Cost/benefit analysis of running races
Here is a question I would be interested hearing answered by the readers of BlueNC:
Should we support candidates (time/money/workers)where we don't have any chance of winning or should we direct our resources to campaigns that are winable but could use a little help to get over the hump?
I know there are many definitions of winning, I used to be very active with the Green Party and we ran many educational campaigns that we knew going in that we had no chance of winning at the ballot box but we ran them to get our message out.
So, BlueNC'ers what are your thoughts?
Tagged:
BlueNC is dedicated to making North Carolina a more progressive and prosperous state. If your intention is to disrupt this effort, please find somewhere else to express your opinions.
Like?
Comments
It seems like you've answered
It seems like you've answered your own question. Spending time and money on campaigns that make a point, but have little chance of succeeding can be well worth doing sometimes. But spending real money on a Quixotic campaign seems improvident if the candidate isn't going to meaningfully alter the terms of public discourse.
Then again, sometimes races end up being closer than we imagine they will be. So who knows . . .
Put someone in EVERY race
When lightening strikes -- like a DUI or some unflattering revelation for the other party -- you have to have someone in place to take advantage of it.
Failing to file in every race is inexcusable.
Exactly
No seat should ever go uncontested. Ever.
That said, having a candidate in a race does not mean there is a need to burn a lot of resources if the deck is stacked. But usernamehere gets is right. Stuff happens. We have to be at the ready.
Precisely
I've refused to cast votes many times simply because the candidate in question was unopposed. I've even toyed with the idea of filing for a seat myself, just to so there would be a choice.
I think social media campaigns are going to become more and more influential in the coming years, and social media/web marketing can be done dirt cheap.
"Money doesn't talk, it swears." ~ R. Zimmerman
82 Democratic Candidates Needed
As of 2PM Friday (per the NC Board of Elections website), candidate recruitment by NC Democrats is barely enough to win a majority of each house - 75 Republicans remain unopposed, and 5 seats have no candidates at all. Not to mention 2 Congressional seats that need Democratic candidates - NC-6 and NC-7.
House (120 seats)
64 seats have Democratic candidates (30 unopposed)
86 seats have Republican candidates (52 unopposed)
34 seats are contested by both parties
4 seats (H19, H34, H60, H114) have no candidates yet
61 of the 64 Democrats would have to win in November for Democrats to regain control.
Senate (50 seats)
26 seats have Democratic candidates (8 unopposed)
41 seats have Republican candidates (23 unoppsed)
18 seats are contested by both parties
1 seat (S14) has no candidates yet
All 26 Democrats would have to win in November for Dems to regain control.
Why so many more Rs unopposed than Ds?
What lead to this situation, and is there still time to change it?
There's still time - but not a lot
The filing deadline is 2/29 at noon.
I would think state Democratic Party officials would be on the phone with Democrats who are county officials or even precint officials in these races where no Dems have filed. No Republican should get a free ride for a legislative seat - you never know what might happen to make a seat competitive.
As I was just mentioning in another blog entry
ECU is in a district (district 7) with no state senate democratic candidate.
http://www.pittdems.com/
http://www.pittdems.com/women.html
http://www.pittdems.com/aac.html
http://www.pittdems.com/yds.html
http://www.facebook.com/ECUCollegeDems
There is also probably the capacity for involvement of the new Dem LGBT caucus as things go forwards:
http://eastcarolina.orgsync.com/org/glbtsu/home
http://www.lenoircountydemocraticparty.org/
http://www.waynecountydemocraticparty.org/
That's a lot capacity there to just concede it, without at least making the incumbent at least make their case before getting re-elected.
I still think individuals from Occupy
could step up and run. They would really be able to get their message out to the general public in a new way.
And what better way than debating these 1%er Republicans head on?
Progressives are the true conservatives.
On winnable races
I've thought a lot about this in the context of advocacy. And there, I think the answer is relatively easy - fight for what you believe in, regardless of whether or not your position is considered "winnable" today. It's passionate advocates on the fringe that push the boundaries of what is considered winnable, and broaden the view of the mainstream.
But, of course, the constraints of our two-party system are at the core of your question. In a campaigning and voting scenario, I think it depends on your overall goals - whether you want to promote a positive or avert a negative.
If your goals are to promote a positive, then I think you need to promote that positive (candidate/party/issue) regardless of whether or not it's winnable. It's the same notion as above, pushing for something that is not winnable has the potential to at least expand the visibility of your opinion and can help it be winnable in the future. It's these fights that could, for example, potentially lead us to a multi-party system someday. So, on this point, I respectfully disagree with Mayor27510. I believe it is worth supporting a candidate or cause even if you're unlikely to "meaningfully alter the terms of public discourse."
If your goal is to avert a negative, it's probably best to choose the most winnable option that best represents your views. I'm sure there are a lot of "anybody but [incumbent]" votes cast in every election, and it's not unreasonable to throw your money, your talents and your vote in that direction if you find the opponent so onerous as to warrant it.
Has anyone on BlueNC every actually recruited someone to run?
Has anyone on BlueNC every actually recruited someone to run? I ask, not just because we bring this topic up each year, but because I think someone sharing the experience of being on the recruiting side could be a helpful guide.
Candidate Recruitment
As a matter of fact, yes I have. It has happened twice; once here in NC and also in NY.
The decision was based on an analysis of the race, the ability to raise the necessary funding, and the candidate's ability/willingness to actually WORK to WIN the race.
While I understand the desire to have a "candidate" in every race, there remain multiple questions that need to be answered:
1. Has the prospective candidate put advanced time and planning into a race? For example, the time to start planning to run for a seat is 12-14 months ahead of the filing date, not 2 days before it.
2. Does the candidate have a minimum of 20% of the 1st year salary in personal $ to put into his/her own campaign. That would mean $3,000 for a state legislative race or $34,000 for a congressional campaign. The filing fee for congress is $1,500, state legislature is $150.00.
3. Is the candidate able/willing to spend 2-3 hours. 5-6 days/week on the phone to fund raise? It costs upwards of $175,000 for a legislative race, $1-2 million for congress, $8-10 million for a statewide race.
4. How high is the candidate's name recognition for a particular race in THAT district? I am not talking about how many folks "know" you at church, little league, etc. A race against an incumbent opponent where you have less than 50% name recognition is a problem. Are you well known and ACTIVE in the political party you are registered in; if you're a democrat and the county democratic party chair doesn't even know you then that is a major problem.
5. What is your depth of knowledge on the issues of importance to the voters? Here again, not what YOU feel is important, but what do people in that district see as high priority. For example, if jobs are the #1 issue, and you're pushing for a hike in sales tax then you're in trouble.
6. Finally, what are the voter registration details, and more importantly past voting trends for that particular district? Can you be competitive? Is it a swing, R-2, D-2 district? These things all require analysis.
My experience has shown that when these 6 points are followed, and there is close to a 50/50 chance of winning, then the answer should be a GO. Oh yeah, I was .500 in those two races. I also speak from experience of both running for elected office, winning my own race back in NY, and losing here for school board in '05. Hope this helps.
Recruited and have been recruited
Through the years I have been on both ends with mixed results. I always try to lay out the facts to those I am recruiting with the main one being: Is this a winable race. As I stated before, some candidates don't care if they win or not, they are in it to get a message out but most people run to win and I feel it is a diservice to them to blow sunshine up their butt.
One thing I hate to see is a good candidate get promised the world and then their "supporters" not coming through. I have seen this too many times, most recently during my mother's race for NC House in 2010. Before she agreed to run there were a lot of people who made commitments who didn't come through and it left a bitter taste in her mouth. Well qualified candidates who are let down are less apt to run again.
I have been recruited several times to run for County Commission here in Mecklenburg. My district is heavily Republican but the people who have urged me to run have said everytime "this year is different, we can win this year". My family has lived in eastern Mecklenburg since 1967 and I know there is no way in hell a Democrat could win this seat so why put myself and my family through a campaign that I know from the start is a losing proposition? My time and effort are better spent, in my opinion helping candidates who have a shot at winning.
I understand why people feel every seat should be contested, I am just not one of them.
Running on issues
Given that filing is over so soon, it seems harder to see a viable candidate emerging at this point that hasn't been planning things for some times.
I wonder though if there are occupy folks or lgbt folks willing to run to raise issues, to make discussions of big money in politics and the amendment/lgbt issues a part of more public debates? For places where it creates Dem primaries, that might encourage a few more people to turn out in May too.