Glad to see the fundraising totals. A good sign Democrats raise more money than GOP.

Now, maybe this year we can have a more intelligent discussion of how that is spent than "we have limited resources so we have to target races with a better R to D ratio"? Now that we know how well Peralta and Gilbertson did even in the face of that "ratio", and even with less money just before the primary than the amounts some at FP were saying an unknown candidate had to have in "seed money to be taken seriously", maybe this is a good year to have a more common sense process? Maybe there can be more training for candidates in districts which are still R rather than "if you want to be a candidate you need to have fundraising expertise and a good campaign manager because that matters more than ideas or knowing your district" which has seemed to be the FP mantra for years.

And don't think I am only angry about FP in the 21st century. Long before Rep. Hunt was elected to the Oregon House or Sen. Devlin was elected to the State Senate, there was a time (would have to look up the year--in the 1990s, I think) when a very colorful former state senator who had been a legislator and candidate for both statewide and federal office decided to run for state senate to return to the legislature. A close friend of mine was her campaign manager. She called right after some caucus campaign event, and I had to hold the phone a couple inches from my ear because she was so angry!

It seems some "consultant" or "expert" had told the gathering that all name familiarity expires on New Year's Eve and thus a new candidate and someone who has been around a long time both have to raise exactly the same amount of money because when they file for office they both have zero name familiarity.

I know Kari said something about the punditology results showing consultants know what they are doing when they predict winners.

But there are highly professional staffers with track records of getting candidates elected, and then there are those who proclaim to be experts but just drive volunteers out of politics in frustration. Which is what my friend did after that election--leave politics.

If money and caucus attention really guaranteed election results, Rob Brading would be running for re-election.

For the caucuses to be taken seriously (and to prevent discussions of campaign finance reform and nonpartisan legislature which they'd find distasteful) this should be a year not to declare winners and losers in advance but to prevent situations like one I know happened in 2006.

At the State Central Comm. meeting to elect State Chair, I saw a rural SCC member who was a former candidate talking to M. Smith. He said she had been very helpful in his campaign, "it was only Future Pac which was no help".

If the caucuses can't be held accountable (or if there are people complaining that I even wrote that last paragraph because they think all good Democrats should give unquestioning support to FP or any other caucus campaign arm) then why should anyone oppose nonpartisan legislature---or for that matter remain a registered D after the primary rather than registering NAV?