Why should I give the NY Dems any of my money?

Answer: You shouldn't (4.00 / 5)

Instead, you should give to specific candidates that support your values.  Donating to a party organization that has no sense of organization, loyalty to its base, or ability to keep its pols on board major party issues doesn't deserve a dime from progressives.

Instead, find candidates this cycle that you really support and donate to them directly.  

---

by: BingChester @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 17:06:28 PM UTC

Exactly (4.00 / 3)

Give to individual candidates directly.

Always.

---

by: devtob @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 05:39:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, actually you could give to some party organizations (0.00 / 0)

There are some party organizations which do something other than mere campaigning: doing voter registration drives, helping inform potential candidates about the laws and pitfalls to avoid when running for office, organizing poll-watchers, paying to make sure the local party has grassroots meetings of members (someplace to host them and so forth) etc.

Don't support the organizations which just end up campaigning.  But not all the state and local party committees do that -- some are really there for much more "infrastructural" purposes.  Oddly those are the ones least likely to hit you up for money.

---

by: neroden @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 01:56:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bing Is Correct (4.00 / 3)

I absolutely refuse to donate to the NYS Dems along with the DCCC AND DSCC.  Why should I send them my money when they support candidates like Espada, Kruger, Nelson and Stupak?  I want my money (which was hard earned until I lost my job in October) to go to candidates that I agree with and will support ME.  No more "Dems" for the sake of electing Dems just because they run on the D Ticket.  I either donate directly to them to through ActBlue but never (and I've told each of these organizations just like you did) will I donate to these the organizations so they can elect "D's" that don't have the same values as I have.  

---

by: ROSALIE907 @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:13:56 AM UTC

THIS. (4.00 / 1)

I try to avoid discussing national politics here, but one advantage of having 60 Senators in your caucus is that you can afford to punt a few of them if they piss you off.  Want Charles Schumer to be the Majority Leader?  Support Harry Reid's opponent.  See how that works?  You can do what the Senate Democratic caucus refuses to do.  Not all at once, mind you, but you can send a shot across the bow of those who aren't up for re-election in '10.

Oh, and when the party orgs call you begging for cash, ask them how come 60 members doesn't mean squat.  Ask them why Pedro Espada wasn't drop kicked all the way back to the Bronx the moment he and the rest of the Gang of Three started their stupid nonsense.  Ask ask ask.  Don't do what I did and just hang up.

---

by: Steaming Pile @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 14:14:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unhappy with Albany? (4.00 / 4)

Give to RebootNY.org

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:35:17 AM UTC

Don't give to the party -- ever (0.00 / 0)

Party machines are the antithesis of representative democracy.

Give instead to the candidate(s) of your choice -- or, as Andrew writes, give to ReBootNY.org.

Or both!

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 22:58:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't give to the state party (4.00 / 2)

and honestly I have a hard time imagining what the benefit is. The committee that theoretically puts the democratic in Democratic is pretty much moribund, everyone seems to acknowledge that the Governor (if there is one) picks the chair, and the times when they have done well were driven as much or more by the Governor as by the party itself.

They're apparently trying to raise money again, which I guess is why you got that phone call, but the article immediately falls into Kremlinology, speculating about factions and what might happen if - just not a good sign.

I'm happy to donate to candidates, and to local organizations running campaigns for specific candidates.  

The simpler and clearer the "who benefits" story, the better.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 16:13:54 PM UTC

Party chair Jacobs wants to abolish fusion. (4.00 / 1)

Jacobs appears bent on building up the party, which has seen its GOTV efforts overshadowed by the Working Families Party's paid operation. Jacobs said in September the state should take a "strong look" at eliminating cross-endorsements, which is the main source of power for third parties with ballot status like the WFP.

In other words, the state Democratic Party feels threatened by the WFP's increasing kingmaking ability and wants to neutralize it so he doesn't have to kiss their asses for their endorsement.  I would say this is yet another reason not to give the state party any of my money.

---

by: Steaming Pile @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 18:48:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do more (0.00 / 0)

Abolish fusion, lower the standard for getting automatic ballot access -- and then show the parties in reverse order of their votes in the most recent gubernatorial election.

WFP would then have to prove they can actually win an election, rather than jumping in to races that are so close that they can, by dint of spending their own money on "uncoordinated" (wink, wink) efforts on behalf of their candidate, claim to be the margin of victory.

Frankly, I hope that WFP does field their own candidates -- and wins some seats.  If the WFP had, say, four Senate seats, while the other 58 were split evenly enough that neither "major" party had a majority, we'd see some real debate for a change -- and possibly some real change too!

One more item:  Let's say that under this system, in addiiton to the current five, the Green party also gets ballot access.  That means that if all six parties were to field candidates (and they'd have to field their own candidates), the Republican would be on line "E" and the Democrat on line "F".

I'm okay with that.  And I'm a Democrat.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 22:57:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure what abolishing fusion voting... (4.00 / 1)

Would do. The Democratic Party's problems are the party's problems. They won't go away if we abolish fusion voting. Sounds like Jacobs has an ax to grind with the WFP because of the WFP's successes. If the Democratic Party is jealous (that's what it sounds like) then maybe they should quit playing nice with incumbents and think outside the box.

Also, the Democratic Party is not an issue-based party. That, to me, is one of the reasons for the Democratic Party's failures. If you don't stand for anything except the people running under your party banner, then you aren't going to have a great standing in the political world. You need to stand for something.

I support fusion voting. It's the least of our worries. And since, in most cases, the Working Families Party is the only minor party to align themselves with us, I'd say our battles are better spent elsewhere. If the state party wants to change itself, it might want to start in house. That's where the real change is needed.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:55:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't tihnk Democratic voters stand for anything either (0.00 / 0)

when I was working on a city council campaign here in Queens, I was surprised that almost every Democratic voter I talked to in the neighborhood was some sort of cocktail of anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-torture, racist, xenophobic and anti-tax

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 15:19:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]