A number of our candidates just barely missed the brass ring this time. People are saying to them, "hang in there, try again in 2008!" And sure, that would be great. We had so many folks this time who fought a great fight but didn't quite make it. And so many of them had so little financial support. They did what they did on grit and pluck, and just plain being right.
But what happens to them now? Seems to me that if we want good folks to be willing to stick their neck out for us, we need to have their back. Not just for the election season, either. If we want them to spend the next two years building on their almost-win, how can that be made possible for them?
Many of our candidates who lost by just a couple hundred or couple thousand votes are in a great position for next time. So my idea is, let's support them, not just for the last few months of the cycle, but for the entire next two years.
Pie in the sky? I think we can do this. More on my harebrained scheme below...
I'm not saying we raise millions for each of them. Here, I'm talking about a basic living subsidy, something to help those who need it to hold body and soul together. True, some of Our Folks don't need this level of support, they have other sources of income. But, some of them might. Wouldn't it be great to send them a message that if you give it your best shot we'll still be there for you? And wouldn't that also be a great message for candidates we want to recruit for future cycles? Hang in there, stick with it, if you'll be there for us we'll be there for you.
Money isn't just the mother's milk of politics, it's what pays the mortgage and puts food on the table. We say we want candidates who are regular folks, and can represent regular folks. And I agree that having more people like that in Congress (especially the House) couldn't help but help. But let's say a candidate needs $50,000 a year to cover their family's basic living expenses, and still stay available to build up the base. That's $100,000 for a two-year cycle. Where does that come from?
Sure, maybe wealthy interests could provide this sort of long-cycle subsidy. But "ya gotta dance with the one that brung ya." Who do we want our candidates beholden to? For months we called them "our netroots candidates." What if that wasn't just talk?
Let's call it $100,000 per deserving netroots candidate, per campaign cycle. Sounds like a lot of money, but it's not really. There are over 100,000 people reading Daily Kos every day. There are over 100,000 Kos members. And both of those numbers are rising steadily.
It seems to me that if each of those 100,000 gave one (one!) dollar for their favorite netroots candidate(s), we're there. This could be set up quickly, to build on the momentum of two weeks ago. We could have it in place by spring. Spring is a great time to plant the seeds that will feed us down the road.
They were there for us, we can be there for them. It's the right thing to do for them, for building a base, and for attracting quality candidates in the future. That's what I think, anyway. What do you think?
I'm sure I am missing something, probably a lot of somethings. Happy to hear whatever people might want to say about this.
Also, this is my first diary, so if I missed anything in the FAQ I want to apologize in advance for anything I did wrong. Let me know, and I'll try to do better next time.
Thanks for listening.