Just received this email from a friend who just received it from the DSCC this afternoon. Now when people ask why I don't give money to these clowns, I'll have a link to send them to. Talk about incompetence.
Dear friend,
Thank you so much for all your hard work and generous support during the past election season. As difficult as it was to see Cal Cunningham lose, we want you to know that your effort – and the dedication of thousands of other Democrats just like you – made all the difference in keeping the Senate under Democratic control.
After all you’ve done to support Cal Cunningham, we don’t want you to lose touch with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – the only organization solely committed to electing a Democratic Senate.
The Republicans have their sights set on Senate control, and the DSCC’s work over the next few months will be vitally important. Thanks to you, we were able to keep the Senate blue in 2010. Knowing we have you in our corner gives us great confidence that we will succeed again in 2012.
Sincerely,
The DSCC
P.S. The DSCC is already gearing up to defend the Senate from Republican takeover in 2012, and we’re counting on your help. However, if you do not wish to receive future emails from the DSCC, please click here to opt out.
Comments
Good Lord
It's bad enough they abandoned Elaine during the election season, but to literally write her out of the history books is just...I don't know what it is. Somewhere between atrophied and totally brain-dead.
ROFL
That is just sad.
Good Grief, Charlie Brown!
This is not just sad or funny, it's ridiculous. And as you said, James, a blatant display of incompetence.
Who is running the DSSC anyway? Is it OFA or DNC or are the one and the same? I requested my name be removed from their mailing list after they interfered in the NC Primary in 2010.
Martha Brock
I wonder ...
This runs so blatantly against the spirit of Dems who pull together around the winner of primary elections that I can't help wondering if this isn't some kind of targeted email sent to someone who donated to Cal via the DSCC and then didn't donate to Marshall?? I can't help thinking that only a "smart" person could have been this dumb....
And, no, I don't donate to any Democratic organization higher than Orange County.
Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
https://george.entenman.name
I think along the same lines
I tend to donate to candidates and causes, but not to the party directly. Donating to Elaine and to the DSCC at the same time would basically be a wash because you're donating to both sides of an election.
I still feel that well functioning party organizations can lead to better results that the sum of the parts of many uncoordinated campaigns, and that is why we need to reform and restore legitimacy to party organizations. I feel like there is value in aiming a little higher than the county level (especially since municipalities are so connected to the state).
I think the national level is too far from the ground level for me to wrap my mind around changing at this point, but given that the last election pruned the state party of many of its members, and given that the state party now has a new person at the helm with David Parker, this could be a chance to restore and rebuild the needed legitimacy of an organization at the state level.
Let not our 2010 losses be a crises wasted, lets make the state party something we can be proud to support.
Of course I'll reconsider if I see changes in the NCDP
I was encouraged at the recent SEC, where Parker was elected, to hear increased demands for help at the county level. The candidates sounded as if they were listening.
But I still have my doubts. E.g., Kevin Smith based his campaign for party secretary on a pledge to get the databases opened to county parties - yet he lost. Parker won, but he's associated in my mind with the DNC, which has dissed the man who created the 50-state strategy. We need a 100-county strategy in NC - I hope the party comes through and will support it financially if it does. On the other hand, both Jerry Meek and David Young talked about supporting the counties....
Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
https://george.entenman.name
And the guy who beat Kevin Smith....
...pledged to implement electronic voting at the next SEC meeting as if it would cut the meeting from 6 to 2 hours.
I've written him to ask him how much money that would cost and who would be in charge of setting up the many secure terminals that would be needed to cast all those votes.
If one DRE touchscreen terminal could run 250 votes per day, how many would we need to count the several rounds of balloting we do for party officer elections? What about voting on resolutions and POO amendments? Where would we stand in line while doing this? How secure would the balloting be?
Chris Telesca
Wake County Verified Voting
http://noirvnc.blogspot.com
http://statewideirvnc.blogspot.com
I would like to see some sort of electronic voting
... at SEC meetings whether it be a bunch of laptops or some sort of optical system. Each SEC member could get a unique password as part of their registration materials. That plus a quick visual check at the voting terminal is about all the security you'd need. Even something like Surveymonkey could work.
The paper ballots are far from fool proof. It is just plain silly to ignore technology especially if it would let the SEC actually get something done in an efficient manner. We were there 3 hours and had one vote done.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
There'd be a lot of setup involved
Remember, votes do not count the same for each delegate to the SEC - they are weighted by all sorts of archane things I think - your county, turnout in elections, number of delegates who show up, etc. I'm pretty sure I saw a room with about a half-dozen computers with spreadsheets at an SEC last year.
Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
https://george.entenman.name
I thought that was for conventions
For SEC it's one person one vote, IIRC.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
Cant do it
The reason paper ballots are used, at least for chair and 1st vice, is that they are also DNC members. The DNC has specific rules requiring signed ballots.
One idea I heard that made sense to me was a scantron sheet. I don't know if that would fit the DNC rules, but it would shorten the counting time.
For the other votes, such as secretary or 2nd vice, there is no reason not to look at other methods.
"Keep the Faith"
Thanks for that important bit of info. I didn't know that.
Nothing like being anachronistic from the top down.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
Technically, the rule (in
Technically, the rule (in Article 9, Section 12 of the DNC Charter) is that "all meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot." In theory, I suppose you wouldn't have to have a written, signed paper ballot if each person stood and publicly stated their preference. But, in a body the size of the SEC, that's not practical. So, a signed ballot was adopted long ago. (There's a debate as to whether this rule applies to all Party votes or just those that affect the national party -- for example, voting for DNC members.)
When I first became Chair, I looked into a company that sells and/or rents hand-held voting machines (kind of like a small remote control for your tv). These are sometimes used at corporate shareholders' meetings. It didn't seem cost effective, so we didn't explore the idea long. Instead, we -- over two SEC meetings -- conducted a comprehensive analysis of attendance. (Remember having to fill out and sign forms during quorum calls? We adopted those forms to use in the event of a quorum call so that we could conduct the analysis). Some of the results were surprising. For example, the closer you lived to the meeting site the more likely you were to leave the meeting early. Some of that data was incorporated into meeting site selection. In addition, we restructured SEC meetings so that the meeting was just one event in a weekend of events, helping us to keep a quorum longer.
There is nothing anachronistic about paper ballots
They are easier for voters to mark a ballot. They are easier to count. They are easier and more archival to store.
In the real world of elections for public officers, touchscreen and electronic voting machines are going the way of the dodo bird. They cost way too much, even with a paper trail. Paper is the way to go - they can be counted by a scanner (if you have bubble ballots) or by hand.
We there there for 3 hours before one vote was taken because of all the business that had to be conducted. I was a observer for the vote counting, and other than one team that didn't seem to understand the sorting part of "sort", "stack" and "tally", the count went very smoothly. It only took 35 minutes to count the votes for Chair.
Chris Telesca
Wake County Verified Voting
http://noirvnc.blogspot.com
http://statewideirvnc.blogspot.com
You are kidding right?
We were there for 3 hours with one vote being completed ...
It was just a bunch of talking, political theater. There was no business other than the vote for chair. And "only" 35 minutes to count the votes means that for 6 contested elections the SEC would have to hold a quorum for 210 minutes plus all the nominating and seconding speeches, acceptance speeches etc. With a 2.5 hour preamble to the election for chair, that would guarantee a 6+ hour meeting. Schools have little optical scanners that could count hundreds of ballots in a few minutes. It's paper and quick. Holding on to outdated anachronistic methods is foolish.
And I still do not see why the speeches for subsequent elections couldn't be made while votes are being counted so long as the contenders understand that the results of a previous election might invalidate thier candidacy due to gender restrictions for chair and 1st vice. Or we could do the elections in a different order - Like Chair, secretary, 3rd vice ...ect.
Creativity seems sorely lacking.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
I got it
I don't think this was targeted. I talked to several people who received the email who were not contributors to Cal's campaign. I think it was gross incompetence.
Beth
I gave no money to Cal
And I got it too.
How ridiculous.
Pay attention
Elaine Marshall is alive and well, and ready for action. I talked to her in person just 20 minutes ago. It's time to roll up our sleeves and to pay attention. Ignorance and malice is about to undo 100 years of progress in less than 2.
I sent them a quick note
Sir,
Just when I thought I couldn't think any less of the DSCC:
Dear friend,
Thank you so much for all your hard work and generous support during the past election season. As difficult as it was to see Cal Cunningham lose, we want you to know that your effort – and the dedication of thousands of other Democrats just like you – made all the difference in keeping the Senate under Democratic control.
After all you’ve done to support Cal Cunningham, we don’t want you to lose touch with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – the only organization solely committed to electing a Democratic Senate.
The Republicans have their sights set on Senate control, and the DSCC’s work over the next few months will be vitally important. Thanks to you, we were able to keep the Senate blue in 2010. Knowing we have you in our corner gives us great confidence that we will succeed again in 2012.
Sincerely,
The DSCC
Elaine Marshall ran against Richard Burr in 2010. She ran a great campaign with absolutely NO HELP from you.
Please tighten up your act or the Senate will surely go red in 2012.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?