Earl's response is great IF candidates filing for offices up and down the ballot are made aware of all of that BEFORE they file for office.

My experience has been that there isn't really anyone doing that in an organized fashion.

Someone on another BO topic posted a comment saying "hard to think of what we have left to conquer" or something like that, ignoring how many Oregonians still have Republicans representing them in the legislature or elsewhere.

Now, just months after the election, might be a good time for someone to take on the project of mentoring people who have not run for office (or have not run for office at the level they contemplate running in a particular election) and explaining the above "facts of life" to them. Otherwise there are going to be some ordinary folks whose friends know (even if it is not discussed publicly) what running unsuccessfully for office cost in terms of depleted savings accounts, time not spent with family, etc.

Or do Democrats not want to recruit people with great life stories if they haven't been activists for the last decade or more and don't have a clue that "Last, but not least, candidates needed to organize successful campaign events generating enthusiasm, excitement and attracting media attention."

I do recall sitting in a PCOL meeting where members were discussing how to recruit people to run for the legislature who were not either quite young and self employed, or rich enough to take time off, or retired. The thread of their discussion was that the legislature could benefit from some mid-career folks as legislators, but the cost in time, money, and lack of attention to work made that difficult if not impossible for many to even contemplate.

This is a great article. I would have missed it on DailyKos. I have a pretty good idea how to get at someone like Walden. What do you hate about volunteering for a campaign? I hate checking all the boxes that say I will not phone bank and then get nothing but phone calls to phone bank? Why not organize and hold trainings for volunteers in places like Eastern Oregon where people can gain the skills to run a contest where they could take someone like Walden out. Get them going now regardless of the candidate. People then have a level of comfort with their volunteer work and they can be twice as effective on the ground when a candidate emerges.

At times in the past, Sal and I have been at cross purposes, but I have to say, that post he just wrote was great.

I think it is a crying shame that people who ought to know better, like Congressman Blumenauer, can't see beyond the "way it is" to a better way.

If we truly want progress, progressiveness, and/or more Democrats elected; we have to learn to be competitive in geographic areas where we currently are not competitive. We cannot depend upon registered Democrats to get candidates elected, we have to depend upon Independents and Republicans. Sal was more than right when he said that support from a Republican was worth two Democrats - we sell ourselves short by not going after Republican voters.

The way the "system" is organized now, the Democratic Party has created a political ghetto out of our rural areas where the voter registration tilts Republican. No one in my area will ever be able to reach the threshold for support as articulated by Blumenauer. Yet, voters here can be turned to vote for Democrats IF the message can be delivered.

What we need is seed money. Voisin had around $30,000. She scared Walden to death, and made him spend more than he wanted, around $1.3 million. If his money were available to spend elsewhere, we might have not seen the success we did in other Congressional races. What if Walden's money went to another race? This time it probably wouldn't have mattered, but in other times - who knows?

Anyway, having at least a minimal campaign helps tie down our opponents and forces them to spend their money where we want them to. This is a huge strategic advantage that is completely overlooked in the Blumenauer quotes about the way it is.

But beyond that, to keep a majority in the Oregon House and Senate we need to work on those Independents and Republicans. There are too many doors to knock on, and over here, those doors are miles and miles apart. We need mailers, we need Cable TV ads, we need signs.

I am okay with targeted races, and decisions on the allocations of funds based upon the concept of who can win, but we also need threshold levels of support. The Voisin campaign, with $100,000 would have been able to get mailers into every household and run a more robust campaign.

As a Party, the Democratic Party of Oregon continues to miss strategic opportunities, and the opportunity to move/progress to a more certain majority.

In fact, while the "Blumenauer" method (it's not really his, but his name was used here) got us a win in 2006, we need to remember that this targeted race methodology was the foundation of why the Democrats were in the minority in Salem for 14 years. By maintaining a scarcity mentality, we create scarcity. Give us a wall to wall campaign across Oregon to get Democrats elected, and that seed money will grow. We can get more donations, when we see things happening in our local areas. All politics are local. Help make a local candidate viable, and local money will come to play that is currently not available to anyone.

I could go on and on, but restrain myself.

Steve and Sal, you are so right!

And I live in a district which was "forgotten" rather than target, but by golly we held the incumbent to a couple thousand fewer vote victory margin than previously. Not only that, but the incumbent is now more attentative to constituents, even doing outreach to local groups who hadn't seen any before.

On the right hand side of this page is a picture of Howard Dean and the words Thank you Howard! The 50 State Strategy worked!

It is time to have a full blown debate which goes beyond "well, we won in 2006" or "that's just the way politics is, nothing anyone can do about it". Seems to me that Dean's philosophy has done more to revitalize politics than all the target stuff Earl talks about.

To read what Earl blogged, you'd never guess that in his long political career he was once a young legislator and was a national convention delegate the year an unexpected candidate won the Oregon Presidential Primary. That was a year when the "establishment" all supported another presidential candidate. "Professionals" and insiders don't always understand the views of ordinary voters and volunteers.

I have told friends today to read this topic. When I told one about some of Sal's do's and don'ts, the response was "Those sound like good rules".

I am a strong believer in Dean's view of politics, and see that view in Steve's comment. I understand there are people who don't share Dean's view. But let's have a full discussion of "our philosophy of campaigning is better because..." and get this all out in the open now, when everyone still has fresh memories of exactly what did and didn't happen in 2006.

Otherwise, the folks who worked their hearts out on "impossible" campaigns in 2006 (esp. in rural/downstate districts) may just decide that the top of the ticket races (President, US Senate, statewide) are more worthy of their 2008 time than volunteering early on a legislative campaign only to find out it is deemed unimportant by people who don't live in the district but are "political professionals".

Sal's epistle is very good. It warmed my heart. Our campaign did 90% of what Sal suggests. We were truly grassroots and netroots. I learned in my year of campaigning in the 2nd district that it is a complex and diverse district with its 20 counties. There isn't a district in Oregon like the 2nd CD. It is a microcosm of the United States with its mix of urban and rural counties. The Democrats have much to learn from the 2nd CD. We Democrats can't neglect or ignore ANY county in the state. Likewise, we Democrats can't neglect or ignore ANY Democratic candidate running for office. Our reason for existing is to elect Democrats to office.

As Paulie said, I have decided to run for Chair of the DPO. From my experience in running for office I learned that our party must find common ground to present a united front in 2008. I'll have my website up and running in a few days carolvoisin.com There I'll post my platform.

Carol, Good to see you are running for DPO chair. I haven't been on State Central Comm. for about 20 years but will communicate with some friends who currently do have a vote there.

Don't let anyone tell you it is impossible. You might want to look into the history, but as I recall the DPO chair elected in 1985 was an appointed legislator from S. Oregon (Klamath?) who didn't win election in her own right but then ran for DPO chair and won.

There are many things that need to be openly debated, and that requires a candidate for DPO chair with an attitude other than "we've always done it that way, and professionals know best".

Actually, I suspect lots of people living downstate are tired of folks from Portland telling them how politics should work. I wish you well.

A little correction, Carol was in the low 30s. Still better than the previous 2 results.

The 02 CD is NOT most other CDs, nationally or especially in OR. What will work in other districts is physically impossible in 02. It is simply too big to work all the connections with personal appearances in 1 cycle.

I've thought long and hard on this question, it would take a lot of money and one would have to start...now. You'd have to show your face over and over. Then there's the issue of the candidate, you'd have to appeal to our redder than average Indies and still peel some R's off. The last 3 campaigns have not made it to 40%, that's a butt kicking of epic proportions, who is going to cough up money on that bet?

I like Carol a lot, but this is the wrong district for her as candidate. If somebody wants this mess, they'd better get started.

I grew up on a ranch in Wheeler County, Oregon's smallest county and one that is very Republican. Voisin could have raised $1 million and still lost big. It is a conservative district and she is way too liberal to win there. The fact is that Walden is viewed as a good fit for the district and, although not many people live on ranches anymore, the ranching/timber/hunting culture prevails and people from that culture tend ot be Republican. The last Democratic COngressmna from the district, Al Ullman, was a moderate from Baker COunty.

There are pockets of Democratic counties and house districts. I was Jim Gilbertson's manager and he almost won Dist 59 against John Dallum, with almost no party or labor support. Judy Steigler was competative in Bend in '04. Bob Jenson won as Democratic in '96 in Umatilla/Morrow counties. SO, there are a few winnable house districts, but the 2nd CD is simply unwinnable for Democrats.

I think that a Democrat can win the 2nd CD with enough money. We did an unscientific poll of Republican women in Jackson County. Over 50% didn't even know who Greg Walden was. In the fourteen county fairs that I attended and the hundreds of people I met 50-75% didn't know who my opponent was. These were random encounters. Walden is known at election time because he blasts us through the media. Not just Republicans received his 6 pieces of 8x11 full color flyers, Dems and Indys did too. He has name recognition only at election time that's his campaign strategy. Along with presenting himself as a moderate Republican he wins. Of course we all know he isn't a "moderate", he is a "conservative" who is now blowing with the wind. Oregon is going to receive another seat in the USHouse of Representatives. This will shake up the districts we have now. Democrats will not be able to simply "give up" on a district when we have 6 CDs. We haven't won because we haven't been smart.

This will shake up the districts we have now. Democrats will not be able to simply "give up" on a district when we have 6 CDs.

So who will draw the 6 CDs, and where will Walden's home fall?

Someone mentioned Al Ullman. There was a big debate in the last election with 4 districts---when Al was representing Salem. It went something like this: "Should we hold our noses for one more cycle and re-elect Al, or should we send him a message".

The "message" primary challenge got 45% of the vote, the national coffers then opened up for Denny Smith, there was a 3rd party candidate as I recall, and Denny sneaked in. He chose to run in the Salem area district and leave the rural 2nd to someone else when the 5th district was created. That first 5th Dist. primary was more like the most recent 2nd Dist. primary than anything else I could compare it to.

None of that could have been predicted in Jan. 1987, which is the corresponding year to what we are in now---and in 1988 the candidate who took on the "entrenched incumbent" Denny Smith lost in a recount. I should mention that 1988 was the year the DCCC believed their own poll saying the Democrat didn't have a chance, and not the Oregon pollster who didn't think a squeaker of an election was unlikely. The head of DCCC that cycle ended up sending an apology letter for not taking the campaign seriously, and in 1990 (after Denny spent his last term talking about his "Boeing victory" of 707 votes) Oregon's 5th District was one of about 5 in the country where an incumbent was toppled.

I know nothing about Carol but am willing to bet that if that 5th Dist. primary winner in 1982 fits the definition of liberal (science prof. at Mt. Hood Comm. College, state legislator whose personality matched her red hair, avid supporter of women's rights and the nuclear freeze, as outspoken as Bella Abzug or Cindy Sheehan, not soft spoken like Darlene Hooley or many other women politicians) then Carol doesn't. I'm not sure what that term means anymore.

Seems to me what is important is the way forward this year. A strong new DPO chair and an awareness of what a second district candidate is up against ("The ideal candidate would...." sort of profile might be a good idea), and making sure there is a strong Sec. of State for 2008-2012 to draw the Congressional Districts if the legislature can't do it (unless there is a revision of the redistricting process between now and then--anything is possible) are what we should be concentrating on now.

Finally, Grant, with all due respect, Gilbertson's almost win against Dallum is proof that amazing surprises can happen on campaigns. 2nd District has cities like Medford and Bend, and someone who carries those cities could win without winning the rest of the district, just like Gordon Smith can lose Multnomah and Lane but win statewide if he does well enough in Washington and Clackamas counties and in the "red" / "purple" counties like Marion.

The numbers will largely determine whether or not a candidate can win. The 2nd CD is something like a 15%-20% point R distrcit, just as the 3rd is a 15-20% D distrcit. I don't think that either Walden or Blumenauer are worried about a challneger form the other party. They are probbaly more worried about a primary challenger. Dist 59 is much less Republican, with 12,000 Rs to 10,000 Ds. Democrat Jack Lorts won 43% there in '04 even though he was outspent by a lot, so I think you could call that 43% the base vote in distrcit 59, vs a 30% base vote for the 2nd CD. Also, Jim is a farmer and former mill worker who received an A rating from the NRA, was able to spend his own money, and walked intensively in Jefferson Co, which he carried by 10%, amazing for a D. In a congressional race, there are simply too many voters to make much of a difference with canvassing. Carol campaigned and did a great job of motiavating the activists, but she had the image of Ashland liberal just as Peter Buckley did in '02, and that might be a good image for Ashland and Hood River, but not for the district. I think that when the seat opens up ALan Bates would be the one Democrat who might have a chance, but a slim one at that. I think Carol has built a good name for herself in Jackson COunty for elective office there and well as a good base for her DPO chair bid.