[statecom-discuss] Re: Statewide Campaign Strategy
Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
Thu Aug 3 10:40:43 EDT 2006
Elie - agree with your pitfall warning.
A little clarificationn here. I have been running since January - that puts
me about 7 months into a ten month campaign. We have hundreds of peice of
press coverage (need MUCH more), a platform that came out of the process the
party leadership engaged in leading up to the nominating convention in beginning
of March. We have directly reached tens of thousands and are geting local
buzz in some communities.
We have been having calls as a slate as often as every week sometimes.
The slate has id'd some specific issues to focus on - there may be more.
Our campaign has id'd we would need about 1.3 million votes to win (so would
Jamie & Jill). We have broadly id'd where those would come from - we have
been working towards those goals. Part of why we need the March to Abolish
Poverty). A key fact is that if one could get even less than half those who are
eligible but don't vote to vote for us - we would win (yes, we know, those
are hte hardest to motivate etc.).
Our entire strategy has been predicted on creating change and movement
building so that our only win is not the number of votes. We therefore have key
pro-active camapgins as well - using my role to push those struggles forward.
We are also purposefully using the run to motivate and engage people in how
to get involved with what they care about.
The needs are a very lon glist if we are to make the most of the groundwork
already laid, the HUGE opportunities surrounding us, and get the most votes we
can - Please get involved - Love, grace
In a message dated 8/2/06 10:03:53 PM, yen.yarden at verizon.net writes:
> Melissa, and everyone
> I fully support the notion of a strategy planning retreat, will be
> happy to participate, and help out in planning and making it happen.
> Bill Cunningham has also given his support to doing this, and would
> help. How many more hands do you need to get started?
>
> The discussion so far, especially John Walsh's explaining that we have
> not worked on developing a distinctive strategy that would begin to
> move away from the 'old politics,' where we can never really advance
> our goals beyond showing that there are pockets where people already
> want something other than the Duopoly, and choose us (his last 2
> e-mails), seems to have stimulated some responses that help to show how
> difficult this might be, if everyone rides their hobby-horse off in a
> familiar direction.
>
> Possible errors:
> 1. Cheer-leading. Everyone loves us! --- and other standard populist
> tears.
> 2. Consultants. If we just get the numbers right, it falls into our
> lap.
> 3. Playing the game. Hit him where he is weakest. Usually a place
> where no one
> cares enough.
> 4. Reliance on volunteers. All we need is the right script. The more
> people that we can get to sell our message, the stronger we are.
>
> The above have very little to do with strategy, more to do with
> tactics, belonging to the old politics, and are successful when
> wastefully financed by millions of dollars.
>
> I believe that the first thing that we need agreement on, and that will
> differentiate this campaign from the one in which I participated four
> years ago, is that we are running a slate of candidates for
> Massachusetts state office in a Green-Rainbow Party Campaign. This
> should not be too difficult, since that was what we decided at the
> State Committee meeting.
> Elie Yarden
> Cambridge
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 08:20 PM,
> statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org wrote:
>
> > Send statecom-discuss mailing list submissions to
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > statecom-discuss-owner at green-rainbow.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of statecom-discuss digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. GRP strategy (Eli Beckerman)
> > 2. Need ride ("617" area) (Ralph Walton)
> > 3. Re: GRP strategy (Melissa Harrell)
> > 4. Re: GRP strategy (BillCunningham)
> > 5. Re: GRP strategy (Ron Francis)
> > 6. Re: GRP strategy (gracegrnrnbw at aol.com)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:49:36 -0400
> > From: "Eli Beckerman" <elibeck at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [statecom-discuss] GRP strategy
> > To: "State Committee Official Business"
> > <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <56a5dd3e0608021349o4669ea92m4fed5e5a2ae6bf8e at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > Dear Statecom,
> > I am continuing a conversation that began on the statecom list here:
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2006-August/007037.html
> >
> > I tend to agree with John's point about the old-style
> > politics of individual candidates (and by extension,
> > personality politics). There are double-edged swords here,
> > because the Greens would probably be smaller without ever
> > having run Ralph Nader, yet we're also smaller because Nader
> > is now effectively gone.
> >
> > There are 3 different types of campaigns -- one where the party
> > serves the candidate, one where the candidate serves the party,
> > and one where there is a synergy of these benefits.
> >
> > I think it is very important for us to work out a strategy for
> > the Green-Rainbow Party, which is what I think John was getting at,
> > and which will obviously include strategizing AROUND the statewide
> > campaigns and our role. Individuals who choose to strategize WITHIN
> > the campaigns may well be engaged in party-building, but in a less
> > direct fashion. If the PARTY has no strategy for party-building, it
> > can't sit around and expect it to come from the campaigns.
> >
> > As an example of this, I think Jill's campaign in 2002 was a terrific
> > success as a campaign. I think that despite this, long-term party
> > building
> > failed and instead we've seen a party decline (even with the RCP
> > merger).
> >
> > And I think in addition to developing clear strategy, we need to
> > figure out
> > how to evaluate our efforts and undertakings so that we do not hop
> > from one
> > thing to the next without new COLLECTIVE wisdom. Campaigns by
> > necessity will
> > have a tighter ship, and the party, by definition, will be more of a
> > democratic
> > and collective effort. Each has their strengths and shortcomings so we
> > need
> > to fuse these better!
> >
> > In hope,
> > Eli
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 13:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Ralph Walton <rwaltongrp at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: [statecom-discuss] Need ride ("617" area)
> > To: statecom-discuss <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> > Message-ID: <20060802205456.87631.qmail at web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > I have set aside sunday for state meeting but have no
> > ride at this time. I am coming from the JP section of
> > Boston.
> >
> > - Ralph Walton 617 983 1908
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:51:03 -0400
> > From: Melissa Harrell <lissagrp at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] GRP strategy
> > To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> > <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> > Message-ID: <44D11E47.5090701 at gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > I have to absolutely agree with you.
> >
> > There has been talk previously of having a strategy planning retreat
> > and
> > I want to take a minute to advocate that we get serious and not talk
> > about it but actually do it. I for one would be happy to help set that
> > up if I had two or three people helping. Any other volunteers?
> >
> > To be honest, as important as the campaigns are, they are not the only
> > thing we could be doing. We should be looking how to strengthen
> > existing locals, how to build new ones, and how to keep those people
> > who
> > aren't part of a local (for whatever reason) involved in the party.
> > All
> > of these things should be happening simultaneously and happening in a
> > way so that the build on each other and create that upward spiral.
> >
> > I think it's important that those of us working on the party building
> > through the campaigns also be part of the discussion of the party's
> > strategy as a whole so that the connection between the two remains
> > strong. In Nov. the election will be over and the party must be ready
> > with a plan to take that momentum and carry it to some place new and
> > exciting. Use that momentum to bolster existing locals, build new ones
> > and otherwise connect people to the party rather than just the
> > candidates themselves.
> >
> > There's been a lot of discussion here by some pretty astute minds on
> > and
> > off in the months I've been on state comm and I hope we can turn that
> > talk into some action to carry out whatever we collectively decide.
> >
> > Melissa
> >
> > Eli Beckerman wrote:
> >> Dear Statecom,
> >> I am continuing a conversation that began on the statecom list here:
> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2006-August/
> >> 007037.html
> >>
> >> I tend to agree with John's point about the old-style
> >> politics of individual candidates (and by extension,
> >> personality politics). There are double-edged swords here,
> >> because the Greens would probably be smaller without ever
> >> having run Ralph Nader, yet we're also smaller because Nader
> >> is now effectively gone.
> >>
> >> There are 3 different types of campaigns -- one where the party
> >> serves the candidate, one where the candidate serves the party,
> >> and one where there is a synergy of these benefits.
> >>
> >> I think it is very important for us to work out a strategy for
> >> the Green-Rainbow Party, which is what I think John was getting at,
> >> and which will obviously include strategizing AROUND the statewide
> >> campaigns and our role. Individuals who choose to strategize WITHIN
> >> the campaigns may well be engaged in party-building, but in a less
> >> direct fashion. If the PARTY has no strategy for party-building, it
> >> can't sit around and expect it to come from the campaigns.
> >>
> >> As an example of this, I think Jill's campaign in 2002 was a terrific
> >> success as a campaign. I think that despite this, long-term party
> >> building
> >> failed and instead we've seen a party decline (even with the RCP
> >> merger).
> >>
> >> And I think in addition to developing clear strategy, we need to
> >> figure out
> >> how to evaluate our efforts and undertakings so that we do not hop
> >> from one
> >> thing to the next without new COLLECTIVE wisdom. Campaigns by
> >> necessity will
> >> have a tighter ship, and the party, by definition, will be more of a
> >> democratic
> >> and collective effort. Each has their strengths and shortcomings so we
> >> need
> >> to fuse these better!
> >>
> >> In hope,
> >> Eli
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> statecom-discuss mailing list
> >> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 18:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] GRP strategy
> > To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> > <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>, Discussion List for StateCom
> > members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <17446813.1154557317625.JavaMail.root at elwamui-
> > huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > Woops, Melissa put it better while I was just now writing.
> >
> > I would be happy to be one of the planners. I would be even happier to
> > yield.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Melissa Harrell <lissagrp at gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Aug 2, 2006 5:51 PM
> >> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> >> <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] GRP strategy
> >>
> >> I have to absolutely agree with you.
> >>
> >> There has been talk previously of having a strategy planning retreat
> >> and
> >> I want to take a minute to advocate that we get serious and not talk
> >> about it but actually do it. I for one would be happy to help set
> >> that
> >> up if I had two or three people helping. Any other volunteers?
> >>
> >> To be honest, as important as the campaigns are, they are not the only
> >> thing we could be doing. We should be looking how to strengthen
> >> existing locals, how to build new ones, and how to keep those people
> >> who
> >> aren't part of a local (for whatever reason) involved in the party.
> >> All
> >> of these things should be happening simultaneously and happening in a
> >> way so that the build on each other and create that upward spiral.
> >>
> >> I think it's important that those of us working on the party building
> >> through the campaigns also be part of the discussion of the party's
> >> strategy as a whole so that the connection between the two remains
> >> strong. In Nov. the election will be over and the party must be ready
> >> with a plan to take that momentum and carry it to some place new and
> >> exciting. Use that momentum to bolster existing locals, build new
> >> ones
> >> and otherwise connect people to the party rather than just the
> >> candidates themselves.
> >>
> >> There's been a lot of discussion here by some pretty astute minds on
> >> and
> >> off in the months I've been on state comm and I hope we can turn that
> >> talk into some action to carry out whatever we collectively decide.
> >>
> >> Melissa
> >>
> >> Eli Beckerman wrote:
> >>> Dear Statecom,
> >>> I am continuing a conversation that began on the statecom list here:
> >>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2006-August/
> >>> 007037.html
> >>>
> >>> I tend to agree with John's point about the old-style
> >>> politics of individual candidates (and by extension,
> >>> personality politics). There are double-edged swords here,
> >>> because the Greens would probably be smaller without ever
> >>> having run Ralph Nader, yet we're also smaller because Nader
> >>> is now effectively gone.
> >>>
> >>> There are 3 different types of campaigns -- one where the party
> >>> serves the candidate, one where the candidate serves the party,
> >>> and one where there is a synergy of these benefits.
> >>>
> >>> I think it is very important for us to work out a strategy for
> >>> the Green-Rainbow Party, which is what I think John was getting at,
> >>> and which will obviously include strategizing AROUND the statewide
> >>> campaigns and our role. Individuals who choose to strategize WITHIN
> >>> the campaigns may well be engaged in party-building, but in a less
> >>> direct fashion. If the PARTY has no strategy for party-building, it
> >>> can't sit around and expect it to come from the campaigns.
> >>>
> >>> As an example of this, I think Jill's campaign in 2002 was a terrific
> >>> success as a campaign. I think that despite this, long-term party
> >>> building
> >>> failed and instead we've seen a party decline (even with the RCP
> >>> merger).
> >>>
> >>> And I think in addition to developing clear strategy, we need to
> >>> figure out
> >>> how to evaluate our efforts and undertakings so that we do not hop
> >>> from one
> >>> thing to the next without new COLLECTIVE wisdom. Campaigns by
> >>> necessity will
> >>> have a tighter ship, and the party, by definition, will be more of a
> >>> democratic
> >>> and collective effort. Each has their strengths and shortcomings so
> >>> we
> >>> need
> >>> to fuse these better!
> >>>
> >>> In hope,
> >>> Eli
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> statecom-discuss mailing list
> >>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> statecom-discuss mailing list
> >> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> >
> > Bill Cunningham
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 15:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] GRP strategy
> > To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > Message-ID: <20060802224236.65994.qmail at web32201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > It is arguable that the the major parties are weakest right now in the
> > foreign policy area. Certainly this is the most obvious area.
> >
> > I hope that whatever strategy that we use looks at the effect on the
> > municipal / local races coming up in 2007 / 2008. In the proposal
> > that I submitted to statecom for this weekend, I suggested a municipal
> > strategy that had a common agenda on key issues. Israel becomes even
> > more prominent now.
> >
> > Also the Somerville Divestment Project has succeeded in the last two
> > months ingetting questions on the ballot in Somerville regarding the
> > Middle East. that have been working on over the last couple of months.
> > Each question deals with actions that we want State government to
> > take (support refugee rights and divestment)... one of the few places
> > where our statewide candidates can distinguish themselves
> > unambiguously and connects to foreign policy. Patrick and the Dems
> > will support apartheid: we can be the pro-human rights anti-apartheid
> > party. Where does Patrick stand on the civilian massacres in Lebanon > ?
> >
> > There is both issue strategy and structural strategy where
> > structural strategy is mainly about where and how we build our party.
> > I believe it was Jamie who first proposed that our statewide
> > candidates should focus in places where we think that we have a good
> > chance of winning / developing locally. This way we are sure to have
> > built up a local base somewhere regardless of what happens in the
> > State elections. I support this idea along with identifying
> > candidates to run for State Rep and municipally:
> >
> > thus a rough 5 point program just to throw out there
> >
> > a) identify places where we are likely to have a good chance of
> > developing or winning campaigns locally (state rep.) or municipally
> > for 2007 and 2008.
> >
> > b) Ask Statewide candidates to focus on these areas (it will also be
> > nice to be able to say that we won certain districts if we don't win
> > all of the statewide races)
> >
> > c) Develop a local (State rep. / municipal) common platform that is
> > a issue foundation for our candidates to give us coherence across our
> > local campaigns (and make it easier for local candidates to run)
> >
> > d) Push the Dems on foreign policy, more than would be usual for
> > state politics, where they are weak for this year (obviously other
> > important state level issues are there but might as well push them
> > where they are weakest)
> >
> > e) Call our members to see who wants to run for office locally in
> > 2007 or 2008 using a Maine-type program.
> >
> > (and maybe add a Green-rainbow ballot question in 2008)
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Woops, Melissa put it better while I was just now writing.
> >
> > I would be happy to be one of the planners. I would be even happier to
> > yield.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Melissa Harrell
> >
> >> Sent: Aug 2, 2006 5:51 PM
> >> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> >> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] GRP strategy
> >>
> >> I have to absolutely agree with you.
> >>
> >> There has been talk previously of having a strategy planning retreat
> >> and
> >> I want to take a minute to advocate that we get serious and not talk
> >> about it but actually do it. I for one would be happy to help set that
> >> up if I had two or three people helping. Any other volunteers?
> >>
> >> To be honest, as important as the campaigns are, they are not the only
> >> thing we could be doing. We should be looking how to strengthen
> >> existing locals, how to build new ones, and how to keep those people
> >> who
> >> aren't part of a local (for whatever reason) involved in the party.
> >> All
> >> of these things should be happening simultaneously and happening in a
> >> way so that the build on each other and create that upward spiral.
> >>
> >> I think it's important that those of us working on the party building
> >> through the campaigns also be part of the discussion of the party's
> >> strategy as a whole so that the connection between the two remains
> >> strong. In Nov. the election will be over and the party must be ready
> >> with a plan to take that momentum and carry it to some place new and
> >> exciting. Use that momentum to bolster existing locals, build new ones
> >> and otherwise connect people to the party rather than just the
> >> candidates themselves.
> >>
> >> There's been a lot of discussion here by some pretty astute minds on
> >> and
> >> off in the months I've been on state comm and I hope we can turn that
> >> talk into some action to carry out whatever we collectively decide.
> >>
> >> Melissa
> >>
> >> Eli Beckerman wrote:
> >>> Dear Statecom,
> >>> I am continuing a conversation that began on the statecom list here:
> >>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2006-August/
> >>> 007037.html
> >>>
> >>> I tend to agree with John's point about the old-style
> >>> politics of individual candidates (and by extension,
> >>> personality politics). There are double-edged swords here,
> >>> because the Greens would probably be smaller without ever
> >>> having run Ralph Nader, yet we're also smaller because Nader
> >>> is now effectively gone.
> >>>
> >>> There are 3 different types of campaigns -- one where the party
> >>> serves the candidate, one where the candidate serves the party,
> >>> and one where there is a synergy of these benefits.
> >>>
> >>> I think it is very important for us to work out a strategy for
> >>> the Green-Rainbow Party, which is what I think John was getting at,
> >>> and which will obviously include strategizing AROUND the statewide
> >>> campaigns and our role. Individuals who choose to strategize WITHIN
> >>> the campaigns may well be engaged in party-building, but in a less
> >>> direct fashion. If the PARTY has no strategy for party-building, it
> >>> can't sit around and expect it to come from the campaigns.
> >>>
> >>> As an example of this, I think Jill's campaign in 2002 was a terrific
> >>> success as a campaign. I think that despite this, long-term party
> >>> building
> >>> failed and instead we've seen a party decline (even with the RCP
> >>> merger).
> >>>
> >>> And I think in addition to developing clear strategy, we need to
> >>> figure out
> >>> how to evaluate our efforts and undertakings so that we do not hop
> >>> from one
> >>> thing to the next without new COLLECTIVE wisdom. Campaigns by
> >>> necessity will
> >>> have a tighter ship, and the party, by definition, will be more of a
> >>> democratic
> >>> and collective effort. Each has their strengths and shortcomings so
> >>> we
> >>> need
> >>> to fuse these better!
> >>>
> >>> In hope,
> >>> Eli
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> statecom-discuss mailing list
> >>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> statecom-discuss mailing list
> >> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> >
> > Bill Cunningham
> > _______________________________________________
> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:20:24 -0400
> > From: gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
> > Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] GRP strategy
> > To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > Message-ID: <8C884A9BFE63261-268-CF2 at FWM-M39.sysops.aol.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Ron's been away - but in case anyone missed - basically the entire
> > elected and aspiring political leadership of the state signed that ad
> > - EXCEPT (and I tell you this list because it is short and easy to
> > remember) our candidates, bonifaz and capuano & delahunt. And for you
> > bostoncentric folks - yes, some city councillors did but not team
> > unity - in fact Felix was quite unhappy with Patrick's signature (as
> > are many others who are perhaps beginning to wake up and smell the
> > coffee) - Love, grace
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ronwf777 at yahoo.com
> > To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > Sent: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] GRP strategy
> >
> > It is arguable that the the major parties are weakest right now in
> > the foreign
> > policy area. Certainly this is the most obvious area.
> >
> > I hope that whatever strategy that we use looks at the effect on the
> > municipal
> > / local races coming up in 2007 / 2008. In the proposal that I
> > submitted to
> > statecom for this weekend, I suggested a municipal strategy that had a
> > common
> > agenda on key issues. Israel becomes even more prominent now.
> >
> > Also the Somerville Divestment Project has succeeded in the last two
> > months
> > ingetting questions on the ballot in Somerville regarding the Middle
> > East. that
> > have been working on over the last couple of months. Each question
> > deals with
> > actions that we want State government to take (support refugee rights
> > and
> > divestment)... one of the few places where our statewide candidates can
> > distinguish themselves unambiguously and connects to foreign policy.
> > Patrick
> > and the Dems will support apartheid: we can be the pro-human rights
> > anti-apartheid party. Where does Patrick stand on the civilian
> > massacres in
> > Lebanon ?
> >
> > There is both issue strategy and structural strategy where
> > structural strategy
> > is mainly about where and how we build our party. I believe it was
> > Jamie who
> > first proposed that our statewide candidates should focus in places
> > where we
> > think that we have a good chance of winning / developing locally.
> > This way we
> > are sure to have built up a local base somewhere regardless of what
> > happens in
> > the State elections. I support this idea along with identifying
> > candidates to
> > run for State Rep and municipally:
> >
> > thus a rough 5 point program just to throw out there
> >
> > a) identify places where we are likely to have a good chance of
> > developing or
> > winning campaigns locally (state rep.) or municipally for 2007 and
> > 2008.
> >
> > b) Ask Statewide candidates to focus on these areas (it will also be
> > nice to
> > be able to say that we won certain districts if we don't win all of the
> > statewide races)
> >
> > c) Develop a local (State rep. / municipal) common platform that is
> > a issue
> > foundation for our candidates to give us coherence across our local
> > campaigns
> > (and make it easier for local candidates to run)
> >
> > d) Push the Dems on foreign policy, more than would be usual for
> > state
> > politics, where they are weak for this year (obviously other important
> > state
> > level issues are there but might as well push them where they are
> > weakest)
> >
> > e) Call our members to see who wants to run for office locally in
> > 2007 or 2008
> > using a Maine-type program.
> >
> > (and maybe add a Green-rainbow ballot question in 2008)
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Woops, Melissa put it better while I was just now writing.
> >
> > I would be happy to be one of the planners. I would be even happier to
> > yield.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Melissa Harrell
> >
> >> Sent: Aug 2, 2006 5:51 PM
> >> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> >> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] GRP strategy
> >>
> >> I have to absolutely agree with you.
> >>
> >> There has been talk previously of having a strategy planning retreat
> >> and
> >> I want to take a minute to advocate that we get serious and not talk
> >> about it but actually do it. I for one would be happy to help set that
> >> up if I had two or three people helping. Any other volunteers?
> >>
> >> To be honest, as important as the campaigns are, they are not the only
> >> thing we could be doing. We should be looking how to strengthen
> >> existing locals, how to build new ones, and how to keep those people
> >> who
> >> aren't part of a local (for whatever reason) involved in the party.
> >> All
> >> of these things should be happening simultaneously and happening in a
> >> way so that the build on each other and create that upward spiral.
> >>
> >> I think it's important that those of us working on the party building
> >> through the campaigns also be part of the discussion of the party's
> >> strategy as a whole so that the connection between the two remains
> >> strong. In Nov. the election will be over and the party must be ready
> >> with a plan to take that momentum and carry it to some place new and
> >> exciting. Use that momentum to bolster existing locals, build new ones
> >> and otherwise connect people to the party rather than just the
> >> candidates themselves.
> >>
> >> There's been a lot of discussion here by some pretty astute minds on
> >> and
> >> off in the months I've been on state comm and I hope we can turn that
> >> talk into some action to carry out whatever we collectively decide.
> >>
> >> Melissa
> >>
> >> Eli Beckerman wrote:
> >>> Dear Statecom,
> >>> I am continuing a conversation that began on the statecom list here:
> >>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2006-August/
> >>> 007037.html
> >>>
> >>> I tend to agree with John's point about the old-style
> >>> politics of individual candidates (and by extension,
> >>> personality politics). There are double-edged swords here,
> >>> because the Greens would probably be smaller without ever
> >>> having run Ralph Nader, yet we're also smaller because Nader
> >>> is now effectively gone.
> >>>
> >>> There are 3 different types of campaigns -- one where the party
> >>> serves the candidate, one where the candidate serves the party,
> >>> and one where there is a synergy of these benefits.
> >>>
> >>> I think it is very important for us to work out a strategy for
> >>> the Green-Rainbow Party, which is what I think John was getting at,
> >>> and which will obviously include strategizing AROUND the statewide
> >>> campaigns and our role. Individuals who choose to strategize WITHIN
> >>> the campaigns may well be engaged in party-building, but in a less
> >>> direct fashion. If the PARTY has no strategy for party-building, it
> >>> can't sit around and expect it to come from the campaigns.
> >>>
> >>> As an example of this, I think Jill's campaign in 2002 was a terrific
> >>> success as a campaign. I think that despite this, long-term party
> >>> building
> >>> failed and instead we've seen a party decline (even with the RCP
> >>> merger).
> >>>
> >>> And I think in addition to developing clear strategy, we need to
> >>> figure out
> >>> how to evaluate our efforts and undertakings so that we do not hop
> >>> from one
> >>> thing to the next without new COLLECTIVE wisdom. Campaigns by
> >>> necessity will
> >>> have a tighter ship, and the party, by definition, will be more of a
> >>> democratic
> >>> and collective effort. Each has their strengths and shortcomings so
> >>> we
> >>> need
> >>> to fuse these better!
> >>>
> >>> In hope,
> >>> Eli
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> statecom-discuss mailing list
> >>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> statecom-discuss mailing list
> >> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> >
> > Bill Cunningham
> > _______________________________________________
> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email
> > and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> >
> > End of statecom-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 3
> > ***********************************************
> >
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list