Mon 8 May 2006
The rumor of Wulsin stepping aside for Hackett won’t die. I’m curious how many times does he have to say no? Back in the primary people thought it was being floated to get votes for Wulsin. Now that we’re in the general it’s to dry up money for Wulsin.
People should get it out of their heads. There’s no love lost between Wulsin and Hackett. (The sightings of her sporting a Sherrod Brown for Senate button back in January might be a clue for the dreamers.) Wulsin has been fighting to win this race for a long time. She’s not going to step down now that she’s secured the nomination, and certainly not for Paul Hackett.
Here’s a rumor I’ve heard that I’d like to see get more play: Paul taking on Tim Burke for Hamilton County Democratic Chair. We need a strong Party operation in Hamilton County if we want to have a chance in the 1st (and 2nd). The situation on the ground in Hamilton County is a disaster by almost everyone’s account. Maybe a strong leadership fight would light a fire under people’s behinds.
(via Andrew Warner)
BTW, why the heck is she helping to give this thing legs?
“I do feel that I am the stronger candidate, but I also recognize that he is well known and I am not, and because I would prefer him to Jean, sure, I’d think about it,” she said, adding that it’s an “interesting” idea but no one has asked her to discuss the issue or to step aside.
17 Responses to “Hackett Redux Rumor Makes The Enquirer”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Wouldn’t a whole of people, basically including the candidates, Dem primary voters, all Democrats, all Republicans, and all independents (i.e., everyone) wonder what the charade known as the primary was all about these past few months if this happened?
Wulsin calling it an “interesting” idea shows how weak a candidate she is. There’s plenty of time, but she’s got to figuratively grow a pair. Stand up for yourself, woman! You just worked your butt off for 4-6 months, beat four other candidates, and are one step away from the prize, and now walking away from it all is “interesting”? (Say what you will about him, I don’t Jim Parker would call the idea “interesting.”) Second District voters could use a better demonstration of commitment — make that any demonstration.
May 8th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Come on folks. The voters have spoken. Victoria Wulsin is the Democratic choice. Paul Hackett is not the choice. Let it go.
It is time for the Democrats to focus and rally around their choice. Give her the support she is going to need to face Jean Schmidt in November. Help her show her merits up against the ISSUES.
And for god’s sake let Paul go. If he really felt he should have run, he should have stepped up in January and filed for the 2nd District as he did before. He didn’t so let’s move on.
May 8th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
And as for her making that quote, she should take some lessons from her opponent in the election. Don’t say anything stooooooopid like that….wait, Jean does that all the time…Sorry just woke up!
Take notice Vic. DON’T MAKE those kinds of statements. YOU are the candidate NOT anyone else. Act like one!
May 8th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
The really sad thing in all this is that Hackett could beat her, but I don’t think that he believes it.
This whole thing really was a SNAFU of major proportions by the DCCC, DSCC and ODP.
May 8th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
That is intresting, the idea that Hackett doesn’t believe he could beat Schmidt in a re-match. I’ve never heard him say as much but often pondered his future if he were beaten twice by Schmidt in a year’s time.
I do believe DCCC and ODP helped to screw up the special election, thier projected goals for needed votes was off. Too much time was spent on re-canvassing people who had already been pestered to death. Many more voters could have been contacted and urged to vote.
May 8th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
“Too much time was spent re-canvassing people who had already been pestered to death…”
AMEN! Unlike the Republicans, Democrats have not fully leveraged the “strength of weak ties”. Blogs are an important first step, but we still have a long way to go.
If you haven’t read Mark Granovetter’s seminal article, the “Strength of Weak Ties”, it may be worth your time. In his article, he talks about how weak ties between “distant nodes” are more valuable than the strong ties within tight groups. I pasted a condensed summary of his article below (that focuses on a job search example):
http://www.analytictech.com/networks/weakties.htm
More on social network theory…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network
And how the Republicans are using this…
The Multilevel Marketing of the President
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/magazine/25GROUNDWAR.html?ex=1147233600&en=98da2d1d3c2254dd&ei=5070
May 8th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
debra — this is a very interesting take on the dem canvassing model. i’d love to hear more of your thoughts on leveraging weak vs. strong ties. but, i have to admit the summary was a little too jargony and academic for me. thanks!
May 8th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Ahh, social networking, a subject much after my own heart. Bryan, I would highly recommend that you get up to speed on the subject quickly. A couple of books that I would recommend: Albert-Laszlo Barabasi’s Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means and Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point.
For me the primary goal of political technology over the next few years is to super charge social networks. This is actually a primary focus of my own work as a programmer. I’d agree that the tools that we use are very primative. It’s one of the things that I debate about with myself. Should I spend my time blogging, or help develop new technology? Right now I’m leaning heavily towards programming.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
If you want to develop a new technology, what I would love to see is a political version of the site www.linkedin.com. The service currently targets business professionals, but I think has huge potential for political campaigns.
I have 50+ direct contacts in my LinkedIn account, which gives me access to their contacts, as well as their contacts’ contacts (three degrees of separation).
My 50+ contacts gives me access to ~ 500K people! Imagine what that could do for a grass roots initiative!
Debbie
Note: There is a site called Political Friendster, but it is a spoof.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
i’m familiar w/ social networking, but am really interested in thoughts on its implications for canvassing. for example, why would “recanvassing” be a bad thing in light of weak vs. strong ties in social networking???
May 8th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
I see an over-reliance on strong ties in a couple of respects:
Volunteers & Insiders: We see the same faces at every Democratic function. Their connections are our connections and the network is tightly weaved and closed off. For some reason, we are afraid to move out of our comfort zone.
Prospects: Our canvassing efforts, mailers, etc target the same high profile Democratic voters. (Double D–is this the terminology?). We skip Republican (and often Independent homes) and follow the most confusing canvass maps to make sure we track down these “strong ties”.
Here’s what Jean Schmidt did. She showed up at IHOP in the evenings and introduced herself to patrons. She allied herself with Clermont Senior Services and other constituency groups. She became involved with Military families. And I’m sure she took advantage of her church membership. By doing so, she added “weak ties” to her network.
What’s the value in these weak ties? Each weak tie potentially connects to entirely different network of people.
The following website provides more detail, along with a couple maps (one showing a strong ties only group) and the other showing strong mixed with weak. Unfortunately, the outside networks connected to these weak ties aren’t depicted.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Here’s the website. I left it off the previous post.
http://www.zylstra.org/blog/archives/001183.html
May 9th, 2006 at 7:46 am
couldnt agree more re: the targets of dem organizing. in the primary it certainly makes sense to reach infrequent dem voters, but we also have to reach out to indies if we want to make long-term headway.
unfortunately, dems are great at meeting-hopping. same conversation, same people, different day.
while i think we need paid and vol canvassing, we also need a much broader sense of vol organizing. and that will only get kick-started, in my opinion, when campaigns invest more heavily in early field programs.
May 9th, 2006 at 10:11 am
One of the things that I would like to see more of is making Democratic events more fun to go to. For instance the Clermont County straw poll breakfast. All they had was some store bought bagels and donuts.
Have a real breakfast at a nice place. They were asking for 15 dollars. Work out a deal with an establishment. Make it nice. Make it something that people would want to go to. Take pictures. Build the energy. Something that you want to invite your friends to. Make people regret not showing up to it. Republicans are very good at this.
So far Drinking Liberally is the only regular event that seems to be channeling this dynamic. Blogs can then be great tools for bringing in these weak links with promotion before the events and details after the event including audio or video if you’ve got something really interesting to show.
BTW, this was something that I worked real hard at here with Paul in the special.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
How about Eminem doing a concert on election day with free admission to all who show up with a “I voted Today” sticker. I know that idea is a bit outlandish but an idea to work with. I always felt that canvassing is pretty much a waste of time but a necessary waste. Perhaps the canvass should include an invitation to a free barbcue, with the invitation somewhere in the middle of the literature. That way you know the people showing up at least have some intrest. Drawing a crowd to a rally seems more productive than trudging door to door only to watch people throw the literature directly into thier recycle bins.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Editor - I am all about making the Democratic events more ‘attendee-friendly’.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Eminem? That’s a tall order. Maybe you’d have better chances with Vanilla Ice.
I don’t really think that it has to be about star power, as much as creating a warm, friendly atmosphere. Paul made it fun to be a Democrat again in Southern Ohio. Run with that.