It’s been a pretty good night for progressives so far. First of all, Lisa Blunt Rochester won her primary and is now almost certainly going to represent Delaware as their sole House member in the U.S. Congress. Delaware has never before elected either a woman or a person of color to federal office. She has a solid progressive record and a lot of experience working on civil rights and relations between minority communities and the police.
Also in Delaware, the brother of a good friend of mine and a friend of this blog won his primary to be the New Castle County Executive. Matt Meyer will also be heavily favored to win. Just for context, Senator Chris Coons served in this position, and it’s a jumping off point for higher office. Of course, with only three jobs in Congress, Delaware doesn’t have a lot of opportunities to move up. Still, as Delawareans like to say, “this is a big fucking deal!”
Up in Rhode Island, it looks like progressive Democrats got organized and orchestrated a primary bloodbath against their more centrist brethren.
Of the 18 incumbents facing primary challenges, six, including [House Majority Leader John J.] DeSimone, lost. They are all Democrats.
Rep. Eileen Naughton lost to Warwick City Councilor Camille Vella-Wilkinson in House District 21.
Vella-Wilkinson, who hammered Naughton for voting for Governor Raimondo’s truck toll bill, will face Republican Michael Penta and two independents in November.
Liquor store owner Rep. Jan Malik of Warren lost to Barrington attorney Jason Knight in House District 67.
Sen. William Walaska, D-Warwick, lost to Jeanine Calkin, a former Bernie Sanders campaign staffer, in Senate District 30.
Rep. Thomas Palangio lost to waitress and labor organizer Moira Walsh in Providence’s House District 3.
Sen. Juan Pichardo lost to Providence city employee Ana Quezada in Senate District 2.
It was a good night for the Democratic party’s liberal wing, with four candidates endorsed by the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats winning.
In addition to Ranglin-Vassell, Walsh and Calkin they included Susan Donovan of Bristol who defeated Todd Giroux of Bristol in the Democratic primary to succeed former House Finance Committee member Raymond Gallison Jr. in House District 69.
Donovan will square off in the general election against Republican Antonio Avila of Bristol, who defeated Eric R.D. Hall Tuesday.
Progressive Democrats State Coordinator Sam Bell called the results a “body blow to the political machine.”
In New Hampshire, Rep. Frank Guinta looks like he’ll probably survive a nasty scare, but that’s good news for progressive Carol Shea-Porter because Guinta is so damaged that no one thought he could get to the general. This would be the fourth straight time the two have gone head to head, and so far neither of them can beat the other as the incumbent. That trend will probably continue this November, and then Guinta will be probably be gone for good.
Can we say that two RI Dem State Senators and four RI Dem State Reps got Cantored?
(One incumbent St. Senator and one incumbent St Rep that supported Bernie had no primary challenger.)
Maybe. I wasn’t following this story so I can’t say what factors were in play. But it does look like a solid organizing effort by the progressives.
I’ve had some respect for Rhode Island voters since 2006. Don’t know if they are sophisticated or it only looks that way. Anyway in 2006, they had a choice between incumbent Senator Chafee, who they liked very much, and former AG Whitehouse, who they respected. Did they end up preferring Whitehouse or did they recognize that their Senate seat could be the one that gave the majority to the Democrats or Republicans?
As it turned out, Democrats did far better than expected in flipping Senate seats that year; so, RI didn’t end up being decisive. However, that’s not how it looked in the days running up to the election.
What we have in this election cycle: Democratic Presidential primary:
Sanders – 55%
Clinton – 43.3%
State primary – two Berniecrats, Calkin and Ranglin-Vassell, defeating incumbents.
Organizing is almost always a factor, but would be cautious in saying it’s the whole enchilada in this case.
this was a low turnout election, so organization was at a premium.
Looks to me as if you’re contradicting yourself without facts. Was turnout better than in the last primary? Did organization persuade more regular primary voters to choose a more liberal candidate or did that organization increase the number of more liberal primary voters? While organization can do both, getting regular voters to switch to a more liberal candidate is difficult if voters aren’t predisposed to favor a more liberal candidate.
The evidence from the 2016 RI presidential primary is that RI Democrats preferred the more liberal candidate. That could mean a preexisting preference or was unique to the Sanders-Clinton primary. If the former, it’s only tested when a more liberal candidate is running.
I know — you’ve got your explanation for election results — organization is everything and you’re sticking with it. But it is dismissive of the intelligence and/or engagement of regular voters.
you’re right that I haven’t examined the case.
however, organization grows more important the small the electorate is and the closer the “natural” election is.
McGovern could have had the best organizing team ever and it wouldn’t have mattered.
But, it’s not too hard to scratch out an extra 16 votes.
Not simple at all if the candidate doesn’t first get to 50%. Incumbents always have an advantage unless they’ve flat-lined at somewhere below 40% approval rating and the challenger isn’t a total non-starter. Congress has an approval rating at or below 20% and yet incumbents are generally expected to win in November.
I’m talking about how hard it is to find 16 votes. You know, 16 more than you’d get if you didn’t try to get them. It’s not hard. You could do it by yourself.
Only if one has exhausted all those easy to get 16 votes to reach 50%.
I guess I have no idea what you are talking about.
We have plurality wins elections, first of all.
Second, what you’re saying is unresponsive to what I am saying.
I am saying that organizing rarely makes a difference, but when it does make a difference it’s because your efforts changed the outcome. And that is most likely to be the case when turnout is low because then it’s possible to reach enough people.
In Ohio, Hillary needs to drag about 1 million of her votes to the polls and then persuade a little more than half of the undecideds to vote for her. That’s somewhere around 1.3 million folks she needs to contact and contact repeatedly. That’s a big organizing job.
It’s a lot easier to accomplish your targets when you only need to contact a few hundred.
My comment should have read, “Only if one hasn’t exhausted …”
We should drop this because neither of us have the facts wrt prior RI Democratic primary election or the one Tuesday. And anything that I would say as a possible factor in the RI results, you would claim that the factor is part of organizing. I’d disagree because voter awareness of a candidate and his/her position on issues can have little to do with organizing. Hence, Trump as the GOP nominee.
I just said, pretty clearly I think, that organizing almost never matters.
And then you responded by telling me that no matter what you say, I’ll tell you that organizing is all that matters.
Do you see why I get frustrated with comments here?
Especially lately?
Also, one candidate won by 17 votes.
Ranglin-Vassell won by 16 votes.
Thats a pretty good haul against incumbents. Well done.
But I’ve been assured progressive advances within the Democratic Party are impossible because of The Neoliberals The Reptilian Shapeshifters The Jewish Bankers The Illuminati Permagov insufficient ideological purity of the Demoncrats.
Surely we should be spending less time on the futile effort of electing progressives to positions of power and responsibility in the Democratic Party and more time attacking Democratic candidates running against Republicans on the internet. “After Hitler, our turn” amirite?