How do you feel about efforts by the Obama administration, the DSCC, and assorted senators and governors to clear the primary field of competition in senate races? Does it save money and avoid party strife, thereby helping to win more seats? Or does it effectively rob ordinary Democratic voters of their right to choose their own representatives? Or, does it do both? Is it justified?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I think it’s bullshit. It keeps progressives on the outside and makes it harder for us to influence lawmakers who lean to the center or right.
Living in Pennsylvania, I’ve about had it with the fact that the voters play no role in selecting who run as the representative of the Dem party for senate.
I’m right there with you, albeit not in TN instead of PA. If the candidates themselves are appointed by the parties instead of chosen by the people, the resulting “democracy” is a sham.
This may be part of the reason why George Washington advised us against having political parties in the first place. They have a marked tendency to view themselves as ends in themselves instead of merely being means to an end.
Goes double in Illinois.
I cna see why those with the power to try to prevent a primary would want to do so. It is in their best interests. Those of us with the power to fight a primary need to seek out candidates we can support and show that we think that it is in our best interests and the interests of the party to fight primaries.
I am however skeptical of current netroots sponsored draft efforts.
I can see no benefit for voters whatsoever. It’s nothing but machine politics writ large.
I believe Chris Bowers has done some work demonstrating that having a serious primary challenge does not in any way harm prospects in the general election. In fact, as Kos often points out, it can often be a help in toughening the candidate up, seeing what lines of attack are likely to be used in the general election and countering them, etc. Does anybody doubt that Obama, who had never before run a national political race, profitted significantly from having to do battle with Hillary Clinton? (Until the very end, anyway.)
For Reid and Rendell and Obama, trying to clear the field for Specter is just an opportunity to get some major chits to cash in. It is conceivable that this could benefit us, but that depends on how & when they call in the chits, and whether Specter will pay them. I have my doubts on the last score.
It would be really cool if the 3 aforementioned leaders recognized that Specter had no choice but to do this, and that they owe him nothing, since it was purely a matter of political survival. I highly doubt that will happen, however, since had they realized that they would’ve not thrown him a lifeline, and realized that Sestak, or Murphy, or Torsella, or whoever else would be a much more reliable vote.
Perhaps they simply thought that having the extra “Democratic” vote for the next year and a half was worth it.
should allow for competition. I don’t think much of what they’re trying to do in PA with Specter.
What if participation in primaries was a prerequisite for participation in the general election? (The obvious objection, that such a requirement would shut out independents from voting in the general, could be answered by providing a none-of-the-above option in the primaries.)
Such a move would have the combined benefits of encouraging greater voter involvement and interest in the primaries and weaken the parties’ ability to manipulate previously low-turnout primaries by pouring funds into GOTV efforts for their annointed candidates.
…but only mildly. Obama et al. have a pretty clear set of incentives here when it comes to supporting the incumbent. It’s a direct consequence of how party politics work in this country.
If the rank-and-file voters have a real problem with those incumbents, they can and will throw them out. I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that Specter’s going to beat Sestak, and if he does, the main reason is going to be that Pennsylvanian Democrats like him better, not because Obama and Ed Rendell like him better, or at least had to promise him their support to get him to switch parties.
Let me answer one at a time:
It’s no biggie to me. You achieve victory when you opponent is no longer able or willing to resist you, and I have no problem with endorsers attempting to achieve victory for their endorsed candidate through either avenue. You can have peace by negotiating with someone or you can have peace by defeating them – that’s true in elections and warfare, and I don’t have an absolutist position on which way it has to go down.
Potentially, but not necessarily. If there is enough backing for an alternate candidate then the price may be too high for someone to clear him/her from the field, whereas if there is not that kind of support then party strife isn’t that big of a deal anyways besides some bruised egos and some irritated activists.
No. We have a right to vote; we don’t have a right to the candidate of our choice. If there’s a candidate that we want in office then we have to work to get them there, overcoming obstacles and other interests. If we can’t do that then we lose, in the general, in the primary, or in the candidate identification and recruitment phases of the election.
Does it need to be justified? On what basis? This is politics: Ends –> Means
If it doesn’t land you in jail and it doesn’t lose you more votes than it gains you then it’s good to go, whatever “it” is.
Robocalls? Good to go.
Negative ads? Good to go.
Push polls? Good to go.
Clearing the field? Also good to go.
I may not like the results or the means themselves, but if the question is whether or not they can or should do it then the answer is an unambiguous Yes, if it gets them what they want.
We need to get strong enough to the point that we can clear the field for our candidates…
We don’t have a right to the candidate of our choice? Why not? We don’t have a right to have Snarlin’ Arlen stuffed down our throats either.
A right? No. We have a right to work towards getting such a candidate elected, but we have no intrinsic or received right to the candidate of our choice. Some things you have to work and fight for, and this would be one of them.
So we have a right to have candidates foisted upon us?
We have no rights in this regard beyond the right to be involved. We have to be active participants if we expect to get what we want – a passive approach will always result in candidates being foisted upon us.
Always.
I would rather see them spend their time finding candidates to run for every open or R seat.
As for primaries, I’m a big believer in voters having choices. What I’m not a big believer in is open primaries in which parties can game the primary system to suppress those choices.
In the case at hand, yes Arlen Specter needs primary opposition if nothing else but to keep him voting with the President. And it needs to come from someone who is strong on EFCA and public option in healthcare reform (or even single-payer). And it must be a credible candidacy that could potentially upset Specter.
Now is someone could be found to primary Ben Nelson who has the same political assets that Joe Sestak has.
Or any of the Blue Dogs. These folks have been running on assumptions about what their constituents will and won’t support for too long. They have gotten free passes since 1999. Well Doggies, the world has changed.
Good! then maybe grassroots progressives will finally give up the notion the democratic party is on their side, and we can have a party that isn’t divided in its loyal to the people rather than business.