Blame the insanity on the state DSCC

I'm not going to engage in too much DSCC bashing... (0.00 / 0)

I certainly don't want to blame too much of this on the DSCC. This was about power and a hunger for that power. It's very clear that is the case. Espada is in a position now where he has the title and isn't willing to let it go or share it. He wants it all to himself.

Yes, we almost beat Hannon, but we almost beat a lot of people in 2008. Joe Mesi lost by a small margin. Rick Dollinger lost by a small margin. Kathy Konst didn't lose by a lot to Dale Volker when you consider she only had one line to run on and she didn't have a ton of money in that race.

On the Gennaro race, you said last fall Dan that Gennaro was in a "tough battle" and that Padavan would be "extremely difficult to beat." Now you are saying that the DSCC should have invested more in Gennaro. Of course, looking back on it now, they should have. Why they didn't is something only they know.

We shouldn't dwell on what we didn't do in 2008. We should focus on what we will do in 2010. That is more important at this point. We can point all the fingers we want, but we need to be better prepared. That includes the DSCC having a stronger upstate operation which is non-existent right now. It is all centered in downstate and Albany and makes them very ignorant to the races and candidates up here.

We need to move forward and prepare for the future. If you thought 2008 was important, just wait until 2010.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 12:01:52 PM UTC

Fix the blame (0.00 / 0)

Of course, whenever something is broke, the first thing we seem to want to fix is the blame.  

I agree with Robert, let's focus on what can be done from here-- much as I wish, for instance, that DSCC had backed Brian Keeler way back.... well, it is water under the bridge now.  Onward, through the bog!  (Humming "Neck Deep in the Big Muddy"...)

---

by: robinia @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 12:38:32 PM UTC

Agreed Robinia... (0.00 / 0)

It is very easy to analyze these situations and assign blame for things they did or didn't do. While I think the DSCC needs to improve its operations, I don't think it is appropriate to blame them for this mess (this mess is a product of Albany, not the DSCC) and I don't think we can overlook the other players in this who had a role in disrupting the state.

The DSCC has a long way to go. They basically won where they were supposed to last year (Trunzo was old and a weakened incumbent and Maltese nearly lost in 2006, making him just as vulnerable). Aubertine won, but as we have seen with the talk of NY-23, Aubertine is very popular in the North Country and he is one of the few (if not the only) Democrats who appeals to the base up there.

But debating what the DSCC has to do is for another day.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 14:11:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah but to forget the past... (4.00 / 2)

Just went back to my diary "NYS Dems Diss 50 State Strategy" http://www.thealbanyproject.co... and it is still heartbreaking to see year after year letting the opportunity slip through our fingers.

The silver lining on this may just be the citizens of NYS will finally pay attention to what's really going on in Albany. The shame of it is that all will be painted with a single brush, and forgotten will be some actual attempts at real reform. My theory is that it was the threat of some actual real reform that lit the fuse for this coup.  

---

by: am @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 14:33:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No one is forgetting the past... (0.00 / 0)

But to dwell on it will only make us losers in the future. Learn from it, but don't sit here and discuss what we could have done differently. It's not worth it now. Learn from it and implement those changes in the future.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 14:39:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"to dwell on it will only make us losers in the future" ? (4.00 / 1)

Really?  Discussing how past screw-ups happened somehow dooms us to repeat them, and is different from learning?

Strange.

I understand that most of the past few years of Democratic (and Republican) party history in New York is bleak enough that looking at it carefully is difficult, requiring "turning off the disgust sensors", but the idea that recognizing that bleakness is itself a problem... is new to me.

If we don't want to dwell on the DSCC's failings, and would rather just move on, we'd probably be wise on to move on without the DSCC.  Or with a DSCC whose upper management is all new, and painfully aware of the ups and downs of their predecessors' work.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 14:54:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Simon... (0.00 / 0)

Dwelling and discussing are two different things. We can discuss, but we also have to move on and ADDRESS (not dwell) on the problems. If 2010 comes around and we say, "If only we funded Gennaro" then SD-11 in 2010 won't be ours. It is a new year. The 2010 elections are right around the corner. Learn from our past mistakes and make a plan for the future. That's all I'm saying.

Writing posts blaming the DSCC for the coup and dwelling on past races isn't what we should be doing. Let's recruit better candidates for 2010 so that we can make gains and win important races.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:32:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

marching forward blind with a smile? (0.00 / 0)

Addressing problems tends to require acknowledging them.

In this case, it sounds like you want us to do a better job without ever pondering the problems of the past.  "Let's all think positive" is not a useful answer for improving on past disasters.

We need more posts like this, not fewer.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:51:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simon... (0.00 / 0)

You tend to prefer the negative view of everything. I have noticed that about your approach here. Your views on the upstate-downstate theory, among others.

If you want to write a post criticizing the DSCC for their failures in 2008, fine. But blaming them for this coup? I think that is a bit misguided.

My previous comments tend to agree with Dan that we have to do better and that the DSCC needs to do better. I focus on certain upstate races that we lost because, in my view, the DSCC doesn't have people who know anything about these races or upstate New York. But I'm not going to sit here and say that we should have done this or that in 2008. We had our chance. We didn't do it. Now we need to make it right in 2010.

You can ponder the problems of the past all you want. I choose to learn from them, while taking on a new approach. It is obvious that we did some good and bad things in 2008. I do think we need a better message for 2010 (something more specific than "Take back the Senate") and I do think we need to target more seats (instead of a few, let's target 10 or 12).

My approach to everything is that if you are going to criticize it, then propose a way to change it. That is a similar approach I take with the critiques of Gillibrand. If all you are going to do is criticize the DSCC, then you really aren't doing anything to help further change. You can criticize them, but propose a new plan. They read this blog, so it's not like it would go ignored.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 16:10:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think I've proposed a lot of possible fixes (0.00 / 0)

They mostly involve tearing down Albany's culture of "we're in, you're not".  If that sounds negative to you, then perhaps we actually disagree on substance, not simply style.

You seem to agree that "the DSCC doesn't have people who know anything about these races or upstate New York".  Doesn't that seem like a good place to start fixing things?  

Doesn't that even seem like a constructive criticism that leads to positive action?

See!  Even you can do it!

More things I'd recommend for 2010: divert resources from the Assembly races, where they don't need them to sustain their majority, to the Senate races and even the Governor's race if necessary.  Invest that money in better polling and a better ground game so we have a better picture of voters and their shifting attitudes.

I agree with you about developing a better message, preferably one that can be woven into a story specific to each district.  
For the longer run, start now on building a state committee of people who know their districts and are willing to fight over them, rather than people who know each other and happily fall in line.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 16:20:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Been there done that! (4.00 / 2)

(Perhaps more of a response to Robert.)

The suggestions for new ideas have been suggested time and again over the past at least two cycles, perhaps more.  The DSCC response is hey that's a good idea, but then there is no follow through.  They admonish challengers to do this or that and when they succeed the DSCC will be there, then they are not.  The DSCC has actively underminded good challengers.  The result is that these good challengers refuse to ever run again after the treatment they have had.  

There is a real challenge in dealing with a DSCC that has heard all these good ideas in the past and ignored them.  As Simon said - "we're in and you're not."  That has to be dealt with.  

So it isn't just a matter of suggesting new ideas, it is changing the culture of the DSCC to be open to new ideas.  It requires having a dialog and commitment to work on incorporating new ideas into the existing culture.  

On the other hand, there are strong influences pulling the DSCC in a different direction.  

---

by: jmcbride @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 17:13:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

We should forgive, but not forget.  Right now, however, we have a governance crisis, not an election.

BTW, I think you are right about the whiff of real change scaring the bejeebers out of some people, fake reformer (and chief architect) Golisano included.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 14:58:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm with you on the 50 state thing (0.00 / 0)

and hope we carry though on the 62-county approach too.

I'm not at all convinced, however, that "the threat of some actual real reform... lit the fuse for this coup."  I think the fuse was built of delay and uncertainty, and lit by impatience and a few personal feuds.

Lots of folks in Albany are afraid of reform, for different reasons, but I have a hard time seeing this as "fake reform" in place of "real reform", whatever the Democratic talking points might be.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:06:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've got to back am here on this. We didn't do enough last year. (4.00 / 2)

I'll use my State Senator as an example. Dale Volker spent roughly $900,000 on his reelection. His Democratic opponent was only able to raise about $30,000. On top of that, we had almost no volunteer base, or mailings, or anything. It was all word of mouth and a handful of people canvassing, and it was still only an 11 point race.

We didn't get more support because it was assumed that unseating Volker was impossible. But the fact is that if we'd had just a few hundred thousand dollars to play with, we'd probably have a new State Senator right now, as well as having guaranteed our control of the state senate.

We really need to work everywhere. Nobody thought we could win the rural upstate congressional districts, but we did. We can do the same with the State Senate districts.  

---

by: Adama @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:25:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unseating Volker... (0.00 / 0)

Is a real possibility. I said that last fall. I don't know why others (mostly outsiders) think that he is unbeatable. Konst is the type of candidate that can beat him. If she had the funding and the support, she would have.

One thing to remember about Konst is that she didn't even have the party's (Erie County's, anyway) backing. She had to make it through a primary against an opponent who received the endorsement, but didn't have the name recognition Konst did.

You give Konst $300,000 and a team of volunteers, she can beat Volker. If she wants to run again, I would support her campaign. She has what it takes to beat Volker, but she needs more support.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:36:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They think he's unbeatable because he's always been there. (0.00 / 0)

Having occupied the same office for 34 years is a powerful psychological weapon, even though he's only been seriously challenged once in all that time. Also because his district is heavily rural and gerrymandered.  

---

by: Adama @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 20:18:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Party Forces (4.00 / 1)

We nearly defeated Serphin Maltese in 2006 with another Democrat, lost by like 350 votes...but he wasn't endorsed by the local Democratic club. Had he been, we would've won that seat too.

the reason he wasn't endorsed was because they were keeping the seat clear for Addabbo to run and win (the official reason was because they wanted a Senator in the majority and the Democrats had no chance of winning it in 2006)

I would be surprised if the DSCC kept Dahroug out of the race in 2006 to keep it open for Foley.

As part of NYS Young Democrats, we did whatever we can for McElroy and Gennarro, but there was no institutional support.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 14:14:51 PM UTC

Dahroug in 2006 (4.00 / 1)

The DSCC didn't actually keep Dahroug out of the race, they just backed someone who had contributed to Trunzo one cycle earlier.  Dahroug won what ended up as a three-way primary, and got over 44.3% of the vote in the general (Ochoa, the DSCC pick, got 2.3% on the WFP line; Trunzo got less than 54%).

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 16:31:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or (4.00 / 1)

Instead of a new DSCC, what about a new organization that WE control and lets US fund progressive candidates?  That's my dream.

---

by: BingChester @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 14:38:06 PM UTC

That's a good idea... (0.00 / 0)

The DSCC serves its purposes, but we had a slate of good candidates last year that didn't get the attention they deserved. Having a focus on strong, progressive candidates would be ideal, especially for a group that is controlled by us.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 14:41:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The catch, of course, is money. (4.00 / 1)

A new organization built from the ground up using modern political tactics, and not encumbered by the entanglements of internal state party politics, would obviously be the ideal. But money is the relevant measure with regard to what could actually be done. I'd be the first person to sign on for such a group, if we can put together a coherent plan for actually making it a real thing.  

---

by: Adama @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:34:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've thought a few times about putting together (0.00 / 0)

an organization whose purpose was to encourage and seed Democratic primary challenges for state legislators.  As difficult as that would be - campaign finance law is the easiest part - I think you've set an even harder task.

But maybe it's time to form TAP-PAC?

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:54:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I would tend to see in my mind's eye... (0.00 / 0)

...is an organization dedicated to supporting reform-minded candidates, in all ways. Sometimes that would mean primary challengers, sometimes general elections, sometimes shoring somebody up in a reelection. There has to be follow-through and sustained support to build a working group of reformists, which includes bumping off both the fossilized Dems and the Republicans.

Like I said, I'd be onboard if we can raise enough money to be able to really put the work in.  

---

by: Adama @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 20:57:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An added note on the difficulty. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, it would be difficult--but not impossible by any means. What do upstart campaigns need? Primarily money and expertise. Seed money can be raised, donor introductions can be made, and the expertise comes from people like us who have completely immersed ourselves in politics, watching up close the things that work, the things that don't, what the differences are, and how things can vary across the state. It's certainly doable.  

---

by: Adama @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 21:03:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah and can someone explain to me why (0.00 / 0)

Ken La valle got a pass last time. Why do we ever give any Republican a Bye in any race at any time. Make them fight to keep their seat and spen their warchest. Also all respect to Jimmy but he ran twice and couldn't close. It took a more experienced politician like Brian to win I know I worked that race.

---

by: Brookhaven Dem @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:03:56 PM UTC

Dan's right (4.00 / 3)

There is a fundamentally different perspective between the DSCC and those of us in the grass or netroots.  I (and many others) have long advocated a broad approach to the campaign to take back the senate.  Several years ago, the DSCC plan was that the majority would not be achieved until after the 2010 election.  Since a plan to strongly support 8 to 10 challengers rather than 1, 2 or 3 has not yet been tried, it is hard to assert the grassroots idea would be better.  We know the DSCC plan didn't work.  

Also blame has to go to the state party.  The party needs to rid itself of the party-boss, highly-hierarchical system.  It is just too hard for new blood to break in have meaningful influence or participation.  There are numerous counties with virtually no organization at all.  Those counties with some organization tend to have a narrow focus on only county elections.  They have virtually no involvement in congressional races, state legislative races or municipal races.

And training for candidates, district leaders, volunteers?  It doesn't exist.  

I see nasty storm clouds on the horizon.  More on that when I have a little more time.  

---

by: jmcbride @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:05:17 PM UTC

Yes, I blame the state party (4.00 / 2)

Denny Farrell had absolutely no interest in capturing the Senate and his successors did not even bother to poll the Gennaro and McElroy races and were surprised they came so close to winning

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:08:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]