Good Morning, Mole333!

I've arrived at a somewhat different analysis and outcome than you have, as follows:

I don't think the 2005 election was indicative of a rightward or pro-R trend; for example, we over at NDM looked at three city council races in traditional R strongholds, and all of our candidates won by larger margins than four years ago, even though one of them, Jessica lappin, was a newcomer. If we had lost those races, I would have been concerned as well, but we won them handily against attractive and well-funded opponents. I am absolutely not a friend of happy talk, but the totality of Tuesday's outcome does not, to me, indicate a rightward drift.

I tend to agree with you that nominee-bashing is not the best answer to the mayoral outcome, but at the same time, it seems fair to say that Ferrer came into the race with significant baggage that he was not able to shake; the Diallo controversy hurt, as did the resentment among former Green backers over 2001. Ferrer was never ale to shake the impression that he was essentially a legacy hack; whether that's fair or not is beside the point. He was seen as an exponent of the party machine that New Yorkers rejected a long time ago at the mayoral level. Witness the surge in support for Weiner.

I think what the party needs to realize is that the prime motivator for voters at the mayoral level - above and below which there is no erosion of party loyalty, witness Mattera's spectacular flame-out - is the perception of managerial competence. That seems to be the trump card, and it's by no means new. LaGuardia was a republican as well, for example. He was also the one who coined the phrase that 'there is no republican or democratic way to pick up the trash'.

Regarding money, it's worthwhile to note that $300,000,000 was raised by the Democrats in the city last year, while this year, Ferrer managed to raise only $6,000,000, with matching funds. I'd argue that that is still part of the Kerry hangover, because all the Dems are having fundraising issues right now. I think we'll see that improve rapidly as we go into 2006, but for 2005, it was an obvious factor. The same applies to public interest in this race; I've been involved in it since May, and honestly, it was like pulling teeth to get people excited, no matter which campaign it was, which candidate, which office.

As far as the party machine is concerned, the writing is on the wall: you've lost four times in a row. Just showing up is not enough to win anymore. The party machine is calcified, unresponsive, un-democratic - small d - and more focused internally than with reaching out to the city at large. You don't get exciting or visionary candidates from a structure and process that produces a Clarence Norman or Vito Lopez. It's not a surprise that the candidates who really excited people - Siegel, James, Weiner, even Mattera - came from outside the city party structure.

What that is, simply put, is more writing on the wall, and it reads loud and clear for the city party machine: Reform, or perish.

How do you propose that the Democrats deal with so-called wedge issues? It seems to me that those issues that are dubbed wedge issues tend to be those issues that affect the populations who are most vulnerable to governmentally legislated and societally supported discrimination - like queer people.

I always worry that the solution will be to push these "wedge issues" to the backburner, to distance the Democratic party from these issues as much as possible, thus asking already oppressed people to sacrifice even more for some "greater good" that doesn't really include them.

I would hope that NYC Dems, and Dems in general, would seek to combat homophobia and other attitudes that make these issues so controversial and divisive, rather than caving and pushing aside those folks who are deemed too controversial to have their serious, very real needs attended to.

That's a thoughtful question, and I'm not sure that it has only one answer. Full disclosure: I'm gay too, so I have some idea of what you're talking about.

I think what we need to look at first are the areas where there is a broad consensus in society, such as on the need for universal healthcare, better schools, the broad bread and butter issues that win elections. Winning is the crucial requirement, because it paves the way for everything else. In that sense, yes, issues that don't appeal to broad majorities are pushed to the back burner; but as long as they're still on the stove, so to speak, there is room for progress. Meanwhile, with a majority, we can enact things that improve everyone's quality of life. The LGBT community has as big a stake in healthcare as everyone else, for example.

Specifically with regard to LGBT issues, what I tell my friends is usually this: the LGBT movement is very young. Don't expect every wish we may have to be granted tomorrow, because if we've learned one thing from history, it's that social change, for which political change is only a vehicle, takes time - decades or even centuries. I doubt that we'll be waiting that long for full equality, but the fact remains that there is a time factor involved. We've come a long way from Archie Bunker, but it'll be a moment before trans issues, for example, are widely supported. That doesn't mean that people are bad or ignorant; it means that perhaps they haven't thought about the issues, have no opinion, or maybe need some persuasion. Give it time and be prepared to work hard; getting on the front burner requires societal awareness and then consensus.

One thing I'd note specifically with regard to the queer movement is that it has sometimes been less than effective at casting its issues in broader terms and making allies; that's one reason why the Rs are so good at using queer issues as wedges. Nationally, we may be in for a re-run of that in 2006; after all, it worked in 2004.

For you specifically, I'd say that if you want the party to listen to and even act on your issues, go to them first. Waiting to get involved until the Dems are perfect on every single one of your issues is not going to work, alas, if I know anything about them at all.