One other point to make is that we can mitigate some of the difficulties that present themselves in the Patrick scenario. You’re right that there were certainly leaders in the legislature who were miffed at the perception he was going to use the grassroots to force them in his direction, but that mostly goes away if there’s a critical mass of grassroots-associated democrats elected in the legislature, too. Particularly newer ones, who still ‘owe’ the grassroots something.

I don’t think it needs to be a majority, just enough to cause enough of a headache that the path of least resistance becomes the progressive course of action.

The netroots hasn’t really figured out how to respond to victory in a way that builds on our momentum, but it’s something leaders in the movement are clearly thinking about.

My suspicion is it’s always going to be difficult to effectively transition after winning a big first term victory, because there’s simultaneous exhaustion and elation that are universal to the base in those situations, and neither are particularly helpful toward keeping up the pressure and momentum.

I wrote more of my thoughts on the issue here, in large part responding to Van Jones’s points, which he made at his keynote.

What you probably want is for the President/Governor to be able to play “good cop” while the grassroots movement plays “bad cop”. In other words, the President/Governor can coax and charm legislators into accepting deals while we on the outside pressure them into accepting deals. At the beginning of Patrick’s term, though, that really didn’t work because legislators felt that Patrick was exercising negative pressure on legislators through his grassroots organization. It made it difficult and awkward to work with legislators.

We would be much stronger, then, if we had some means of having a voice independent of the Presidents and Governors we helped elect. Imagine if Dean, say, continued to represent our wing of the party from 2004 to the present.

I happen to be in the middle of Rebuild The Dream by Van Jones. Perhaps when I finish, I’ll write a post about my impressions. However, one thing he brings up early in the book is pertinent to Ryan’s post.

While some of us have been quick to blame Obama and and the Dems (when they had both houses) for what happened after the 2008 election, Jones spends time examining what happened to us, the folks who were fired up and ready to go during the campaign, who were essentially a part of the problem due to our non-action afterward.

As has been noted by many people many times, elected officials tend not to lead but are instead forced into action (think LBJ and the civil rights movement). To take one example, if there had been massive demonstrations in favor of single payer, or at least a public option, might the health care result have been different?

I am just now getting into the “solutions” part of the book, so if someone else wants to comment on what Jones has to say, please do. But I do think that one of the next steps, if Massachusetts Dems are going to continue their innovative role, is figuring out just how we (the grass/netroots) can strongly influence the people that we work so hard to elect one they are elected.

“on the tightrope of being judged as too strong (ie shrill) or too nice (ie weak).”

(Personal note: There was a lot of agreement in the crowd that this was a distinctly Massachusetts problem… but I’m not sure I’d completely agree. Only around 16% of the US Congress is comprised of women, meaning we pretty much have a universally terrible record across the entire country.

We would do well to elect Elizabeth Warren and start to change that. Hopefully, we can help lead the way to electing more women like Elizabeth Warren across the country.)

“All about Massachusetts”

David: Is there something to this idea that Massachusetts is a bellweather for the next cycle?

We have to be learning from each cycle. 05-06 campaign; how did that happen, how did it serve as a dry run for the president’s campaign.

Rubin: not sure Patrick’s 06 strategy was going to work, but didn’t have any choices back then. The campaign was small.

Running against the attorney general, with lots of money, Patrick had “zero.”

It was a different model than Rubin’s past. Instead of trying to get into the media, they went going after meetings with voters and activists, all over the state. Gave credit to John Walsh – “deserves most, if not all, the credit on this.”

David Axelrod and David Plouff were there in ’06. “they saw the power of this kind of a model.”

Vennochi: he was right to stay away from the typical stories and go grassroots. She zinged herself that she ‘was as guilty as anyone else’ for focusing on horserace stuff, suggesting Patrick had a tough road ahead.

“A couple things connected with Deval Patrick.” The theme that we were all invested in the community together… the idea of mutual investment in the community, really connected with people.”

“running against the big dig culture… that connected as well.” (attributing BMG’s Charley for coining the term).

“he was very accessible with the press.” Says Warren should be, too.

Patrick “used blue mass group” well. Vennochi (and other members of the media) went there to look for those talking points and wrote about them herself.

She started with Mitt Romney –noting Massachusetts was the very first and only race that he has ever won and run. “Yes, we are a bell weather.”

“Deval Patrick was the anti-Romney.”

David: people outside of the state look at us and think everyone’s from Cambridge, but that’s not the case.

Vennochi: independents rule in Mass. We’re a little more socially liberal. For whatever reason, Republicans haven’t been able to connect and get to beacon hill.

If Elizabeth warren wins, it’s going to be because she’s not afraid to stand up for something. If Barack Obama loses, it’s because he is.

David: if liz wins, what’s the national lesson for democrats?

Rubin: people in the middle, left or right, want to see that you’re standing for something, and will give you credit, even if they don’t agree with you. Going to ‘the middle’ isn’t what he thinks is the right course of action.

Vennochi: Patrick and Warren similar in that they were outsiders, not well known in Massachusetts. The trouble with that, she says, is… that they’re new and outsiders (ie double-edged sword). Both Patrick and Warren faced some tough times early on. Patrick addressed them, Warren’s story ‘is still sort of forming.’

Rubin: one difference was that Patrick’s campaign was unknown for 9 months… so he got time to build the grassroots, getting bigger and bigger audiences, “basically unappeaded (by the media).”

“The exact opposite happened with Elizabeth Warren.” “Huge fan fare, national attention… everything we did was closely monitored.”

Vennochi: the plus side of that instant success is her ability to raise money.

(personal note: that’s a good point… if Patrick had a primary opponent with $10 million in the bank and the ability to raise gazillions more from Wall St., would his grassroots efforts been as effective?)

Vennochi: (on heritage-gate) the convention feels like a pivot point. “there’d have to be some new information” to turn it into a big story again.

She asks Doug if he saw it coming, why she didn’t answer the key questions earlier.

Other notes (this is basically where I had to turn off my laptop, so these are based on memory… feel free to chime in with corrections or other things I missed if you were there, or comment on what you think about the issues):

Ads: Universal agreement that the negative ads from outside groups running for Coakley in the special hurt Martha Coakley… and completely prevented her from being able to develop a narrative or a script, because outside organizations (even those trying to help her) would push her off it.

The “deal”: keeping outside PAC money came up numerous times. Vennochi thought it was a sly move by Warren, Rubin countered that most in the media thought Warren got played. Both campaigns looked at it as beneficial for themselves, after being hit by Karl Rove’s group (Warren) and the environmental groups (Brown).

No one really knows how it’ll work going down the stretch, but it’s worked so far… and another example of how Massachusetts could be a model for other states going forward, in a post-Citizens United world.

Gender issues: Lots of good questions about gender and how we’re really not moving forward on that issue. David recognized that we have a bad track record in Massachusetts of electing women. Joan Vennochi repeatedly brought up great examples of double standards — being judged on appearance, on just how women fit on the tightrope of