Bell, what elected officials are supporting your effort?

Jim Matheson?

Peter Corroon?

Ralph Becker?

Jay Seegmiller?

Is my Representative, Phil Riesen, supporting you?

What about Jenny Wilson?

Who is Misty anyway?

In my opinion – we do as much as we currently can, locked in the habits of campaigning as it was 20 years ago. Those are solid foundations and we should keep at working in the best practices of tradition.

I propose that modern technology, and I’m talking about much, much more than just the internet, make it easier to communicate at and above the level of – for example – the Republicans in the Utah Senate.

It’s not that Wayne’s bad, he’s a great guy, he’s been a great chair and he’s done a lot of good. I just don’t think that he’s up to speed on the changes in political messaging. He’s afraid of television, radio, the internet, social networks, anon, anon.

Since I let the party know I was running, the Party’s online activity had increased nearly 500%. There. I already did a good thing, just by filing to run.

Bringing up legislation as a response to what the other side is doing isn’t winning a battle of ideas. Nor were republicans forced to spend time on our issues, they were quickly shot down so that republicans could get back to what they deemed to be the important issues.

There is a disconnect between the state party and the voters of the state. If all the polling shows the vast majority of people care most about our issues, then why aren’t democrats winning enough seats to actually pass some legislation? Why aren’t they winning enough seats to stop a veto override? It took a public vote to stop school vouchers, because the democratic party didn’t have the votes to stop the republican run legislature from doing whatever they wanted with or without the governor’s consent.

So we have no legislative power, and little if any election wins, and yet you claim the public is on our side. That smells of poor management to me. But I disagree that the public is on our side, they are on an issue by issue basis. When you put names on a ballot with party affiliation, they are no longer on our side. That is where the battle of ideas has been lost, and that is why we are still talking about everything in terms coined by republicans. By fighting on their terms we have conceded, and until we define what this party stands for, not in response to what the other side stands for, but what our ideals are, we will continue to see people supporting our issues, and voting for republicans.

Moral victories aren’t enough in politics, a look back at this last legislative session is enough to see that. It’s time to get the people who would support us if they knew what we stood for on our side, through identity, messaging, and strategy that can only come from the office of the chair of the party. We need candidates running that are informed, supported, and assisted by the state party so they can engage voters. This isn’t what we have now, and it’s results are seen in every bill that passes through the legislature.

The point is not that the legislation passed. My comment was clearly in reference to the “battle of ideas” that Jeff says Democrats have “conceded.” The point is that Democrats successfully controlled the agenda. We won on vouchers. We pushed ethics reform and equality to the front of the public consciousness. Republicans were forced to spend their time working on our issues, campaigning on our issues, and explaining to the public why they aren’t acting on our issues. All the polling shows that the vast majority of people care most about our issues. That’s no small feat, and it didn’t just happen overnight.

Since Wayne was elected, Democrats gained seats in every election. Is that enough? No. There is still much work to do. But you act like we are worse off, and look rather childish moaning and groaning about how bad it is.

Regardless, if Bell’s supporters are all as tactless and disrespectful as you responded to me, I don’t see how he expects to make much progress.

Why? There aren’t enough Democrats winning elections.

There is a lot of room for improvement, whether a person support Bell or Holland, but rewriting history, and ignoring the reality just makes you sound like a very poorly informed douche bag.

Maybe that’s just me.

Isn’t it improper to use quotations when paraphrasing?

I have to agree. Your so-called paraphrasing is exceptionally dishonest. As a self-proclaimed journalist, you should know that.

I cannot support your bid to take over the state party. Holland has done a fantastic job, and I regret that you don’t have the guts to admit it.

However, I am interested in why you think Democrats have conceded debate over the battle of ideas. It seems to me that Democratic issues have taken center stage in Utah politics, much to the chagrin of the GOP. Education, Ethics Reform, Human Rights and Equality. What more do you want?

A piece of advice: give credit where it’s due before tearing down others.

My reason concern the other things.

Like strategic messaging – a month of targeted television vs. one day of full page ads that, while smart and funny, should have been run months before the election.

Like actually saving candidates money by teaching them to use the internet as more than a 5% appendage to lawn signs and expensive direct mail.

Regardless, you seem comfortable with the status quo – and that’s great for you. I see things differently; I think we could do more – better, smarter and cheaper.

And lastly – I guess you missed the Tribune article I’m paraphrasing in the “don’t win” quote.

The Democratic Party in Utah has made amazing strides recently, and what I’m wondering is how does the party raise the money to do your messaging when everybody knows that you’re no fundraiser.

If the party is hurting it is because of people like you and Misty. People who think grieving is activism.

I’ll be voting for Holland.