Why Our Revolution Fails to Endorse Winning Candidates

[MineralMan]

In this week's primary elections on Tuesday, candidates endorsed by Our Revolution lost across the board. Yesterday, I pointed that fact out and was roundly booed by some here. I guess they took my facts as non-support for progressivism. I don't know.

What I do know is that candidates in a legislative district or other jurisdiction who are a poor fit for that location will not win. No matter who endorses them, the voters in that district will vote according to their own political positions. That is always the case. No amount of endorsements or campaign funding will alter that fact.

A case in point is the Illinois congressional district whose incumbent is Dan Lipinski. He is one of the least progressive Democratic incumbents in this country. As expected, he won his primary. In that 3rd congressional district, his Our Revolution-endorsed opponent, Marie Newman came close, with just over 49% of the vote. It was a good showing, but not enough to defeat the incumbent. The voters in that district did what voters often do. They voted for the known quantity instead of a relative novice candidate.

That was a close election. The others held on Tuesday were not so close. Still, in every case, the candidate endorsed by Our Revolution lost. That endorsement did not lead to a victory.

Winning candidates must fit the district. Always. If they do not, they will lose. That's not a wonderful thing, but it is a fact. What is also a fact is that some Democrats who voted for the losing candidate in a primary often do not show up for the General Election to vote for the winner. In some cases, that enables the Republican to win. That's a pity.

If we put all of our eggs in the baskets of candidates who do not suit their districts, we run a serious risk of Republicans remaining in control of Congress and state legislators. We need to win elections in November. So, if your favorite candidate did not prevail in the primary, go to the polls anyhow. It's not a personal thing. It's the district or jurisdiction.

Support Democrats in General Elections and GOTV!

[stonecutter357]

1. Support Democrats in General Elections ....

[Timewas]

2. In the end

All politics are local....

[MineralMan]

3. Exactly. Our Revolution fails because it applies

one set of political standards to all candidates it endorses. Those standards are not fully supported by voters in many, many legislative jurisdictions, so their endorsed candidates lose in primaries. That is not how you make progress, frankly. Instead, endorse candidates who can win in each district and who come closest to those standards. That is how you win elections. If you lose an election, no progress is made.

We need to win elections, not lose them. That is job one.

[Timewas]

6. flexibility

flexibility not rigidity, too rigid has no room to adapt or bend to circumstances.. no way to win local elections...

[RandySF]

4. The Lipinski district is where I agreed with Our Revolution

There was no valid reason, political or otherwise, for Lipinski to oppose the ACA in that district.

[MineralMan]

8. I don't like Lipinski. I would have voted in that Primary

for his opponent. But, I don't live there. I know almost nothing about that district. She came close, but did not prevail. It's very hard to defeat an incumbent in most districts in the primary. So, Lipinski will be on the November ballot. I hope he'll win. At least he votes most of the time with the Democratic caucus. A Republican would vote every time against it.

There are 435 House districts. Each is unique. Each votes its own way. Democratic candidates have to win where they run. Otherwise, the Republican will. We tend to forget that in our quest for the universally ideal candidate. The result is what we have in Congress. We need to rethink a little and match candidates to their districts more carefully.

[zipplewrath]

5. Few people have "coat tails"

The larger point I suspect you are alluding to, is that national candidates rarely have "coat tails". Even people like Obama often have trouble getting candidates elected in down ticket races. "Ticket splitting" is especially frustrating to national candidates where the public elects a president, and then simultaneously elects a congress that won't support their agenda. They love to declare "mandates", but it rarely works out that way.

The reason we have parties is because that is where people declare who they will work with. They still have their own issues and policy positions, but the basic declaration is "...and I will work with these people". It, unfortunately in some ways, is not a declaration of adherence to any particular position outside of their own.

I have no real issue with organizations that want to back "long shots". We probably need those to a great extent if for no other reason that some voters will at least feel "heard". How those long shots run can become an issue. And ultimately we have to get back to work on the general election. But I do think that national organizations should be careful in backing particular candidates in local primary elections. It can hurt as much as help and it does leave an impression that "outside forces" have more to do with victory than local support.

[MineralMan]

9. You make some very good points.

Personally, I love primary elections. They are a wonderful way for people to show what they support, politically. We can learn from them. But, the general election will feature the names of those who win the primaries, whether we love them or not. We cannot let our disappointment in primary results keep us away from the polling place in November. If we do, we will lose, and not just in the general election.

[C-SPAN4me]

7. Concise & To The Point

... especially the part of VOTING in the primary, even if your "chosen" -- read endorsed -- candidate didn't win the primary. Anyone spewing harse comments to the 3rd party / apathetic non- voters in the 2016 General need to look in the mirror come Nov 2018!

[Blue_Tires]

10. Our Revolution is *NOT* on our side; it's time folks realize this

They are only here to fuck our shit up and then pin the blame on us afterwards... Any "leftist" organization that gets in bed with Trumpers and Neo-Nazis and sees Dems as their #1 enemy is not a leftist organization...

No self-respecting PAC would get within 100 miles of Dennis Kucinich (who is not only now certifiably insane instead of only a little insane back in the old days; he's politically radioactive), much less back him for an elected office...

[MineralMan]

11. Certainly some in leadership of that organization are not on our side.

Others, however, may just be idealistic enough to be unable to understand how this all works.

As for Dennis Kucinich, Our Revolution's support for him demonstrates just how far from political reality that organization actually is.

[Blue_Tires]

14. Yeah, no doubt the bulk of them are

enthusiastic idealists who want to be politically involved and don't know any better so they are getting played for suckers...

[peggysue2]

12. Yes!

It's all about winning in November so we have the votes necessary to neuter the Trumpster and his acolytes. The damage already done by this crew is significant. We need to make sure it's not irreversible and the way to ensure that is winning massively in the midterms. Anything else is suicidal, not just for the Democratic Party but for the country at large. We simply do not have the luxury to be purists in our decisions this time out, whether we tilt far left, center, or to the right on philosophy.

As hyperbolic as it sounds, November will be a do-or-die moment. Without significant wins in November, we can kiss the 2020 election good-bye. And then, all bets are off.

Choosing appropriate candidates to match their constituents is what it's all about if we want really want to win. Or simply give lip service to the notion. That means supporting candidates like Manchin, Heitkamp or even Lipinski. Once they win their Democratic primaries, they're our candidates to rally around.

We've only got one shot at this. We can't afford to miss.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes. I agree.

I don't support candidates in districts outside of my own state. I have neither the time nor money to do so. However, I also do not fight them. I count on Democrats in every district to show up and vote in November, using their best judgment.

Any Democrat is better than Every Republican! GOTV!

[Uncle Joe]

15. What's the alternative to going the path of Our Revolution and what are the long term implications

of staying with the status quo method of running Democratic Candidates?

What has the track record nationwide been for about the past 15 years?

Thanks for the thread, MineralMan

[MineralMan]

16. The alternative is obvious. We go with a hands-off, 50 state policy.

We support the Democratic candidates chosen by the people in their districts and states. We go after the Republicans and harness them to Trump in every way possible. We undertake a nationwide GOTV effort that is supported by media efforts that extend deep into social media outlets, including local ones.

We stop fighting among ourselves over details and focus on electing Democrats who match their constituencies.

We'd better do those things, or we'll run out of chances to do them very soon.

[Jim Lane]

19. Tell that to the DCCC and the Blue Dog Coalition.

There are supporters of the more conservative/establishment/moderate/whatever candidates. (I don't want to get hung up on the terminology.) As long as the DCCC, the Blue Dog Coalition, and other outsiders are getting involved in local races on behalf of those candidates, there's certainly room for a national organization that supports the more progressive candidates.

Incidentally, I disagree with the Blue Dogs but I don't question their right to press their views. When an official party entity like the DCCC violates your "hands-off" suggestion, it raises more complicated issues.

[MineralMan]

20. I'm not opposed to primary elections or support of primary candidates in any way.

What I am opposed to is the sour grapes approach some "progressive" groups take if their endorsed candidate loses in a primary. And if you don't think that happens, you've already forgotten the 2016 general election.

For example, I would not vote for Joe Manchin in my own state. But, then again, a Joe Manchin would never win the Democratic primary in my own state. I don't vote in West Virginia, but I hope he wins there. I don't like his positions on a number of things, but I hate all of the positions of he Republican, so Manchin is preferable.

I work on elections where I live. I vote where I live. I leave elections in other places to the voters there. I do not know the constituencies in those places. However, I support Democrats, wherever they are. I would never run down any Democrat during a general election campaign. Not everyone agrees with me on that, as I have observed here many times.

[Jim Lane]

22. I halfway agree with you about sour grapes.

The half where I agree is when it comes to official party organs. Both the DCCC and the DSCC have, in some past races, backed a more conservative candidate in the Democratic primary, but then abandoned the race if a more progressive candidate won. The party has an obligation to respect the will of the primary voters.

I disagree, however, as to private organizations. The Lipinski-Newman race is a very clear example. Lipinski has a claim to be the most right-wing Democrat in the House. There's no reason that Our Revolution, with its limited resources, should help his campaign, or even give him a tepid endorsement, when he's opposed to so much of what Our Revolution stands for. They have plenty of other races to work on.

The same is true of the other side. I assume the Blue Dog Coalition and/or other such organizations backed Lipinski in the primary. If Newman had won, though, I wouldn't say that they had an obligation to support her. As a progressive, she's opposed to much of what they stand for.

Conservative Democrats would usually have no reason to support a non-Democrat in the general election, even if a progressive wins the primary. For Our Revolution, though, I assume there'll be an internal debate. Some of its leaders would want to break from the Democratic Party and back a no-hoper Green candidate or the like who's running against a reactionary like Lipinski, because the Green would be closer to Our Revolution's ideology. I hope that Our Revolution will instead focus its resources on races where a progressive Democrat has a genuine chance to win.

[Jim Lane]

17. Some endorsing organizations go for the "body count" of easy wins.

I've seen more than one organization with a boast like "In the last cycle, 95% of our endorsed candidates won!" Very impressive, but they were endorsing incumbents who faced only weak opposition in the primary. (As you note in another post, "It's very hard to defeat an incumbent in most districts in the primary." ) In the same vein, they made general-election endorsements of candidates who won by 20-point margins.

Our Revolution disdains the body-count approach in favor of long-term change. "Our Incremental Improvement" is not their agenda. I'm sure they knew that their endorsees were facing uphill fights.

Did the organization err by giving many primary voters a more progressive option? I don't think so. Even if the endorsee loses, the campaign serves to publicize progressive ideas. For example, if the Democratic nominee is going to be someone who opposes single payer, it's still an improvement if, instead of an uncontested Democratic primary, there was a primary challenger who pushed the idea. Single payer won't be enacted in 2019-20 anyway. The long-term goal is advanced by getting the idea into the public discussion.

There's also the old political adage that "you run once to get known and then a second time to win." Some of this year's candidates, who started with little or no name recognition, have become better known and have built a base of volunteers and donors. Revolutions don't happen overnight.

I appreciate your support (in #9) for primaries. Too many people on DU seem to feel that any contested Democratic primary is a terrible sin. I don't favor a spurious party unity that is achieved only by ruthlessly suppressing internal disagreements.

[MineralMan]

18. That's fine, as long as they then endorse the Democratic candidate

who wins the primary. I welcome primary races. What I do not welcome, but condemn, is the later abandonment of Democratic candidates who do win primaries. That, too, occurs, and far too often.

When it does occur, I will condemn that group for not really supporting the primary-winning Democratic candidate who is running against a Republican. Support of the winning primary candidate is how progressive groups can build respect from Democrats. Sour grapes policies do nothing to build that support.

[JCanete]

21. Sure, but winning candidates also have to have money, and it isn't as simple as that at all.

Marketing matters. Exposure matters. Both of those things can propel somebody who is not as good a fit over somebody else by simply creating a sense that this candidate is a frontrunner, or even forgone. Protest voters may still vote for somebody else. Most voters don't like to "throw away" their vote or to back a loser, and will gravitate to the frontrunner closest to their values.

I do love the bright eyed optimism of people here though, who think that elections in America are pure demonstrations of democracy.