[Pnp-wg] Lies and statistics
Greg Gerritt
gerritt@mindspring.com
Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:16:32 -0500
Steve, I was reporting that day on the national volunteer signups at the
gpus website, why you thought I was reorting that day on the RI website
signups is beyond me. And every delegate should have detailed information
on where those signups go and how they are handled by their state party.
greg
> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:06:56 -0500
> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Lies and statistics
>
> Do you ever give a direct answer to a direct question, or do you save this
> just for me?
>
> You announced here and on the CC list that your party volunteer interest
> went up significantly as a result of the Cobb campaign. Not only does that
> turn out not to be true, but now you tell me that many of your requests came
> from New York.
>
> If you forwarded names and contact info for volunteers or new people
> interested in joining the Green Party in New York, they were contacted.
> We're competent. We have 42,000 members and now 8 elected officials.
>
> If you have not sent us the information, please send it promptly and we will
> handle it promptly.
>
> I have no idea how any of this is the business of this group. You still have
> the option of answering my question.
>
> Steve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Lies and statistics
>
>
>> Steve alot of those poeole were from NY. How did NY process them? greg
>>
>>> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
>>> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:04:19 -0500
>>> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>>> Subject: [Pnp-wg] Lies and statistics
>>>
>>> Speaking of damnable lies, you have frequently referred to the big
> increase
>>> in Rhode Island offers of volunteerism for the Green Party having
> resulted
>>> from the Cobb campaign's effectiveness in your state. I just located
> this on
>>> my archive of CC posts:
>>>
>>> "Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 07:14:36 -0500
>>>
>>> I do not quite know what it means, but overnight more people have signed
> up
>>> to volunteer on the website than any previous day that I can think of in
> the
>>> last 18 months. greg gerritt"
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, this means you didn't see any meaningful activity
>>> before or during the Cobb campaign, and during the immediate shock of
>>> anti-war people facing up to Kerry's loss a whole bunch of people were
>>> suddenly interested in the Green Party. No follow-up on whether any of
> these
>>> folks are making long-term commitments to being in the Green Party, and
>>> certainly no implication whatsoever that the Cobb campaign helped the
> Rhode
>>> Island party grow. These are your words at the time, Greg.
>>>
>>> Steve Greenfield
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
>>> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:28 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] The truth about Green Party decline
> (wasNoEndorsement)
>>>
>>>
>>>> As Mark Twain said there are lies, damn lies and statistics. If the
>>>> perceptions of Greens are that their local groups are okay, then they
> are.
>>>> So lets hear from a larger sample. That I choose to accentuate the
>>> postiive
>>>> is just that I am an optimist, my sunny disposition lets me see the
> rays
>>> of
>>>> sunshine, and I go with it because that helps us grow. greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:33:54 -0500
>>>>> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] The truth about Green Party decline (was
>>> NoEndorsement)
>>>>>
>>>>> So then I was right. You're basing your beliefs on partisan anecdotes
>>> and
>>>>> have no concrete evidence you can demonstrate. My request for you to
>>> back up
>>>>> your claims is met by your plea for further partisan anecdotes.
>>> Anecdotes
>>>>> which will do nothing to advance the work of the Nominating Process
>>> Working
>>>>> Group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it that you persist in this in the face of such a staggering
>>> amount
>>>>> of measurable data?
>>>>>
>>>>> But since you prefer anecdotes to facts, here's an anecdote from
>>> Washington
>>>>> State to get you started:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Since the Cobb (and I'm not trying to get on that subject) selection,
> I
>>>>> know I've seen my local membership drop like a rock. I know of one
> area
>>>>> that claims an increase, but only one. Everyone else says they are
>>> losing
>>>>> ground fast. I suspect we have only a few hundred members in the
> state,
>>>>> total."
>>>>>
>>>>> Get real, Greg. We have work to do. If you don't want to do any of it
>>>>> yourself, please leave the rest of us alone so we may be productive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
>>>>> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:03 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] The truth about Green Party decline (was
>>>>> NoEndorsement)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> How many people on this committee believe their local Green aparty
> came
>>>>> out
>>>>>> okay in 2004? How many peole thnk their local lost strength? Lets
>>> hear
>>>>>> from y'all. greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:53:37 -0500
>>>>>>> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: [Pnp-wg] The truth about Green Party decline (was No
>>>>> Endorsement)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greg, it doesn't matter how often you say it, it will still be
> false.
>>>>> Not
>>>>>>> only is your summary false, but every individual component that
> would
>>>>>>> contribute to it is false as well. The party contracted, and our
> local
>>>>>>> candidates fared poorly. If you don't acknowledge that a problem
>>> exists,
>>>>> you
>>>>>>> will never take steps to correct it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I'm not sure quoting Jerry Garcia is useful. That cat died young
>>>>> after
>>>>>>> staggering through most of his life seriously wounded. This could
>>> become
>>>>> our
>>>>>>> story, too. I think we could find a better source of inspiration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you measure enrollment, which I know you don't like to do but it
> is
>>>>> at
>>>>>>> least a constant as far as being a source for comparative
> statistics,
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> latest numbers are in and we declined by 5,000 enrollees, or 1.7%
>>> since
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> pre-election totals, 7.5% since the spring 2004 totals. And these
>>>>>>> computations assume no change in Arizona and Delaware, where the
> state
>>>>> no
>>>>>>> longer counts Greens and they probably declined. In addition, if my
>>>>> state,
>>>>>>> where Cobb was not on the ballot, had stayed flat in 2004 instead of
>>>>> growing
>>>>>>> by 6,000 members, the Green Party's national totals would be in far
>>>>> worse
>>>>>>> shape. And Green enrollment as compared to the total registered
> voters
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> America dropped steeply, the first time it did not rise steeply in
> our
>>>>>>> party's history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are the numbers for Green enrollment by year leading up to
> 2004,
>>>>> plus
>>>>>>> current numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> October 1998: 118,537
>>>>>>> October 2000: 195,866 (+ 65%)
>>>>>>> August 2001: 215,109 (+ 10%)
>>>>>>> August 2002: 246, 742 (+ 14%)
>>>>>>> August 2003: 281,356 (+14%)
>>>>>>> January 2004: 313,586 (+ 11%)
>>>>>>> Nov. 2004: 295,128 (- 6%)
>>>>>>> Current total: 290,118 (- 1.7%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Known Green enrollment as a percentage of total registered voters
> over
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same period is a follows:
>>>>>>> 1998: 0.08%
>>>>>>> 2000: 0.13% (+ 62%)
>>>>>>> 2002: 0.16% (+23%)
>>>>>>> 2003: 0.21% (+31%)
>>>>>>> Now: 0.16% (-25%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that in all years since the raising of the "spoiler" issue in
>>> Nov.
>>>>> 2000
>>>>>>> that the Green Party continued to grow strongly both in total
>>>>> registration
>>>>>>> and as a percentage of registered voters. Following the Cobb
>>> nomination,
>>>>>>> both measurements fell off a cliff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you measure by votes, which this committee seems inclined to do,
>>> the
>>>>>>> picture is far worse. Our total fell from 3 million to 120,000, or
> 4%
>>> of
>>>>> our
>>>>>>> 2000 strength. I know you will offer a thousand and two reasons for
>>>>> this,
>>>>>>> but the Libertarians grew by 3.3% in 2004 from 2000, and the
>>>>>>> Constitutionalists grew by a dramatic 46% even though their religiou
> s
>>>>> views
>>>>>>> closely parallel Bush's and most Christian leaders were backing
> Bush.
>>>>> Both
>>>>>>> of these parties held views and drew voters that could have
> "spoiled"
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> Kerry, but both grew in 2004 from 2000. By contrast, Green votes
> fell
>>> by
>>>>>>> 96%. Apparently, the parties that chose *not* to duck did very well,
>>> and
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> party that chose to duck has nearly collapsed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what about local candidacies? They did pretty badly, too. You
>>> can't
>>>>>>> measure by looking at the 2004 year as a whole. Greens in the local
>>>>> races
>>>>>>> that took place in the spring of 2004, before Cobb was nominated,
> did
>>>>> much
>>>>>>> better than those in fall races. In the incumbency re-election rate,
>>>>> spring
>>>>>>> elections for Greens did exactly as well percentage-wise as the
> major
>>>>>>> parties, but in fall elections it fell by 20%. Without the pre-Cobb
>>>>>>> victories, 2004 would have been a very crappy year for local Green
>>>>>>> elections.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And how are we set locally for the immediate future? Pretty poorly
> as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>>> The loss of ballot status in 2/3 of the states where we used to have
>>> it
>>>>>>> means that Green candidates are going to have a much more difficult
>>> time
>>>>>>> even getting on the ballot, let alone performing well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are facts. If you feel you had a rewarding experience
> personally
>>>>> or in
>>>>>>> the state of Rhode Island, than say so and god bless you. Just about
>>>>>>> everyone else, and the party as a whole, had a very bad experience.
>>> The
>>>>> word
>>>>>>> "disaster" comes to mind. If you think you can back up your claims
> of
>>>>> party
>>>>>>> growth, show me the beef. Otherwise, please stop engaging in
>>> propaganda.
>>>>>>> This committee has important work to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve Greenfield
>>>>>>> New York
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
>>>>>>> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:20 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] no endorsment option
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue of strategy is an important one. Staying alive is
> critical
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> Jerry Garcia said, "Aint no luck, Iearned to duck". Knowing when
> to
>>>>>>>> confront and when to sidestep is an important lesson for a
> guerrilla
>>>>> army.
>>>>>>>> 2004 was a good year to sidestep, and it helped the Green Party
> grow.
>>>>>>> Local
>>>>>>>> candidates did very well, and I see no evidence that a different
>>>>>>>> presidential strategy would have helped local candidates more. As
> a
>>>>>>>> grassroots organization, one concerned more with local candidates
>>> than
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> presidency, the presidential candidate is obligated to find a
>>> strategy
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> helps local candidates the most. greg gerritt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pnp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pnp-wg mailing list
>>>>>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>>>>>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pnp-wg mailing list
>>>>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>>>>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pnp-wg mailing list
>>>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>>>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pnp-wg mailing list
>>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pnp-wg mailing list
>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg