I don’t know, and don’t much care, who will win the special election in New York’s Twenty-Third District, but the dynamics of the race are interesting. New York is unusual because they allow candidates to run on multiple party slates and add up all their numbers collectively. So, a candidate on the left might appear on the ballot simultaneously as a Democrat and a member of the Working Families Party. The votes they get on both lines get added together to reach their total. On the right, a candidate might appear as both a Republican and as a member of the Conservative Party. That is not the case in this special election, however. The Conservative Party has their own candidate, and he is now polling ahead of the Republican.
This is not a good model for advancing either liberal or conservative issues. This race wouldn’t be close if there was only one candidate on the right. Because there are two, the Democrat is polling one point ahead. The same phenomenon works in reverse when a third-party candidate gets traction on the left of the Democrat in a race. The most likely outcome is that a Republican wins the election. That doesn’t result in more liberal policies in Washington DC.
But, I do think there is room to work within the Democratic Party to move things to the left. Essentially, you’d set up some organization and give it a name. I like Progressive-Democrat, but you could choose something else. Candidates who are running for office in Democratic primaries would seek the endorsement of the organization. In states that allow it, they could run on the Progressive-Democrat slate along with the Democrat’s slate. If a state allows them to appear on the ballot as a Progressive-Democrat (only), they could opt for that.
The idea would not be to field third-party candidates that divide the left and make things easy for the Republicans. Rather, the idea would be to get people to compete for the endorsement of progressives and embrace the name. I’d like to see a primary in Arkansas where Blanche Lincoln appears on the ballot as the Democrat and her challenger appears as a Progressive-Democrat. And, as we elect Progressive Democrats to Congress, they would form a caucus all their own. It would no longer be the case that Democrats fear joining the Progressive Caucus because it is seen as urban, coastal, and minority-dominated.
I don’t know who would fund such an organization on a national level, but someone ought to start thinking about it. Rather than keep banging our heads against a wall about the conservadems, we ought to come up with some plan of action that isn’t helpless or counterproductive.
Maybe the question that needs to be settled first is, Is there an end run around the current atrocious electoral setup, or would we do better to concentrate on rebooting that? To put it another way, is there any pragmatic hope for change in a system that puts fundraising at the center of political activity and that is set up explicitly to maintain a duopoly? Is it more useful to try and work within a crappy system or to concentrate on trying to replace it?
That aside, I don’t really understand what’s being suggested here. Does putting a “Progressive Democrat” label on a primary candidate against, say, Lincoln really make any difference? If that candidate won, what would happen in the general? Seems like the regular Dems wouldn’t be obligated to nominate somebody that ran in another party. Would voters in closed primary states have to register as “Progressive Democrats” and get that party’s ballot? Am I incorrect in thinking NY is a rare exception in allowing the multiple-party primary ballot? Does any non-regular candidate running against a regular Dem ever win?
Maybe the seed for what you’re suggesting has been planted by the healthcare bill ads that were (are?) being run in DINO districts. If the various organizations behind them could form a single electoral organization to put up candidates in primaries and raise funds and run independent ads, it seems like we’d be at least one step ahead of where we are now. As usual with the so-called American Left, the task is more to find a way to speak with a single voice.
You run for the Democratic Party’s nomination, meaning you have to meet all the requirements for that. But you run with the endorsement of the organization. If local election law permits you to have that endorsement indicated on the ballot, then you do that. In New York, you run on both tickets.
Susie said so in September.
I think the whole fight is hilarious and can’t wait to see what happens. I think the GOP establishment candidate will win in the end.
Would this be anything different than how Working Families works in NY and elsewhere?
Yes, because it wouldn’t be a separate party line. It would be the Democratic line. You’d be running to be the Democratic Party’s nominee.
OK, how is this different than running in the Dem primary with the endorsement of the AFL-CIO or the Sierra Club or Mayor Daley? (Assuming we’re not just talking about NY, MN and a few other states).
You are basically creating a brand within the DemParty umbrella. You use the brand to the maximum extent allowed. So, if you can get it printed on the ballot, you do that, even though you’re still running in the Democratic primary. And then you naturally caucus together when you get to DC.
The reason the progressive caucus in the House is so impotent is that it is geographically urban and/or coastal and all their seats are safe. We need a progressive caucus that brings in people from all parts of the country, including rural. We have to break this idea that the only way to win in most of the country is to take a Blue Dog approach.
Basically the DLC, only left?
Kind of, but stronger.
The DLC basically has a caucus if you consider the New Democrats an outgrowth. But there are a lot of perfectly liberal members of the New Democrats Caucus. I think it just became the caucus to join during the Clinton years, and it’s seen as fairly middle of the road, as opposed to the Blue Dogs. And people don’t run as the ‘New Democrat’ candidate.
What I want is to really go for the branding of it and make it as much of a party within a party as possible. So, I want people asking, ‘who’s the progressive-Democrat in that race?’ And, as much as possible, I want that information to be easy to find, like on the ballot.
Which is why so many party bigwigs, including not just Palin, but experienced hands like Armey and Pawlenty are supporting it. They are risking a single House seat that they can easily get back in two years. Win or lose, they will intimidate their party out of nominating centrists. If we could sacrifice one House seat to get the party to stop putting up Blue Dogs, at least in districts where it is not necessary (and it is not necessary for the Repubs to run a centrist in NY-23) we would and should.
What the conservatives have realized is that people have no idea what their Congressperson’s positions are anyway. Not even most voters – Senator, Governor, President, maybe, not Congressperson. They assume the person has the position typical of the party. Therefore, there is no point is nominating a pro-choice Republican to the House, and there is actually little gain in moving to the center. We would do well to apply this principle to our own bluedoggery.
Let me add: this must be how Grayson won in an R+2 district. People had no idea, and he rode a Democratic wave (and had his own money). Because he has a big mouth, people will know now, so his reelection campaign will be interesting to watch.
Very interesting post. Thanks, Booman.
I would think that recruitment is as much an issue as endorsement. Would DFA be set up to take something like this on? Would Dean be interested?
You are right. We have to recruit better candidates. And blog owners and readers have to start running for office. Even dog catcher.