The Importance of Movement Candidates
by Chris Bowers, Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:32:46 AM EDT
William Beutler on Chuck Pennacchio:Right here at MyDD though, Chris Bowers is backing Pennacchio, even though he acknowledges he can't win. (I don't begrudge Chris the ideological stand, but it still strikes me as misdirected energy -- after all, Democrats are nowhere near becoming a pro-life party.)AnthonySF on the Connecticut primary:I've said before that trying to oust Joe Lieberman in a primary is a slight waste of resources when there are other races around the country (Montana, Rhode Island, Missouri) that need urgent attention.Hillary Clinton today:"Progressive blogs beat up on Republicans and other Democrats, while conservative blogs beat up on Democrats and progressives."
As we all know, there are many other examples of this line of thinking popping up in Democratic circles this year. There are many people who claim that the progressive movement is wasting resources that could go to fighting Republicans by running primary challenges against other Democrats.
This is a flawed way of thinking. It is based on the assumption that the people who donate to, volunteer for, and create buzz on behalf of Democratic candidates / progressive causes will give a fixed amount of resources no matter what those candidates do and how those causes are run. That simply isn't not true, and even though many people like William Buetler and Hillary Clinton talk as though it is true, they know it is not true. If there were really a fixed amount of resources available for Democratic campaigns and progressive causes, there would be no need for any campaign to hire any fundraising staff. Instead, each campaign would simply receive its automatic, fixed share of resources via a single, one sentence reminder to donors, volunteers and progressive media, and then move forward.
Obviously, that is absurd, and isn't the way it works on any campaign. In order to raise money, all large campaigns hire fundraising staff, make contracts with direct mail vendors, build donor databases, send out fundraising emails, and make sure the candidate conducts significant call time. The reason campaigns do this is because everyone knows that in order for people to donate their money, their time, or their creative juices to a campaign or cause, they need to be convinced that the campaign or cause is worth it. This is why direct mail pieces are drafted and edited multiple times. This is why street and door-to-door canvassers are trained on their pitch every day by progressive organizations. This is why the candidate is often asked to deal personally with the large donors. Campaigns know that the better job they do convincing activsts that their campaing is worthy, the more resources they are likely to receive.
Those who argue that primaries are a waste of money ignore how activist participation within the Democratic primary process is an important means of convincing many progressive activists that the Democratic Party is worth fighting for and being active in. Whenever a progressive activist participates in a Democratic Party primary, that necessarily means that the activist now cares about the direction Democratic Party itself. In the long run, it can only help the Democratic Party to have more activists who care about the party. If more and more activists are convinced that the Democratic Party is something worth fighting for, in the end primary challenges will actually generate far more resources for Democrats than they will drain.
Since 2003, I can think of several movement candidates who have caught the national eye, including Howard Dean, Christine Cegalis, Ned Lamont, and now Jerry McNerney. Starting with the only example form the previous election cycle, can anyone seriously argue that Howard Dean's 2004 Presidential campaign drained resources from the Democratic Party? Since saying that you helped Howard Dean raise $50 million online is one of the easiest ways to secure a job as a Democratic staffer in D.C. these days, I doubt there is anyone in D.C. who would make that argument. Further, can there be any doubt that Howard Dean's campaign was one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that the Kerry campaign was able to raise $100M online during the general election? I don't know of anyone who would make that argument either. As one of the first candidates representing the new progressive movement, Howard Dean brought droves of activists into the Democratic Party. I was among them. Back in early 2003, I was still a registered as "no party," but now I sit on the Pennsylvania State Democratic committee and help raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democrats. Carol Jenkins, my fellow committee person in Ward 27, Division 23, was also re-energized by the Dean campaign, and now she is our new Ward Leader.
Movement candidates running in Democratic primaries are one of the best means of convincing many activists within the new progressive movement to care about the Democratic Party on both a national and local level. This is why Ned Lamont's primary campaign, especially if he wins, will generate more resources for Democrats nationwide than any other Democratic campaign this electoral cycle. Instead of draining Democratic resources, this campaign will do what the party committees and the congressional leadership have generally struggled at in 2006: inspire a large segment of the activist base into fighting full-force for Democrats in 2006. Best of all, people will be inspired to act through positive means (actually caring about the Democratic Party) rather than negative means (simply being anti-Republican). The same can be said about the campaigns of the other candidates I mentioned, although in a more localized context.
Of course, if Lieberman bolts the party and then Democratic leaders decide to throw the principle of party democracy out the window and endorse someone other than the Democratic nominee, then we will see a major waste of resources. That would be the single best way to drain resources from the party in advance of the elections this fall, since it would be the single best way to convince tens of thousands of progressive activists to stop caring about the Democratic Party altogether.
This is a flawed way of thinking. It is based on the assumption that the people who donate to, volunteer for, and create buzz on behalf of Democratic candidates / progressive causes will give a fixed amount of resources no matter what those candidates do and how those causes are run. That simply isn't not true, and even though many people like William Buetler and Hillary Clinton talk as though it is true, they know it is not true. If there were really a fixed amount of resources available for Democratic campaigns and progressive causes, there would be no need for any campaign to hire any fundraising staff. Instead, each campaign would simply receive its automatic, fixed share of resources via a single, one sentence reminder to donors, volunteers and progressive media, and then move forward.
Obviously, that is absurd, and isn't the way it works on any campaign. In order to raise money, all large campaigns hire fundraising staff, make contracts with direct mail vendors, build donor databases, send out fundraising emails, and make sure the candidate conducts significant call time. The reason campaigns do this is because everyone knows that in order for people to donate their money, their time, or their creative juices to a campaign or cause, they need to be convinced that the campaign or cause is worth it. This is why direct mail pieces are drafted and edited multiple times. This is why street and door-to-door canvassers are trained on their pitch every day by progressive organizations. This is why the candidate is often asked to deal personally with the large donors. Campaigns know that the better job they do convincing activsts that their campaing is worthy, the more resources they are likely to receive.
Those who argue that primaries are a waste of money ignore how activist participation within the Democratic primary process is an important means of convincing many progressive activists that the Democratic Party is worth fighting for and being active in. Whenever a progressive activist participates in a Democratic Party primary, that necessarily means that the activist now cares about the direction Democratic Party itself. In the long run, it can only help the Democratic Party to have more activists who care about the party. If more and more activists are convinced that the Democratic Party is something worth fighting for, in the end primary challenges will actually generate far more resources for Democrats than they will drain.
Since 2003, I can think of several movement candidates who have caught the national eye, including Howard Dean, Christine Cegalis, Ned Lamont, and now Jerry McNerney. Starting with the only example form the previous election cycle, can anyone seriously argue that Howard Dean's 2004 Presidential campaign drained resources from the Democratic Party? Since saying that you helped Howard Dean raise $50 million online is one of the easiest ways to secure a job as a Democratic staffer in D.C. these days, I doubt there is anyone in D.C. who would make that argument. Further, can there be any doubt that Howard Dean's campaign was one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that the Kerry campaign was able to raise $100M online during the general election? I don't know of anyone who would make that argument either. As one of the first candidates representing the new progressive movement, Howard Dean brought droves of activists into the Democratic Party. I was among them. Back in early 2003, I was still a registered as "no party," but now I sit on the Pennsylvania State Democratic committee and help raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democrats. Carol Jenkins, my fellow committee person in Ward 27, Division 23, was also re-energized by the Dean campaign, and now she is our new Ward Leader.
Movement candidates running in Democratic primaries are one of the best means of convincing many activists within the new progressive movement to care about the Democratic Party on both a national and local level. This is why Ned Lamont's primary campaign, especially if he wins, will generate more resources for Democrats nationwide than any other Democratic campaign this electoral cycle. Instead of draining Democratic resources, this campaign will do what the party committees and the congressional leadership have generally struggled at in 2006: inspire a large segment of the activist base into fighting full-force for Democrats in 2006. Best of all, people will be inspired to act through positive means (actually caring about the Democratic Party) rather than negative means (simply being anti-Republican). The same can be said about the campaigns of the other candidates I mentioned, although in a more localized context.
Of course, if Lieberman bolts the party and then Democratic leaders decide to throw the principle of party democracy out the window and endorse someone other than the Democratic nominee, then we will see a major waste of resources. That would be the single best way to drain resources from the party in advance of the elections this fall, since it would be the single best way to convince tens of thousands of progressive activists to stop caring about the Democratic Party altogether.
Tags: Party Democracy, Primary Elections, progressive movement (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
57 Comments