posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: DISRAELI
Sorry but those suggestions won't really work here.
Our State and federal constitutional rules for candidate requirements are incredibly lax. For State and local positions, it's usually something like a
minimum age of 25 or 30 (depending on the position), a small filing fee and/or specific number of voter signatures, and a minimum number of years of
residency. Residency in a district isn't even a requirement for all positions. Because of this, many State & local elections have a lot of different
candidates from diverse backgrounds, with many being independent or 3rd party candidates.
There's also a huge perception of political corruption here. I can't speak for the right wing, but a huge portion of the left wing and far left refuse
to donate to the national party because of its consistent record of abandoning progressive policies. So for at least the last 3 or 4 election cycles,
we mostly donate directly to the candidates we prefer because we know the establishment won't support them otherwise.
That was especially true after Senator Obama won the presidency in 2008. The DNC & DCCC abandoned the "50 State policy" which saw the Democratic
national party strongly backing candidates in every state. That policy was replaced by a cost effective but politically suicidal policy of only
backing candidates who were likely to win their districts. This saw the number of nationally-backed Democratic candidates plummet, particularly in
right wing leaning States & districts. It got to the point where entire counties weren't even getting Democratic candidates unless they ran
independently of the national party, all because the national party & its largest donors
didn't think they could win.
This basically conceded districts to the Republican Party. And it also allowed the conservative talking points to go unanswered in those districts.
And progressives like myself that live in deeply conservative States felt completely abandoned, with many positions on my ballot not even having
Democratic candidates. This should give you an idea why so many progressive voters still ignore the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC and donate directly to
It's also a huge part of the reason for Bernie's surge in popularity during the 2016 campaign season. Bernie's "side" is all about backing as many
candidates as possible, including encouraging activists to get formally involved in the system and to run as candidates. Hillary & the establishment
Democrats were basically saying what you're suggesting: that activists should just donate to them and let the big wigs make the decisions. One side
encouraged the empowerment of left wing "commoners" while the other side practically demanded obedience from them (while crushing or co-opting any up
& coming left wing politicians, depending on their devotion to the upper establishment).
The new DNC chair is trying to undo this cycle of mistrust, but it's going to take a lot of time.