An initial burst of enthusiasm assured my that there's serious interest and support out there, but the problem for me is simply being stretched too thin, and so I'm looking for others willing to step up and take a more active role.
To recap what this is all about, the vision of the the BattleGround Project is to use nationwide polling in Battleground districts, released to local media via locally-organized coalitions to
Influence the political climate in these districts to make them more favorable for progressive candidates, messaging and coalition building;
Promote dialog and coordination between local activists in these districts and progressive organizations at the state and national level, as well as lateral communications across districts;
Create and evolve a conceptual framework and strategy for progressive messaging and campaigns that has potentially broad application to multiple battleground districts and can also be customized for specific districts.
There is a Google Group set up for this project here. I'm going to restart the organizing discussion tomorrow, and want to invite folks here to join in. More details on what it's all about on the flip.
[Note: If you don't know what this is about, click here.]
This week has been both an exciting and sobering week for the proposed Battleground District Polling/Organizing Project.
On the exciting side, we're launched a Google Group, here, and began an exciting discussion on Monday. We're had offers of interest from Democracy Corps, whose polling in Battleground Districts is one of the inspirations for this project, and from Christine Cegalis, the grassroots Democratic candidate whose strong challenge to Henry Hyde helped push him out the door, only to get muscled aside by Rahm Emanuel, because she didn't get the level of netroots support she deserved. She's no quitter, though, and beyond organizing in support of progressive candidates in that cycle, she has continued organizing in support of progressive causes and candidates in the Greater Chicago area with The Greater Chicago Caucus:, and expressed an interest in working with us. This is exactly the sort of local organizaiton(s) that we are looking to work with in every district on our list.
I also had a brief informal discussion IRL with an organizer for Change To Win. Even though Change To Win is decidedly less focused on electoral politics, this really excited me, because I think that expanding beyond the existing framework of electoral politics is at the very heart of what we're all about.
On the sobering side, as I had more day-job and other work to do that cut back my participation, the emial list discussion withered to nothing, letting me know that my desire to involve othes and give away authority would not be as easy to pull off as I would like it to be. I knew this in advance in principle, of course. But the drop-off was sharper than expected, and left me feeling, well, it left me feeling, rather than focusing on tasks. Which, I suppose, is what I needed to do. Best not to get too carried away. More reflection, rather than less, is not a bad thing.
Still , it sharpened my sense that I need to ask people to clearly step up, and start taking on some leadership tasks, which in turn made me think of task priorities in general. A discussion of that begins on the flip, along with discussion about expanded outreach-now with Chris's list of battleground prospects merged with the Democracy Corps list.
But first, a word about underlying logic and motivation. I've written a couple of diaries today on the anomalous nature of the current party system-something that contributes powerfully to the Versailles culture we are organizing against, which is further detailed in my third diary today, looking at the normalization of GOP obstructionism in the Senate, and which is also related to the spread of conspiracies theories, as discussed by David Sirota in his diary. My point is that this project does not occur in a vacuum. It grows out of many different sources, and the logic behind it is one that continues to deepen, not just as result of my obsessing about it, but as a result of many different people continuing to make connections in a wide variety of different ways.
And with that, you are all invited to join me on the flip...
The National Battleground District Project now has its own Google group, which means we're about to shift gears. For those who just joined us, here's a quick overview of what it's all about:
Project Summary
My proposal is simple: Use an initial organizing project to establish a national battlegound district* [*with a safe Bush Dog annex] network that combines national and local activists and organizations. The initial project centers around fielding a poll--much like MyDD did [for those not familiar with it, Mystery Pollster discussed it here and here]--that can yield us important information that we can use to lobby and pressure Dems in marginal districts, while mobilizing coalitions of local activists and organizations--and that can be used to energize Democratic challenges to Republicans in marginal districts. If we field a national swing district poll, similar in scope to the recently-released Democracy Corps poll but with our own carefully-crafted question set--again see the MyDD example--we can generate some extremely useful ammo for making our arguments. What's more, simply by fielding a poll ourselves, we start to alter their perception of us.
Repeated exercises of this same organizing formula-at least once a year, but possibly more often-will provide a solid framework for continued organizing, while a variety of simpler actions can be developed as well. Establishing lateral networks, so that activists in different battleground districts are in much closer touch with one another, is a key goal of this project, which will allow for a much more continuous flow of organizing activity than a purely centralized effort could effectively mount. Ideally, these networks will become increasingly active and capable of spontaneous organizing as important issues are being debated in Congress.
We're now ready to move into operational mode, even as we continue to discuss and refine the exact nature of what we're doing. While this makes no sense at all from as top-down perspective, it's a perfectly reasonable way to proceed from an organic, bottom-up POV. So I'm going to write just a little big about some big picture, what-are-doing kinds of things, and a lot more about getting things going. Then I'm going to encourage input from others to further the process of shaping what we're doing, as well as actually volunteering to do stuff.
Once again, anyone who wants to join the group, just email me at the address listed on my user page.
Last week, I posted the first iteration of a spreadsheet for organizing the battleground district polling project, which I have advocated before. It's intended as the initial organizing venture for developing a national network of progressive activists and organizations, initially centered in the swing districts that are routinely used to hold back progressive initiatives.
It's been one of those weeks, so I'm just now getting around to setting up a Google group for carrying on this work on a continual basis, as suggested some time back by Populista. And so I'm posting this update for 3 reasons:
(1) To invite folks to let me know if they'd like to join the group.
(2) To ask for help uploading a spreadsheet. (It won't load, and Google help is no help at all--unless I want to upload it as HTML!)
(3) To announce that I'll be doing a more comprehensive post on this project tomorrow.
After last weekend, and my experience at the "Moving Forward" conference that I diaried about ("Birth Of A Movement?"), I thought it might be time to switch gears a bit and try to start getting some work done--out of which would certainly come some more ideas, and possibly the beginnings of some real support.
So, on the flip I've laid out a table highlighting the sort of information that I see as helpful in getting started: the districts, current officeholders, what tier Democracy Corps assigns them, relevant blogs (separate columns for statewide and local or regional), unions, democratic clubs, and local chapters of national organizations. These are all the sorts of information that we can at least begin to glean without actually living in the districts. As we draw in people with more specific knowledge, we can then add columns for local organizations, as mentioned in my previous diary, "A Movement-Building Strategy-Part 2", such as:
Liberal and/or mainline churchers with social welfare concerns, and an internal organizational structure to provide service, at the very least. In many cases, there is also an advocacy structure as well.
Social service agencies.
Local organizations dealing with specific issues. These include environmental groups with specific local missions, non-profit housing corporations, community-development organizations, etc.
So, if you're interested in helping out, or even just seeing what I have in mind, and maybe offering a suggestion or two, then join us on the flip...
In "A Movement-Building Strategy-Part 1", I reintroduced the idea of using a national battleground congressional district poll as an organizing tool for building a progressive coaltion. As I explained:
Project Summary
My proposal is simple: Use an initial organizing project to establish a national battlegound district* [*with a safe Bush Dog annex] network that combines national and local activists and organizations. The initial project centers around fielding a poll--much like MyDD did [for those not familiar with it, Mystery Pollster discussed it here and here]--that can yield us important information that we can use to lobby and pressure Dems in marginal districts, while mobilizing coalitions of local activists and organizations--and that can be used to energize Democratic challenges to Republicans in marginal districts. If we field a national swing district poll, similar in scope to the recently-released Democracy Corps poll but with our own carefully-crafted question set--again see the MyDD example--we can generate some extremely useful ammo for making our arguments. What's more, simply by fielding a poll ourselves, we start to alter their perception of us.
Repeated exercises of this same organizing formula-at least once a year, but possibly more often-will provide a solid framework for continued organizing, while a variety of simpler actions can be developed as well. Establishing lateral networks, so that activists in different battleground districts are in much closer touch with one another, is a key goal of this project, which will allow for a much more continuous flow of organizing activity than a purely centralized effort could effectively mount. Ideally, these networks will become increasingly active and capable of spontaneous organizing as important issues are being debated in Congress.
Following a suggestion made by mitchipd earlier last week, I'm now following up to add some more detail, specifically addressing an area where some questions were raised, about the potential nature of the on-the-ground coalitions, and who they should or could consist of.
What sort of organisations would this strategy link up with? Since it's done by CD, not many organisations will overlap directly with it. With this in mind, might it be worth trying where possible to target bordering districts, so as to draw in more community organising groups that have been gerrymandered into different CDs?
Organizations lobby congressmembers all the time. Here in the LA area, it's fairly common for organizations to set up a series of meetings with different representatives. This goes for national organizations that have local chapters, it goes for local organizations that are part of regional, statewide or national coalitions, and it goes for everything in between.
People in different organizations work together all the time, and the sort of organizing that I am proposing is not a radical departure from what they are already doing. In fact, on some of the issues we would poll on, it would make good sense for them to lobby state representatives as well. That's not part of the explicit model, but giving the local groups encouragement to shape their own strategies allows for them to do this as well, if it makes sense for them.
In this diary, I'd like to talk more about the nature of the organizations and coalition-building as I see it. Naturally, there is room for considerable rethinking, but I'd just like to get the ball rolling.
Paul's proposal
is worth reposting, accompanied by a request for questions about it. I generally remember its key points similar to what RandomNonViolence lays out.
I thought the proposal was worthy of consideration and follow-up discussion for its potential strategic value and also because it contained enough practical "to do" steps to serve as a good starting point for a focused and action-oriented discussion. I also like that it seemed designed to accomplish a number of significant goals with a single project.
One suggestion is for Paul to post it in multiple pieces, maybe starting with an overview and then drilling down into specifics and eventually to proposed action items. At each step, we could raise questions about what we don't understand and what we like and don't like about it. In addition to helping to clarify the post's content and purpose, this multi-phase approach might help Paul integrate questions and feedback into his follow-up posts.
So that's what I'm going to try to do. I'm at a conference today, but I will try to respond to comments by late afternoon or early evening, West Coast time. Hopefully we can discuss it on into Sunday, and I can do a second installment sometime Sunday afternoon.
Cristina Page had a great op-ed in the Baltimore Sun this week, making a plea that when journalists question presidential hopefuls (of both parties) about their reproductive rights beliefs, that they specifically bring up contraception access.
Why? Because when the Republican presidential hopefuls speak to a roomful of forced-pregnancy advocates, they are doing everything but declaring their desire for a birth-control ban. These are things they're not saying in interviews with national media, or during the debates.
Deep down, there's nothing really new about this. The hard-core anti-choice doesn't want to overturn Roe. That's never been their aim. They want to overturn Griswold But, of course, that message is not ready for primetime. And so it never gets discussed.
It's time to change that. And one way to help do that is via a national battleground district poll, which I've talked about specifically here, and have discussed as part of an organizing strategy here. First I want to explore the issue, then I want to talk about its place in the battleground district poll, and finally, I want to talk about its place in an organizing strategy. All on the flip.
One of the most common responses to the Bush Dog campaign is that "You don't live here; you don't know what you're talking about; you want to elect a liberal Democrat to this district; and it can't be done; we'd end up losing in a landslide."
That's a big mouthful, and ordinarily I'm the kind of guy who would sit down to parse it, and answer its various parts. But I'm not going to do that in this diary. Instead, I'm going for the heart of the argument--that this is the sort of Democrat we have to run to win in this kind of district. I'm going to refute that assumption in the most straightforward way possible: I'm going to compare Bush Dogs to non-Bush Dogs in fairly similar districts.
The analysis will clearly show that it's the members, not the districts that are the problem.
Spurred on by David Kowalski offering Progressive Punch scores in a comment, I've done another iteration of this table, which is now dominated by the Progressive Punch scores for all the issue categories. Color coding is used for Progressive Punch scores, grouping by deciles, descending from moderate to light blue, and then from light to moderate red.
I have two versions of the table over the jump. The first maintains the alphabetical order within battleground tiers, the second is in descending order of Progressive Punch total scores, again within battleground tiers. The second is particularly helpful for seeing the relative conservatism of different members at a glance.
I believe this provides the most comprehensive visual overview of the overall political orientations of the Bush Dogs to date. It is very clear that the Bush Dogs are particularly bad on Family Planning and on Civil and Criminal Justice issues. Average scores on other issues range from the low 90s (Housing) to the low 70s (Human Rights & Liberties, Corporate Subsidies), but then drops precipitously to the mid 50s for Civil and Criminal Justice and the high 40s for Family Planning.
However, even for Government Checks on Corporate Power, where the overal average is in the mid 70s, there are three Safe District Bush Dogs who score under 50%--Boren, Peterson and Cuellar.
In my previous diary, "Beyond Bush Dogs? Proposal For A Pro-Active Battleground District Organizing Strategy", I proposed using a national poll of battleground congressional district as the vehicle for an organizing project to lobby swing-district Democrats, while more broadly influencing the political climate in battleground districts generally-including improving the prospects for Democratic challenges in GOP-held seats.
Regardless of how much organizing is done, a battleground district poll has enormous potential utility in and of itself, and I'd like to initiate a discussion of what it could look like, and what good it could do. Hopefully others will have a lot to add in comments.
A battleground district poll should:
Address multiple issues.
Include sufficient benchmark questions-presidential and congressional approval, right track/wrong direction-so that these can usefully be compared to other polls.
Address levels of satisfaction and discontent, and shed some light on their sources.
Help distinguish between unreachable and persuadable voters, and provide a better sense of how attitudes may be changing in a more durable manner (possible realignment).
Help test some progressive value and issue frames.
All that, and be short enough to be practicable! For a more in-depth discussion, jump....
Let me say flat out that I'm thrilled with the unfolding Bush Dog campaign, even though the precise outlines are a bit undefined. The central thrust is clear, and the timeframe is short. Fact is, I'm so thrilled that I want to suggest doing something even more ambitious to start working on in background mode, even as we move quickly on the Bush Dog front.
What I'm proposing is a project focused on the battleground districts-with the Bush Dogs in safe districts as a sort of penumbral offshoot. (As noted in my previous diary, more than half the Bush Dogs-22 out of 38-come from safe districts.) The logic here is that whatever is true about battleground districts in a progressive sense will be even more true for the safe district Bush Dogs. What I envision is combining national and local strategizing, letting activists at each level take on the roles they are best suited to.
What trigged this was a post by Julia Rosen at Calitics expressinig her extreme frustration with Jerry McNerney who's quoted in a Washington Post article talking incoherent GOP-appeasement gibberish. In the discussion, Kid Oakland points to McNerney's voting record. It's clear that he's no Bush Dog. But it's also clear that he's being influenced by hanging out with a bad crowd in DC. We need a way to organize a coherent counterforce. My proposal abuot how to go about it is on the flip.
Notes [Chris's originals]
PVI = Partisan Voting Index, produced by Cook Political Report
* = Non-consecutive terms in Congress
** = Received significant national blogosphere support
Also, Tim Walz did vote in favor of the McGovern amendment. All others voted nay on that amendment, and are clearly ideologically opposed to progressives in this area.
A few observations.
First and foremost is that the 16 Bush Dogs in tiers one and two are outnumbered by 22 Bush Dogs in safe districts.
Second, the 16 Bush Dogs represent less than half of the 35 Democrats in battleground states.
Third, although the safe Bush Dogs have an average PVI in their districts of R +3.6, they are incredibly safe, winning re-election with an average 78%, and a low of 59%--just one member below 61%.
Fourth, safety is clearly related to how long people have been office. Aside from the averages, only two of the Tier One officeholders weren't challengers* [*or running for open seats] in 2004 or 2006 (though two challengers* had previously served in Congress). Just one of the Tier Two officeholders wasn't a challenger* in 2004 or 2006 (though one had previously served in Congress). But just 6 of 22 safe district officeholders were challengers* in 2004 or 2006, and five of those were elected in 2004.
One obvious conclusion from all the above is that generically the best prospects for running primary challenges, if it comes to that, are against the 6 newbies Bush Dogs in safe districts: Wilson (OH-06), Salazar (CO-03), Cuellar (TX-28), Costa (CA-20), Boren (OK-02), Lipinski (IL-03).
These six are the safest seats from a partisan perspective, but the least entrenched officeholders, from a primary potential perspective.
Of course, specific situations will over-ride general considerations. But the big picture tells which prospects are most promising on general grounds, and which are not.
STATE BLOGS
