This Is the Left's Confidential $100 Million Plan to Win Back the States

[applegrove]

This Is the Left's Confidential $100 Million Plan to Win Back the States

By Andy Kroll at Mother Jones

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/committee-on-states-democracy-alliance-redistricting-2020

"SNIP....................


That money will go toward funding left-leaning organizations that focus on data and analytics, grassroots organizing, messaging and opposition researching, and of course fundraising. The goal is to create durable political machines in each targeted state. In 2013 and 2014, the Committee on States' members backed these types of groups in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington State, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. One Committee on States memo says that three more states—Georgia, Montana, and New Hampshire—are developing their own donor alliances. The same memo notes that there's interest in doing the same in Illinois, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. If all of those states get onboard, the number of states with full-fledged lefty donor networks would reach 27.

The Democracy Alliance and the Committee on States emerged in the mid-2000s as a response to what progressive activists and Democratic officials saw as a sophisticated, nationwide network of conservative groups winning fight after fight at the state and national levels. Rob Stein, who served as chief of staff to the Clinton-Gore transition team in 1992, alerted wealthy liberals to this network with a PowerPoint presentation titled "The Conservative Message Machine and Money Matrix." As Stein told me in 2013, "I made the case [to wealthy liberal givers] that we need to get better organized, because right now we suck."

In the memo noting its $100 million goal, the Committee on States emphasizes the importance of ramping up its effort before the next round of redistricting. Republicans made huge gains at the state level in the years before the 2010 redistricting fights and subsequently redrew congressional districts to make the political playing field more favorable to GOP candidates. That helps explain how, in 2012, Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania for the US House of Representatives together received 83,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet the state's delegation ended up with 13 Republicans and five Democrats. In Michigan that year, Democratic congressional candidates earned 240,000 more votes than Republicans, but the state's congressional delegation had nine GOPers and five Democrats. "It is imperative," one Committee on States memo reads, "to increase state political and civic engagement capacity between now and the next biennium redistricting process if we truly hope to change our national political landscape."




.....................SNIP"

[daredtowork]

1. Who wants to bet

That this money all gets absorbed by consultant-types at the top with trickle down to existing "machines" which are actually cronies.

At the bottom are a few sweaty volunteers who are being driven mad by the continuous pressure to come up with greater and greater hyperbole for email blast subject lines.

Le sigh.

Not feeling the authentic engagement from the ground up.

[applegrove]

2. I think Democrats have the advantage when it comes

to high technology. This is how it will be won. By getting all the non voters to vote. Because there is a constant majority of people who would vote Dem in the country. It is just low turnout that hobbles dems. If they can write a algorithm for that it is worth paying for. Then it can be replicated 1 billion times.

[mountain grammy]

7. yes, I think you've got something there.. why don't people vote?

Many people here profess to know the answers, but I'm not so sure. I'd like to see an honest, scientific study of the non voting phenomenon in America. It's so weird and odd, that citizens of a country that bursts with nationalism, flags flying all over the place, etc, can't even be bothered to understand our political system and vote.

Yes, Dems must get non voters to vote, and vote Democratic.

[applegrove]

8. Yes. You are such patriots in the USA. It is strange.

[Cha]

10. [phone]

Mahalo apple!

[applegrove]

11. Hey Cha. We can do it. We can dominate

the GOP by getting out the vote.

[Cha]

13. Yeah, WE CAN!

[aspirant]

12. " few sweaty volunteers"

should be the many paid grass root activists and community organizers.

How about a legitimate Acorn #2

[daredtowork]

14. Acorn!!! +1 :D nt

[JaneyVee]

3. Maybe we shouldn't be publishing this?

[mountain grammy]

4. I'm glad to hear someone's doing something, but $100 million?

Seems like a joke these days, pocket change to the Kochs and Adelsons of the world.

The right wing "think tanks" have done a number on America, coming up with all kinds of "studies" and "research" that back up right wing views and policies. I see folks citing The Heritage Foundation all the time, like it's some bastion of truth and this has worked well for the GOP, giving them "facts and figures" to bullshit the base.

Rich liberals need to open up their wallets and save America. We could also use a few more progressive radio stations. Seems like rich right wingers, and there are plenty, pick up any station with good ratings for progressive talk and put on Rush. They don't care if Rush doesn't get the ratings, that's not their problem. The goal is to silence progressive talk in every location, and it's working.

[titaniumsalute]

5. Not so confidential now...

[Sissyk]

6. Confidential??

[aspirant]

9. These groups "emerged in the mid-2000's"

so where are there results? Open secrets and/or FEC have any info on these groups.

The article says some of this money will go to political committees(DNC, DCCC, DSCC?) and dark money non-profit groups. Don't we already know how left-leaning these groups are?

We don't have the financial power to waste 100 million on a gamble. Research the complete history before giving even a nickel.

[aspirant]

15. "of course fundraising"

Raising confidential funds, does anyone see a potential problem there?

[newfie11]

16. Are voting numbers higher in states with mail in ballots?

I'm wondering if more people would vote if they didn't have to take time off work, stand in long lines etc.

What if every registered voter automaticaly got a ballot in the mail?

I've always voted but I live rural and no lines.

[Scuba]

17. "... data and analytics, grassroots organizing, messaging and opposition researching ..."

Anything on policy? Of course not.

[Orsino]

18. Less messaging and more message, please.

Get the voters out to vote for...what? Anything different?

[KG]

19. the message is: who else ya gonna vote for.