Agreed, I was surprised that about the only part of the state TK didn't do better in than 4 years ago was Deschutes.

I'm in the next County to the NE of Deschutes (Crook County), and was in contact with Pat Ackley on and off throughout the entire campaign season.

Frankly, the article in "The Source" is a gross exaggeration.

Phil Philibin was the County Chair for the Democrats but had to step aside to run his own race. Pat Ackley stepped back into things to fill the void. There was some disorganization which she attempted to correct. But this was not a Presidential year. We didn't have new people coming out of the woodwork either here in Crook Co. or in Deschutes Co. to help out. It was tough, and we had almost no help from the State Party. -- The coordinated campaign never managed to deliver a single Kulongoski sign to Crook County in spite of my many attempts by email and phone. I know Deschutes County also had its struggles with logistics.

Central Oregon, especially Deschutes and Crook Counties, are the fastest growing Counties in the State. Who is moving here? Well, a lot of the conservative voters from the valley have come here. We are seeing this area become more conservative - bucking the trend of the rest of the State and Country.

Crook County used to be the "bellwether" County - but in Crook County Saxton won easily, Walden won easily, and well, even in a County Commission race the Republican challenger won over an incumbant Democrat. Deschutes County has similar things happening.

"The Source" exaggerates. There was a campaign in Deschutes County, there were people working for the Democratic Party - but what that tiny liberal enclave (The Source) doesn't understand is that this is a Republican stronghold.

-- the future --

If we are ever going to "grow" the Democratic Party in this part of the State, the State Democratic Party is going to have to stop writing us off. It is not effective to design a campaign to harrass those "drop-off" voters who are already Democrats to push State wide campaigns, when you spend no energy growing the local party. Howard Dean promised a 50 State strategy, and support for every race. Well, the campaign did reach 50 States, but not every race. The Carol Voisin campaign was so under funded she couldn't even get past the local press to get name recognition in the Second Congressional District.

For me, I'm done. I will not work on any more campaigns, as I am tired beyond measure of being the Democratic Party's happy face in this part of the State, with no Party support at all.

I agree that the DPO needs to do a better job in Deschutes/Crook and Jackson counties. In both places, the key would seem to be retirees, though Jackson county still has a little bit of a working/middle class left.

The trick with retirees is inspiring them to become involved in politics. Most of them probably moved (or remained) in those places precisely because of a desire to... retire. My great uncle's motto, "Tired & Retired" seems to say it all. Why should they take a break from fishing and puttering around the yard to get involved in politics? ...and yet, they are the fastest growing demographic, and they will probably swing Democratic in large numbers if their needs are catered and attended to (Preservation of Social Security benefits, expansion of health care systems, etc.)

I like the idea of rotating personnel between DPO offices in Bend, Medford and Portland. Oregonians should know and become involved in their entire state, not just Portland. This isn't so Portlanders can tell the rest of the state what to do. It's so everybody can get to know everybody else a little better, and work more cohesively on a statewide agenda.

Wayne, you are always very informative when it comes to the history of the DPO and especially the 2nd CD. Thank you for reminding us of what the state party was like in the 1990s and how much better it is today thanks to Jim and others. Do you have to be drunk to tell us about how bad it was??

Having just spent ten months of my life listening to and partying, praying, debating, crying, and eating with the good people of the 2nd CD, I can say that we must stop trying to find a scapegoat for our loss. We have serious problems in rural Eastern Oregon that need solutions. We don't need the empty platitudes of the Republicans. We need a united and focused Democratic party.

We have only eighteen months to strengthen and deepen our infrastructure. I agree with Steve that we need to target the independents. They are almost a third of the registered voters. We need them to win. We need to know who they are and what their interests and concerns are. Here is where we can build the party and the Democratic movement in the 2nd CD. We also need to engage the Hispanic and the American Indian populations in the 2nd CD. But who wants to join a party that scapegoats a loss by tearing down its hard working and dedicated leadership?

We are a grassroots party. What drives our spirit is not finding the money but having a vision. We need to share our vision and reshape it as others join us. The money will follow the vision as Howard Dean has demonstrated. We need a structure in which and through which we can do this in order to take back our district. Let's get on with it. Let the Source follow us not lead us.

Thanks Carol, you saved me key stokes. And a big public thanks for an honorable, dedicated campaign.

Most of the DPOs that've posted are friends of mine or at least pretty well known to me and I like them. 2 CD Dems are tired and we only got to celebrate from a distance. We run headlong into a serious headwind, perceptions based on W-side politics and prejudices about W-siders and some of the old RNC demonization that had an actual basis. DPO has gone a long ways to help rural Dems with perception and with actual support. We still have along ways to go and we'll need help for quite awhile.

We're going to sort out where we go from here, it's nice to do it from a position of strength. It's a good idea to remember that despite any short comings everybody that's posted here or been posted about was a Part of 11/7/06 and we did good.

The Party does need building on the E-side, our avg. age is entirely too grey and Indies are staying away in droves. I have a busy little article going (comments) "Independents, Take Your Place" with the object of persuading Indies. I could use some help in the discussion from dedicated Dems and any Indies that'd be interested. I'm not trying to generate hits, I'm trying to get a real discussion going. Stop by and comment.

Howard Dean committed to putting money into every one of the 50 states and both locally and nationally we reaped the benefits of his hard won fight to take the money and power out of DC and into the grassroots. Howard Dean has brought the funding for 5 full time staff positions to Oregon over doubling the staff at the DPO. The Democratic Party of Oregon, under the leadership of Jim Edmunson gave the kind of support to Lane and the counties South and East of us that is usually is reserved for Portland area (no offence to my friends in Mult County). Here in Lane County we certainly benefited from that investment because we were able to rely on a paid staff person to help us coordinate our effort and also be a conduit for information to and from the DPO. I can't speak for Crook County but I can tell you that Autumn Wilburn's work in Lane and the other 14 Counties that she is responsible for, meant the difference between winning and losing key races in which we were able to take back the House, keep the Senate and keep the Gov's seat.

I give credit for that effort to Howard Dean and the DPO because they supported the program that allowed us to have a access to someone as talented, caring and competant as Autumn Wilburn, the DPO regional organizer for Southern and Eastern Oregon. Lane is predominantly a rural county, it was so important that we had someone who understood rural organizing and who could help us build the capacity that we needed to win and win big.

The other point that people seem to be missing is that although we got help and guidance from Autumn Wilburn, Jim Edmunson, Josh Kardon and the DPO, we had to do the outreach and footwork to bring young people, our local Hispanic community, the GLBT community, local environmentalists, peace activists, seniors, labor activists, and so many other people into the process. We kept hearing over and over again that people didn't know how to get involved and we needed to work to make them feel welcome to our group. We had the help available but we had to do the actual work and invite new people into our group. Anything worth having is worth working for and I am proud to have been able to be a small part of this win in '06 at the State and National level. We had to take responsibility for pulling in our own volunteers and for putting together the effort for these local campaigns.

Pat Ackley has shown leadership in the 2nd Congressional district and stepped in to help Deschutes County pull in a win for Ted. I appreciate her efforts and respect her immensly. Carol Voison got support for her 2nd CD candidacy that she never would have gotten under different leadership of our State Party and because of that and the increased level of support that we saw between 2002 and now, I am planning to support Jim Edmunson and a group of DPO canidates from across the State at reorganization that can take us to a new level between now and '08.

Val

Hey Pat, I sure can use your help and input. I'm have the same argument over at "Chuck for ..." Things are improving, but it ain't over and walking away just makes it that much more difficult for those who've stuck.

Wayne, and in Oregon's case, the Democrats are starting to run out of targets.

Don't come to the Marion/ Polk area and say that! We were all thrilled that Brian Clem won and is now state rep.-elect. Matter of fact, he won by a larger % margin (at least last time I checked) than Sen. President Courtney. But those 2 were our only victories. Against an entrenched incumbent and conventional wisdom in some circles that he didn't have a chance, Paul Evans held his own in Polk County where he lives (last time I looked the margin was 15 votes) . He lost Marion County, where people have said for a long time Jackie Winters is an icon---true in some circles, although not in others.
At an end of campaign rally in a Salem community hall Paul told a standing room only group " They said I wouldn't be able to recruit any volunteers--well look around you!".

I would suggest analysis of election returns and talking to local Democrats around the state to hear their views on this topic. Jason Brown ran an "impossible" race against a former congressional candidate in an oddly drawn district and was mostly ignored.

Connie Garcia in District 20 was profiled here at http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/10/from_migrant_fa.html

Someone from a small town and humble surroundings doesn't have a lot of rich friends who can contribute to a campaign. And although Kari was nice enough to put in that link to Act Blue as a comment, there are people who don't understand how that works, and more importantly people who don't have Internet access at home. Democrats (esp. activists and those living in big cities) who don't understand such "facts of life" are the equivalent of fighting with one hand tied behind their back.

Pat Ryan is correct in saying I'm arguing that obstructing the little people is his default mode and that the lip service is all the grassroots will ever get from him. I really hate the arrogance and the sucking up and frankly this kind of stuff discourages the very people that are critical to the whole neighbor-to-neighbor plan's success.

Look at how many new legislators under 35 got elected, and not that long ago it was conventional wisdom that young people don't matter because young people don't vote. Someone did something right somewhere--lots of that credit goes to the Bus Project, but they are limited logistically in how many races they can target in a year.

Paulie said We all need to sit among our peers who hold down two jobs, have no health insurance, can't afford to pay college tuition, and haven't experienced so much as a pay raise for 4 or 5 years. Most of these are Democrats and Independents.

Now that Kulongoski is re-elected, it would be wise for those who made sarcastic remarks about Ben Westlund this year to visit http://www.benwestlund.com/index.php and ponder how someone overcame that stupid law passed last session (about not voting in a primary if you want to sign a nominating petition), got so many signatures (the number 50,000 comes to mind), and inspired so many people who couldn't sign but supported him anyway. If you can't look at his issues and say "agree with this one, disagree with that one, could support this other one if modified", how will you ever be able to appeal to those who support him and his ideas?

There is a lot of merit to what Steve says. Those of us who worked on campaigns which were not targets and got precious little support from any party organization will think carefully about ever working on a campaign other than one of a personal friend.

It makes perfect sense for the DNC chair to support re-electing an incumbent state chair. But some changes need to be made.

There is a lot of anger and disgust (even with the wonderful election night results nationally and in controlling the legislature) among the backbone of the party--citizen volunteers in counties where Portlanders would need a map to find their way around. Some call it the "revive or leave" movement.

I have no idea what DPO was like in 1999. I was registered NAV from 1996 after the primary until about March 2002. People in 1996 saying "if you are a Democrat you will believe ---- and campaign for all nominees without asking them any issue questions" convinced me I didn't belong in such a group.

I was active in the party 20 years ago when it was a lot stronger than it is now---but then, the DPO office was in Salem, issues of the day were debated openly, Democrats controlled the legislature with members elected from districts where the campaigns had been run locally--no central office telling them what to do.

I would suggest that all Democrats read this editorial: http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/116355570858080.xml&coll=7 Inform yourself about the various ideas in the report: http://www.leg.state.or.us/pcol/

And then make your views known to other activists and to legislators. I have strong views which I won't get into here, but I think the best thing that can happen is for Oregonians to debate all these ideas thoroughly in public. I have great respect for all the members of the Legislative Comm. (PCOL)--in many ways they were a model for how legislators should behave: serious discussions, open public hearings, very little if any partisan sniping.

As a former member (1985-88) of the State Central Comm., I have noticed some things in recent weeks.

I've heard discussions of whether the problem is Edmunson or Pender. I heard from rural friends that Edmunson needed to be gone after the election.

When I went to the Sept. State Central Comm. meeting in Salem I heard maybe half an hour discussion of the makeup of the Executive Committee but Future Pac was never mentioned. When asked, some of the people I talked with acted as if I'd made a strange request to see FP discussed at that meeting. But I saw DPO listed on the Future Pac C & E when I looked online, so there must be some connection. Even if it is only paying rent, the connection does exist and FP is not an island entire to itself. This needs to be debated openly.

If there are secret or historical reasons for why FP is not under anyone's supervision in the party structure although they are a Democratic organization, then the folks who want to keep the FP status quo can do the volunteer work, thank you very much. Or maybe it is just organizational inertia: "we've always done it that way". FP didn't exist 20 years ago, so "always" should not be part of the discussion. How much of the success in electing the new House majority can be traced to FP and how much to quality candidates, well run campaigns, and Minnis/Scott running a very long and secretive 2005 session which offended people? Some have long said FP is a creature of vested interests. I don't know, but it seems like they should be restructured and under DPO supervision if they continue to exist.

I've long believed that everyone in politics would do well to have some sales training. High quality sales people are able to say "this oven is better than that oven because of the quality of the element in the bottom and the way the oven racks are constructed". How many activists campaign that way for their candidate/ cause?

Many occupations involve logistics, answering customer questions (and taking responsibility if the answers are vague or wrong), concern for details. When I was a product demostrator, some of my co-workers in a retail store had this political philosophy, " I'd like to see that public figure (politician, broadcaster, etc.) come live my life for a day and see how they survive". That isn't ideological, it is about real life. And too many who work in politics seem to think if they look hard enough at spreadsheets those will tell them what to do, as if talking to actual folks is less important.

But no amount of number crunching can predict a personal friend of a candidate marveling how well that person is doing although that friend is a Democrat running in a Republican county. And lots of conversations go on between friends which political consultants will never hear. One such recent conversation was with a friend who said "those of us who think whoever governs best governs least will be glad to see what some call gridlock with a Republican president and a Democratic Congress because when it was all the same party they went overboard."

Democrats now control Oregon government. Can they do a better job than the GOP did in DC? As I told that friend, if the Democrats are smart they'll do a lot of "This bill I co-sponsored aims to do the following things and please contact me if you have any questions" rather than "all good people support this bill".

One more detail--something I noticed at that State Central Comm. meeting. It was well run in that everyone (incl. visitors) got a nametag with a colored dot: one color for delegates, another for alternates, another for visitors. Except there were some young people there who were carrying laptops and had no nametags. When asked, they said they were DPO employees and didn't need nametags. As some of my friends and I wondered, WHY NOT?

20 years ago when I was on state Organization Committee, such issues WERE important. And as a friend said after the meeting, at the very least those people should have had nametags saying DPO STAFF. If for no other reason than security. In less than 2 years there will be Delegate Selection Conventions. There were people from the LaRouche group who tried to "crash" our delegate selection convention in 1988. They were stopped at the door but if they hadn't been the lack of nametags would have proved they were intruders. It may seem like a small thing, but at a time when many employers require nametags while on the premises, it seems smart that DPO employees show up at Democratic meetings wearing nametags.

As fondly as I remember the party of 20 years ago and my role as National Convention Delegate and member of State Central Committee, I am very close to not working on any more campaigns unless it is a close personal friend and the Democrats get their act together organizationally. The fastest growing party is no party at all for a reason.

<hr/>