Just after I posted this, I got an email from Kari indicating that further questions will be asked in a more comprehensive format in a later post.

So, let's limit this thread to just the content of my question, and then we can do a more extensive Q & A in Kari's later post.

I've worked on several Oregon campaigns professionally and currently work for an elected official.

The problem with Bucknum's post is that his premise is wrong. And btw according to your own admission, from my vantage point the DPO is doing exactly what it should be doing - maximizing & delivering the Democratic vote. It's been a pretty good strategy too...Gov, SOS, Treas., AG, Labor Commish, Supt. Public Instruction, and now majorities in the House and Senate. It's great to be amoung friends.

And as an aside, attend some hearings and you'll find that it's not just about mindless partisan winning as the Keislings, Westlunds, and Gordlys would like to portray. The mood is different. It's positive. Merkley leads by consensus not force...legislators are talking finding about solutions to entrenched problems like education funding, tax inequalities, health care for kids. It's night and day. Ah, back to the topic at hand.

Party delegates need to recognize that there are opportunity costs to any resource allocation in a campaign. It sounds great to say every county should get more or an equal amount of money but where does it come from? It's also a losing strategy. All counties just aren't equal in vote share or in the path to the majority.

So Mr. Bucknum given that this is a very narrowly divided state politically -- specifically which races and efforts would you have taken money from to fund "outreach" to people whose voting history, geography, issue beliefs suggest they are unmovable for a Democratic candidate??? How many votes do you need to win a local race of your choosing? And how much would it cost to deliver that vote?

I agree that the party has a great opportunity to reposition itself with disaffected Rs. Hell, anyone who can't see at this point what a disaster government is with Rs in charge ought not be able to vote! But there is never money to burn in any campaign so you do have to target your resources. I know that's an unpopular sentiment to the Bucknums and LTs of BlueOreogn, but it's reality.

Your premise also ignores an important division of labor. Candidates and campaigns do the "outreach" to swing voters with a tailored message consistent with their campaign. The party can't really do this credibly. The party mobilizes it's members and then campaigns are able to devote resources to convincing/ converting/mobilizing ANY undecided voters. And these voters are different in every race...Darlene gets Republicans that Brian Clem might never get. Does the party turn that voter out for Billy Dalto?

Well, at least the anonymous person posting above spelled my name correctly. Questioning the questioning is an interesting place to start discussion.

Ah, the "limited resources" argument. Well, this is about the candidates. They may agree that the resources are so limited that outreach to independents and R's isn't worth it, they may not, or they may have an entirely different take on this.

Just wait, the candidates should be answering shortly, they have had several days to come up with an answer, as I gave all but Dan about four days to think on it. Dan got less time because I just found out about his running for Chair this morning.

Hello, I am the last one in, so what the hey -- I will be the first one out to begin this dialogue.

In my experience, party discussions often tend to fracture around passionate questions about urban v rural, going for base or persuadable voters, focusing on issues v infrastructure and so on. These debates are contentious and horrible. And I love them. :)

Seriously, for all of these questions we need to find a way to do both, strike a smart balance and not get into either/or questions. As the co-founder of something called the Apollo Alliance, which brings business-labvor-urban-rural together around a Green New Deal on clean energy jobs, I can't help but say that there is a HUGE opportunity for Democrats to lead on clean energy policy (wind, biofuels etc) and put real dollars in rural county treasuries, farmers and ranchers' pockets, community college training and other no-brainer stuff which the public loves. Meeting the energy challenge isn't the whole answer to Steve's question, but I think it's the catalytic glue for creating a new farm-labor-new entreprenerial alliance in the years to come.

So that's a short start to this big and important question.

As for the who the heck is Dan Carol question some may be asking, I look forward to answering Kari's questions, wish great luck to my colleagues, and invite folks to visit DanCarolForChair.com

Steve has a valid point.

Speaking as someone who worked his butt off for Paul Evans' Senate race, I would like to have seen some of Paul's resources re-allocated to Jim Gilbertson who ran and lost by 280 votes (out of over 20,000) in rural Central Oregon.

If I had known how close Jim's race was, he would have received more of my effort. I also think the Bus Project would have done a trip to Madras or Condon for him.

That was a missed opportunity.

Jim's district is spread across 9 sparsely populated counties. If his race had been in Washington County, it would have been polled and he would have received a lot of help from FuturePAC, the Bus Project and others. In other words, he would have won.

Forgive the second post, but I had trouble getting the link up to my campaign site on my fist comment above:

www.dancarolforchair.com

For more background -- and broader rants on politics, progressives, issues and grassroots infrastructure, try my personal blog:

www.kumbayadammit.com

If his race had been in Washington County, it would have been polled...

Or, if Jim's campaign would have done a poll, it would have been polled.

It hurts to see how close that race was, but honestly: Every year it seems that there's one race that is a surprise heartbreaker. Two years ago, it was Rob Brading.

The reality is that the candidate is the person first and foremost responsible for their own victory. They should work hard to get help from volunteers, supporters, donors, party committees, interest groups, and more -- but above all else, it's the candidate whose name is on the ballot, and who is responsible for running their campaign.

I don't know Jim, but I'm guessing he was just as surprised as everyone else that it was that close. If a poll had been done that showed him that close, lots of folks would have shown up to help.

Steve, Thanks for the good question! Most of us have attended county fairs through out Oregon. I attended thirteen county fairs as a candidate attempting to unseat Republican Greg Walden. It was during those county fairs and visits with twenty plus Democratic county organizations I began to think seriously about a process that would build the Oregon Democratic Party one county at a time. Most of us know “one size does not fit all” even between suburban counties or rural counties. My dream for the DPO began at a parade and county fair in Joseph riding in Chuck Butcher’s car. I kept meeting smart, hardworking, caring Democrats from Lakeview to Baker City and Medford to Bend. I was deeply moved as I listened to people, their issues, their ideas, their hopes and their fears. It was during a reading of Cowboy poetry that I thought the DPO needs to engage each county on its terms. I know the next question is how you are going to do this. This is my plan.

• Identify listening teams from the DPO staff to visit each county organization to listen to their needs and dreams. • Assist each county to develop their customized plan that is based on their needs and resources and not on a cookie cutter model. “Get out the Vote” models work well in some counties and not in others. • After each county identifies the support they need to implement their plan, the DPO will provide support needed. • From county plans, move into regions where county resources, ideas, and plans can be shared and supported through a network of communication. • Hold quarterly regional meeting around the state to “showcase” county plans to the rest of the state. • Support Democratic candidates in each and every county based on their Democratic County organizations needs.

Our county organizations are becoming modern and technologically savvy. All thirty six counties have voices, ideas, great potential candidates and clout. From Indian memorial services, pancake breakfasts and a chatty farmer in Condon I have been moved to strengthen the Democratic Party of Oregon. It is time to take seriously grassroots politics and it is time to increase voters in every single county in Oregon. I know how to do it, because I have done it. For more information go to my website carolvoisin.com, or email me at [email protected] or call me at 541-482-3559. P.S. Welcome aboard Dan!

Thanks to Dan and Carol for their posts. Looking forward to reading Meredith and Mac's responses.

Those of us reading and watching might have follow up questions. I've decided to save mine for Kari's future efforts in covering the DPO Chair campaign.

Bert and Jenni - thanks for your comments. Perhaps a separate topic on electioneering is needed to cover the direction you ended up going.

That's true jenni. But polls don't magically fall out of the sky anymore than direct mail or staff salaries do.

Campaigns are about making tough choices among competing priorities (like government). Choosing voter contact over a poll is a reasonable choice, but then you can't complain, "But if only we'd had a poll!"

Jim Gilbertson presumably made a choice - not to have a poll. So it's unfair now, after the results are known, for his supporters to cry out and wish that a poll had magically fallen from the sky.

If Jim and his team thought it was important, they could have paid for one. If the results were good, it would have paid off. If not, it was a waste of money.

But hindsight is always 20/20.

I urge support for Carol Voisin. A worthy candidate and someone from outside Portland / Eugene, which is worthwhile for a number of reasons including a need to continue to build a strong Democratic base for a statewide Senate candidate in 08.

We can only hope that republicans are talking about how to win seats in SE portland. Or maybe taking money out of races in Clackamas to spend on races in downtown Eugene.

The candidates for DPO chair---all of them---seem to me impressive folks. So far, however, Carol Voisin stands out for me. Others talk about organizing all the counties, but Carol gives us concrete details about how she'd do it. And she's been there! She lost to Walden, but she mounted a great campaign. Who better for chair of the DPO than someone who already has a leg up on all-county organization? This is the strategy that won the 2006 election nationwide; let's do it here in OR with Voisin.

I would not want to be Chair of DPO if it paid really good money, herding cats is not my idea of a pastime. That said, that's the point - herding cats. Not much of a job description, but it's darn accurate. I'm holding my own council on who, but this is the thing to really think about. DPO is a potentially fractious outfit, and that isn't what will work, there is no getting complete agreement, except maybe on thanking H Dean for 50 State, so the question comes down to everybody living with outcomes.

I have watched some real building go on over the last 2 years, that could evaporate in a heartbeat. I've seen some mis-steps as well. Some things that could have hurt the Party were manuevered (polite wording) and massaged into something livable, that takes skill. There were hurt feelings, but not outright revolt. This vote requires some deep thinking and some political thought, I know, but DPO is raw politics. It is important to know who to go to and who to pet and who to push, oh yeah, some of it's backstage politicing - but that's the game.

We're fortunate to have these good people running.

I believe the two most critical needs to increase our success across Oregon are qualified candidates and quality campaigns. It would be presumptions of me to come up with a complete plan for implementing a strategy to take back rural Oregon, as there are many partners and players who must be included in coming up with such a plan, but as Chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon I will do the following:

1. Ask the DPO Campaign Committee to survey all our Legislative and many local candidates-both winners and losers- to find out what worked, didn’t work, and identify their unmet expectations, from that a truly relevant plan to support to our candidates can emerge.

2. Continue to work with all 36 counties in building strong county parties by listening to their ideas and continuing to create relevant and effective training for local Democrats and candidates.

3. Begin immediately to help local Democrats identify candidates and to find the support needed for their success.

4. Continue and deepen our partnership with House and Senate Leadership and our state- wide and Congressional candidates to increase voter turn out and build support for candidates all over the state.

5. Explore ways to identify some “Emerging targets” in some of the more challenging Legislative races (beyond the swing districts). For example we might help them by providing things like a website, training, campaign manager, assistance with a mail piece, volunteer recruitment, etc., that would encourage and support people to run. Having good candidates step up to run is the first step-- giving them the necessary support is the second and most important.

Blue Oregon has kindly offered to let candidates post a column next week and in that I will address why I am uniquely qualified to carry out the above. Stay Tuned Meredith Meredith Wood Smith, Candidate for Chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon [email protected] 503-318-5043

Well, all the candidates have now answered the question, "What is your plan to increase votes for Democrats outside of the urban areas of Oregon?". I note that Dan, Carol, and Mac answered the day it was posted, and Meredith two days later. All had advance notice this would be posted on Thursday.

There were some vague answers, some more specific answers, and I think these answers begin to give those of us that will be voting on March 10th a better idea of who these people are.

I'd be interested in seeing more comments here on what people thought of the answers.

-- As for Chuck's comment above, Chuck has it about right, herding cats, except for one thing. These cats have ATTITUDE! Whoever wins will need to start with a period of building/rebuilding of the Party. Julius Caesar was stabbed 27 times, and while I don't think it will get that bad, our next leader will have some "interesting" times ahead.

I'll discuss how I'm going to vote and why later.

Steve I answered two days later because I was in "rural" Washington State on a family trip and as you know sometimes Web access is limited or none. If you note the time of my post, I answered your question at 12:28:40 am which is 28 min 40 sec into the second day! Just to keep the counting straight. Sorry for the "delay" but had some business I needed to take care of upon my return before I could make my post. And by the way all cats have attitude! Meredith

Just as the overall Oregon state economy is recovering, rural counties are about to lose the safety net of "county payments" from the federal government that has kept many of them afloat since big timber faded. Even with the unanimous, bipartisan fight being waged by Oregon's entire Congressional delegation to maintain these payments, the money will most likely be gone in another year at the most.

Democrats ARE competitive in state-wide elections, e.g. Ted K. But if Democrats want to be competitive in every district, we should pursue creative legislative and private solutions to prevent the collapse of services in rural Oregon. This may require a concerted effort to lobby both Democratic and Republican law-makers from more prosperous or urban parts of the state to see the benefit of supporting rural communities. I hope the next chair actively engages legislators and the governor to create a pro-rural Democratic legislative agenda, both for the good of the state and for the party.