Florida Governor Charlie Crist will announce today that he is leaving the Republican Party and will seek a U.S. Senate seat as an independent. Chris Cillizza is correct in making the following observations:
Which side will he caucus with if elected?: Crist is almost certain to deflect this question, which will be asked of him repeatedly if he goes independent. But, his side-stepping won’t stop it from being asked until it’s answered. While a governor can get away with avoiding party labels — the essence of the job is competency and accomplishments not partisanship — a Senator simply cannot. Federal races are, by their very nature, far more partisan affairs and it’s impossible for any candidate to avoid answering the question of which side they will caucus with if they get elected. Crist will undoubtedly cast his decision as a sort of “pox on both your houses” choice but, at the end of the day, there is no independent caucus. (The two elected independents — Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont both caucus with Democrats.) Crist is almost certain to have to choose a side and, in so doing, runs the risk of losing votes — no matter which side he picks.
As I see it, Crist has almost no choice but to say that he will caucus with the Democrats. It’s not that making that declaration will help him win the election exactly, but his divorce from the Republican Party will be made total by the actions of the Republican Party.
Start with the fact that NRSC Chairman John Cornyn is dumping Crist despite having recruited him heavily to get into the race. Then consider that there will be coordinated campaign to defund his campaign by making him return money to his donors. And then there’s this from the Florida Times-Union (emphasis mine):
Most of Crist’s Republican supporters and fundraisers will probably abandon him; volunteer support might also evaporate. Anyone who works for Crist’s Senate campaign and wants to work in future GOP campaigns will have to seriously consider leaving. At a time when fundraising is already slowing down, Crist would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars rebuilding his organization.
While the Democratic Party will be supporting the winner of its primary (predicted right now to be Rep. Kendrick Meek), there will no comparable taboo on operatives who work for Crist ever working with the Democrats again. If Crist has any hope of staffing up, he’s going to have to turn to the centrist wing of Florida’s Democratic Party. He can have some success doing that if he promises to caucus with the Democrats, but not if he promises to caucus with the Republicans.
This is actually a useful development for demonstrating why I am so disdainful of third-party efforts to move the country in a better direction. I have nothing against a more progressive party pushing for more progressive change, but if you actually win election to Congress, you have to choose to caucus with either the Democrats or the Republicans if you want to have a seat on any committees. And if you want to keep those seats and your seniority, you have to show at least some allegiance to that party on procedural and substantive votes. There is no such thing as a true independent in Congress. Crist will have to make his choice, and if he chooses the Republicans he’s going to have trouble finding anyone to work for him and he’ll look like an idiot for promising to caucus with a party that has nothing but virulent and unhinged contempt for him.
If he wants to have any chance, Crist will eventually have to declare his intention to caucus with the Democrats. Unfortunately, this will severely diminish the prospects of a split on the right opening up an opportunity for the Democrat (presumably Rep. Meek) to pull off an upset victory. But it increases the chances that the Republicans will be lose a seat that they thought was safe.
“predicted right now to be Rep. Kendrick Meek”
Meek’s nomination has always been treated as a done deal, despite his poor outlook in a swing state. Do you have info/thoughts suggesting somebody more electable might yet come along?
“but if you actually win election to Congress, you have to choose to caucus with either the Democrats or the Republicans if you want to have a seat on any committees. And if you want to keep those seats and your seniority, you have to show at least some allegiance to that party on procedural and substantive votes. There is no such thing as a true independent in Congress.”
Which of course violates everything the writers of the Constitution envisaged, and has no justification in that document. One more reason that it’s not just teabaggers that want our country back.
even if the founders had been clairvoyant, they didn’t build their ideal system, but the best system obtainable under the circumstances. We just have to live with it.
I don’t think we can live with it. Change or die still applies, far as I’ve heard. The duopoly assures that the system cannot bend, so its only possibility is to break when enough strain accumulates.
I think I’m right in asserting it’s an unintended consequence of the Electoral College. (Other views welcomed.)
Many delegates to what became the Constitutional Convention of 1787 distrusted direct democracy, and so wrote a constitution with many institutional intermediaries between voters and rulers:
appointed federal judges and justices,
*senators elected by their state’s legislature, and *the president and vice-president elected by the Electoral College.
They expected presidential elections with multiple candidates in which no candidate would have a majority of the popular vote. The electors were presumed/expected to be leading men (yes, men, this was a bunch of 18th century men of European ancestry) of the states who would convene to negotiate and choose the “best” candidate. (That’s how John Quincy Adams got elected president.)
Since the key to executive power was winning a majority of electors, electors relatively quickly became loyal members of a faction (i.e., political party) pledged to vote for their party’s candidate.
In turn, this placed a premium for political parties on putting together coalitions that could win a majority of votes in states, and thus a majority of electors—and therefore avoid having to negotiate in the Electoral College. (As opposed to, for example, the Knesset where winning a small percentage of votes assures your party of parliamentary representation—including the possibility of being part of the governing coalition.)
With the notable exception of the 1850s, third parties in the US have played the role of midwifing new issues/agendas that then get co-opted by one of the major parties. In the 1850s, the Whig party collapsed and was replaced (it’s more complicated than that, but that’s another story) by the new Republican party.
Short of amending the constitution, Booman is, I think, correct. We’ve got to deal with this system as it is and try to make it work.
Obama has, imo, quietly but persistently invested a lot of time, energy and political capital in trying to make the institutions of our federal government (especially the legislative branch) work. I suspect he’ll suffer a short-term loss on that investment this fall…and that he’s made the calculation that in the long run, it’s an investment that will pay off for him, for his party, and for the country as a whole.
*Note: we can make other changes more easily. For example, eliminating or weakening the filibuster and hold powers in the Senate.
cornyn, et al can demand their contributions back all they want, but according to this:
couple that with all the bad-mouthing, and subsequent hard feelings all round, and l sincerely doubt they’ll see any of those dollars anytime soon. what’s he got to lose by keeping it? they’re not going to vote for him anyway.
like charlie said: “Things change.”…aka: shit happens.
So here’s the question.
Who is going to vote for Crist as an independent?
Country club Republicans? Centrist independents? Democrats who can’t get beyond their racism?
It’s a long time to November. It is entirely possible that Crist will be a spoiler instead of a winner.