For those of you living in Philly who want to both: a) beat back the crazies (who here are wearing disguises that make them look like supposedly normal humans Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey) and b) build an infrastructure that will outlast this election and move Democrats to the left over the long haul, there is an answer coming this Saturday at 1 PM to Philadelphia Community College. It's the Progressive Organizing Workshop, which has the lovely acronym of POW, and it will be what its title says.
It will run 3.5 hours, and it will feature GOTV training focused on what we have to do this year. And make no mistake, we really have to bust it this year to beat the Republicans because it's hard to understand how electing climate warming deniers and corporate tax repealers and gas-frakking lovers helps the progressive cause now or ever. But then we're going to move on to dealing with how to create a progressive infrastructure that Democrats will have to pay attention to.
So to accomplish both of these objectives, we're going to break into regional workshops where people in neighboring communities will get to know each other. And we're going to talk about good old fashioned neighborhood organizing and how effective neighbor-to-neighbor conversation and connection builds bonds that can be much stronger than mere Party allegiance. And then we're going to get commitments from folks on what they will do to build that infrastructure. And then, hopefully, we're going to build it.
So if lesser evilism is getting you down, prepare for another round or two of it. But if you're also looking for a way out of that thoroughly depressing political life-style, come to POW. We're going to put the kick back into that donkey. Here's where to go for more information: http://www.phillynn.org/home/d... Here's where to go to preregister and let us know what part of town you live in: http://www.phillynn.org/POW_re...
The administration and Organizing for Obama are clearly aware that many of the strongest supporters of healthcare reform are reluctant to support the President's current plan because it lacks a public option. In the OFA conference call on finishing health care reform the following question was asked:
Q: I was just wondering if we come across folks who are still advocating for the public option, should we still be supportive of that or would that mess things up?
Mitch: The President laid out his plan and the public option is not in that and I know a lot of people - not only on the phone here - but a lot of the folks that you talk to feel very strongly about the public option, but this is what I would say... This is our best shot at getting health insurance reform; comprehensive health insurance reform passed and while its not going to be exactly what everyone wants. This bill - the President's plan - accomplishes 90% of what I think all of us agree is a step in the right direction. So I would just talk about what is at stake. Sitting on the side lines based off of the public option - at this point is going to be absolutely detrimental to our efforts as we move forward. We have a lot of conversations about that and just say what's at stake - is that the sole reason why you support health insurance reform? You know, pose that question to folks. If we don't get this done now, literally it will be a decade before anyone brings this back up again and our country can't afford that - businesses, families, individuals and our government - local, state and federal - can't afford to put this problem off for another decade so that is what I would say to folks. I know it isn't a perfect answer. I know a lot of people feel extremely strong about that issues, but that's the best answer I can give you all tonight.
(thanks to Chris Bowers for prosting this)
This is a gross misunderstanding of why public option supporters oppose the current bill. Our response is not the selfish, simple-minded "oh, we didn't get our pet project in the bill, so we're against it" mentality that OFA leadership has tried to present it as. We are, by and large, opposed to any bill that would force the uninsured (such as myself) to buy policies from the very same private insurance companies Obama and the Democratic leadership have painted as the corrupt, well-monied defenders of a broken status quo.
We cannot, and will not support a bill that rewards these companies for denying coverage, for putting profit over people's lives, for distorting the democratic process through lobbying money, by handing them 50 million new customers, forced by government to buy their overpriced products. We are not just sitting on the sidelines, we are fundamentally opposed to this type of a bill.
We have said from the very beginning, that if there is to be an individual mandate to buy insurance we must have some option outside of the existing private, for profit companies. Whether a new public agency, a non-profit, or a Medicare buy-in (this is what most progressives would actually prefer if voluntarily open to all ages), any or all would be fine, just not WellPoint (whose former CEO was the Baucus staffer that largely wrote the Senate bill that Obama has based his proposal around). We will not support a bill that was written by insurance company CEOs and lobbyists.
This is not a qualm over a small detail; it is a huge rift over the fundamental direction of healthcare reform and government in general. Do we truly change and move this country in a new direction, by once again using government to provide for the general welfare of the people, as the Constitution gives Congress the authority and responsibility to do (Section 8, Article I), or do we continue with more of the same: big government bailing out big business at the expense of our general welfare?
(I'm cross posting this from The Pennsylvania Progressive)
Barack Obama campaigned for President on the message of Change. Many changes were necessary amidst the failed policies of the Bush White House. The country was going in the wrong direction and we were in a major economic collapse. As President Barack Obama has made many changes, most for the good. One, however, was bad. He replaced Gov. Howard Dean as Chair of the DNC and appointed Tim Kaine who immediately dismissed the 183 DNC field organizers and terminated the 50 State Strategy. That concept is failing and, as a consequence, Democrats are suddenly losing elections. For four years under Howard Dean the Democratic National Committee funded a 50 state strategy which paid for DNC field organizers on the ground in every state. These organizers built local and county organizations which assisted candidates at every level. What happened and how do Democrats turn things around?
The program was officially called the State Partnership Project. The various state parties hired field staff who were paid and trained by the DNC. A high ranking party official with whom I spoke praised the program highly because it gave each state the independence to do what it needed: "we knew what was best in our state." The result was exciting as true grassroots organizing improved the Democratic Party from the precinct level up. This Blue Jersey story provides a glimpse. A Democratic activist and labor leader tells me this about how the program worked in his state:
I loved the 50 State Strategy rhetorically, strategically, politically. The SPP was a godsend -- and electorally really effective (we retained a governorship, won a swing Congressional seat, and took over the majority in both houses of our legislative in the 4 years we had the SPP). I raised about $120,000 for the DNC on my good word that the SPP and the 50SS were crucial.
It is a goddam shame that Tim Kaine, David Axelrod, and Rahm Emmanuel, three guys who probably don't agree upon much, were able to all but kill off the SPP and 50SS.
This is the sentiment I received from people all across the country as I researched this article. What happened?
(We don't have to accept the failed top-down party leadership on any front, in any way. This is an important example. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Turns out if you do youth outreach in an election you have higher youth turnout.
If you read my take on the returns from the Massachusetts special election for the US Senate race then you know that Mass had some issues with reaching out to young voters. There was some confusion about who was going to do it.. or if it was going to happen... Someone even suggested the youth outreach was "well the President came..."
In the great state of Oregon we have a fantastic organization who has worked for years to get young voters to the polls, but also be engaged during years in between. The Oregon Bus Project worked the hell out of this special election and the results were noticeable.
In Massachusetts they had a turnout of 15% of 18-29 year olds for the special election. In the Oregon's special election about 24% turnout of youth voters (preliminary estimates from CIRCLE)
Caitlin Baggott from the Bus says that this is due to a few particularly important factors:
A year-round and multi-year strategy,
Populist messaging and policy development,
Budget (actually spending money on youth outreach
And finally, which I'll expand on, a focus on field and youth turnout
When it comes to a meaningful field outreach campaign Caitlin points to two major elements
A strong field campaign matched with a strong media campaign. Oregon Student Association, the Bus Project, and the coordinated campaign registered 30,000 voters--primarily on campuses and youth-dense parts of Portland and Eugene. The campaign led a huge GOTV field program to knock on 300,000 doors. We all phonebanked the hell out of our lists. (The Bus got a "thank you" message today from a voter who decided to vote after getting 15 phone calls from us.)
We expected it to be better than VA and MA. We're hoping that the lesson for all of us in 2010 is that young people will vote if we (1) Re-Register them, and (2) invest in youth-oriented GOTV. OSA and the Bus executed a huge youth-focused voter registration program in Oregon, and the Bus did youth-focused mail, earned and paid media, and phonebanks. (Trick or Vote for the fall!)
So here's the thing. Do the outreach. Do it because it builds the party long term, but do it because, I don't care what state you're in... it will make a difference and it could make the difference enough to win your election.
