A comment on "weak" candidates. Before ANYONE runs they should

[johncoby2]

I'm having problems with the "leave no republican unchallenged" idea. This is my two damn sense.
I am pissed about a few candidates that are running taking resources away from others.



If you intend to run decide if it is going to be serious or just to "leave no republican unchallenged". If you intend to be serious then at the very least do the following:

Talk to your family. Are they up for the campaign and if you win?
Talk to your friends. Not just the "oh yes, yes, yes, run please!" but those who will give you hard nosed advise like "do not run. you wont win".
Find money to start the campaign.
Find volunteers to run your campaign. DEDICATED volunteers.
Talk to other elected officials for their support and advise.

Then decide. Either run seriously, or put your name on the ballot and do nothing else.

If you intend to run just to be on the ballot, then do so and DO NOT ASK FOR SUPPORT AFTER THE FACT! When you do this it takes resources that could be used for other candidates that have a chance.


We have a candidate that we recruited in my area. We are going to support her. Fundraiser for her. Volunteer for her. She has a following. And we believe it will be a very uphill battle, but we are willing to work for her and we believe we have a chance.

This is a HUGE difference from someone who decided to run and is now asking for help.

[TXDem24]

1. Whose definition of "weak"?

I come from a county where we had 2 local Democratic candidates on the ballot in 2004. People going to the polls in 2004 found very few choices on the ballot below the Congressional race. This reinforces their perception that the Texas Democratic Party is dead or in its last stages of life (or as Cheney would say "last throes"). Without choices, most voters just become apathetic to the election process and quit showing up. All the media, sound bites, grassroots efforts, etc ... turn to dust without candidates providing a vehicle to reflect public sentiment through their votes.

My position is: more candidates will draw more voters, drawing more and better candidates, drawing even more voters, ... ad infinitum. Your perspective is based on winning a race, which is a worthy goal. My perspective is party-building. Winning one or two targeted races in each election may not be enough to turn Texas blue. I think we need to build the Democratic Party machinery in "red-state" Texas as well to offer an alternative to our current one-party rule. The most effective mechanism to building political parties are campaigns. Without candidates, county parties atrophy and die. After all, that is how the Republicans took over this state. In the eighties, they couldn't win dog-catcher without Democratic support.

Unfortunately, we get a lot of nutcases (on both sides of the political spectrum) that reflect negatively on our party. We could resolve this by incorporating a "None of the above" choice on our primary ballots. For some reason, the leadership is against this. But, having this capability in our primary process should be able to "weed" out the weak, extreme, or rancorous nominees.

Democracy is about having choices. I would prefer to err on the side of choice over the concept of preselected/predefined nominees. Our candidates should be determined by all of us instead of some group of consultants in some closed door session.

"I prefer the system of checks-and-balances over balancing checks"

[johncoby2]

2. Thats not the point

If you want to run with no support from the party or from those active in the party, then don't expect to get it when it is time to donate money, put out signs, phone bank, etc etc.

If you want to fill in a blank do so.

[robbzipp]

3. I've seen

that people run for different reasons. there really ought to be a better way of getting all of the candidates' messages out to the voters.