My latest trip to the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee was this past weekend. Much of the trip was the same as previous trips (see here and here), although this meeting was far lower key as no major elections are imminent, few new members were in attendance, and no endorsements were to be made. Instead, this was a time to learn. First, at 9am, it was a time to learn about voter targeting. A representative from the DNC was at the meeting, and he gave a great presentation providing an introduction to low cost voter targeting for local campaigns. I managed to acquire a copy of it, which you can read here:

Increasing Democratic Vote Share, Conserving Resources

The presentation is somewhat Pennsylvania specific, in that it assumes local activists have access to voter files (which all county party chairs have for free in Pennsylvania). It also doesn't come along with the running commentary of the presenter, and it is general election, rather than primary, specific. However, I still recommend looking at it, as it is a useful cheat sheet from which to start strategizing for any local campaign. Good stuff on the nitty gritty aspects of local politics.

Second, at 10:15 a.m., it was time for the always enjoyable Philadelphia caucus. In the caucus, which had a new proxy caucus chair, we discussed three topics (there might have been more, I arrived 15 minutes late after the targeting presentation). Here is a brief summary:

There's more...

I am an elected Democratic Party official for both my local ward committee (the fightin' 27th!), and on the Pennsylvania state committee for the Philadelphia portion of the 8th senatorial district (but not for the portion that extends into Delaware County--cryptic party rules around here). I have lived in both my local ward and the 8th senatorial district for the vast majority of my adult life, and I absolutely love it. In fact, one day, when I have enough money saved up, I would like to buy a home so I can spend the rest of my life here. My desire to put down roots was one of the reasons I started running for local party office--I want to be engaged with my neighborhood.

Still, no matter how long I have been here, and no matter how long I want to stay, anyone familiar with the Philadelphia portion of the 8th senatorial district would know immediately that I am not exactly "representative" of the area. A quick perusal of the district demographics shows that it is over 65% African-American, is about 20% white, about 12% of residents speak a language other than English at home, and it has a median household income of only $24,000 a year. As much as I love it here, sometimes I wonder "why on Earth am I an elected representative for this district?" I represent it at state committee meetings, but I don't, as people often say when discussing diversity, "look like the district." At all.

I won my seat through a write-in campaign last year after realizing that no one else was even on the ballot for the slot. I only received about 200 votes, and virtually all of those were in five divisions (precincts) near my home. It is not as though I won through some sort of overwhelming popular mandate. Even had I been on the ballot, and as such received maybe twenty thousand votes, it is not as though most of the people in the district would have even known me. Even though it is one of the most Democratic areas in the entire country, with Democrats typically receiving about 90-92% of the vote in general elections, you won't find a more low-information election than campaigns for Pennsylvania Democratic committee in the Philadelphia portion of the 8th senatorial district. As demonstrated from the empty slots on the ballot, this is a race no one cares about, no one spends money on, and virtually no one campaigns for in any way, shape or form. To be absolutely truthful, the fact that this is a low information election is why I am in office.

Here is another bit of honesty. When I am at state committee meetings, or engaged in work related to the state committee, I actually feel like I am representing the progressive netroots (or, at least, the progressive reform movement in Philadelphia) rather than the Philadelphia portion of the 8th senatorial district. This probably isn't a good thing. I think my blog posts on MyDD generated about four votes for my campaign: the rest were achieved simply by canvassing friends and neighbors. It also probably does not help the residents of my district, since low-income, urban minorities are underrepresented in virtually major institution in the United States. However, I arrived at political maturity, if I may call it such, through the progressive netroots. It is a political scene with which I am intimately familiar, and which I am often asked to represent. It is my political logos, and it forms the dominant portion of the perspective I bring to almost any political table.

I bring this all up because it was swirling around in my head both during recent discussions on diversity and the blogosphere here on MyDD, and during the recent discussions that have arisen about race and the Philadelphia mayoral election (see here, here, and here for some background info on the recent events in Philly). Sometimes, I feel as though when the former subject comes up, people talk to me and give me advice as though I am some sort of alien from another planet who needs to understand that something called "race" is a factor in earthling politics and culture. I don't mean that in the sense that I am an expert on the subject (I most definitely am not) simply because of where I live and where I am an elected party official. Rather, I mean it in the sense that I feel often times when this subject is discussed among progressives, a few well-worn, abstract axioms and terms are thrown around that get a lot more complicated when moving from theory to application.

For example, had I not run for, and won, my write-in campaign (which was, by the way, the first ever successful write-in campaign for state committee in Philadelphia), as chair of the Philadelphia Democratic Party, Congressman Bob Brady who would simply appointed someone to fill the slot after the election. In all likelihood, he would have appointed an African-American progressive to do so. After all, even though he is the "boss" of the remaining, hollowed-out shell of the Philadelphia machine, he really is a liberal. I think he might even have recently joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus. In fact, until Steve Cohen took over for Harold Ford in Tennessee, Brady was the only white congressman representing a majority-minority district in the entire country. As such, it should come as no surprise to anyone that he would have appointed, in good liberal fashion, someone who "looks like the district." This situation is further complicated in that I actually personally convinced about forty people to write-in my name, roughly half of whom were African-American, by telling them that if they did not vote for me, that the machine would appoint whoever it wanted. My basic pitch was a series of variations on the following line: "the machine has abandoned you, so don't let them represent you." It worked, too. However, while the machine did abandon the district by leaving five out of six ballot slots blank, by many principles of diversity that progressives--including myself--hold, whoever the machine appointed probably would have done a better job of "representing" the district than I do.

At the end of this post, I don't have any clear, tight conclusions. This isn't a topic that facilitates easy answers. I should note that even though I sometimes imagine that other people could do a better job representing my district, I don't actually feel the least bit bad about holding my state committee seat. On the contrary, earning my seat via an original six-day campaign, joining in the silent revolution, representing the neighborhood I love, and taking further ownership over the Democratic Party I fight for makes me quite proud. I guess I just wanted to share how I think about topics related to diversity from time to time. Translating ad hoc grassroots activism--which is still a pretty good way to describe the progressive, political blogosphere--into actual political results that match up with perfectly progressive principles isn't the easiest thing in the world. And that goes for a lot of issues besides just diversity. We have virtually no resources at our disposal, and we are making this all up as we go along. Even though many of us "A-list" and "big box" bloggers are often viewed as institutional forces unto ourselves, I hope that is something people remember as we slog forward.

Last night, instead of watching the debate, I attended the Democratic primary candidate endorsement meeting for the 27th Ward in Philadelphia. With endorsements to be made for traffic court, court of common pleas, city commissioner, register of wills, sheriff, clerk of the court, state superior court, state supreme court, local city council, five city council at large seats, and mayor, the meeting took more than three hours. The city council at-large seats were particularly difficult, since there were six candidates the ward liked quite a bit, but we could only make a maximum of five endorsements (the majority party is allotted a maximum of five at-large council seats in Philadelphia). I would like to personally endorse the four challengers we took the most time to consider, Andy Toy, Marc Stier, Derek Green, and Matt Ruben. If there is any way you can help these candidates, I would strongly recommend doing so. The other two candidates, incumbents Bill Greenlee and Blondell Reynolds Brown, are very good public servants, but I am far more focused on trying to help the challengers to city council seats this time around. It should be noted that these are the six progressive and reformer candidates who have been endorsed by virtually every single progressive and reformer organization in the city in various combinations. The 27th ward seems to be one of those organizations in its own right.

For Mayor, we endorsed Michael Nutter on the first ballot with over 75% of the ward's vote. Now, a new poll was released today showing Michael Nutter to actually be in a strong position for the upcoming primary. Susequehanna polling, April 24-25, 450 LVs:

Date	April 25	March 14	Dec 06	Fav / Unfav
Tom Knox	20%	22%	9%	47 / 21
Michael Nutter	18%	12%	12%	58 / 16
Chaka Fattah	14%	17%	29%	48 / 25
Bob Brady	9%	13%	10%	36 / 32
Dwight Evans	7%	10%	12%	46 / 17

With leaners included, Nutter draws to within less than one point of Knox. Note that this is a very different result than the recent Survey USA poll, which showed Knox cruising. However, across most polls, Michael Nutter is the only candidate besides Knox who is rising in the polls. Right now, it certainly appears that he is moving into second place, and the last two weeks of the campaign might be Nutter vs. Knox.

From the Susquehanna polling memo:

This poll shows all the movement has gone to Nutter, going from 12 points in the last poll (4th place) to 18% on the current poll which puts him in a virtual statistical dead heat with Knox at 20%. All the other candidates have dropped since the last poll - and the key reason is that Nutter has surged with white Democrats, where he is now in first place at 29% even ahead of Knox at 24%. From a name ID standpoint, Nutter now has the best ratio of favorable to unfavorable name ID while Brady's negatives have shot up, which says to me that Nutter is partly benefiting from Brady's faltering campaign. Among black Democrats, the same trend is showing that even though Fattah continues to lead (at 23%), black support for Fattah and Evans has waned from the last poll while Knox and Nutter have both picked up a couple points, although surprisingly, it is Knox who is finishing second with blacks at 15% (Nutter only has 8%). I think from a big picture standpoint what this poll is telling me is that the black community isn't inspired this time around.

One of the reasons this is so surprising is that Michael Nutter is African-American. It might be the first time, like ever, that an African-American candidate in Philadelphia is winning the white vote. The Democratic primary vote in Philadelphia typically splits along racial lines more than anything else, but this campaign could spell an end to that trend. Or does it? When it comes to pushing himself over the top, Nutter actually faces a problem among African-American voters, where he trails Knox (who is white).

The combination of racial politics and progressive reformer politics in Philadelphia is extremely interesting. If it is true that the African-American community is not very excited about this election, certainly the extreme unpopularity of Mayor John Street (20% approval rating), who is African-American, is playing a major role. In other words, the African-American community might not be very happy with its leaders and representatives in the local political establishment, but isn't thrilled with the existing reform options either. At the same time, it is interesting how the white progressive and reform communities were split between Chaka Fattah and Michael Nutter, not unlike the Obama vs. Edwards split in the progressive blogosphere. However, with Fattah consistently slumping since starting the campaign as the frontrunner, now Nutter seems to be consolidating his support among the white progressive community. However, Nutter still struggles among African-Americans, not unlike early netroots candidates such as Dean, while Fattah is able to at least vaguely stay in the campaign because his African-American support remains decent. In fact, Nutter's early commercials, which seem to be fueling his rise, actually framed him as the anti-John Street reformer, which adds another element to this discussion. Overall, we seem to have a situation where both whites and blacks are unhappy with the Democratic political establishment in the city, but the organizing being conducted to fix the system is itself split along racial lines in much the same way the city has always been split. Further, neither the machine nor the reformers appear strong enough to hold off Knox's millions, which is telling. It is all very convoluted and deserves much, much more discussion. There are lessons here for the progressive movement and the Democratic Party that go far beyond the local level.

The primary is on May 15th. The winners of the primary will all go on to win the general, since Philadelphia is basically a one-party town. I am going to try and have more coverage on both the mayoral and city council campaigns during the next two weeks.

Occasionally, whenever I write about the need to reform urban machines, especially Philadelphia, I will stray into hyperbolic rhetoric about "smashing" said machines. Whenever this happens, in the comments, at least one or two people will worriedly note that if city Democratic machines in places like Philadelphia or Chicago were to go down, then important states like Illinois and Pennsylvania would no longer be Democratic. Personally, I have long believed that the increasingly ineffective city machines are actually holding down the vote in places like Philadelphia and Chicago, because they tend to discourage the entry of new blood and energy into the electoral system. If you are not encouraging new volunteers to register voters, knock on doors, distribute candidate information, connect with neighbors, and otherwise perform the important functions of local Democratic precinct captains, then you are not doing all that much to help the Democratic cause in your area.

A comparison of voter turnout in Philadelphia serves as an excellent example to demonstrate this thesis. As I have written about numerous times on MyDD, in 2005 I became a committeeperson (precinct captain) in the 27th ward, 23rd division. For those of you not familiar with the details of Philadelphia politics, there are 66 wards total in the city, and a "division" is the same thing as a precinct. Anyway, right around the same time I was becoming a precinct captain, the 27th ward had something of a little revolution, where we recalled our ward leader and elected a new one. After several months, the recall campaign was successful, despite consistent opposition from the leaders of the party citywide (the party leaders are primarily the 66 ward leaders). Given this, I thought a comparison of voter turnout in the first year of the free 27th ward, 2006, to voter turnout in the last mid-term election, 2002, would serve as a useful test case to see if city machines are helping or hindering voter turnout.

I was up early this morning, so I wandered over to the election results page on the Committee of Seventy website to find the numbers necessary to make this comparison. It turns out the 27th ward went from 2,755 total votes in 2002, to 4,797 total votes in 2006 (the last midterm election). That is an increase of 74.1%. For the entire city, in 2002 there were 404,025 total votes, and in 2006 there were 429,029 total votes. That is an increase of 6.2%. Overall, the 27th ward represented 8.2% of the increase in voting across the city from 2002 to 2006, which is amazing considering that there are 66 wards and we happen to be one of the smaller ones. Importantly, despite gentrification and an influx of students (which almost pushed me out of the ward back in 2004), the increase did not come from Republicans. In 2002, Governor Rendell won the ward 87.76%--7.46%. In 2006, he won the ward 90.41%--9.44%, a virtually identical margin of victory. The 90% voting rate for Rendell is particularly impressive when one considers that the voter registration of the ward is only 58% Democratic.

Not too shabby for one, small, independent ward. We also managed to sneak two of our committee people onto the state committee this past year, including yours truly. Citywide, there are 57 elected members of the state Democratic committee, seventeen of which were not filled in the 2006 elections (but were later appointed by Bob Brady). So, the 27th ward represents 5%, or two of forty, elected members of the state committee at the current time.

Here at MyDD, my primary focus has always been a wide-angle lens on the national picture, but I have to admit I enjoy the local stuff at least as much, if not more. We have had some fun times out in the 27th ward lately. You really can make a difference with local action. Retuning to the wider view for a moment, while the example of one individual ward with only twenty-three divisions (precincts) does not provide conclusive evidence supporting the thesis I presented at the start of this post, it does give me a lot more confidence in that thesis. Ossified city machines that are fearful of new members are not helping the Democratic cause. In fact, I honestly believe they are hurting it. Not only can silent revolutions improve confidence in local Democratic parties, weed out corruption, inject the system with progressive political views and increase transparency, but they can also greatly enhance Democratic electoral prospects as well. We did all of those things where I live. As you read this, I am sure it is happening in hundreds, if not thousands, of other locales across the country as well.

This is an interesting development in Nevada. Within one month, Tom Collins will no longer be the Nevada state party chair, and at least one candidate has already announced her intention to run. From Turn Tahoe Blue (emphasis mine):

Jill Derby, former Regent and 2006 Democratic nominee for Congress in Nevada's Second Congressional District said today that she plans to run for Chair of the Nevada State Democratic Party when elections are held in March.

"In my congressional campaign, I laid out a new vision for what a Nevada Democrat and Democrats from the West stand for. That's the kind of vision and leadership I plan to bring to the Party," Derby said.

As was evidenced by the past week of candidate events and national media attention, Nevada will play a central role in the selection of the Democratic candidate in 2008. Nevada's caucus will be the second in the nation, falling between key events in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Interesting indeed. I was unaware that Nevada was about to experience a shift in party chairs. Given the newfound importance of the Nevada caucus, and the recent Faux News kerfuffle, this seems like precisely the sort of moment where the netroots can have a big impact.

I don't know much about Jill Derby, except that she ran in a very red district in 2006 and still came kind of close. Turn Tahoe Blue certainly seems to like her:

Wow! This is awesome news. When I heard that Tom Collins announced his intention not to run again, I didn't expect any good candidates to come forward. This is an awesome candidate. With Jill Derby as state party chair we might actually be able to turn both Tahoe and Nevada blue.

When it comes to Tom Collins, we are dealing with a lame duck. It is time to look elsewhere for change in Nevada. It is time for the silent revolution to makes its way to the fastest growing state in the nation.