I don't think it's a peculiarly Dem problem. In my simplistic world view it goes back to Reagan's victory over Carter. Carter was a rationalist and was moving to extend EEOC protections to the point that you wouldn't be able to hire a secretary with a typing test, without data to support the relationship.

Reagan immediately championed anything that didn't sound competancy based, preferring litmus tests, most notably his desire for universal drug testing.

After 25 years almost everyone finds themselves in a job that they're not competant to perform, burdened by huge amounts of consumer debt. So they do nothing. It's safest. Gotta pay the bills. I'd bet that if you went through and quantified BO posts on a status quo vs. progressive evaluation, and correlated that score with the ratio between the person's debt and income, you'd account for 80% of the variance in positions, left, middle and right. Alternatively, just who would be your example of someone/group that has their act together in this country?

I don't know what you are reacting to, but there is only ONE race for the US Congress where we have a seat currently filled by a Republican. That race has brought forth FOUR Democrats to run for the office here in the Second Congressional District.

In that race the 20 or so Counties involved are each planning to have a candidates forum before the Primary, and nearly every date is already set and ready. We are getting more press here locally (Crook Co.) than we have gotten for a local political event since 1992 when Sen. Joe Biden was in town campaigning for Clinton.

We have a grassroots campaign in swing to make the primary interesting, to be a forum where we pull the sheets off of Walden's anti-rural, anti-district, and anti-Oregon voting record; and to give hope that we can do something different. Whoever wins the primary will have significant forward momentum for the fall. The local County Committees are involved like this was a Presidential race. Walden may have some money, but he has nothing on the ground to compare with what is in place on the other side.

Local! Darn right! We will give Waldenbush hell!

And frankly, it doesn't matter what is going on with the Democratic Party inside the Beltway. What matters is what is happening in the Second CD. You can't say one thing and vote the other, over and over, and not end up being held accountable at home - especially when it hurts the home front like Walden's voting records shows.

This election reminds me of one in the Second Congressional District that happened back when I lived in the Oregon City area, and it was still part of the District. Our long time Democrat was overturned by an upstart from the far eastern part of the District because he didn't attend to what his votes and proposals meant at home. It's time for Walden to go, and he will.

T.A.,

Did you see Barrone's latest column on the US House elections?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/the_lessons_of_1994.html

Little or no change expected...demographics and the power of encumbancy rules!

You are correct, a unified message is not needed to win, just the right jerrymandered district.

TA has something, the media message that the Democrats have no unified message is getting tired. Last I noticed, economic and social justice was still the Democratic message. Now I sure don't intend to run a 2nd CD campaign based on DC wisdom, I'm real sure they know exactly how to lose out here. I don't have to be Republican lite to win, and I have no desire to be something that I'm not in order to win an election or after winning an election. I don't think waldenbush became something different in DC, he just became more of what he already was.

The 2nd CD Democratic Chairs and County Parties have done something darn near incredible, in less than 1 month they've put together a heck of a program and coordinatted with 4 candidates. However this works out, these folks have my vote of gratitude.

oops, almost forgot - Money and volunteers are gratefully received, this takes a boatload of gasoline and time... (requisite impoverished campaign plea)

Thanks, Chuck

Chuck and Steve are really onto something. I have friends who have gotten fed up and left Democratic politics for Indep. or 3rd party long before Westlund made that even more attractive (I've been there myself for awhile although now registered D). I sent an email to some friends about this topic and got an interesting response from a friend I met at a Dem. State Central Comm. meeting more than 20 years ago:

"As Will Rodgers said, "All politics is apple sauce" -- what he meant was it's local and homemade. I left major pary politics because "somebody else" took over. Who? In my case it was then professional campaign agents (you know who they are) who became the pundits for the Demo party in Oregon and have as a result lost the message ,the center and the meaning of the Democratic party. "

Which is the same message some of us have been preaching here for awhile to the annoyance of some people. Candidates and voters who are actually living in a district (Chuck and Steve in 2nd Cong. Dist. for instance) understand that district better than anyone outside the district. I don't care if someone has won 10 awards for best political consultant of the year--doesn't mean they understand a district they don't live in.

Oregon Democrats have the chance to take over the Oregon House if they realize that candidates who win usually match the district. Peter Buckley of Ashland might not win in Crook County. Members from the Will. Valley might not win on the Coast. Betty Komp of N. Marion County probably wouldn't do any better in a Portland district than a Portlander would do in N. Marion County. Etc.

If we just realize that and have candidates listen to local voters and talk about what is important to them (regardless of what consultants think of it) we have the chance to do very well at all levels. Esp. if our candidates interact with actual voters instead of just bombarding them with ads and ignoring the power of dialogue.

I agree local issues decide most local and state elections, but your article fails to recognize the huge impact that the "Contract with America" had on the 1994 mid-term elections. For better or worse, the Republicans use of that unified message enabled them to take control of the US House for the first time in 40 years, and unseated a lot of good Dems. A lot of people, including me, believe that it would take a similar unified message for the Dems to regain control of the House in 2006. I agree that Dems in Mississippi don't want to talk about gay rights or reproductive choice, but are there not some core values that we Dems all share? If not, why are we bothering to operate within the same party?

Bluenote: There has been considerable reporting on the history of the CONTRACT recently. It was not written in March of 1994, but in the fall. It wasn't a radical departure from what Republicans believed. It was a poll tested list of promises so they could have a big rah rah event to sign it. They made a big push to vote on all that stuff after they were all sworn in Jan. 2005--how much passed, how much still in effect? Remember there was a time when every Republican carried the text of the 10th Amendment they could whip out of a pocket, read it, and talk about states rights. Until, of course, states like Oregon passed ballot measures that crowd didn't like (Oregon's Death with Dignity, for instance) and then it turned out they meant "states rights for the things we agree with".). Given that history, would a Democratic Contract have the same effect or look like a stolen idea whose time had passed?

How much of that victory was disgust at the House Banking Scandal and that the Dem. majority had gotten out of touch with people? Might they have won without the CONTRACT? Quite possibly.

And you need to realize that it wasn't a magic wand. Some of those elections (like Oregon's 5th Cong. Dist.) were not won by 9 or 10 pm on election night but were decided later (one definition of close election). How many of those 1994 winners were re-elected in 1996? And how many 1994 winners (like Zach Wamp) remain at all true to their roots?

How many people would be suspicious that a Dem. "contract" might turn out like the 1994 one did--they got the majority and immediately set those like DeLay to the task of concentrating power?

Heard on KPOJ AM 620 this morning (haven't yet looked it up) that Lisa Grove is in this week's Willamette Week saying Democrats ought to act like Democrats and not be Republican-lite. Wasn't she part of the effort that elected Ron Wyden over Gordon Smith? The only "gimmick" in that race was going 100% positive and having the January ice cream socials where Ron stood up in front of a group for an hour and answered questions to roomfuls of people.

I realize there are consultants who don't support such an old fashioned approach. But ask yourself which 1996 Senate campaign was more successful--Wyden in January or the consultant driven 3 slogan Tom Bruggere campaign in the regular Senate election, the one which elected Gordon Smith.

I think 2-way (dialogue between candidates and voters) campaigns are more effective than 1-way campaigns (ad nauseum ads which say "vote Democratic because..." but there is no interchange between politicians and voters). As I recall, the folks at the Oregon Bus Project (if you want a set of values, why not the BUS set of E's like Education, Environment, 'Ealth Care ?) have statistics on how in a time of information overload (there was no Internet for ordinary people in 1994) face to face contact is highly effective.

I have fought for that 2-way campaign position strongly for the last decade or more. No one will convince me that Democrats win by being Republican-lite and preaching at voters. Which is why I love TA's post.

Answers.com:

"Three contract proposals became law: the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-1, 109 Stat. 3), which requires Congress to follow eleven workplace laws; the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48), which restricts Congress from imposing mandates on states that are not adequately funded; and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163), which reduces federal paperwork requirements."

Truly earth-shaking.

OK, Ross, but does NCLB in any way violate those 2nd two?

Or has NCLB been revenue neutral (not unfunded mandate ) on states, and is there no more paperwork burden now than before NCLB?

For once a democrat with sense. Democrats should be throwing the "unified message" criticism right back in the right's faces. The democratic party has always been a party of diversity. Debate and discourse is what made this country great. A unified party line stiffles debate and polarizes the country into us and them. Demoracts should celebrate their diverse stances and when the media and Republicans lable the dems as scattered and 'all over the map', snap back that this is the great thing about democrats. We all have different opinions and through dynamic, open, true debate the most sensible opinions will win and laws will truly reflect what is right and not what a few party bosses feel is the in thier best interest, as the Rebublicans have been douing for the past 12 years.

It may not fit on a bumper sticker, but this sounds like a unified message to me:

italic"If Dems stand together to end war, build prosperity for all, divert money from Halliburton to schools and infrastructure, defend civil rights, support labor, protect the environment — in short, work together on the multitude of vital issues that ensure we will be forever diverse. . ."

amber