Paul's proposalis 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 desire that it seemed designed to accomplish a number of significant goals with a hit project.
One suggestion is for Paul to affix it in multiple pieces maybe starting with an overview and then drilling down into specifics and eventually to proposed challenge items. At each step we could increase questions about what we don't understand and what we desire and don't like about it. In addition to helping to explain the post's circumscribe and purpose this multi-phase come 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 ordain try to respond to comments by late afternoon or early evening. West glide measure. Hopefully we can address it on into Sunday and I can do a back up installment sometime Sunday afternoon.
I first presented this proposal from the point of view of how it would start which placed the emphasis on the relatively immediate. But it's equally if not more important to believe what it aims to do-which is to create movement infrastructure--especially in battleground districts--an open-ended way that is not heavy-handedly top-down.
As I said in my mention earlier this week three very important aspects of this proposal are (1) reaching local media. (2) coordinating with local activist organizations and individuals and (3) building relationships to establish an ongoing progressive pressence and influence in these districts.
communicate SummaryMy proposal is simple: Use an sign organizing communicate to open a national battlegound district* [*with a safe furnish Dog annex] network that combines national and local activists and organizations. The sign project centers around fielding a poll--much like MyDD did [for those not familiar with it. Mystery Pollster discussed it and ]--that can furnish us important information that we can use to beg 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 displace district survey similar in scope to the recently-released Democracy Corps survey but with our own carefully-crafted challenge set--again see the MyDD example--we can create some extremely useful ammo for making our arguments. What's more simply by fielding a poll ourselves we go away 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 comprehend with one another is a key goal of this project which will allow for a much more continuous move of organizing activity than a purely centralized effort could effectively mount. Ideally these networks ordain become increasingly active and capable of spontaneous organizing as important issues are being debated in Congress.
The above presentation hasn't been altered from the original so it still leads with the immediate emphasis. But I hope that my introductory remarks ordain sufficiently evince the point that this is clearly intended as the go away of a long-term project. However because it is intended to be cooperative and to nurture local autonomy it would not be consistent with this purpose to propose too much in the way of detailed planning in advance. A menu of possibilities would be much more in keeping with the spirit of my proposal and I'll be happy to get into that as a later step in this affect if it plays out the way that mitchipd suggested.
(1) To create a national framework for pro-actively and continually influencing conservative Democrats and Democratic officeholders in swing/battleground districts and supporting them in getting a progressive communicate out. We're about carrots as well as sticks. Once we really get rolling we should be increasingly about carrots.
(2) To influence the political climate in battleground districts held by Republicans to alter the environment more favorable for Democratic challengers and weaken support for Republican opposition in Congress.
(3) To carry into cerebrate underlying shifts and forgotten long-term trends in public opinion that give a fresh progressive come to problem-solving and governing.
(5) To carry to the fore salient facts that are otherwise routinely buried by existing political discourse.
(6) To effectively communicate 3. 4 and 5--particularly at the district level--to Democratic officeholders and candidates local media. Democratic activists and organizations non-party activists and organizaitons and directly to the populate via new and traditional forms of organizing and outreach.
(7) To build strong bonds between locally-grounded and nationally-focused progressives on a continuing ongoing basis.
In keeping with what I've said before. I would just desire to evince that #7 is not an afterthought. Rather it is the culmination of everything that goes before it. By having a strong and somewhat detailed-but comfort flexible-sense of shared intend. I evaluate we will have a much stronger foundation for long-term collaboration between local- and national-level organizing efforts. Thus everything that comes before (7) would be much less effective and much less worth doing were it not intended to lead into (7). Similarly. (7) would not be much more than a wish without the specific detail of the points that go before it.
I'll cerebrate by reiterating what I said in my comment earlier this week: The polling--although vitally important--was only the open point of this communicate. The district-level progressive infrastructure development was the real long-term point of it. And communicating the progessive communicate through the local media was conceived as an integral move of that infrastructure development from the very beginning.
The inform here is simple: we do undergo the means already in transfer to act in agenda-setting. Not to succeed alter away but at least to get into the game. That is the intend of this proposal-to act in movement-building that has an immediate payoff in getting us out of a purely reactive mode.
Who is "we"? An organization is required here. Could OpenLeft be that organization? I don't evaluate so. There is too much division here and rightfully so. Could OpenLeft serve as a think store for that organization? That's how I see it.
But what would that organization be? You could lay out that OpenLeft could further develop the ideas that bring about to such an organization. You could argue that "we" should form such an organization around the broadest principles and then beat out the details. Or preferably some synthesis of the two.
I see "we" being a new organization but one that clearly has the backing of the progressive blogosphere -- like ActBlue or BlogPAC or the Sunlight Foundation. The organization has be vigorously backed by prominent bloggers to show that it is a powerful compel -- a force to be reckoned with -- so that conservative opponents and mainstream media have to address us (instead of ignoring or ridiculing us as they typically do).
Though it's important to recognize that the credibility question is dealt with on several different levels some of which--such as the rigor of the polling method or the nature of the local coaltions--don't necessarily depend on the perceived powerfulness of the online entity.
Our first targets in terms of reaching beyond the progressive movement should be local and regional media who aren't necessarily as lockstep in their thinking as national mainstream media.
And frankly who cares about conservative opponents taking us seriously? The longer they live in ignorance and denial the better. IMHO. After all it's what they like.
Paul knows I was the pollster on the MyDD Poll and credibility of that poll was an overriding strategic inform for us from the get-go. We successfully dealt with it *by working multiple layers* of the blogosphere. Beltway and non-Beltway universes. There was a lot a great work done on this advance by Chris. Matt and Rick Jacobs of the @
I haven't talked a lot about the polling side here because it seemed that people needed to get a stronger comprehend of where we would be going. But the innovative possibilities in the polling Sun Tzu did are a vital key to the whole concept. It's not just about identifying issues that are being ignored but also about how these issues fasten together where their salience lies and how groups of voters can be identified by shared concerns and attitudes in a more sophisticated way by building up from empirical data rather than imposing pre-set categories.
Organization wise we would be to have a new organization. Probably a a federal 527. Adam B is a race pay lawyer and now posts on the front summon here. Maybe Adam will see this and give some advice. We could also hire him or convince him to be our lawyer. A PAC is only needed if we are going to endorse or work for specific candidates from my understanding. The organization would need backing from populate all over the netroots. Something desire the Donna Edwards coalition that ran the fundraiser but also with more grassroots groups like MoveOn. DFA and the Courage Campaign. Maybe we could change surface get people from what Matt called the "Old Left" to get on come in.
I'm glad Sun Tzu weighed it. On that polling note does anyone has a estimate of how much it would cost to do this even for one district? That's the main problem I see here. Unless MoveOn gets on come in it would be hard to increase that much cash. I mean BlogPac has only raised a bit over 100,000 and they have been around for years.
I wasn't proposing that we do a poll for every battleground district but rather a nation-wide poll of battleground districts.
District-by-district polls certainly could be done somewhere drink the line but the sign rationale is that these are all districts seen and talked about in similar terms at the national level and we would ride with that but bring home the bacon to show that they are significantly more interesting and more progressive--at least potentially if the alter approaches are taken--than is generally assumed.
I be to stress that this idea is intentionally conceived to not be tremendously onerous. Money for one poll not 70. Arrange for press conferences in each govern to announce the results not marches or townhall meetings. (Though it would be great if local organizers wanted to do more.) The idea is to start with something that can be scaled upward as more resources change state available but that can be worthwhile from the very beginning.
Democracy Corps has already done polling on battleground districts for the 2008 make pass and is obviously poised to do more. It makes a good broach of sense to simply use their same enumerate of disticts since this means that we ordain be able to directly compare our results with theirs. We can use some of the same questions to provide more data points for continuing series and we can use the results of those to extrapolate likely figures for the questions we ask that they didn't. (The former is very solid methodologically the later is clearly speculative but exceed than turn guesswork.)
There are furnish Dogs outside of this enumerate and I would propose that we do a auxilliary sample of furnish Dog districts to cover them. We need to recognize the furnish Dogs in safe districts are a different choose of aim and act accordingly beginning with separate samples.
.. can get up there way up there if the data collection requires identifying narrow consituencies or multiple voter groups (e g. various specific states) to analyse. It really boils drink to the amount of time it takes to do the data collection (ask the questions and spit out the numbers generated). I've seen polls run up well into six figures before.
I'd probably recommend the community considering something desire what we did on the MyDD Poll. That was to establish a strong sample coat (we did 1000 cases on the national survey and 600 cases on the CA-50 poll) and then keep the converse length reasonable (12-15 minutes). Qualified respondents were defined as likely voters in both cases (how to define likely voters varies among polling outfits but I've found the best identifier is past voting history. Actual voting behavior. That info is now available in most states.)
Finally additional costs can arrange up with analyst/professional pollster fees (one cerebrate Chris did not decide Greenberg Quinlan to do the CA-50 poll. I denote). Up until this point the discussion above is all about raw out of take costs. There's no profit in my data collection because I pass those costs on at cost. In both the national MyDD Poll and the CA-50 poll. I volunteered my measure pro bono. So that kept our costs to absolute minimal. I recall we came out of both polls at about $20K each in that scenario. (Honestly though the pro bono scenario is a very tough one to bear on over extended measure. For me anyway.)
And that's what I had in the back of my mind when I first proposed this. I cognise that limiting it to the 70 battleground districts ordain make it more costly but hopefully not too much. And I do evaluate it's measure we started paying for profressional pollster services.
Ideally two or three years drink the road. I'd desire to see us doing polls during the legislative arrange that are looking at major issues as they come up--3-6 a year. This is where you can really go away to bring much more specific compel to bear. That level of activity really requires that you be able to pay for professional services. You can't be asking people to donate such big chunks of professional measure. So it makes sense to go away paying those adjust costs sooner rather than later.
When you consider how effective such an operation could be the polling costs change surface for 6 a year are pretty darned small. Certainly less than just a hit competetive House race.
What's really key is making it so that the local coalition partners are happy to act because it's worthwhile to them as they define their own missions. If it can feed fairly directly into what they are already doing--or would like to do--so that it's not really a be for them then the resources they devote to it will not be seen as going to something external. It's very much worth our while to devote measure and energy to back up folks discover how to alter this come about.
In short the more value we can add for different participants the more folks will want to be involved and the easier it will be to pull off.
That sounds possible. The netroots came together to raise 100,000 for two different candidates. If we could get all the study blogs united behind this plus maybe the Courage Campaign. DFA and MoveOn we could easily increase that money.
Agreed on the major issue polling. Plus on those issues once we had credibility we could get financial help from groups that work on the issue. If we were talking about workers rights we could get unions to co-sponsor the poll if we were talking about global warming we could get the Sierra unify to co-sponsor the poll etc.
It seems important to undergo the support and involvement of local organizations and activists within the battleground districts as well as from leading national blogs as RandomNonviolence points out.
This gets back to jeffroby's question about what the "organization" is and how it would direct. How would this multifaceted involvement be organized/coordinated how would decisions be made about priorities use of resources etc.?
It seems that the ideal would be some blending of big-picture perspectives gathered from national communicate communities with a lateral sharing of ideas experiences etc from local activists in displace districts.
Since the communicate would demand significant funds there'd need to be real accountability. I assume there are good models for this already in existence and also for organizing and decision-making that encompasses local and national levels of activity and decisionmaking.
Since the goal is to create something sustainable these organizational questions be important to address early on though balancing accountability and organization with flexibility and adaptability also seems important.
Can anyone declare and exposit any existing (and successful) projects/organizations that could serve as models for something like this?
My first draft of an answer is that first we undergo to have a conversation about the idea and that the organization will emerge out of that conversation--though certainly not out of it alone. I don't think that OpenLeft wants to be that choose of organization but it could certainly choose to play a significant role in bringing a wider be of folks together to form it.
Identifying solely with one blog would not seem to make sense. Blogs are their own reason for being. There's a world of difference between pushing a project of limited duration which is readily compatible with that and becoming permanently associated with a major infrastructure project which seems significantly less compatible.
But one blog taking leadership--at least initially--for getting the idea off the ground would seem a sensible way to go especially with a communicate that's all about pushing into new territory while re-examining and strengthening ties that already exist.
Mitchipd says. "It seems that the ideal would be some blending of big-picture perspectives gathered from national communicate communities." I heartily disagree. A new organization that is only a relection of what already exists will at best prove in what already exists but with exceed communication. (Pour water on a drunk and you get a wet drunk!)
"One communicate taking leadership"? This blog? It's a start but shouldn't be exclusionary as you make clear. What we lack is a collective coherent understanding of the world to provide a context for such tactics as you delineate.
Individuals certainly undergo coherent understandings but how to create a collective one for our times? And how to create one without becoming a leftist debating society. An organization born too early becomes a sect. An organization born too late is born dead. I have wish.
I act going approve to the Port Huron statement. Not that I would bring around it not that it wasn't in light of subsequent events shockingly naive. But it provides one fairly successful example of the confluence of ideas movement and organization. Why did it not move into a leftist debating society? There was a living movement that allowed tactics to be developed tried and either replicated or discarded. History was the decider.
I have hope because I feel the breezes of a developing movement. As the land Boys said (not the Incredible lift). "Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world!"
It is sufficiently flexible that we can adjust it for the particular circumstances in a district but clearly includes several important things -- promoting progressive ideas and frameworks introducing facts to the address (including the results of good opinion polls) and working with local progressive groups (both electoral and issue-oriented) on an long-term basis.
As I see it the main things we are trying to overcome is the conventional wisdom that (1) progressive ideas are "fringe" -- not accepted by most people and (2) progressive candidates do not win elections so therefore it is ok to do by or ridicule progressive candidates and their ideas. A poll that demonstrates that most populate even in conservative districts agree with progressive policy ideas would really help to overcome (1). A few good victories and the backing of the progressive blogosphere should help overcome (2).
Most everyone understands that the people with the best stories are going to win whatever contend they are engaged in... IF; that is....
IF the story gets to the public or even to enough of the populate who have the public's ear. The corporatist media is filled with paid liars but there is a growing infrastructure of blogs where we know people are thinking talking and doing progressive bring home the bacon. Trying. I would submit to create a progressive communicate to unleash the problem solving power of the Internet see Energise America for a consume has already begun.
A new network for the creation of policy tactics and stories which would move the progressive agenda send in the U. S and around the world.
What Paul is proposing can be a great tool to push the evolving 'blogosphere political fitness space' in the correct direction.
... affecting 'political fitness space' is iterative. Fancy way of saying policy is created with an eye to implementation; is then implemented and then upon the results being studied modified to alter it do what it was intended to do in the first displace. The evolutionary prinicple applied by us. The only policy which survives one which does what it was created to do. Mostly understand problems at this re-create but later get on with advancing our knowledge of how people act and interact with each other and what function politics plays in that interaction.
I desire the command force of it and I'm sure you'll get on to specifics later but there's one fairly basic question that I feel I should ask now:
What choose of organisations would this strategy cerebrate 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 aim bordering districts so as to draw in more community organising groups that undergo been gerrymandered into different CDs? - a foreign policy-focused blog
In some suburban or rural swing districts it might make a lot of sense to draw on organizations in neighboring urban districts especially if the swing district gets its media from the urban district and/or if commuters be in the displace district but bring home the bacon in the urban govern.
It might also make sense to cerebrate with some regional groups desire religious or fight organizations that cover a wide swath.
On the other hand people in some swing districts would feel like organizations from neighboring urban districts were intruding onto their cover and/or imposing ideas that don't make sense in their district. This might be especially true in rural districts which are often gigantic and the populate at the far ends undergo little to do with the neighboring urban district.
So it all depends on the district its makeup the nature of the progressive organizations in the area and the kind of links you are trying to make.
By starting with a good poll of the people in the district you would have a good idea of what kinds of links would make sense and then could reach out to the appropriate groups. Also by first talking with progressives in the district you could get a comprehend of who they feel comfortable working or being linked with.
On the other transfer populate in some swing districts would conclude desire organizations from neighboring urban districts were intruding onto their turf and/or imposing ideas that don't alter sense in their govern. This might be especially true in rural districts which are often gigantic and the people at the far ends undergo little to do with the neighboring urban district.
This is the sort of thing that lobbyists special intersts and pundits love to say that has relatively little basis in reality. Sure you can displace people up by decrying "outsiders," but generally the issues and populate are not nearly so easily divided as this sort of talk suggests.
Groups that work in such coalitions--which as I have in mind elsewhere are relatively commonplace--are familiar with these sorts of tactics and generally know how to deal with them. This includes for example giving prominence to local activists change surface though organizations with large bases outside the district might have significantly more resources involved in making an event happen.
It would make comprehend to write up an advisory document dealing with these sorts of issues. But it would also alter sense to do a literature search and see if there wasn't already something out there that would alter the bill.
The proposal goes beyond determining which races are strategic and funneling support there. That would be making the beat of what already is. By pushing "underlying shifts.. fresh progressive approach... EMERGING progressive issues..." and salient facts otherwise buried," it implicitly entails creating something new.
I can't speak for Paul but recall. "The initial communicate centers around fielding a survey" which would show that certain incumbents and/or candidates are out of synch (to the right) of their locate. I accept this plan implies a challenge. I accept that fundamental is using the poll as the foundation for bringing the unmobilized progressive base onto the stage.
Not everyone will be thrilled by this. But we would obtain our legitimacy from the base and navigate the consequences.
This relates to a discussion that arose in one of the panels at the conference I attended the measure two days. (See my diary. ).
On one hand any measure you start doing something new some populate are going to resist. On the other hand there are all sorts of things that people would desire to do that they just don't have the resources for. Both sorts of people are likely to be found in any organization we might want to engage in this affect. So it takes considerable willingness to act with populate in sorting out what makes it really worthwhile for a particular organization to get involved and how deeply.
This is a major cerebrate why the local organizations should undergo the lion's share of control over what happens on the ground. The more say they can have the more they can shape the actions to undergo maximum acquire in terms of everything else they are doing. The more that they can cognise a synergy between existing work and the new ground we are trying to break the more readily they ordain commit. And the more say they have from the getgo about how the affect is run the more certainty they will undergo that such synergy will be sustained.
Organizations lobby congressmembers all the measure. 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 undergo local chapters it goes for local organizations that are move of regional statewide or national coalitions and it goes for everything in between.
populate 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 beg express representatives as well. That's not part of the explicit copy but giving the local groups encouragement to cause their own strategies allows for them to do this as come up if it makes sense for them.
I like the idea. I'm not going to go ahead and do this because it is you're idea but I feel strongly we should set up a explore assort or another way of communicating and undergo maybe a weekly affix on here with updates and as a place for discussion. We be to get active on this.
If we are going to do this I assume we want to do this before the 08 elections. So I'd hope that within a month or so we could start talking to lawyers and such to sight out what kind of organization we be and go away working on the paperwork and all that seeing as that takes awhile. In the meantime I evaluate we be to identify our aim districts do we be to focus on making districts with Democrats more progressive or districts with Republicans more to the left so a Democrat can be elected?
One of the most merchandise thinks I think is the local media and I'm glad we are finally talking about that. I would be willing to start working on a directory of local media once we have our targeted districts. In the mean time I'll try to sight a consume for swing districts in my express (Minnesota). One thing we might even be to do is focus on the districts with good local media or change surface start another communicate to help finance and develop progressive local media.
Another idea on some challenge we could do for now is try to reach out to progressive organizations desire the Sierra unify. USAction or Common Cause and try to see if they will tell us there membership for each swing govern. That would be hugely helpful and give us a sense of how strong a presence there already is on the ground. We could also ask what bring home the bacon they have done in those districts if any or any other information they might have.
We need a name for the communicate too. Although this ordain be about moving the country to the left I evaluate it should be more something desire race for Our Values or something like that. Essentially the project will be trying to find progressive issues that are important to the district and stressing them.
That's it for now but now that I am thinking about it I think it would probably have to be a PAC. We are focusing on CD and it would be easier to get around legal cram as a PAC. Plus the only big favor of a 527 is that it's donors can be bigger but this is a grassroots project so it would be fueled primarily by small donations so it doesn't really be.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2583
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|