I live in Monroe County, NY. It includes a primarily Democratic core city (Rochester) with a hub of more conservative, Republican leaning suburbs. The election was for local offices, County Executive (quite powerful), District Attorney, all the local judges, and also all the seats for our county legislators. The local town Supervisor, town Justice and two town Council member seats were also on the ballot. I expected to see Dems running for every office. Every office. Yet aside from the ones where a county wide vote was needed for election, there were no democrats on the ballot. No Democrat running to represent me in my county legislature. No Democrat running for any of the town council seats, or town supervisor or town justice.
None.
Now I understand I live in a suburb, with a lot of Republicans, but not one Democrat could be found to put their name on the ballot for these five offices? Really? It’s like the local Democratic Party said go ahead, dear Republicans, we’ll let you have these positions by default.
Then again, maybe I should not be so surprised when the national party abandoned the fifty state strategy after 2008. When they refuse to allocate any resources to local branches of the party in conservative states and obviously conservative parts of supposedly deep blue states. When all the national party establishment seems to care about is getting the most centrist candidate nominated and elected in even in safely Democratic strongholds (though one has to ask how well that plan has worked for them lately), and when the party establishment (or at least the DNC) apparently has already made up its collective mind as to who the chosen Presidential nominee will be.
I wanted to vote for Democrats today, but there weren’t any on the ballot for five offices. Only Republicans. And those Republicans didn’t have to campaign because – no opposition! What the hell kind of party is this, anyway? Not one likely to be effective even in the face of a Republican party in disarray at the top.
And that’s the problem we have, isn’t it? We have a party that doesn’t contest every election, that focuses it’s energy on electing Dem Presidents and trying to hold on to seats in the Congress they already have, rather than expanding the base, getting people motivated both to run, but more importantly to run on a platform that opinion polls show is a winner. Is it all because of the party establishment’s ties to corporate money and their fear of losing what little of it they have?
My little election might not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I think it is emblematic with the problems the Democratic Party as an institution faces today. A failure of nerve, of grit if you will, a willingness to back only the sure thing, or at least the sure thing as they see it. A failure to promote a progressive agenda out of fear of losing their corporate sponsors and their gravy train lobbyist jobs. In short, a failure to believe in democracy.
It’s become a party that at the top without a heart, and only the barest hint of a soul. A party afraid to fight. And when the lead dogs are afraid to lead, guess what happens lower down the institutional food chain? Chaos, disarray, dysfunction if not complete collapse. Say what you will about the crazies in the Republican party, but they nominate someone in almost every race across the country, big or small, in heavily Republican districts and in heavily Democratic ones. When was the last time you could say that about the Democrats?
Is it any surprise that the only candidate who has a chance of challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee is a man elected as an independent senator, a man who self describes himself as a democratic socialist. Makes you wonder how we ended up with the pitiful shell of a party we have, one that long ago abandoned fighting for workers and the downtrodden when push came to shove. A party notorious for antagonizing its core ideological supporters, be they unions, traditional liberals or even African Americans (I cite you to Bill Clinton’s welfare reform bill, as just one example).
FWIW, I hold local elective office and I’ve been recruited more than once to run for the next level of offices up. I have always said no for the simple reason that I know I can’t win at that level. I’m too liberal for our local electorate at that level, and I don’t have the time or energy to expend on collecting signatures and doing campaign events without any hope of winning. It’s a ton of work, and doing it without a real chance of victory is both deeply depressing and a really bad choice in terms of time management. Part of that is that I am self-employed and not working means not making money, but more of it is simple self-preservation. I suspect many others make that same calculation. Having been there, I can’t say that I particularly blame them.
Basically, candidate recruitment for a likely losing election is a much harder nut to crack than it is often made out to be. You want smart, charismatic, self-motivated people who are successful in their normal fields of endeavor to expend large amount of effort and time on something that probably won’t work.
That’s a long way from an easy sell even with people who are deeply civic minded. Especially since they will also have to look at the time commitment vs. reward calculation if they do happen to win. Things like, can they keep their current job and still be a state legislator? If not, what happens in two years or four years when they’re running another long shot campaign?
I don’t have the answers, but I figured it was worth pointing out some of the difficulties.
This, in spades.
I’m glad you said this. Just further proof that it is the party itself that doesn’t focus down ballot, not the fault of voters or activists. The GOP has tons of money for down ballot stuff, Democrats don’t. Unless you’re a former GOPer(see Patrick Murphy in Florida) or stuff like that.
It is absolutely the fault of activists. They will support a campaign, but they won’t show up for a Party Meeting.
And then will complain about the Party.
Yet another one of those ‘it wasn’t me, it was my lazy and disinterested subordinates!’ excuses that allow the leadership to bumble along indefinitely without being taken to task for not properly managing or motivating their underlings.
Sun Tzu famously gave the harem officers one chance to unfuck themselves (blaming the general in the first instance) before having them executed and replaced. Notice that there was no ‘but if your officers give orders and they are not followed, it is the fault of the enlisted’ lesson.
How is the chair of the Democratic Party elected?
By the DNC. The DNC is made up of two people elected by the state convention in each state.
Who goes to the state convention? Delegates elected by the local committees.
So we can make all the fucking excuses for not showing up at the meetings, but it is all bullshit. I have actually seen a state Party taken over – in Vermont in 1984 the entirety of the state party (Howard was on the other side of this fight – btw) was thrown out on its butt by Jessie Jackson supporters who bothered to show up.
The Tea Party people show up – and every party leader from the local county chair to the head of the GOP is scared shitless of them.
Machiavelli once said it is better to be loved than feared. Why the hell would anyone in the party be scared of liberal activists who never fight for anything within the Party?
The simple truth is conservative activists are more committed than liberal ones to taking over the party. And as a result they control their fucking party
Yeah, it’s not like the rank-and-file aren’t being constantly told that getting more involved in politics will derail the party or that this is a center-right nation or that the ghosts of Mondale and McGovern are around the corner or that they’re a bunch of emoprog DFHs or that their issues will only get representation in the media when the centrist Dems deem it safe.
The Tea Party did not just rise up and decide that they were going to take over the party. Along with getting a steady diet of propaganda that assured them that they were right and everyone else (including their sell-out leaders) was wrong, they also had decades of victories to convince them that their contributions were valuable and that they could win on their own terms. You can’t tell people that their input is stupid and undervalued and they should listen to the adults for 23-25 years (after two decades of crushing defeats) and expect them to be full of enthusiasm.
Every one of these stupid-ass ‘we must get organized!’ complaints keeps missing the two most important components of a mass movement: motivation and purpose. People can find their own motivations and their own purposes, but don’t be surprised if it takes a fucking long time to happen. And if you tut-tut newly motivated people by saying that their efforts will result in naught or even disaster, expecting them to have the same level of motivation for a new purpose or lowered expectations is foolhardy.
Man,I tired. I have heard this griping for years. Blah, blah the Party this and that.
Ever go to a meeting?
Well, no.
Why not?
Bunch of bullshit man.
As opposed to what – the bullshit you usually do one night every 6 months.
There is a certain type of activist that is as tough as feather. Any sign of opposition and they think – the party is corrupt and this is all worthless.
In the aftermath of the Goldwater ass kicking, the right wing got pissed, and decided to take over the party. It took them 16 years, losing 1 national election and two primary fights, but they won. They fought.
The Goldwater people who won didn’t win crap for decades. They were clowns to most people. They didn’t care they were committed and they fought.
I talk to some activists and its like they don’t understand the fight they are in. You think anyone is going hand anyone power? No, you have to taken it. And that won’t be easy.
You know what matters? Going to a local committee meeting with 10 friends. That matters.
Cool story, but you’re still stuck at the ‘FUCK the cold weather and bland foods and shortness of breath, you think getting in shape is easy?! A lot of people got into shape while facing even more formidable obstacles’ scolding. And judging from your response, you and a lot of other activists don’t really have an answer other than to scold some more.
You can complain all you want about how much more motivated the opposition is or how weak your allies are or whatever, but your rant still misses the most important part — how do we motivate people to do these things? And call me crazy, but I don’t think that more scolding is going to do anything.
Well, you are motivated enough here to spend hours posting.
So given that investment in time, it would appear you have both the time and the interest.
So what part are you having trouble with? Attending the local Party meeting – which would take a fraction of the time you spend posting here?
Because your complaint is the complaint of a child. It is the complaint of someone who is mad at something but won’t participate in the mechanism available to change it.
People on the left have been told Party politics is bullshit and crap. The complete opposite is true.
Just as I thought, you don’t have any plan other than to scold people some more.
And I’m going to keep telling you: scolding people is one of the least effective ways to motivate people. Between bribing and intimidation and flattery and fear-mongering and cajoling and setting an example and reframing the course of action as a game and appealing to envy and WHATEVER, it’s hard to imagine a worse way to get people to do stuff that they don’t want to do.
And like most people who advocate scolding as a course of action, you’ve tricked yourself into thinking that nagging one person into action means that you can nag other dismotivated people into action. I mean, really, what if I told you that I was inspired by your scolding to start going to meetings and showed proof by pulling up selfies and meeting minutes? Do you really think that your trick is going to generalize to tens of millions of other voters? I mean, shit, I vote in municipal elections and have since 2004 donated about 200 dollars every electoral cycle and participated in the OWS and Wendy Davis protests. I’m already motivated than most voters.
I am not scolding them.
I am telling them the truth.
Don’t kid yourself, you are scolding. You’re telling people that they should kick themselves in the ass and participate more in politics using nothing more than guilt, criticism, and ‘why aren’t you doing such a simple thing?’. That’s scolding. It hasn’t worked so good in the last several elections for me or other people, so why are you continuing to beat that dead horse?
Because if people don’t show up and do the work they get shit government. It doesn’t come from the top down. It never has. It comes from the grassroots up. The only way you get change is to make it. Don’t won’t corporatists running the party? Show up and vote them out. Don’t care enough to do the work? Don’t expect change and don’t expect the people who are willing to do the work to listen to your complaints with any sympathy. That’s how democracy works. If you say, I want change, but I want someone else to do the hard part, you’ll get the amount of change you work for.
Jesus Christ, don’t you have anything in your rhetorical toolbox besides scolding? Here, let me help you out:
How about this: “You should get organized because you can wield an unimaginable amount of power; the municipal Democratic machine is weaker and more starved for voters than it has ever been and it’s never been riper for the pickings. Imagine, if you will, a Democratic Party that bows to the whims of hipsters and college students because we forced the old guard out and grabbed them by the balls until they screamed for mercy. It’s definitely possible, if only you take these simple steps.”
Or how about this: “One of the most powerful tools a large city has for economic growth is tax breaks to certain businesses. If you want to have an extra pocketable two thousand dollars two years from now, vote for initiative XYZ and help us stack the city council.”
Or even this: “Those stupid Republican bigots are using HERO as a wedge issue to chip away at black rights. Oh, sure, they framed it in terms of transgendered boys using girls’ restrooms, but do you really think that the GOP is going to stop there?”
Lust for power, naked greed, and fear. Any of those would work better than scolding.
Been there. tried that. Was part of a grassroots movement to pull the suburban Democratic Party out of the shadow of Chicago. We had 84 township committeemen on our side. Then Rahm Emanuel used the DNC’s money, that donors thought would be used to fight Republicans, to instead fight Democrats and crushed us. We can see clearly now that he wanted us under Chicago’s thumb because he was planning to wield that thumb.
It retaught me an old lesson. You can’t fight City Hall. I flirted with the Greens, but found they had no contact at all with the concerns of the working class. Now, what?
Currently planning to re-register as a Republican when Bernie flames out like Dean before the Illinois primary. If somehow he makes it until then, I will wait an election. Why Republican? I am an atheist. I don’t hate guns but don’t love them either. The Republican economic agenda is ludicrous and anti-worker. So why? Simple. The Democratic Party doesn’t want white people any more unless we apologize for being white and having some mythical “privilege”.
My mother always did tell me not to go where I wasn’t wanted. When Obama was elected, I thought we had finally reached the race free millennium. But nothing is static and too many blacks want pay back time. So it’s time to stick with my tribe, even though they are completely wrong.
So what will you do if Bernie Sanders wins the Presidency and also wins the House? Or what if Sanders and Clinton drops dead from a heart attack and O’Malley has a similar hypothetical victory?
Why, I’ll probably move to Europe with my multi-million dollar lottery winnings.
What exactly does a precinct meeting do between elections? What does a county meeting do between elections? What doe the state party meetings do between elections? What does the DNC do between elections?
How many remain small because that is the way the current leadership likes it?
What is it that power in a precinct meeting, county meeting, state party gives people? Telling people to show up without telling them why and exactly how it works doesn’t connect issues, voting, and these internal party functions.
Most people do not know how a political party functions or how an election campaign functions except for the visible things they run into. And most of what they hear is about the personal frat-politics style personal struggles that don’t mean anything significant.
Those who have experienced these things can motivate some people by drawing the connection between mechanics, power, and policy.
I’m presuming that by “fight for anything” you are talking about long rhetorically knock-down drag-out meetings attempting to reach some decision about something.
What exactly does it mean for “liberal activists to fight for it?”
I posted at Dkos a response.
But I will say the same thing: what are you waiting for.
Why are you blogging about no candidates? Going to a party meeting changes a lot more than another blog post.
I know you have personal issues that make it hard for you, but I really find the attitude very frustrating. I don’t mean to direct this at you.
But I guarantee you the Tea Party types have no such issues – they go meetings to take them over.
If one claims to be a Democratic party member and declares so just because they vote for them, that also is a problem. How many so called Democratic Party members attend the local Democratic Party meetings? These meetings introduce members to prospective candidates. They also help to recruit those that are interested in starting to run in races. Low attendance equals low candidates. Politics requires more from supposed members then just their vote and a few dollars. It calls for vital active participation from the members. Until the Democratic Party has that at every governing level there will be races without a Democratic Party candidate running in it.
Do you want to get looked at like the spawn of Satan in the supermarket for the next two years? In a losing cause? After I lost the windows of my mini-van — parked in front of my house — to rocks in 2004, I certainly think twice.
Because Pastor Phil and the worship team at the Bible-Believing-Baptist Church can deliver that kind of… commitment.
When Democrats can also bring that kind of social suasion to bear, you might find ballots filling up.
We have no answer for the local network that the mega churches provide.
Because those people meet at their church, and then they go and take over the local GOP. I have seen it done.
That’s because Democratic clubs are no longer working-class social clubs or offsprings of the local Ruritans or a sizeable enough group of people who met every day at cafe or weekly at the fish place just for the social life.
Don’t kid yourself, churches are just for the social life too. Megachurches are often entrepreneurs with a plan for filling their business with a social network.
Before there were sports bars, there were Democratic clubs. And before them, there were the Freemasons.
No – its because Democrats used to be as likely as Republicans to go to church.
Of course there were also these things called labor unions.
If I have to go to Church and listen to some grifter, I’d rather quit politics.
Don’t worry, they leave the Mega churches and run for local office. Coming soon to a ballot near you.
so many have said it already but your cure for the problems of the Democratic Party is wrong, blaming the national party won’t help if no one shows up for local meetings and that has been my experience as well
I was involved in the Aurora, IL party which is a fairly large city and usually about 10 people showed up for the monthly meetings
Does GOP have more?
have more what?
I lived in Putnam County, NY, until a few years ago, and I can tell you that this was not unusual there either. On the other hand, I can also say that in virtually every election at the Town or County level, the Democrats got about 40% of the vote, sometimes a couple of points more, sometimes a couple of points less. My feeling is that people are much less aware of what’s going on at the local level than they are at the national (or even state) level, and so are more likely to vote straight party line (if they are aware there is an election at all, which most people aren’t). I know this is contrary to what most people think about local politics, but it was certainly true in my area.
Interestingly enough, there were two elected officials (including me) who were Democrats in my town – but on the school board. School board elections are nonpartisan, so the candidate’s political affiliation is not listed on the ballot. People knew we were Democrats of course, but they also trusted us on the school board. Besides, most school board elections were unopposed – if someone dropped off we would have to actively recruit someone to take the job. The fact that you served without compensation probably kept a lot of people from running.
I’m in northern Westchester county, NY. Our town is one of 2 in the county that didn’t vote for Obama, a red bastion. Today’s election had no Dems on the ballot for town supervisor or the 2 town justices. I couldn’t vote for those idiots (I know them) and did a write in for Bernie. Silly I know.
Tomorrow, post the totals that the candidates got and the filing fee to run in this typical local election. People need some real data to understand what this is all about.
New York is pretty tough in the signature requirements – which is the first hurdle to getting someone on the ballot.
I used to tell people it was there change to be immortal. So they lost – but they would be in the record forever.
Yes, signature requirements are another objective thing that candidates must deal with.
There were no Democrats on my ballot either; the municipal races here are “non-partisan”, which creates a very interesting phenomenon. There are in fact three parties for municipal elections: progressive alliance, committee for affairs of black people, and “friends of” (the Chamber of Commerce crowd). Candidates get multiple endorsements; the mayor running opposed for re-election nonetheless received endorsements from all three. The primary winnows the field down to two candidates for mayor and four city council candidates for three seats. You can see how that rearranges the coalitions from time to time. I mention this because those races tend to be more lively than the partisan races for state and national office.
My argument is that the party’s position (Democrats more than Republicans) that PVI is destiny is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that a party that is essentially an incumbent-protection racket eventually dies. Finally, politics is about a two-way political conversation, something that is easier managed at local levels and encased in stiff formal communications strategies at higher levels; that fosters public cynicism and hatred. Those are issues that the Democratic Party establishment started ignoring in 2006 and succumbed to by 2014.
The second issue is the red state-blue state meme that fuels devolution into one-party states. My own state of North Carolina finally fell victim to this in 2012. That perception allows the political terrorists to think they have the legitimacy to terrorize voters of the other party because “this is a red state”. It allows the “other party is un-American” rhetoric that has been peddled since 1946 by the Republican right. And that discourages active political participation.
The third is is to focus on this crisis too late in the election cycle. If you saw when the filing deadlines were that I posted in a diary, you know that two biggies have already passed. The effective party forfeits in those states are now in stone.
The fourth issue is the extreme bias in media now at all levels, but increasing with the scope of the office. Media has become a shakedown of candidates for office, and a means of financing opposition to Democrats. Rich progressive media baron is an oxymoron. Any communications strategy has to devote itself to generating free media and causing the competition to spend large gobs of their money unsuccessfully.
The most debilitating issue for Democratic candidates is the day job. Traditionally, only certain occupations could run for office because serving in government does take a substantial amount of time, moreso if you diligent is representing your constituents. Many states boast a “citizens legislature”, but that often translates to a lobbyists legislature.
By far, in the short term, getting local candidates from soil and water conservation commission to school board (to mention to critical and often controversial bodies) to municipal government, magistrates, and other seemingly “unimportant officials” should be a Democratic priority in every county. Those positions become the training grounds for the bench and work on highly important local issues. They also give candidates visibility without tight party labels.
One of the arguments of the Republican Party in the South back before the Goldwater campaign or the Thurmond mutiny was the necessity in the US for the “two-party system” and that a one-party system was exactly what the Soviets had and look at the corruption it produced. The red-state/blue-state nonsense is just a splitting of the spoils by the the two major parties. It can be the message of a locally originated progressive reform movement (as it was a hundred years ago).
There is a need for good training of potential candidates. The 50-state initiative did some of that in NC in 2006-2008 and did some institutional rebuilding of county Democratic organizations that had died on the vine. What we know now is that the DNC is too devoted to incumbent protection to adequately do this job at the state and local levels. Local activists have to do it themselves.
The two Rove insights that Democrats should learn how to implement are (1) doing the math; (2) hitting the competition in their strength. That second one is not limited to messaging. Candidates should have a clear idea how many votes they will need to win solidly, an idea of what geographies and constituencies they will come from, and an idea of who that would normally be considered a constituency of the competition will cross over and vote counter-intuitively. I saw this cross-over vote happen in Charlotte when Sue Myrick defeated Harvey Gantt in 1986. Gantt, the first black student at Clemson University and a local architect was a popular mayor among blacks and whites serving a couple of terms. A year before Myrick ran, she and some religious right ministers started an anti-porn campaign to shut down adult book stores and involved as many black churches as they could get in it. Shortly afterward, the Myricks got involved in Beyond War, a groups concerned about nuclear winter but give it a “Pray for Peace” and “Jesus and Peace” twist, and conducted a prayer service at the coliseum that also involved black and charismatic churches. And then Myrick worked black constituencies obliquely as part of her campaign. The issues were on annexation. By having enough minor crossover from the black religious communities, a subdivision that did not the fact it was annexed into the city delivered the 1500 vote margin needed to elect Myrick.
How many votes do you need to win an office? Where are you going to find those people who will get excited about your candidacy?
For Monroe Co, NY, that number for mid-term statewide election looks like at least 100,000 votes (governor) partitioned among the legislative and senatorial districts. For a presidential year, that jumps to 200,000, again partitioned among the legislative and senatorial district. So that is what? 20,000 – 70,000 votes to get in the legislature? And of course 175,000 votes to get in Congress.
Monroe Co at the moment apparently breaks almost 50%-50%. What does that look like by township? Do they also break close to 50%-50% or are there some that are 80%-20% and some that are 60%-40%. What are the constituencies that make those areas swing one way or the other? What are the in-your-face-reality local issues. At one time, pollution in a lot of industrial towns was a huge issue. Drug addiction is a growing issue in white communities across the country even as the drug war is growing to be perceived as having been a huge waste of money and lives. Public-private ripoffs is a nice crossover issue. There is likely going to be a mood to return to public infrastructure.
For local government office, it is helpful to know how the state limits its local administrative subdivisions ability to control its own affairs. And to do some civic education in what the various levels of government do. Most candidates do not; people operate with illusions of self-serving bullshit about what local governments can do.
Steven D, you are better situated to be a kingmaker than a candidate. Vet some local folks that you think qualified, talk with them, figure out how to get a Democratic victory. And what the local Democratic brand stands for. Get ready for the the next election now. That’s how it works.
The DNC has had good training materials for years. It was not an invention of the 50 state strategy.
When I was involved I used to look for housewives with kids who were of school age. To your point, a big problem is time. They often made good candidates – they know people through the school. That is how Patty Murray became a Senator.
Polarization is real and has devolved down into the local districts. Over time it is going to lead to more one party districts.
Great comment.
The 50-State Strategy took these training materials (at least in NC) and put them into the field with skilled trainers aiming to have sessions in as many counties as possible.
Polarization is the GOP playing with fire.
TarHeelDem and others, You are so articulate that I hardly ever write anything. And where I am we didn’t have an election today. But we are in a county with 80% Dems. The local elections we focus on are the primary elections, because whichever Dem wins the primary will hold the position. The general election is a formality. Sometimes the Republicans can find a candidate to run, sometimes not. And sometimes there are too many Democrats running at once and there’s a very fractured result that makes its own set of problems. At the Congressional level there is much more diversity across much bigger geography and the Republicans will always run someone, but he/she loses, usually by 20 percent (60-40). It seems that the whole idea is to get our Congressman to spend money that he raises, that otherwise he would give to more candidates in more vulnerable seats. This isn’t an issue so much in local elections where the money is spent mostly on signs. Our county party hardly can raise any money outside of a presidential year. We can’t fill our precinct chairs. Perhaps if there was a contentious issue some new blood would come forward. But it seems to me here that people get involved in issues — whether it’s environment or war/peace or water rights, etc. — and, in such a heavily Democratic district, don’t see much use for the party as an entity.
The situation you describe is exactly like the Democratic (Dixiecratic era) that prevailed in South Carolina when I was growing up. Republicans did not begin running local candidates until 1962. Apparently, the Nixon-Lodge campaign left behind a legacy that got amped up with the civil rights movement.
In those days winning the primary was “tantamount to election”, and the first Republican elected officials were Democrats who changed party after the Goldwater loss – Strom Thurmond and Albert Watson. Nonetheless, personal feuds created the effect of multiple parties even when there were no divisive issues.
Somewhat related: The Koch brothers have been very active in funding down-ticket candidates, and that has had a very sobering effect. Imagine you are a Republican candidate for state house in Oregon, and the Koch’s dump $10K on your campaign. Imagine you are the Democratic opponent (who got obliterated).
The Kochs are very active in supporting the future of the Republican party, and it is very dismaying.
Fortunately, the candidate above went on to lose in a primary to Monica Wehby, who eventually got obliterated by Jeff Merkley in the Oregon Senate race.
Can’t win them all, Kochs. But they are trying hard, and I don’t see an answering volley from the Democrats.
As usual when people are talking about what’s the matter with post-Clinton Democrats, no one brings up motivation except in a snide ‘you have to motivate yourselves, and it’s your damn fault if you’re unable to’ aside.
If people are motivated enough, they will become organized. They will run for office. They will hump the streets and phone banks. They will pay attention to local races. You will have your revolution.
But without external motivation, you’re trying to get someone into shape by showing them pictures of supermodels and offering them free gym membership and giving them hilarious recipebooks for healthy meals. It’ll convince some people on the margins, but most people aren’t suddenly going to implement the lifestyle changes just because you removed every obstacle except ‘be dedicated to the path of fitness’.
I live in the City of Rochester, Monroe County. I had the option of voting party line democrat for every available office. I could also vote for some positions for the democratic party candidate on the working families or green party line without risking vote splitting that would favor the republican candidate.
I don’t know how different the suburban ballot was but I do know that every county-wide office had a democratic candidate.