Are Dems just discovering that Door-to-door is something you should do in a campaign? I've know that for years.

The Democratic Party kicked off thier 100 days -100 doors campaign in Rapid City this weekend. Like this is a revalation? I don't think I've ever advised a candidate not to go door to door. In fact, I think it's one of the facets of a winning campaign.

Anyway, from the Rapid City Journal:
Inspired by presidential forefather Thomas Jefferson, the Pennington County Democratic Party on Saturday launched its “100 Days-100 Doors” campaign, which members said was intended to revive and rebuild party representation in South Dakota and capture the votes of Republican Party moderates. Justin Lena, Pennington County Democratic Party chairman and House candidate for District 34, said as part of a national Democratic campaign strategy, candidates would fan out through the city to knock on doors in each legislative district to listen to the concerns of residents.

“It is 100 days until election. Each candidate will contact 100 voters today by going to and knocking on 100 doors,” he said.

Eric Abrahamson, South Dakota Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, helped launch “100 Days-100 Doors” with a rallying speech at the Thomas Jefferson statue at Seventh and St. Joseph streets.

“It’s great to be here with the Democratic team. I think we have an incredible slate of candidates, and things are about to change in western South Dakota,” Abrahamson said.

As a start to the next 100 days of campaigning, Abrahamson said they wanted to encourage candidates to meet with their constituents but also to urge people to vote in the November election.
Read it all here as suprisingly, Democrats adopt sound campaign techniques instead of just bitching about Republicans.

I think they could have just said that "going door to door was inspired from watching candidates who win elections, and doing the same thing they do." But heck, the media is looking for a sound bite, so I can't blame them for the schmaltzy speech.

(Fellow Republicans, I hope you've started your door to door as well.)

I have a couple of people asking about the WWPPD shirts that appeared at convention. They were fan issues, so if they make a reappearance, I'll probably put a list of what I would do (in a campaign) on the back.

And "go door to door" will be #1.


Anonymous said…
Sort of a nitpick, but I've always been a little skeptical of the claim that Thomas Jefferson is the father of the modern Democratic Party. At the time Jefferson was president, there were two major parties: the Federalists, a mostly New England party that favored a strong central government and included Hamilton and Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (known by a variety of names), who were the followers of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

By the time Monroe became president, the Federalists were in such dire straits that they did not challenge his reelection in 1820. The Federalist party basically fell apart.

In 1824, there were FOUR candidates in the general election for President, all of the Democratic-Republicans: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Crawford, and Henry Clay.

Adams won the election; his supporters and those of Clay would go on to form the Whig Party.

Jackson came back in 1828 to defeat Adams; his followers would become the Democrats.

The modern Republican Party emerged in the 1850s as an anti-slavery party, made up of northern Whigs and Democrats.

So Jefferson, in a way, is the father of BOTH modern parties - and his small government rhetoric is far more in line with Republican sensibilities.

Andrew Jackson is the Father of the Democratic Party - I wonder why the SD Dems have chosen to give him the cold shoulder?
Anonymous said…
Anon 4:51 is correct. Thomas Jefferson was opposed to political parties and became a Democratic Republican (which was not a precursor to the modern Democrat party) only out of political necessity.

The real fopunder of the Democrat was Andrew Jackson but is a clever bit of marketing strategy, the Democrat Party Founders recognized that Jackson's personal history was so appaling that they could not make him their standard bearer. They needed a real founding father and settled on Jefferson even though Jefferson's writing clearly show he was not a fan of political parties.

So today modern Democrats celebrate with "Jefferson-Jackson Day" events. they use Thomas Jefferson's brilliance as a way of concealing the unsavory realities of their party's true founding history and true founding father.
Anonymous said…
The thing about the Dem's decision to claim Jefferson that has always struck me as odd is that he is really not in line with many of their core beliefs. Though Prof. Abrahamson cited his belief in separation of church and state, he also advocated teaching the Bible in public schools. His aversion to federal power, and really to government power in general, is hardly in line with the Democrats of today either.

(Although admittedly, I've always thought "What would the founders say" type questions are a little silly - I think that, as learned men, they would be more interested in the incredible scientific advances of the last two centuries, and in great historical events like the rise and fall of communism, than in most of the topics we talk about.)
PP said…
How did we manage quality discussion tonight?
Anonymous said…
PP, You mentioned T. Jefferson in your post. He seems to spark historical discussion. People like to demonstrate how well read they are on American history. That's why it's civil.

Too bad it's not properly taught in the public schools anymore.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.