I won’t say the meeting on the 6th was a revolutionary success, but a success it most definitely was. About 30 people – a combination of self-identifying Democrats as well as “Democratic stakeholders” (those who may not consider themselves Dems, but feel a stake in having a functional, effective Democratic Party in the state) gathered in Montpelier to consider 3 things: reforming or improving the functioning of the Party’s election machine, how to avoid the candidate vacuum (or the “exciting” candidate vacuum) at  the top of the ticket from this past cycle, and – the big one – how to approach the damage done by the divide amongst the left in the state.

There was a good range of faces who made it. Folks from within the Democratic Party, such as County Chairs and the State Vice Chair, elected officials, campaign professionals, and many people outside of such insider circles, from labor ambassador Ralph Montefusco to environmentalist Bill McKibben.

And of course, names from the burgeoning Vermont netroots were throughout – including some completely new to this sort of political dynamic.

The number was ideal. Any bigger and such a roundtable wouldn’t have been manageable, any fewer and it might not have been meaningful. The challenge was to make the whole process more than simply a gripe session, and more than the perennial conversations that are so similar, but which lead nowhere.

By the end, most felt that the ball had been moved just a bit – which is enough to follow up with more concrete action. After the flip, I’ll review the directions the group intends to pursue, and some of the goals that are now in play.

There were plenty of moments of disagreement – and even a moment where it got slightly heated – but overall, there were far more moments of agreement, and a few key points emerged. The conversations about the Party and its “Coordinated Campaign” were grounded in the reality that the Democratic Party proper has certain hardwired limitations, limiting how much the left in this state can reasonably expect to depend on it, but that this cycle there was serious room for improvement.

Along those lines, there was a consensus that we need to take affirmative steps to change the environment for potential candidates for office (Governor and Lt. Governor especially, but not exclusively). We need to create an environment where candidates can feel welcome and supported to enter, while being able at times to apply pressure as well.

Perhaps the most nuanced conversation was a discussion of the role of primaries. It was a bit of a surprise to me to find a universal sense that primaries could be a good thing that enhances the democratic process as well as the winning candidate’s odds in the general election. The group did have a sense that there was a bit of a curve in play – that too large or scattered a primary could crate problems.

But there was also the consensus that the primary date is simply too late in the election calendar to make it a clean or easy dynamic.

As the Prog v. Dem thing goes, there were mixed views as to whether some sort of partisan fusion was practical or even possible, but there was a general agreement that such a merger was not likely to happen this cycle regardless. There was a desire, then, to push for processes and procedures that structurally minimize the opportunity for such conflicts, as well as to create or encourage some sort of individual entity or network that could have enough muscle to play heavy if candidates work around these rules or needlessly pick fights. Exactly what constitutes such transgressions is not entirely clear yet, as there was a division between those who felt that district or office-level “non aggression pacts” were valid or not.

None of this was to discourage the idea of communicating, or negotiating detentes between Dems and Progs, but placing it in a realistic context. There remains the hope that pushing for election reforms in the Legislature could provide such opportunities, as Progressives and Democrats would be needed to overturn expected gubernatorial vetoes.

All told, the group decided to move forward quickly in the following areas:

1. Enhance Coordinated Campaign transparency – particularly during key organizational periods to prevent problems at the peak of election season. Among the activist Democrat crowd, there was an acknowledgment that, while many of the frustrations around the Democratic Coordinated Campaign are endemic, this was an especially frustrating year, and it wasn’t always easy to tell how much of that frustration was preventable. The frustrations extended into relationships with constituency groups, such as labor as well. The group committed to focusing on engaging with the Coordinated Campaign as it comes together and use the tools available to us to maximize transparency, enhance lines of communication, and to bring new faces into the process starting immediately.

2. Election reform legislation. Of the options discussed, the group decided to make an organized, affirmative push for a package of changes to Vermont elections. That package includes:

• Instant Runoff Voting
• Moving back the Primary Date to June or July
• A “Sore Loser Law,” preventing candidates who lose a primary election from coming back later in the year to run in the general election.

These changes will encourage healthy primaries, and minimize potential spoiler effects.

3. Create an entity or network of entities that act as enforcement. If the legislative package passes, it will be vetoed, and that veto will need to be overridden – and that means some “wrath of god” stuff which can be brought to bear against wavering override votes. If, as we build relationships and create discussions, agreements and understandings manifest – perhaps political  “non-aggression treaties – that big stick will need to be at the ready. We will be looking at formalizing that capacity, either through the creation of a non-partisan entity, or an expanded, multipartisan and diverse new media structure that can work in concert on this agenda.

Such an entity could also serve the function of either explicitly collecting financial support for whoever is the final candidate for governor, or identifying financial supporters, being yet another way to make a more inviting electoral environment for potential candidates, as the previous two action items will hopefully do as well.

In addition, there was a lack of consensus on the broad question of issues. Many feel that we should move the Democratic Party and the state firmly into progressive (li’l p) territory. Others felt that we needed to make a special effort to identify the Obama/Leahy/Sanders/Douglas voters and bring them over, likely leading us towards the center. While “populism” was an (ahem) popular term, it was not entirely clear if everyone attached the same meaning to it.

For my part (and I’m not sure if many folks agreed with me), I felt comfortable that the organic process of issue development that has been maturing gradually in sites like this has been working for us, and perhaps we don’t need to try and get ahead of it.

Without a clear sense of what a Vermont netroots platform might look like, there was a desire to look at the demographics of the mixed-vote set and return to the discussion. There was broad consensus that its important to know where the voters are on their own terms which should further inform our collective approach.

So the ball was moved, if only a bit, but the good news is that the follow up has already begun on the Legislative front, and the other areas will follow soon. TO all those who participated – thank you so very much, and I will put together a listserv over the next couple days so we can keep in touch. That will also further enable the “next steps” conversation to happen – in particular, whether we should be looking first towards another group meeting, or whether its time to divide up into groups of interests, get cracking, and keep each other apprised of progress.

For those of you who could not make it but would like to be involved (assuming these approaches sound agreeable to you), please email me at jodum atpoetworld-dot-net. Obviously I – and all of us – are doing this in our spare time, as there are jobs, families and holidays in the picture, but this is happening and you will hear from us if you want to get involved.

Thanks for everyone’s interest on this, and I enthusiastically open the floor for additions, subtractions, suggestions, comments, or corrections of any inaccurate representations of the meeting content, glaring omissions or other screw-ups.