A failure to plan is a plan to fail. So said a poster here on a different diary today and it got me to thinking. What is the progressive plan for dealing with the Conservadems in Congress who’ve sold us out time and again since the Reagan years?
(crickets)
Yeah, that’s the problem. The debate always comes down to this: Vote Dem or let the Repugs rule. And that’s what happens. Dems lose their base in disgust and Repugs take over. I’m just as guilty. I’ve voted Nader every election until the chance to elect a black man president outweighed the knowledge that this guy was being foisted on us by the corporatocracy.
Instead of worrying about polls, or what the Dems should be doing or what Obama isn’t doing, we should be wholly focused on getting progressives past their primary challenges and replacing Conservadems on the ballot. But we aren’t.
Case in point: Alexi Giannoulias.
It’s hard to believe this is the candidate whom the Democrats wanted as their nominee. As Ben Smith dryly noted, Giannoulias “is about as un-changey as you get.” The Republicans are obviously delighted to have such a target-rich opponent. I suspect this will be another seat added to the political gurus’ ”leans Republican” lists.
Where was coverage of the primary? Where was the grassroots effort to stop this guy from getting the nomination? Where was there even mention that this election was coming up?
Nowhere.
When did I first hear about him? After it was too late. This guy had already won his primary and where were the progressives? They weren’t online trying to raise grassroot support for a progressive candidate.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
Who’s going to challenge Harry Reid?
Harry Reid may soon have one more Republican opponent in Nevada’s race for the U.S. Senate, and his numbers remain in troublesome territory for an incumbent. Reid, like a number of Democratic Senate incumbents, appears to be suffering from voter unhappiness over the national health care plan and the continuing bad state of the economy.
If anybody needed a primary challenger it was Harry Reid.
The base is fed up with him. Let’s put some of his numbers into focus:
Seventy-eight percent (78%) in Nevada say the federal government has become a special interest group, while 75% say the government and big business often work together to hurt consumers and investors.
That’s the right wing base AND the left wing base talking there. That’s common ground people. Give the left a progressive to vote for and they’d be there for him. And yet nobody is challenging Harry Reid, after all he’s done to sell us out. The option is re-elect Harry Reid or give Nevada to the Republicans.
WHY?
16% of Nevada voters have a very favorable view of the longtime senator, 46% regard him very unfavorably.
Only 16% of Nevadans like Harry Reid. Are you telling me that NOBODY could have defeated him in the primary?
You know what the real point I’m trying to make is? I don’t even know when Nevada’s Democratic primary is. How’s that for not having a fucking plan to get a progressive in office to replace a highly disliked conservadem?
That’s freaking pathetic people! And totally freaking unacceptable.
Let’s take a step back for a moment and reflect upon what’s at stake here:
3,000 Americans are dying every month for lack of healthcare. How many tens of thousands are dying every month because they DO have healthcare but their plan won’t pay for the treatment they need? How many more thousands die each month because as soon as they got sick, their plan dropped them?
People are dying. This is ten times worse than 9-11. EVERY MONTH!
So people, let’s start putting together a freaking PLAN here. The Democratic Party is not going to help us, they’re going to do everything they can to fight us. There are going to be obstacles galore set up to get in our way. The only way we’re going to ever see real change is if we start it right here on FDL.
So I am asking that this website set up a section devoted NOT in reporting what the Dems are doing, but to be used by us, to work and to plan and to recruit candidates and to raise money and to do whatever it is that we can do to get progressives, homegrown from our own ranks, up and running for office and challenging Dems in the primaries in 2012 and beyond. I am asking that more attention be paid to upcoming primaries and that said attention start being paid to them sooner.
I am asking for those of you represented by conservadems find the courage to stand up and run against them and count on our support.
Alan Grayson did it. So can you.
As members of Congress begin to report their fourth-quarter fundraising totals, here’s a number that will pop a few eyes: $850,000.
That’s the amount raised by Rep. Alan Grayson, the freshman Florida Democrat dubbed a "wing-nut" by the New York Times – he set a record on November 2 when his "money bomb" raised $514,000 in one day.
He now has roughly a million dollars in cash on hand for his reelection campaign.
Grayson says that money came in small contributions, averaging roughly $35 a piece, from more than 10,000 donors.
"The main thing is that it’s clean money," Grayson told HuffPost. His ability to raise a substantial sum from a small and broad base of donors holds the potential to change the way campaigns are run and Congress operates, Grayson said.
It’s time we stopped being reactionary. It’s time we started having a plan.



55 Comments




Not a direct response to this, but something to think about. Progressive blogs – FDL included – get most of their traffic and support from people in very progressive areas, say, NY and CA, for example. So they have the most influence over politicians in those areas.
That said, figuring out ways to recruit viable primary challengers is a good idea. It’s also something FDL has done and will continue to do I’m sure.
NOt CA or NY but UTAH !
What if there was a web site designed specifically to promote progressive candidates and causes, maybe an addition to the FDL family of blogs, that we can use to formulate strategies and tactics, and promote candidates who are progressive regardless of their party affiliation (because it doesn’t necessarily follow that because a politician is a Democrat it must mean he or she is a progressive)? I can ask around in my circle of blog posters and see if I can find a site that does that, or if there is none, maybe we can start a thread to discuss how we might create such a site.
I thought that the FDL Action site was where your idea ‘comes alive’; maybe I misunderstood.
Nope. The Action site isn’t doing what I’m talking about at all. It’s reporting, it’s tracking, but it’s not organizing. It’s not planning.
Go there. Tell me when is the Nevada Democratic Primary and who, if anyone, is running against Harry Reid? Won’t find that info at FDL Action.
What about 2012 primaries? Who’s running? What’s up for grabs? When are the deadlines to file for candidacy and when can one begin collecting donations?
Won’t find that info there.
In short, while FDL Action is a great site and I highly recommend it, it is not the progressive nerve center that I am saying we desperately need to create here, on this website.
Perhaps it could be if more effort went into it.
Is ‘Blue America’ what you have in mind?
If only a minority of Americans and especially progressives have ever heard of it, then no. FDL is huge. This is the place to begin.
Now if you’d come out and said Act Blue, I still would have said no. I mean, that is not a progressive dedicated website. Love what they do and receive their emails, but no.
They’ve still got a fundraiser tab for Barack Obama in 2012 fercrissakes! How exactly the opposite of what I’m talking about is that?
Have you tried Docudharma or Antemedius?
We’re actually working on some great stuff that we will roll out in the next few weeks and will hopefully provide much of what is being suggested in this thread.
In the mean time, a simple Google search would suggest that the Nevada Democratic primary is Tuesday, June 8th.
Can’t wait to see what you have in the next few weeks.
Here’s the thing about the Google search: It requires people to want to search for it. What an organized movement to elect progressives requires is someone to get the information out there and keep it in everyone’s minds.
That’s an ocean of difference.
If you’re thinking that because people can google it, that’s good enough, I’m here to tell you no it isn’t. Good enough is keeping a calendar in advance and making heads up posts to let people know what’s coming on the horizon and asking them to think about what they can do to help out.
June 8th eh? A little late now to start recruiting a progressive challenger and planning a primary campaign. Can’t “google” that.
Thanks for a bit of a tease, RBG, I LOVE a good progressive surprise!!
*G*
Great post Scrowder! I’ve asked similar questions on other blogs (not nearly as well as you have here) and was met by excuses, and the same old Blue America, Act Blue, are what we support. Unfortunately (and I don’t in any way mean this site, because it is the only one I know of) almost all the other blogs claiming to be progressive, are partisan Dem sites. But your ideas are excellent, and your points accurate. Seems to be that the only real action anyone wants to take, is to elect Dems and hope some aren’t that bad, because the alternative is Republican. The 2 party system is so f*cked up.
scrowder, I like your idea even better than raising thousands of dollars for multi-millionaire AIPAC toadies who don’t even care enough to say
“thank you.”
This is exciting.
Apparently, the Reids own the Democratic party in Nevada. But Ensign had an excellent challenger last cycle from Jimmy Carter’s son, Jack, who got little help from Harry Reid, as he and Ensign have some kind of non-aggression pact stemming from Reid’s having beaten Ensign once, by something like 98 votes.
Yeah, I know. What happens in Vegas, I guess….
Looks like we need to pressure Oscar Goodman to run!
I think you’re thinking of something like the Full Court Press (FCP), but it’s relatively very new, so it’s iffy if FCP will field even a single candidate in 2010. (The announced goal is candidates in 2012, actually) FCP has social networking capability in it (currently hidden) that would allow for membership and communication on a district level. Creating such groups, which link to their own forums, is very easy. But to create associated web pages with their own publishing system really deserves a special tool, as doing it with the existing interface is too time-consuming.
Also, comment #9 looks promising.
PUHLEASE; I used to bartend in Vegas and I can assure you or anyone else that Mr. Goodman is just another corrupt politician.
I’d pretty much conceded that Nevada is being “given” to the Repubs by the Dem sellouts. That’s their agenda, afterall. I hadn’t really considered trying to field a challenger to Reid this late in the game, but hey, I’ve only ever been involved in small town political campaigns. I don’t really know if it’s too late to challenge Reid or not.
16% rating, however, would seem to indicate that if ever he could be knocked off (if the vote isn’t fixed in Nevada), this year would be it.
So who around FDL is from Nevada?
Scrowder, I like what you’re saying. I’m fed up with posts that explain that the Republicans are really bad, as though we didn’t know that. And that the Democrats are selling us down the river, and we should be really, really mad about it. Outraged even. Oh even thinking about it, I feel like I could just spit! I really mean it. It’s terrible. Yeah, SOMEBODY SHBOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Yeah.
By the way, I’m somebody.
For the last few months, I’ve been promoting something called the Full Court Press (http://thefullcourtpress.org/). It’s a plan to run candidates for all 435 Democratic primaries in 2012, around agreement on 5 points of unity:
# WPA-style jobs program — create jobs by CREATING JOBS!
# Medicare available for all
# Repeal Hyde Amendment, vote no on any bill with Stupak or Nelson-like language
# Repeal DOMA, DADT, support gay marriage
# U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan
The point is not to win particular races. We consider that a trap, since it requires money and name recognition and compromises that lead to the same old policies being sold to us with newer faces. The 5 points ensure that our races will mean something.
The point is to have an impact through the sheer number of entries, and it will. The point is to end up with an independent infrastructure within the Democratic Party that can be built upon for the long haul.
Now, a couple of points. First, we are not looking to have a significant impact in 2010. We’re too little, too late, having only gotten off the ground early last December 2009. I fully support what you are proposing.
Second, despite the fact that everyone and their sister is not yet calling for such a plan, I consider it the obvious move. I believe other people will pick up the ball. Scowder, you are both ahead of us and behind us. I have no special interest in “owning” this idea. We should be talking. Check out our FAQ: http://thefullcourtpress.org/Home/FAQ.aspx
It tries to address some of the practical questions that probably come to mind.
We should talk. At the least, it could sharpen both our respective thinking.
Scrowder, that is. Sorry.
Excellent post and CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ideas, Scrowder.
DW
Oh hell yeah! Glad to hear about you guys. I’d be glad to talk to you and hopefully find a way to help out.
arguably, one main purpose of the Progressive Blogosphere is to put up a perimeter defining the outer limits of acceptable dissent.
we know the drill – vent against the vile Republicans when they are in power, but do not call for impeachment.
bemoan the dire situation of health care in this country, but do not call for Single Payer.
spread fantasies about what a ‘transformation’ the election of Democrats will be and work to GOTV, and be especially suppressive of significant dissent during election years and months.
for credibility purposes, acknowledge how awful some (D)’s can be but strive to define them as ‘other’ from the mainline (D) Party. “oh those Blue Dogs!” hint – they are not that different, indeed they run the gang.
this perimeter function works pretty well – painfully, glaringly obvious at places like Kos, more subtly here.
so, you are proposing a new function, leveraging the nationwide presence of a site like FDL.
but, for the perimeter purpose I have alluded to, isn’t the idea of primaries against corporate (D)’s (as jeffroby points out, basically all of them) more important than the actual nitty-gritty implementation of actual challenges?
anyway, good luck on this track, but you may find that the old rallying cry ‘more and better Democrats’ actually functions as the old ‘vote Democrat, no matter what!’ – which is why all of Jane Hamsher’s calls to action to contact Congresscritters never have an ‘or else’ clause.
I’m not sure if she’s not more confrontational because she wants to keep her face on TV, or if she gets her face on TV because she’s not more confrontational.
Obviously there’s a line she could cross that would instantly drive away the Mockingbird producers.
I think it’s probably a very good thing that the site seems to have grown a lot during the HCR debate. Jane being on TV is the primary reason that happened.
Functioning only as a release valve for anger would be counterproductive, though. I hope that’s not the subtly concealed intent.
It is for Kos, and anybody regularly put on TV by known propagandists doesn’t get a free pass from suspicion.
These modest efforts are an attempt to break through that perimeter.
You are astute to point out that these “calls to action to contact Congresscritters never have an ‘or else’ clause.” We are the “or else.” In that regard, I do not think we should focus on posing, “Don’t do this, or else.” As far as I’m concerned the foul deeds have already been done, and it’s time NOW to apply the “or else” commensurate with our abilities.
The point is not to amass huge artillery batteries. The point is to fire the shot.
Great diary!
I’ve been saying the same thing — that FDL needs to focus more on funding authentic progressive primary challengers rather than just supporting any ‘ole Democratic incumbents.
Very good ideas about the kinds of info that would make a tool like this useful.
excellent diary, excellent comments
Hello,
I wanted to say a few things related to this post, but it involves some disagreement and I just want you to know that I’m trying to be helpful not confrontational.
Since I’ve only commented on this site infrequently I should start by letting you know that I’m not very far left at all. I consider myself a liberal. I don’t really like the word moderate because I hold the positions I hold due to conviction not due to a desire to be concilliatory. I would have never voted for Nader, I supported Dean in the 2004 primaries and was reasonably comfortable with Obama’s declared positions.
Yet I’ve been lurking around sites that lean much further left than I do because I’ve become extremely alarmed at the direction this country is taking and the people on the left seem to be the only ones concerned. I looked at that Full Court Press site and although I agree with the stated goals, its doesn’t at all reflect my greatest concerns. I don’t want to live in a country run by a small oligarchy even if it permitted gay marriage.
I have a huge fear that this country is going to be hell to live in if we don’t get the influence of money out of our politics. We all suspect that Evan Bayh is leaving the Senate to collect his paycheck for sentencing people to death, and yet there is nothing we can do about it. We know that the health insurance reform bill will do little but make the insurance companies wealthier and more powerful, but there’s nothing we can do about it. We know that the banking regulatory reform will favor the wealthy at the expense of the country, but there is nothing we can do about it.
I’m concerned about the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
I’m concerned about indefinite detention and torture.
I’ve been actively looking for an organization which adresses these concerns so I can support it, but I don’t have money. Perhaps I have some useful skills and I would make time, but most organizations just want money anyway.
So, I wish the people at Full Court Press the best, but I’m afraid it doesn’t reflect any of my priorities.
Sorry for the rambling comment. I’ve just been feeling such despair lately and I wish somebody wanted to do something.
I’ve been hyping the idea of small donation pooling as the new way forward in campaign funding. It does not require Congress to pass some watery reform bill, but takes the process out of their hands and into ours, an end run as it were. I’m in TN, as red as it gets, and I will probably not have an opportunity to vote for any progressive candidates for a while yet, but I can support them. $5 here, $10 there, I can afford that. I know others that can and would do the same. I think the time is right for what you’re proposing here. Progressives here in red country would love to feel that they can have some sort of impact. As for a comprehensive 50 state plan, well I think it’s the sort of strategy game, as opposed to tactical, that we need to embrace. It won’t bear fruit in my neck of the woods for awhile, but I think it’s the long-term approach we must take.
Thank you, I don’t find what you say confrontational at all. Yes, I’m probably well to the left of you. When you say, “although I agree with the stated goals, its doesn’t at all reflect my greatest concerns. I don’t want to live in a country run by a small oligarchy even if it permitted gay marriage,” I’m not quite sure what you mean.
The Full Court Press sets forth a minimal plan. As long as the 5 points are supported, individual candidates have great leeway as to what issues they stress, and are free to raise other issues per local conditions.
More than money, we need people who can help get out the word. We will need money as 2012 approaches, but at this point, the primary goal is to make Free Court Press a “household word.” We find that as the word gets out, we get support. The trick is to turn that support into activity.
(((jacqueline)))
WE the people gave Obama the mandate to come in and set things right. You are not alone in your despair.
Just keep repeating what useful knowledge you have to as many people who likely don’t have that knowledge, on a variety of web sites.
The majority of the country wished that the undie bomber was waterboarded. Help them connect the dots between torture, domestic spying, indefinite detention, Rahm’s interest in limiting 2nd Amendment rights for “suspected terrorists or sympathizers.”
Let people know that they are next. Naomi Wolf’s Fascist America, in 10 easy steps is a good list of things to watch for that most Americans will be open to considering, whether they are Glenn Beck fans, Rachael Maddow fans, or neither.
There could be some real or faked national crisis like a terror attack, and a major attempt to herd Americans into giving up more rights will be launched. The more Americans there are that possess knowledge skepticism beforehand, the less Americans there will be who react emotionally and follow the daddy figures wherever they are led.
“Only a crisis produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.”
- Milton Freidman
“Never let a crisis go to waste.”
- Tiny Dancer
http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-ideas-that-are-lying-around/
I think this is a superb idea. We talk about progressive primary challengers all the time, but where are the details? Where’s the plan? I want an organization and web-based resource where we can organize, fundraise, and canvass on a state-by-state basis for progressive Democratic challengers — sort of like an sub-party faction within the Democratic Party which will better represent voters than the DNC. But who are the primary challengers? And can movements like FCP get broader support from liberal blogs which might be reluctant to sever their relationships with mainstream, centrist politicians?
Planning as opposed to tipping one’s hand?
Let me rephrase the question. Can movements like FCP get broader support from the readers and commenters from liberal blogs?
I looked at a lot of these liberal blogs during the height of the healthcare brouhaha, as anything decent was being stripped from the bill almost day-by-day. What I saw was the owners of the blogs saying, “pass something anything, otherwise the Democratic Party will look bad,” and about 60% of the readers were saying, “kill the bill!”
This is the fault line that both Scrowder and FCP are putting pressure on. Our task would be easier if the leaders of the liberal blogs would come aboard. But we are not holding our breath.
An interesting note, by the way, is a recent piece by Cenk Uyrk, It’s Time for a Progressive Revolution, in which he states:
The power of Scrowder’s post is that he takes the broad sentiments such as those above, and is trying to nail it down into concrete action. Personally, I get my inspiration from “Field of Dreams”: If you build it, they will come!
While a 50-state Progressive strategy is appealing—maybe a more focused approach would work. The bluedogs seem to be a cowardly lot so I believe if we choose one that really pissed us off (Lincoln, Nelson, etc.) and devoted almost everything we had and beat him/her it would send an appropriate message that Bluedogs can get gunned down for taking corporate cash. Something like the Lamont/Lieberman campaign where only the ability for Republicans to cross over saved Jiltin’ Joe. The Republicans actual candidate got around 3%.
I’ve been thinking: where do we find candidates? Places like unions would be a great place to start. Doctors, teachers, autoworkers, you name it. Also, right here on this website.
The trick is to reach out to them. I have some ideas and later today I’ll post up the first of them if I can get away from work long enough.
Progressives have been doing this for years and years, with ActBlue among the most prominent of its purveyors. The most it does is pump a LITTLE fresh blood into a moribund party.
But there is a more fundamental issue here. The way it works now, our problems are caused by bad INDIVIDUALS. It’s Lieberman’s fault. It’s Stupak’s fault. But at some point, you have to attribute COLLECTIVE responsibility to the Democratic Party as a party. Who allowed Lieberman his positions after he campaigned for McCain? Who voted for the House healthcare bill AFTER the Stupak amendmendment was added?
The Full Court Press makes the issue the Democratic Party as a whole. And it does so in a way (by working in the Democratic primaries) that does not give credence to any Republican alternative. We take no position on the general election.
Delivering this message is more important than picking up another seat here or there. The approach you extol has been pursued by progressives SUCCESSFULLY for the past 6 years. It has been successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. It got us a filibuster-proof Congress. I would even argue that its success could lead to the destruction of the Democratic Party, because they finally had their chance.
So, now for something completely different.
The Full Court Press has gotten a lot of play on Docudharma, and good support. As always, the task is turning support into activity.
What if there was an organization devoted to primaries? Now there’s a thought:
http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/
Unfortunately in a year where Democrats think they’re going to get massacred, there aren’t a lot of viable candidates willing to put their heads on the chopping block. And the minute you start talking about it publicly, they get nervous and lose interest.
Nonetheless, we persevere.
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2009/12/halter_mulls_senate_race.aspx
Just because we’re not writing about it non-stop doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. It’s just a lot more challenging than people might imagine, and when you’re trying to get all your ducks in order it’s not necessarily conducive to the kind of regular updates people might understandably want.
There’s the bind! The poison word is viability. It means having money, it means having a track record, and it means running a campaign one degree to the left of the incumbent. It may inject new blood into the party, but it doesn’t inject LEFT blood.
The Full Court Press ( http://www.theFullCourtPress.org ) is looking for candidates who will run on 5 points of principle, and they are not required to run to win. The impact is in the spread. We know that it is already late in the campaign year, so we are focusing on 2012, But Cenk Uygur’s recent call in “It’s Time for a Progressive Revolution” ( http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/29442 ) for “Teachers, farmers, dentists, moms, small business owners, cops, butchers, bakers and candlestick-makers. And anyone else with a shred of integrity who actually cares about our democracy.” is much more in line with our approach.
Our goal is to present a plan that ordinary people can grasp, and not be shunted aside by the officially-anointed “viable,” anointed by the very people who gave us Stupak/Nelson, who gave us a war in Afghanistan, and who gave us a so-called jobs bill that is turning into more tax breaks for the well-off and good old “trickle-down” for the unemployed.
Right – I agree giving up fixation on “viability” gives tremendous creative freedom in approaching the general problem of getting rid of sellout incumbents who don’t really represent their constituents. A guerrilla fighter doesn’t say “Hmm, I’ve go no modern fighter-bombers and not even a single tank. Well, may as well stay home!”
So, I think you have a good ‘opening game move’ (from chess jargon). However, to win the game, in a way that personally makes sense to me (and Jane), you are going to need money at some point. Someday, getting millions of dollars in campaign contributions or soft money, as a means of influencing legislators, will become the kiss of death for such incumbents. However, before we reach that happy place, it’s likely that in many, many Congressional races, to achieve electoral victory, will need competitive funding.
That is why I have called for a new funding portal (or else additions to ActBlue), so that citizens can strategically combine their monetary and volunteer resources, to at least get some victories, in the Interregnum between the vibrant democracy I foresee, and the corrupted mess that we have, now. I mentioned the need for such a funding portal at OpenLeft here and at FDL here (and a few other places at OpenLeft). The funding portal will help us move from Jeff’s opening game to Jane’s end game.
So, the way I see it, Jeff and Jane have their blinders on, as they both describe the elephant they can feel, but not see clearly. Having grabbed onto different parts of the same elephant, of course their descriptions differ.
I am focusing on the opening because we are in the opening. It would be presumptuous to think we can see at this point what the endgame will look like.
And yes, I once had about a 1700 USCF rating.
I missed this yesterday.
Good diary with good comments.
Concerning the discussion on viability:
That is a key issue, but it is a mistake to let it be evaluated by the traditional (MSM) media in cooperation with the existing parties and their favored candidates. That ‘opinion’ then passed on to the voter.
In some of these races it may not be a long term failure if a progressive candidate runs and does not win. If they achieve significant positive voter recognition, and are not burdened by campaign debts, a second run may succeed where a first does not.
We will still have constraints, such as no more pieces on the board than we had to begin with, 64 squares to play in, etc.
While I’m not a Nostradamus, with the recent SCOTUS decision, I see corporations spending mega-bucks on politicians and their campaigns, now and in the near-term future. They do that because it gives their agenda an advantage – very few people will argue against this aspect of the political chess game. This reflects a constraint, of sorts.
To change this calculus, we need to use tactics to both a) make $$ spent on candidates that aren’t corrupted be spent more efficiently b) make $$ spent on candidates that are corrupted be spent less efficiently.
We can’t directly control how efficiently corporations spend their political dollars. But we surely can drive up the cost to them of supporting their corrupt lackeys. When we reach a widespread corporate kiss of death stage, no amount of financial support will rescue their lackeys. Their $$ efficiency will be zero. Indeed, it’ll be worse than that – their favored incumbents would have a better chance if they didn’t support them, at all.
Before reaching such a nirvana state, though, uncorrupted candidates who can win will need money. The real questions are “how much?” and “how do we most efficiently allocate the distribution of $$ and volunteer hour resources to make that happen?”. I reject the naive belief that we need to match corporate contributions. I also reject any belief that anybody might have that we won’t ever need to raise large sums of money to get good people elected.
I suppose that, theoretically, it could happen that we reach a nirvana state in a sort of quantum leap, or ‘rapid onset’ fashion. I.e., a sort of tipping point is reached, that is passed through so quickly that one election cycle, good candidates are losing to the GW Bushes and Barack Obamas of this world, and the next election cycle progressive states have all elected Dennis Kucinich clones for the Senate and House, and the only $$ they spent was on their web sites. Such an abrupt transition is not likely, though.
I’ll admit that my view of what constitutes likely scenarios vs. unlikely scenarios is colored by my strong psychological disposition to FIRE Congress critters who have betrayed their constituents. If you assume that you can get guys like Lieberman to channel their inner Kucinich (and that you would even want to), by using clever tactics (or whatever means), the determination of what is likely vs. what is not changes – somewhat.
We have a philosophical difference. The question is what has the greater long-term impact. The Full Court Press believes that if it loses 435 races in 2012, but builds an independent infrastructure, that leaves us better positioned for the next round. If the game is to win individual races, there are simply things you have to do to achieve that which corrupt anything built.
I do not hold this to be the case for all eternity, for chrissake. But I think that is the case for 2012. The Obama debacle has ripped the heart out of Democratic progressivism — evidence is in the liberal call to pass a healthcare bill, any bill, please oh please, even if it contains Stupak and the mandate. Some bloody stump of a public option is now the sweetener, but Stupak, mandate.
We need a new foundation.
I absolutely agree with this.
I’m not so sure about the disagreement.
435 primaries would light a fire under the party’s butt if and only if a significant number of them were serious challenges ( whether to incumbents or to party picks for open seats). I’m not at all sure what the number is. (It will depend on the Democratic evaluation of how the 435 FCP infrastructure process is going).
The test of ‘serious’ is at least one of:
* candidate forced to support and campaign on progressive positions that they otherwise would not.
* significant effort (including funds) required to campaign against FCP primary challenger.
* significant risk of primary loss to FCP challenger.
Building the independent infrastructure is the key requirement to running and electing ‘better’ candidates.
The infrastructure bypasses the need for cooperation or conversion of the existing party.
I’m not sure that Democratic progressivism was either responsible for the nomination of Obama, or that it has ‘had it’s heart ripped out’.
I do think that Rahm,OFA and the usual suspects will have a very difficult time mobilizing progressives the next time they try to do so.
That is not to say it would be so difficult for newcomers with real experience and real credibility to do so. They just need to remember not to sail into town on the contributions of investment bankers and the like.
Last go-round, 71 of current congressional Dems did not face ANY primary challenge. They don’t like primary challenges.
And when you say “The test of ‘serious’ is …” and 435 primaries would light a fire “if and only if …” these are merely bald assertions of what is significant to you, as though there were some objective definition of “significant.”
Democratic progressivism is not in good shape. One problem is that it has pursued “elect more Democrats” since 2004 SUCCESSFULLY. And it has gotten us the healthcare debacle already, with the jobs debacle a-brewing. And Guantanamo still open. And a larger war in Afghanistan.
The power of the FCP comes from 2 places, (1) the spread, i.e., the message that they ALL face challenge, and (2) the discrepancy between the Democratic base and its elected officials, which they are painfully aware of even as they put on a beaten boxer’s bold grimace.
The paradigm shift that people have a hard time with, I believe, is that we hold the PARTY responsible for things like Stupak/Nelson and Afghanistan, rather than its worst individual members, whom the rest of the party can point their fingers at to avoid their own collective blame.
Making that paradigm shift happen would be significant regardless of vote totals.
Interesting that you go out of your way to say “viable” candidates. I’ve always wondered, by whose standards are candidates considered “viable”? And do we really want to be listening to people who presume to dictate to us who is “viable” as a candidate and who isn’t?
I would submit that any leftist candidate we put up should run to win, if for no other reason than a serious effort to do so will send the message that we are bent on accomplishing our ultimate goal(s). Running without intending to win often entails not making the efforts necessary to get enough of the vote to send the message to incumbents.
If you’re 100 pounds overweight, have had a heart attack, and haven’t exercized in 30 years, the first time out on your new exercize plan, you may merely walk a block or two. How far this idea goes and how far the level of commitment of candidates develops depends on the actions of millions of people – or lack thereof. You simply can’t judge this by how it performs, the first time out.
IMO, one of the most attractive things about this plan is that it has the potential to make a light bulb go off in people’s minds – by the millions. I’ve asked family members if they ever voted in a primary, and nobody had. That includes a cousin of mine who’s quite the Democrat, follows politics very closely, blames Republicans for most everything wrong with the US, etc. He never voted in a primary, not once.
That is the sort of mindset that needs changing. It’s like Americans had no idea of how much power they had to get rid of incumbents.
Where is my mind?
At what cost?
Running to win gets turned into running just 1 degree to the left of the incumbent, lest a more principled position cost votes. Running to win entails cutting deals in exchange for contributions. Running to win means avoiding issues like defending abortion rights, or supporting gay marriage.
Running to win leaves us “istening to people who presume to dictate to us who is “viable” as a candidate and who isn’t.”
First thing we need to do is ask: What does this money actually get them? Mostly, it gets them media air time. But that’s the trap they set for us to begin with because,since they control the media, they set the price on getting that air time so high you have to sellout to them just to play the game.
So we have to be creative in how we use our money and how to get more bang out of our buck. To do that, I believe we need to use “alternative energy sources”. Let’s take 2010′s races for an example. We’ve got progressives running against conservadems in many districts. Let’s use Tom Cramer as an example.
We don’t need a donation portal to get Tom Cramer elected. It wouldn’t hurt, but he’s already got a donation portal on his website. What we need, therefore, is to direct people to his donation portal. Lots of people. How do we do that? First off, by hyping Tom Cramer at every progressive website and even the anti-populist propaganda websites like DKos because people have shown that they will donate to causes they believe in.
This guy’s not a Democrat per se in the minds of these folks. He’s a progressive candidate who wants to replace a conservadem. He’s who they wanted in 2008. This is someone we can raise funds for.
And his opponents access to vast amounts of corporate money is actually an iron ring around his neck that local activists can point out to the electorate which will turn that money around in our favor.
Now to the brass tacks. Getting local activists involved. This is a must for any campaign. He needs LTE’s to raise local awareness. He needs to be taken as a credible threat to win the primary. Again, progressive activists are the way to go. Bang for your buck.
What we need is a mechanism to connect the dots. The dots are already out there. We’ve located Tom Cramer. We can go around the blogs and raise awareness/money/volunteers for him. Then we need to get the local progressives on board with a PLAN to put on a Full Court Press locally. LTE’s. Paid political advertising. Rallies. Streetcorner sign waving.
It doesn’t take a huge movement to give the impression of a huge movement. Just a dedicated group of activists.
It’s our jobs to bring them all together.
I’m not talking about a ‘generic’ funding portal, like ActBlue, or even a ‘Contribute’ button on a candidates’ web site (leading to whatever back-end transaction system). If you read the links I provided at Post #42, you will see that what I’m calling for (which, AFAIK, doesn’t exist yet) is a funding mechanism which will allow progressive voters (or any other sort of voting bloc, actually) across the country to combine their donations in a Darwinian, Instant-Runoff Voting sort of way, so that at least a portion of the candidates they favor have the all the $$ they need to run and win.
Having such a funding portal becomes even more important as you ramp up the number of candidates you’d ideally like to support. That’s because the net $$ contributions of your progressive voting bloc will be divided all the more, by the influx of all the new candidates.
Here’s an analogy: Triage on a battlefield. Not a pleasant thought, but a necessary one.
I definitely like the line of your thinking about making favored candidates campaign $$ go further, and unfavored incumbents $$ go ‘shorter’.