilly, but with an undercurrent of vile that reminds me it isn't just the two major parties that are f'd.

Any new org has no credibility by default, some generate false credibility with PR tricks, others have an initial "boost" of credibility by featuring people with credibility as their leaders or supporters, but really they are still nothing until they do something.  Don't judge this org until they have done something, if they do it poorly, if they pick 3 candidates to get elected and those 3 turn out to be Harry Reid Jr, Tim Mahoney Jr and Joanna Lieberman - and they don't do anything to repudiate the actions of their victors...then you can judge them just another piece of the machine, new boss same as the old boss...etc.

I do hope the PCCC will get the strength to not only challenge for Red seats but also for going after weak Democrats.  We need something, this sounds like it might work - what is the harm in giving it a chance to show us one way or another which kind of wolf it is?

---

by: mp @ Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:49:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This is true (4.00 / 1)

I could write a long diary expounding on this concept, but to sum what I believe, the American political system isn't biased against third parties; it is biased against third parties without a geographic base of strength.  Any wannabe third party that doesn't appear to recognize this starts out with one strike immediately in my book for being out of touch with reality.

I also believe that third parties tend to attract the sort of people who would be dysfunctional and incapable of working within a coalitional government that a true multi-party system might produce, but that's a judgment based mostly on my experience with hardcore libertarians and may not apply to other parties.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:57:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dysfunctionality (0.00 / 0)

No question about dysfunctional behavior being widespread within the Green Party (can't comment about others)... but the solution isn't trying to foster collaboration between proponents of widely divergent points of view (outside of those areas where they have obvious common interest), but rather to do what competent political organizations and organizers have always done: figure out a way to minimize problematic behaviors and their impact, and then organize everyone else to win campaigns (electoral and otherwise).

I've confident that, within the next decade, we'll have at least a couple of elected Green Party representatives in the California state legislature, and that within a couple of decades, we'll have at least one elected Congressional Representative. The San Francisco Green Party has it's act together (at least in some areas) far better than most local Green Party orgs. That could happen sooner, if someone pours a ton of money into Green Party organizing at some point, or if a prominent progressive Democrat gets fed up and defects (though those people don't tend to occupy elected office)... or if the economy totally implodes and the two major parties wind up being completely discredited (as has happened elsewhere). Short of that, it's a long haul. Unfortunately, I don't think the planet has that long to wait for a rescuer to arrive... and I don't think the Democratic Party is capable of reforming itself. So I have no idea how this is going to work - maybe the rest of the world will set an example we follow, against the wishes of the power elite?

I don't see any harm in the PCCC's activities... if they wind up having a significant impact on the number of progressives in Federal office over time, that's great. More power to them. My primary point was that if the org confines itself exclusively to fighting within the Democratic Party, it hardly qualifies as a "movement" organization, or is a fit to the title of David's column.

If it were a movement organization, then it would explicitly welcome the opportunity to support competent folks outside the Democratic Party.

---

by: tvleavitt @ Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 21:10:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just took a look at some of Geoghegan's writings (4.00 / 5)

I can't tell you how heartening I found it to discover a progressive who doesn't sneer at the working class.

I had wondered if it was possible anymore.

---

by: frankly0 @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 23:26:36 PM CST

MoveOn (0.00 / 0)

I was annoyed that MoveOn didn't break stride when Obama flipped his position (i.e., "lied") and didn't try to block FISA last summer.

---

by: Non-Compassionate Liberal @ Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:51:07 AM CST

I don't see (0.00 / 0)

them doing anything in CA-32.  They haven't so far, at least, and there are already very high-profile candidates, including a member of the statewide Board of Equalization and the Majority Leader of the State Senate, who have announced.  I see no coordination with the local netroots or grassroots so far, so I'm disappointed until I hear further.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

---

by: dday @ Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:55:10 PM CST