Stender is a Spender...?

Better title: Stender is Spent. (0.00 / 0)

After going 0-2, time for someone else to step up to the plate in 2010.  Probably the same regarding Wyka in my district, but he never really had a chance based on demographics.  Stender did, which makes her unworthy of another try.

---

by: lonemorriscodem @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 02:08:04 AM UTC

If your name is accurate... (0.00 / 0)

...  i must be halucinating the hundreds of other MorrisCoDems that volunteered their hearts out for us these past few weeks ;-)

Were you there?   If not - get in touch with me over my website - we need all hands on deck and you're certainly not "lone".  There's lots to do,  lone.  Looking forward to working with you!

~  Tom
www.TomWyka.com

BTW - I don't get all this talk that seems to imply that a person only has so many chances.   That's a pretty bleak attitude.  I don't care who you are.   You get your name on the ballot and you can bring anything to the table - good or bad campaign.   Suppose Linda had an epiphany (if she even thought she needed one - just for arguments sake) and came back with a real heartfelt grassroots campaign - who's to say "oh - but you've had two shots"   Give me a break.

---

by: Tom Wyka @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:16:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Was I there?" I'm one of your donors. (4.00 / 1)

My point was not to criticize you but contrast you favorably with Stender, who supposedly was favored (albeit slightly) in her race. My concern about a third try is the Harold Stassen effect--voters rolling their eyes and thinking, "oh no, not him/her again." But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

---

by: lonemorriscodem @ Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:12:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't have ... (0.00 / 0)

"LoneMorrisCoDem" in my donation records.  Again - get in touch with me. I'd like to have a friendly conversation without the anonymity, because I don't understand your rationale.  Many candidates tried multiple times (Kucinich I believe took 5 - and is now one of the most respected in the progressive community and a long incumbent).  

That being said - I sent out our final newsletter, and have made no plans.  But regardless - if the numbers continue to rise - I see no reason why any candidate should back off.

---

by: Tom Wyka @ Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:58:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich (0.00 / 0)

Yes, Kucinich has lost a lot of races.  But in between those losses (which stretch from 1967 to 2008), he managed to win a few as well.  

After a first try for the House in 1972, he finally won his seat in 1996, after stints as city councilman, mayor of Cleveland, and state senator.  But it's not like he just kept running for the House year after year...

Beyond that, I'd hardly call Kucinich one of the "most respected in the progressive community" -- he's become a caricature of himself and has failed to leverage any power he's built to enact real progressive change.  To top it off, his vanity presidential runs nearly cost him his House seat this year.

Take all that for what it's worth...

---

by: TJ Helm @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:02:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jeff Grazel ran 5, no 6 times until he won. (0.00 / 0)

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 19:04:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OUCH n/t (0.00 / 0)

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 02:15:01 AM UTC

Batting 1-2 and you think you're Ryan Howard! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 15:00:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

according to Emiliy's list... (0.00 / 0)

....success still has many fathers (and mothers.)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/hey-democrats-thank-the-women/

Clearly the Stender campaign is not a part of their hard-t-believe calculus?

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM UTC

RedtoBlue7th's Critique..... (0.00 / 0)

...rings true.

I remember assuming early on that since Stender did so well last time that she would be strong against a new candidate.  (Obviously the DCCC made the same mistaken assumption.)

Lance was clever about how he positioned himself and wasn't the complete asshole she ran against last time.

I confess, I didn't follow the campaign closely; but it seemed like the DCCC "stamp"/scent on it was a put off.  

From the bits that I read here the atmosphere and flavor and "vibe" that was there last time was missing; but I figured, "Oh well, they'll just use financial brute force and make up for it."

It's amazing that with all that money they didn't do the kind of demographically focused tracking polls to discern where they were weak and needed to shore up.  (Or if they did that; then it failed miserably.)

In any event, what's done is done.

I wonder if the local progressives and activists in that district "saw it coming"?   And if yes; why didn't they "go public" here?

This reinforces my own belief that the future of the Democratic party in NJ (and nationally) is with the grass roots.

We don't need to rely so much on the  damned establishmentarian DCCC money if we have the people on our side!

It is oxymoronic to ever expect that money that comes from the establishment will be given to real agents of real change.

If the Democratic party wants to be more than just the "Good Cop" as oppopsed to the "Bad Cop" (who are both working for the same Bosses) they/we must become a genuinely populist party and go all out for the actual interests of the American PEOPLE and tell the big money "contributors" (who expect a tit for a tat) to fuck off.

When we have that kind of Democratic party we will have a real/profound transformation in American politics.   That translates to real economic growth (not just cancerous growth, but qualitative growth).

Such a real Democratic party would be the instrument of a renewal of our whole culture on all levels.

So long as the national Democratic party is just a superficially more "liberal" version of the Republican party nothing much will really change.   It'll just be the same shell game (until the whole damned system collapses).

Corruption (even if it is legalized) is simply not sustainable in the long run.  

100% public finance of campaigns is the way to go.  If that requires a constitutional amendment then so be it.  Make that a voting issue in every race in the nation.  

Having a real democracy instead of a plutocratic cleptocracy is the key issue folks.

The current system is corrupt in the very way that it is designed...it's built into the structural genes.   Virtually all the incentives are perverse.   Anytime something really good happens it's almost a miracle and then the system goes about it's "business" to "repair" the "damage".

At the ultimate level, corruption leads to human extinction.......but there I've just broken the rules by going out of the bounds of NJ politics.  ;-)

Bottom line: Yes, Stender herself is primarily responsible....but we all messed up on this one.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 15:00:29 PM UTC

I don't know... (0.00 / 0)

I don't think the election was as much a comment on Stender as it is a comment on Lance.
People like Lance. He hasn't don't anything to turn people off and the district is generally Republican.
I'm thinking the 7th is hard to win as a democrat in the first place and if the Republican's most controversial move is voting to allow pharmacists NOT to dispense abortion meds, it's a tough ride.
I'm sure she would have beaten Ferguson, who had a voting record she could impinge, but Lance is kind of a 'squeaky clean' guy. It's hard to run against a Lance in that district.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 15:39:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL Yes, I Would Expect Just Such A.... (0.00 / 0)

.....response from "a Republican leaning independent..."

Stender, and the rest of us Democrats/progressives blew it.

Now, let's see what Lance's actual voting record looks like in a couple of years...  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 00:43:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who's to blame? (0.00 / 0)

I don't know Abby, but from what I understand about the race -- it's really not fair to call her out by name and not blame the people above her who were actually responsible for the campaign's strategy and messaging decisions...

Also, I'd be very interested in a Stender staffer's perspective from the inside...

---

by: TJ Helm @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:13:25 AM UTC

Blame Is A Negative Frame... (0.00 / 0)

...and not productive.   Obviously, any kind of critique and/or comment can be taken that way...and that's not productive either.

We, as progressive democrats, need to face the reality that this was a winnable/well funded race that was lost.

We don't really have all the facts/details about what happened and why.

If, as it seems, there actually were people "above" Linda Stender "who were actually responsible for the campaign's strategy and messaging decisions... " then Stender herself needs to bear the responsibility for having allowed that to happen.

If that did happen, it wasn't in a vacuum.  Lot's of people must have seen it happening and sensed that something was "not quite right".  

Obviously, campaigns like to keep their inside workings (and not workings) and inside politics to themselves.  That's understandable.  

On the other hand, I suggest that there is a potentially great benefit from a public/collective positive discussion of what went wrong and of what can be done differently in the future.

The last thing that we should want is for the same person to become a perennial candidate just because they "did it last time".

If Lance actually votes like a progressive democrat; then he'll be tough to beat next time out...but that wouldn't be such a terrible thing.

I suspect that he won't be doing that; therefor there will be all manner of issues for Stender, or someone else, to run on in 2010.

As I said in this space way back in  the spring, we should be running as statewide progressive coalitions rather than simply as individual candidates.

Obama will be needing Congressional allies/support in 2010...he will still be there as a potential focal point around which to run.

Stender is only "spent" if she is unwilling to deal with whatever went wrong and to own that and fix it....and to do so in a way that includes her supporters.   Done rightly that would actually make her a much stronger candidate next time out.  

The people of NJ are ready to support a really progressive transformative agenda.

The entities that are now "in charge" will portray anything that takes away their power as pie in the sky dreamland stuff.  What else can they say?  ;-)

Hundreds of thousands more New Jersey Democrats can be registered in time for 2010.   There's no reason we can't get up to 90% registration and 90% turnouts!

Massive registration and massive turnouts can only be good for REAL democrats!

Politics/democracy really CAN work to positively transform our economy/schools/health care/roads etc etc etc.  IF we make it work.

The DCCC agenda and single issue advocacy is not a winning team/formula.  Money is important, but if that's "all you got" you'll lose to a halfway/cosmetically decent Republican like Lance.

When the people lead, the politicians will follow.   Little or no good will manifest if we keep on passively  waiting/expecting to be "led".

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 17:10:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exhibit A: Abraham Lincoln (0.00 / 0)

Our history is littered with figures who were thought "spent" and came back to win.

As an example, next door to me in Cumberland County, Lou Magazzu has gone from "young man in too much of a hurry" to "semi-elder statesman" over the past 20 years.

Obviously, there was a lot wrong with the Stender campaign.  The part about "Emily's List" is really disturbing (I wonder how many other campaigns were hobbled that way this year).

The biggest problem however was that, for keeping the seat red, the right Republican won.  

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 15:13:39 PM UTC