If Obama wins, it will be very close

[yesthattom]

When Democrats hear that a candidate is going to win, they stop volunteering and donating. Confident of a win, they don’t realize that a predicted win only happens if people keep on working.

When Republicans hear that a candidate is going to lose, they start donating more and volunteers start showing up in droves.

Dems have lost races that they thought they’d win because support dropped out. NJ Governor races have been surprises in both directions because of this factor. Once Dems stopped their GOTV efforts the morning on the election because of this confident. Ugh.

As you can guess, I get nervous every time a report comes out that “the polls look good for Obama”. The truth is that Obama is going to have an uphill battle. Polling data and past experience is all with white candidates. We literally don’t know how entire regions will react. People don’t like to say, “I won’t vote for a black person” to a pollster, and vote differently when they are in the privacy of a voting booth. Southern states with huge black populations could invalidate all “conventional wisdom.” However, what do we know about the effectiveness of GOTV programs in areas that we’ve ignored for decades? If every polling place in black neighborhoods gets 10x the turn-out of previous years, will everyone be able to vote?

Not to sound like a broken record about “Republicans are good at recommending that Democrats do the opposite of what’s good for them” it wouldn’t surprise me at all if all these “Obama is going to win, it’s just a matter of how big” articles are being encouraged by conservatives.

In the meanwhile, let me say this:

• The best way to stop getting requests for donations is to donate the maximum permitted by law. They’ll stop pestering you. Really. donate. $2,300 to Obama, and $28,500 to the DNC. Ha ha. I can’t even donate that much. However, donating what you can is critical.
• Volunteer with your local party. You can be a neighborhood leader, or just stop by to stuff envelopes, or join the group that refutes anti-Obama rumors on blogs

Comments

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Voter turn-out triggering capacity issues have been huge the whole country over. Allegedly, it is a good reason for e-voting and mail-in voting. The former can still run out of paper for the voter-verified paper trail (I sure hope yours has one!), and the latter is subject to vote buying and old fashioned boss coercion. Eew. Didn't we learn from the 1930s? Back to boxes, pencils, paper, and herds of fussy oldsters watching out for shenanigans, I say!

And... Just WOW. $30,800! WOW. And those are limits someone came up with? No doubt as a compromise to keep big pockets from controlling politics! Golly, sure is gonna keep um... er... ok, it's gonna affect no one but the top 1% earners from going hog wild donating. Now they're limited to going wild instead of hog wild. Go team.

If I had $30,800 I was comfortable just parting with to help change things, it'd probably go into a 25-year renewable, clean energy system for the home and some durable equipment donated to the local schools.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

plus donate bus to each state campaign. Heck donate to every minor Dem candidate in the swing state so there is less pressure on the national and state groups to fund them.

That makes the real limit very high, but at least if you do it that way you are encouraging democracy and cooperation and participation.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Totally - I agree about supporting local politics!

That makes the real limit very high

Yeah and I am not 100% sure that really encourages democracy. I think it ensures the victory of the party with the most money in any geographic area. I got to see way too much of that in the Chicago area. Local pols didn't even read legislation that was rubberstamped by one of the big men.

And now that's happening nationally. Election financing has gotten way, way, way out of control.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

How would you fix the problem?

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

If I knew, I assure you I would be unelectable - after all, I'd have to take tons of cash and then promise to do something about it. *argh*

My best guess is that we need to either force real low caps on donations, which would maybe help given than individual small donors are becoming more important (and so that would speed that process); or say 'let it roll' and take off all caps - including (and especially) those on grass-roots organizations, which, since we're not gonna cap corporations in any meaningful way, we need to get back into the game.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Two alternatives:

-- Retain the current dollar amounts but have the donations available to the public in a searchable format within days so that scrutiny can happen now, not after the election.

-- Remove the need for the big bucks: make TV air time free to candidates. Either require it as part of a TV station's FCC license, or add a $10/person tax to all tax payers and create a pool that all candidates can pull from proportionately. The change-congress.org proposal is that incumbents get free air time and challengers get some amount (I don't remember the formula). With their budget shrunk by 90%, they only need small donors.

Here's CC's new video

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I think your first one won't help - knowing who bought the election isn't going to help. I know that's exaggeration, but still.

The second one I like, but I think the Internet will render it moot in 15 years or less. I'm still for either lifting all limits (and thus grass roots orgs will once again have the same power as for-profit corporations) or -- and I have my 1st Amendment discomforts with this -- campaign reform that causes candidates to not accept anything but small donations, in an attempt to level the playing field.

Good link that raises some good questions. My gut tells me the Democrats will stop talking about campaign finance reform the second it's not in the party's interest to do so. Both parties are so cynical it makes me want to puke.

Perhaps I'm dreaming

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

My hope about the Obama campaign (borne out by the fact that they won the nomination) is that they're smart, and they understand things like this, and that they can act on this issue appropriately. He also seems to be inspiring people to do things so hopefully he will buck the trend. But yes, we can't just sit idly by and assume someone else will do it.

[dieppe.livejournal.com]

Sadly, it's still the Democrats election to lose. We still need to fight up till election day. I just hope we don't have to fight for votes after, like the 2000 election. I've no doubts that the Republicans will pull something, somewhere...

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I've no doubts that the Republicans will pull something, somewhere...

See, I hate that crap. Of course they will pull something. Of course the Democrats will pull something, too. They both ALWAYS do. Both. When I lived in NC, when the (Democrat, Popular, Liberal, Black) Mayor of Charlotte challenged Jesse Helms, the morning of the election, almost every voting booth (the lever type) in Orange, Durham, and Queens counties turned out to be broken. Those were the three most populous left-leaning counties in the state at the time. WHAT A COINCIDENCE.

But, see, I later lived in IL, where the Democrats pulled something almost everywhere. In Chicago, whole districts voted... districts that don't exist. In the collar suburbs, signs for the opposition were methodically removed by road crews while the Democrats' candidates' signs were left everywhere. You have to live both to understand that it's not "those bad other guys" - everyone is bad and it will get worse the more we tolerate it just because it's "our side" and we have "things we need to get done."

What you tolerate, you condone. What you condone, you deserve.

Nothing ever soured me on my party of choice but living in one of its bastions.