Press "Enter" to skip to content

Libertarian Party of California has phone bank to stop Prop 14

Email from Debbie Tharp:

Prop 14 in California in incumbent protection and access prevention. Loss of ballot access in California is a loss for the nation as a whole. Prop 14 (the top two initiative) allows voters to vote for any party they want in the primary elections, and it is being sold as a way to open up the primaries, but any time a similar bill has been passed in any other state, it has resulted in incumbents being re elected 95% of the time. Voters can come out in droves during the primary to bring an incumbent’s weakest opponent to the finals and drive out the viable third party alternative altogether. Please help us defeat this un-democratic initiative and retain our right to a real choice in the fall elections. We only have until June 8th to stop this nightmare!

You can help by contacting Beau Cain at . This is a very organized effort. We have a call center and professional scripts. We have to call 60,000 voters by June 8th so every phone call helps!

Thank you so much!

Debbie also mentioned that phonebanking training is taking place about every other night:

it’s liberty manager. i did the training and it is a great system. the calling is over tonight, but they are going to keep doing training sessions every other night or so.

Debbie continues, explaining that this system was first tried out in the last days of the Joe Kennedy special election campaign, and that she hopes to see it used by other states in the future:

My idea at National, and I am getting from people’s reactions that this may be a pipe dream, is that when something like this comes up, for instance the Kennedy campaign, prop 14 here, Michigan’s lack of ballot access, etc., we can have nationwide efforts at calling people, instead of just statewide. You see, when a crisis or opportunity for the party pops up, it is not all of the time, so libs in any one state will be very active for short stints, and then become inactive again because there is no volunteer effort that needs their participation. If we, on the other hand, help each state as a national whole when a problem or opportunity comes up, volunteers will stay more active and excited, and we will have more success with all of our efforts nationwide because we have more volunteers as a whole. I don’t see why it should only be Californians who fight prop 14, or Michiganians who are forced to fight for ballot access without outside volunteer help. Any victory for one state is victory for liberty as a whole.
What do you think?

This video shows how to use Liberty Manager:

More about what has been done so far in an email forwarded from California LP State Chair Kevin Takenaga to IPR’s Trent Hill:

We started our phone calling GOTV program on May 10th, using Stewart
Flood’s Liberty Manager (aka BallotBase from several years ago.)

We have had ongoing training sessions (with Stewart) to teach people how
to use the system and we are continuing to recruit others. Recruitment
emails have been sent to our general email list, our county officers, and
to our candidates. Our State Party officers have been putting out the
call to local affiliates.

We have 60K numbers of registered Libertarian voters in our system. We
have contacted a little over 1K so far. Volunteer signups have been slow,
but are steadily increasing. I suspect that will increase as we publicize
the results of the recent poll.

Our top caller is Chuck McGlawn, a member from Orange County and has
personally made 432 calls and reached slightly half that amount (either a
live person or answering machine.) He is a veteran of BallotBase and once
made over 2500 calls in one week.

In June 2006, the last California Gubernatorial primary election, the LP
had a 26.31% participation rate, far lower than both the D’s & R’s. We
aim to increase that with this GOTV effort.

See for the breakdown–

We are also stuck with having a National Convention in between now and the
June 8th election (bad timing.) We’d like to make at least 3-4K calls
before the Convention.

The following was sent out by the Libertarian Party of California about Prop 14:

Why Defeat Proposition 14?

Proposition 14 would change California’s voting system in the following ways:

1. Parties will no longer be able to hold closed Primary Elections, and thus will not be able to protect themselves from ill-intended outside interference from the two major Parties.

2. Only the two candidates who get the most votes in the Primary Elections would be put on the ballot for the General Election in November, regardless of their Party affiliations. Thus, a race on the November ballot will have only two candidates, and it would almost certainly be a Democrat and a Republican, or two Democrats, or two Republicans. Voters will lose choices in the elections that count!

3. It would also eliminate write-in votes in the General Election, further guaranteeing that only Democratic and Republican Party candidates will ever be put on a California General Election ballot.

4. With NO Libertarians candidates on the General Election ballot, our Party will likely lose ballot access, forcing us to spend enormous amounts of money and volunteer hours to regain it every year.

Since there are still a majority of Democrats and Republicans in California, it’s unlikely that any other Party’s candidates would ever make it to the General Elections ballot, where all voters can vote for whichever candidates they wish.

It practically guarantees that Democrats or Republicans will be on California’s General Election ballot in every race, but other parties’ candidates never will be on California’s General Elections ballot.

The only way this pernicious proposal could get on this June’s ballot was by Republican Abel Maldonado cutting a back-room deal to approve Governor Schwartzenegger’s unpopular budget. It needed only one vote to pass, and Maldonado sold his vote to the Governator. In return, our Governor supported this protectionist proposition by hosting a very expensive fund raiser in Los Angeles just last night.

Proposition 14 is a worthless proposal, except that it will protect Democratic and Republican Party candidates from the increasing competition of other Parties’ candidates.

Help us stop Proposition 14!

Ballot Access News today reports Prop 14 has a big lead in the polls:

A poll released on the evening of May 19, taken by the Public Policy Institute of California, shows a big lead for Proposition 14, the top-two ballot measure. The poll shows 60% support the measure, 27% oppose it, and 13% are undecided.

A poll in March showed 56% support for the measure. The gain for the measure is undoubtedly due to the heavy advertising for the measure, especially in radio ads. There has been no advertising against the measure.

The fundamental reason for the measure’s strength in polls is its wording. The ballot says in large type, “Proposition 14. ELECTIONS. INCREASES RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS.” Then, in smaller type, it says, “Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Fiscal impact: No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections.”

Assuming the measure passes, those who favor having more than just Democrats and Republicans on the November ballot will resort to the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Munro v Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, “We are unpersuaded, however, that the differences between the two mechanisms (a petition to get on the November ballot, versus polling a certain share of the vote in a preliminary election) are of constitutional dimension.” This means that the U.S. Supreme Court thinks that a prior vote before the general election, as a condition of appearing on the general election ballot, is subject to the same precedents that apply to petition hurdles to the November ballot.

Those who attempt to rebut that conclusion invariably say that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ballot access precedents do not apply for an election in which parties do not have nominees. That notion is incorrect. The early ballot access victories in the U.S. Supreme Court were not based on freedom of association for political parties. The first three full-opinion ballot access victories in the U.S. Supreme Court were based on voting rights, and the rights of candidates, not on the rights of political parties. Those first three ballot access victories did not have any political party plaintiffs. They were Williams v Rhodes, Hadnott v Amos, and Ogilvie v Moore; the plaintiffs were voters and candidates. These decisions were issued in 1968 and 1969. At that time, the U.S. Supreme Court had never ruled that the Freedom of Association portion of the First Amendment pertains to political parties. It is true that in 1935, in Grovey v Townsend, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn a Texas Supreme Court ruling that said the Democratic Party is free to limit membership to whites, but that decision does not mention the First Amendment, and furthermore that decision was overturned in 1944 in Smith v Allbright.

California voters have restricted the franchise in the past. In May 1879, the voters approved a new state Constitution that said, “No native of China shall ever exercise the franchise in this state.” That passed 54%-46%.

IPR’s editorial against Prop 14:

Slowly, painfully, the movement to improve ballot access for minor parties and independent candidates has been winning. States in which ballot access is significantly better than it was in 1980 are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and also the District of Columbia.

But, ballot access is disastrously worse in the state of Washington. This can largely be blamed on Initiative 872, a measure approved by the voters of Washington in 2004, which was used for the first time in 2008. As a result, for the first time since Washington became a state in 1889, there were no independent or minor party candidates on the November ballot for either Congress or statewide state office–a major step backwards, both for fair and open elections and for ballot access reform advocates. Initiative 872 mandated that only the candidates who place first or second in the primary may be on the general election ballot.

In Washington state in 2004, 45 minor party candidates filed for office, because they had a good chance of appearing on the general election ballot. That was under Washington’s old classic open primary. But under the top-two system, in 2008, only 12 minor party candidates even bothered to file, because they knew that in almost all cases, they had no chance to be on the November ballot. They hated to waste their filing fee money when they faced a certainty of being washed out of the general election campaign season.

Now the Washington-style system is threatening to be enacted in California. The California version is even worse than the Washington system, where candidates can at least choose any party label they wish to appear on the primary ballot next to their names. Additionally, if a party isn’t ballot-qualified, it can still place its presidential nominee on the November ballot with only 1,000 signatures in Washington.

By contrast, if California’s Prop. 14 passes, the only way a minor party will be able to remain ballot-qualified, and to at least have its presidential nominee on the ballot, will be to have approximately 100,000 registered members. Prop. 14 deletes the existing method by which parties remain qualified, that they poll 2% for a statewide race in a midterm year (they get a free ride in presidential years). So the only method left is that they have registration of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, which will probably be at least 100,000 after November 2010.

Supporters of Prop. 14 can’t come up with any pro-democracy reason to vote for the measure, except that it lets independents vote in all primaries as a matter of law. But already, independent voters in California are free to vote in any Democratic or Republican primary for Congress or state office. So already, independents in California are treated better than registered Republicans or Democrats. Registered Republicans can only vote in the Republican primary (although anyone can switch parties 2 weeks before the primary), and the same goes for Democrats. But independents on primary day can choose which major party primary to vote in. Proponents of Prop. 14 are always pointing out that the primary means more than the general, in most legislative and US House districts, because most of the districts are strongly Democratic or strongly Republican. But any independent voter who can figure that out, is free to choose the primary ballot of the dominant major party. The idea that independent voters in California are abused doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Furthermore, proponent of Prop 14 have suggested that their system will result in more moderate candidates being elected–but history and experience do not support this claim. In Louisiana’s 1991 gubernatorial election, an open primary was held, very similar in structure to the one Prop 14 suggests, which resulted in the advancement of two extreme candidates. The runoff election was between David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, and Edwin Edwards, the corrupt incumbent governor. More centrist candidates, Buddy Roemer and Clyde C. Holloway, missed the runoff. More importantly, in the general election there were only the two options–resulting in a pathetic election and humorous bumper stickers that read, “Vote for the Crook, It’s Important” and “Vote for the Lizard, Not the Wizard”.

FairVote did an extensive analysis of the claim that Prop 14, or it’s Washington or Louisiana counterparts, result in moderation, which can be found here. Richard Winger has also done some important reporting on the subject here.

The measure is sometimes referred to as “Top Two”, and for good reason, it wants to limit voter’s choices in November to only the top two, instead of giving them the full range of electoral choices that should be available to them.

In the meantime, corporations and politicians are funneling money towards the Prop 14 effort by the millions. Third parties and their activists don’t have access to that kind of money, but they do have access to the truth about Prop 14, thanks to the hard work of activists like Christina Tobin and Richard Winger. We at Independent Political Report stand with the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, Californians for Electoral Reform, and the Coalition for Free and Open Elections against Prop 14.


The Editorial Board of Independent Political Report

About Post Author


  1. June June May 23, 2010

    Cable TV are not expensive. I don’t know about the LA area but here is the info on what Cres has already booked for his ads in NorCal. I disagree about the value of direct mail vs. TV and I think I can find some studies to back that up if anyone is seriously interested. The bookend commercials hit you with repetition and this is key to getting voter attention.
    From Cres to

    Waiting for the logs, but PF party spots will appear in the
    SF zone, Berkeley zone, Contra Costa zone, Sacramento zone
    this coming week, through Friday. And in the Hollywood LA zone
    May 31-June 7. About 450 times ($11 a spot) for CNN, Headline
    News, and MNBC.

    The Green spot will appear in the SF zone, Hayward/Oakland
    zone and Sacramento zone this coming week, through Friday. And
    in the LA Santa Monica etc zone May 31-June 7. About 300 times
    ($11 a spot) for CNN, Headline News, and MNBC.

    I will supply the exact times and stations shortly.


  2. paulie paulie May 22, 2010

    Wait, so is there a way for us people outside of California to do phonebanking about this?

    yes, you can be anywhere

  3. Ross Ross May 22, 2010

    Wait, so is there a way for us people outside of California to do phonebanking about this?

  4. Donny Ferguson Donny Ferguson May 22, 2010

    Actually the ads are surpringly close to perfect. Nice hard sell that reinforces the point and appeals to the vast majority of voters.

    The other ad is nice, but rambles around a bit and doesn’t pound the central message. Also, appealing your message to GOPers in Dem districts, Dems in GOP districts and third party members doesn’t work. They’re a minority for a reason.

    But the LPCA would be better off ditching the TV ads and spending that money on direct mail targeted at active voting households. TV ads and billboards are the two biggest wastes of money in political campaigning. They’re occasionally useful, but for the large part they continue only because they’re expensive and media buyers get around 15% of the gross.

    Spend the money on direct mail.

  5. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck May 22, 2010

    June, to get a commercial aired in the LA market takes $40K, not $9K.

    Frankly, I call those two ads weak because the quality is grainy, it looks like a bad powerpoint slideshow, and is not very keyed to a mainline audience.

    The LPCA leadership has not shown any disdain for any coalition. That’s your misperception. Reread what I wrote.

  6. George Phillies George Phillies May 22, 2010

    Anti-14 is mission critical for our party, and should be front page top and center on

    It isn’t.

    If I am elected Chair, that will change *immediately*.

    If it wins, our CA affiliate will be substantially out of business.

    I was happy to be able to send some money to Julie Fox for her campaign, but anti-14 is mission-critical to our national party.

    And I will be putting my money where my mouth is, in a way that I hope will reach most delegates before the convention.

  7. June June May 22, 2010

    Re 24

    Do you know Cres? I do and have worked with him in the past. He has strong libertarian sentiments and he IS a cap;able media person. The kind of attitude your post shows is not the way to make people like him decide he’s working for the wrong party. Participation in coalitions is a way to build connections and allies. Whatever else the LPC is doing about 14 I think its leadership has shown a disdain for the coalition which I find very unfortunate.

    As to the TV ads, the money requested was NOT for production. Cres volunteered to do that for free. The money requested was to ensure they could buy the air time for them. At the time I was trying to get the money airtime was rapidly disappearing to the pro 14’s big budget. BTW, the reason they are only 15 seconds is that bookended 15 second spots are cheaper than 30s. That info also compliments of Cres who wanted us to get the best bang for the buck.

  8. June @20:

    $3K for *that?* Kinda weak.

    Try this for FREE:

    Produced by one of our candidates and rising stars, Adrian Galysh.

    LPCA announced opposition to Prop 14 by roll call vote months ago. We knew about its existence in its current form since the backroom budget deal and began fighting this part the day after Props 1A-E went down in flames (which we helped fight against as well, but that effort seems conveniently forgotten!).

    The Brentwood protest had my direct involvement in helping with the planning and logistics, which considering the location and its limitations, wasn’t easy. (I couldn’t make it from real work issues.)

    LPCA has been involved with and aware of StopTopTwo since before its inception. Ms. Tobin moved to CA to run for office SPECIFICALLY to stop Prop 14 long before StopTopTwo was formed and before Prop 14 even had a ballot number. I know this firsthand since I was the one who wrote up the ballot analysis for the ExComm and moved for the Roll Call vote when we did it.

    IOW, the LPCA effort to defeat this monster predates StopTopTwo. Heck, it even predates Ms. Tobin’s time in CA.

    The LPCA is present and busting ass in the effort to kill this thing. What’s conspicuous by their absence is the opposition of the major parties beyond mere words. Supposedly they have put some money forward to fight it, so where’s the results of that cash? Haven’t seen it, and in my vast and continual travels all around the #1 media market in the universe in Los Angeles, it’d be hard to miss it. In that respect, Jill is exactly right.

    The problem with this fight isn’t what the LPCA is doing in relation to a coalition, but rather what else is being done. Whatever it is, it isn’t visible and it isn’t having any effect, either. An attempt to turn the public tide will be made in Costa Mesa on Tuesday as KFI’s John and Ken will be having their “Trial of the Tax Traitors” on their show down there. That includes Abel Maldonaldo, and making Prop 14 about HIM, not the third parties–the strategy that should have been employed in the first place. John and Ken have a million listeners in the LA market alone and recently added a new market feed in San Francisco. They’re against Prop 14, too.

    As for the coalition, recall the conversation of late legendary Hall Of Fame announcer Harry Caray and late legendary and should-be-in-the-Hall owner Bill Veeck over their time together with the White Sox. Harry once asked that since they got along well and both were dedicated to the Sox, how come they didn’t hang out more together? Bill replied that Harry sold the Sox Harry’s way, and Bill sold the Sox Bill’s way, and by doing it separately they sold twice as much.

    So can it be with Prop 14. But the others have been deafening in their silence.

  9. June // May 21, 2010:
    “Cres, the [California] Green party’s (able) media coordinator ……” Lake: *personal experience*, 2005, any way, ‘oh plz …………’

  10. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    15 posted by me just today, plus 9 by other people, in case anyone is keeping score. I think that’s the most we’ve had in one day in a while.

  11. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    Thanks for the video links. I’ll post them as an article, probably not tonight tho since I already posted a ton of articles today.

  12. June June May 21, 2010

    Paulie re 18

    I did not say that Libertarians were not working to stop prop 14. I said that the official state LP is noticeably missing in the coalition effort. While Christina and Richard are ably representing a Libertarian presence, they can not make any official commitments to the coalition effort in the name of the LPC.

    Cres, the Green party’s (able) media coordinator would have been happy to produce a 15 second TV ad against 14 with our name on it (as he did for P&F as well as the Greens) if we had just come thru with a commitment of a few thousand dollars to actually buy air time.

    I called the state office and lit a fire under Mark Hinkle in an attempt to get that commitment. Nothing came of it. You can see the ads here:

    Up on YouTube now.

  13. Kit Maira Kit Maira May 21, 2010

    I have been sending e-mails to my friends explaining the situation, and asking them to help spread the word. The most effective argument I have used is that by limiting the candidates to the two top vote-getters they deprive minor parties ballot access, and go on to explain the connection between minor parties getting the 2% threshold in the general election and ballot access. With all of the political phone calls I have been getting in this cycle I have refused to answer the phone at all. Everyone I know is turned off by them, and I am concerned that there may be a backlash.

  14. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    Given that Richard Winger is a California LP member and Christina Tobin is a California LP candidate, I don’t see how anyone would say that California Libertarians are not working to stop 14/88…..especially given the phone banking effort.

  15. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    I know the Peace and Freedom Party, Greens and Republicans* have all worked to stop prop 14/”88″, you can find articles on all of those in IPR archives.

    *Official party, not Schwarzenegger and Maldonado

  16. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt May 21, 2010

    June–Christina organized a protest outside of Governor Schwarzenegger’s house last Monday, and a representative from the CA LP EX Com, Mr. Alan Pyeatt, attended. There were only ten other people there.

    With all due respect, I haven’t seen anything about no on 14 from anyone but the CA LP Ex Com, and Ms. Tobin’s Free and Equal.

  17. paulie paulie May 21, 2010


    Christina Tobin
    Founder and Chair
    The Free and Equal Elections Foundation
    (415) 599-5222
    Free & Equal Logo


    StopTopTwo.Org to Hold Picket outside Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Proposition 14 Fundraiser


    A picket uniting voters across the political spectrum will be held in Sacramento on Monday afternoon to protest Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act. The picket will be held outside Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $2,500 per ticket, Proposition 14 fundraiser at an upscale Sacramento restaurant:


    Gov. Schwarzenegger and Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado are marketing Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act, as a win for democracy. Proposition 14 would end democracy in California. Prop 14 is a scheme, largely funded by insurance companies and other big businesses who are generally not friends of consumers:


    Christina Tobin’s – Vote No on Proposition 14 committee launched

    to educate California voters about how Top Two would damage democracy in California.


    Monday, May 24, 5:30 p.m., protesters will arrive at 4:30 p.m.


    MIX Downtown, 1531 L Street, Sacramento


    Protesters will represent voters affiliated with all six qualified parties (American Independent, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and Republican), as well as independents.


  18. June June May 21, 2010

    Re 9

    I am working with which was started by Christina Tobin working in conjunction with Californians for Electoral Reform. Most of the major officers of all ballot qualified parties have been participating in StopTopTwo’s listserv to coordinate state wide opposition to prop 14 across the political spectrum. Noticeably absent are any state officers of the LPC.

    This is not a battle the LP can win on it’s own. Kevin, at least, should have been on this list from the beginning to see how the LPC can best coordinate with the efforts of others. If he is on there he’s been totally silent.

  19. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt May 21, 2010

    I made an hour of phone calls regarding Proposition 14 last night, and it went very well. I talked to 7 or 8 people, and left 10 messages. I plan to make calls most nights between now and the election.

    Anyone interested in helping with phone calls, please contact us at

  20. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    Also, just California alone is a massive loss in ballot access. Even just getting the presidential candidates on the ballot there will become a major challenge.

  21. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    If/when it wins in California it is highly likely that similar initiatives will be put on the ballot in many other states.

  22. Trent Hill Trent Hill May 21, 2010

    “So goes California, so goes the nation. It’s that simple, and that bad.”

    Sort of California-centric, isn’t that? I sincerely doubt that. First off, top two originated in Louisiana–so if anyone should get credit for this abomination, it’s my state =)

  23. Michael Seebeck, Southern Vice Chair, LPCA Michael Seebeck, Southern Vice Chair, LPCA May 21, 2010


    What are you talking about?

    The LPCA leadership has been screaming about this almost nonstop since LAST YEAR, while at the same time building a party infrastructure and trying to resurrect our finances after the last regime pissed them away. We have continually been soliciting donations, garnering memberships, and cleaning up messes, all while pushing, cajoling, begging, pleading, and everthing in between to get people on board to fight this. Myself, I’ve been all over my region hitting up every county in to get support going, and I’m not the only one. I don’t know what circles you’ve been running around in lately,, but we’ve been fighting as hard as we can to beat back this thing for a long time.

    As far as TV ads, if they’re out there, they sure aren’t visible in Los Angeles–all I see and hear are pro-14 radio spots.

    In simple terms, we are fighting this tooth and nail.

    So rather than complain about what you really don’t see, get on board and join the fight! We don’t need any sideline QBs any more.

    So goes California, so goes the nation. It’s that simple, and that bad. If this passes, not only is the LPCA screwed, but so is the rest of the LP. You heard it here second (Ruth Bennett said it first when this hit LPWA in 2008).

    Michael Seebeck
    Southern Vice Chair
    Libertarian Party of California

  24. June June May 21, 2010

    Unfortunately even if all 60K registered Libertarians turn out to vote against Prop 14 it won’t be enough to turn the tide. I am very disappointed that other than Richard Winger and Christina Tobin (who have both been working their butts off) there has been virtually no support from the LPC for the StopTopTwo multi-party coalition fighting it. We could not even get them to chip in 3000 or so to match the Greens and Peace & Freedom on the production of TV ads.

    June Genis
    Life Member of National & California (although they seem to have forgotten that) LP
    Former board member Californians for Electoral Reform (I’m a Texan now)

  25. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt May 20, 2010

    I’ll Facebook Kristi Stone in San Diego and let her know that.

  26. The Sandy Ego County greens have an office north of Balboa Park and west of SDSU. Air conditioning and phone lines. An empty office that just sits, sits, sits, sits! Phones that sit, sit, sit, sit!

  27. paulie paulie May 20, 2010

    I think they are going for 60k but 3-4k is all they hope to do before the national convention with the bulk of the calls being after the convention.

    Maybe they hope to recruit a bunch of volunteers in St. Louis?

  28. Trent Hill Trent Hill May 20, 2010


    That’s true, the LP of CA getting to call 3,000 people is way better than NO people.

  29. Ross Levin Ross Levin May 20, 2010

    Malik Rahim’s campaign used the national phonebanking technique. And I’m doing it now for (Democrat) Marcy Winograd’s campaign for Congress in California. Generally, it doesn’t get too much participation, but it’s certainly better than nothing.

  30. paulie paulie May 20, 2010

    “My idea at National, and I am getting from people’s reactions that this may be a pipe dream, is that when something like this comes up, for instance the Kennedy campaign, prop 14 here, Michigan’s lack of ballot access, etc., we can have nationwide efforts at calling people, instead of just statewide. You see, when a crisis or opportunity for the party pops up, it is not all of the time, so libs in any one state will be very active for short stints, and then become inactive again because there is no volunteer effort that needs their participation. If we, on the other hand, help each state as a national whole when a problem or opportunity comes up, volunteers will stay more active and excited, and we will have more success with all of our efforts nationwide because we have more volunteers as a whole. I don’t see why it should only be Californians who fight prop 14, or Michiganians who are forced to fight for ballot access without outside volunteer help. Any victory for one state is victory for liberty as a whole.
    What do you think?”

    Awesome idea!

    I hope the LNC candidates are reading and pick up on it.

Comments are closed.