I agree, but (4.00 / 4)

Chris, that makes perfect sense, and I agree with your assessment that we'd rather Rand Paul win the primary.

However, the real question is not "do I want him to win?" but "I have a limited amount of dollars. Should I invest in Rand Paul or an actual promising progressive candidate?" You still haven't sold me on that one.

I blog on InnermostParts.org

---

by: Sayhar @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 14:50:54 PM UTC

This makes sense, Chris! Are you THAT rich? (4.00 / 2)

As long as the money you can spend for donations is sparse, is certainly makes much more sense to spend the limited resources for helping good progressives, and not for influencing a race that at best will produce another Dem Senator of questionable party loyalty and centrist convictions. Of course, very additional vote above the 60 vote threshold is a plus right now, but isn't there another race somewhere where a more progressive candidate has a chance? And maybe not only give some bucks, but connect with local bloggers and help building up a grassroots group in support for that candidate? It's still early in the campaigns, and spending some time may be a valuable as spending money. Maybe even more than that...

---

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:46:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it doesn't necessarily make more sense (0.00 / 0)

Actually, if you have limited funds, using them to support Paul could very well be more effective.  William Poundstone's 2006 book "Gaming the Vote" estimates that (at least in the general election) each dollar spent can be FIFTEEN times more effective when spent to bolster a near-rival of your "real" opponent, instead of simply spending it to directly build your own support.  http://rangevoting.org/CandClo...

Consider it an exploit of the plurality voting system.

Is it undemocratic?  Probably.  But it's certainly effective. Actually, the Democratic candidates should consider using some of their limited funds to help Paul's campaign.  (In which case, I guess you can avoid soiling your conscience by giving the money to them, and letting them them do the dirty work of giving it to Paul.)

(Link is from the Center for Range Voting, http://rangevoting.org which supports replacing plurality voting with range voting, in order to fix these sorts of problems.)

---

by: mudlock @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:49:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure. But only if there isn't another game with a better RoI! (4.00 / 1)

If you have the choice between spending your money in two different race, spending it for the candidate who will vote progressive 90% of the time, raising his chances to 50%, will bring a better return for the buck  than spending it for the republican opponent of another candidate who votes progressive only 70% of the time, even if that donation would raise the Dem candidate's chances to 60%. Right?

---

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 17:01:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It Depends (0.00 / 0)

That depends on a lot of variables.  And you're confounding the issue I've raised with another related, but non-identical, issue.

I was pointing out how spending money on Paul could, potentially, be a much more cost-effective or reliable way of winning the election for the progressive Democrat.

But what you're asking about is, essentially, the expected-increase in expected-utility for each of two options ("give money to Paul" and "give money to progressive Democrat"); that's a much more involved question, and while you've given some of the information we'd need to calculate that, you haven't given all of it.

You've given the progressive Democrat a score of 90%, and Paul a score of 70%; what's the other Republican's score (is it 0%, or higher)?  You've also given the progressive's odds of winning at 50% without the money and 60% with: we'd need to know, is this against either Republican (because I thought the point was that the odds were better against Paul), and if not, what are the odds against each opponent, and also, what are the odds of Paul winning the primary, both with and without the money?  And that's without considering the relative merits of the candidates in the Democratic primary...

With those values, we could calculate all this out, if we wanted.

But my point was simply this: setting up Paul as a "push over" candidate might be a better use of money than just supporting your favorite Democrat, which I believe is the question the article is looking to have answered.

---

by: mudlock @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 17:50:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm, damn, you're right. (0.00 / 0)

My brain is a bit lazy today. Of course, we also need the vote quotas for the other candidates, for a proper calculation...

Well, and I see your point. But my point is: Is there really no progressive candidate for Senator somewhere which may be a better recipient for the money? Donating to a libertarian, in order to get a centrisat democrat elected doesn't really sound like a great idea. And if there really is no alternaqtive with reasonable chances - how many Representatives can you "buy" for the cost of one Senator? And how does the "power" of those progressive lawmakers compare to that of the Senator? After all, increasing the size of the preogressive block in the House may be a good idea, too.

---

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 17:57:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was with Chris after the second paragraph, no buts. (0.00 / 0)

Ask Joe Lieberman's Republican contributors if they think they wasted one cent to have him dog us for 6 long years.

Hell yes we should change strategies to clean the rats out  now that they've learned to swim.  We're the ones sinking!

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 18:06:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Better Idea: Trash Grayson (4.00 / 7)

Forgive me for suggesting that we follow in the footsteps of right wingers, but I think that's what we should do.

Right wingers are really good at trashing and smearing people.  Especially democrats.  If they want to influence a democratic primary, they don't do so by talking up one of the democrats, they instead trash the one they don't want.  This has a 2 fold effect.  First, trashing one, by default, helps the other.  Second, even if the one you don't want wins, you've already started trashing him for the General Election.

Don't give money to Republicans.  Set upfund opposition research to put Grayson in the worse light possible.  That way we know that our money is always spend against a Republican, and cannot be used to promote another.

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

---

by: dmineau @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:01:59 PM UTC

Conserva-Dems are bad for the Caucus (4.00 / 2)

I would rather have 51 fighting Progressives than 60 progressive and conserva-Dems anytime. The DINO's are always useful to the Kleptocracy for undermining the progressive agenda and the Democratic leadership hides behind their skirts whenever they prefer to do the bidding of their corporate sponsors. Stop sending money to conservative Democrats in tight races and target them in their primaries by supporting more liberal candidates no matter what their chances in the general election. I'm fed up watching us make Rahm Emmanuel happy by electing more DINOs.


"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

---

by: Stoic @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:13:07 PM UTC

Agreed, however... (4.00 / 2)

This doesn't mean we should start contributing to Republican campaigns which Chris is thinking about.  Money given could be used to promote a republican in a General election, or worse, be put into field work that registers MORE republicans to vote.  I understand wanting to root for one Republican over another, but let's not do something counter-productive with our limited resources.

I agree with you that we want less DINOs.  We should do that by contributing our limited resources to progressives that are in primary battles.

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

---

by: dmineau @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:20:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a nice idea. (4.00 / 2)

But I wouldn't do it. If he has progressive views, and if has the backbone to vote against his party, then just run as a democrat. The republican platform is horrible and even accepting a small percentage of it makes me question anyone's sanity.

Besides, there's one substantial difference between Rand and Ron, aside from having little knowledge of Rand's voting history: one is a congressman and the other would be a senator. Ron's vote is a drop in the bucket, while Rand would probably be a deciding vote. Bucking his party would be a lot harder than we imagine. I doubt he would be anywhere close to voting with dems on the big issues. Just look at the twins.

But then again, maybe he has a lot of integrity. Wait, he's running as a Republican. Just keep coming back to that thought. One quarter sanity just isn't enough.

---

by: frankenheimer @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:37:46 PM UTC

You obviously don't know the man (0.00 / 0)

Bucking his party would be a lot harder than we imagine.

He would do it in a heart beat. The beauty of the man is that you know where he stands and he will cast a reliable vote on issues like empire and civil liberties.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 20:55:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like father, like son? (4.00 / 2)

Birch Bayh, liberal; Evan Bayh, hardcore DLC.

I haven't read any analysis of Rand Paul's positions and record regarding how they compare with his father's. Any suggestions?  

---

by: nasrudin @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:40:05 PM UTC

Don't jump! (4.00 / 2)

Step away from the ledge, Chris. Let's talk about your loved ones.

If he's like his father he would still help privatize everything from Social Security on down. And he would prefer a health care system based on the old Doc in Gun Smoke. Bite the bullet... and pay me something for the rest of your life.

Let folks like the Peterson Foundation wrestle in the mud with their own pigs. We have plenty of our own.

Better to take on the Blue Dogs etc.. and define our own party right now.

Now,come on down and let me buy you a nice hot chocolate.

---

by: Eureka Springs AR @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:13:56 PM UTC

Here's a bit of tough love talking down. (0.00 / 0)

BOY, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MIND?!?  WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION?!?  You are seriously considering giving money to a Republican, based solely on his parentage, instead of an actual progressive candidate.  Boy, pull your head out of your you-know-where.  Only in a world as depraved and evil as this one has become would a self-described progressive go so often out of his way to talk up wrong solutions to the crises facing it.  What is so difficult to understand about this?  It's politics, not rocket science.  If you call yourself a progressive, you vote for and donate to progressive candidates (the real variety, those whose records match their rhetoric).  You don't waste your ballot, energy, and money on a right-winger from any political party.

Mr. Bowers, why do you even write for this web site?  Your ideas, strategies, and condescension do nothing to help move a progressive agenda, and in fact help to stifle it by directing energies away from the obvious solutions and onto the non-solutions the establishment tells you are "practical."  Who cares which GOPher wins the primary?  Either way, his vote is not going to be with anything other than his own twisted principles.  What you should be doing is finding a progressive candidate or three to run against the right-wing Democrats, regardless of their given chances, and then continue supporting genuine progressives in the general election no matter which political party they run on.  Really, you don't hear about Republicans up and throwing their principles out the door to back candidates who don't support their fascist ideology.  They vote for the politicians they know support it, regardless of all else, and more often than not their adherence to their evil beliefs works for them.  Yet here you are, in spite of all evidence that it doesn't work, prepared to back a right-wing candidate whose votes you admit cannot be counted upon nearly as much as a left-wing Democrat's.

Boy, you obviously think that this is all a game and that the stakes extend no further than who wins what.  People in this country and in the rest of the world are suffering and dying because of policies our politicians support, and all you can do is pat us who refuse to accept the status quo on the head and tell us we can't do any better, so we should just shut up and do as we're told.  That really what all your posts boil down to.  If you're hellbent on not learning anything, fine, but why do you have to drag the rest of us down with you?  Grow up, stop this nonsense, and start living up to your stated ideals - either that, or stop kidding yourself about what those stated ideals are.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:18:32 PM UTC

Come on, Mike, dampen your tone, pls. (4.00 / 2)

Yes, sure, it's a very, hmm, unconventional idea by Chris, but we all know him good enough to understand he really has the best interests of progressives in mind, and is willing to try new strategies to advance them. Speaking of "major malfunction" and calling him "boy" is really too strong for a response, imho.

---

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 17:05:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He asked to be talked down. (0.00 / 0)

I chose the method I did because, really, what he proposes is obscenely, insanely ludicrous.  It was a blog entry in desperate need of someone to dole out the harshness.  Seriously, to even suggest wasting time, energy, and money on a Republican politician is absolute madness and should be treated as such.  And no, Mr. Bowers does NOT have the interests of progressives in mind when he suggests such lunacy.  Stop making excuses, and more than that, stop trying to put a damper on the incivility.  We are in an ideological war, one we are losing because we're too scared of being labeled extreme to say the things necessary.  Mr. Bowers earned my words because he is behaving like a frightened, spoiled little boy whose overriding concerns are nothing more than going along to get along, and dragging the rest of us down that path to oblivion with him.  Someone needs to call him out for that.  Pulling punches isn't going to wake him or anyone else the hell up.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 18:53:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"stop trying to put a damper on the incivility" And that would change things? (4.00 / 2)

Mike, seriously, do you belkieve incivility helps? Do you think it will make people more responisve to your arguments? That it will convince anyone?
Sry, only my personal opinion, but I think it's contraproductive. It just makes you look like a guy with a short fuse.

And I know that I should listen to my own good advices.  

---

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 19:51:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's like this: (4.00 / 1)

In the war of words, those who are left standing intact are the winners.  And right now, the far right is winning precisely because it says whatever it has to in order to get its message across and dominate the discussion.  The far right doesn't care whose feelings get hurt and it sure as hell doesn't care what anyone else thinks of it.

What the left fails to realize is that by always being timid, and by self-censoring for fear of looking extreme (as defined by the far right), we play right into the hands of our enemies, who benefit when we fail to get down in the mud and fight it out on our terms instead of theirs.  Until or unless we recognize that we are fighting an ideological war and that we must alter our method of discussion, we aren't going to survive.  Sometimes, in order to wake someone up, you really do have to shake him until he rouses.  Gentle taps won't do it, even though you feel better for having avoided being rougher.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 21:06:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"those who are left standing intact are the winners" And divided we fall! (0.00 / 0)

We shouldn't forget this. Sometimes plain, honest talk is necessary, but we should be careful not to let this crreate a rift between us. That's simply what those damn right wingers are waiting for!

---

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 21:35:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, but who's dividing the left? (0.00 / 0)

It's not those of us who refuse to compromise our principles.  It's those who urge us to do that.  One of the things about war is that knowing both the enemy and oneself is vital.  What's more, maybe we really ought to seriously consider that the chief reason the left is so divided is because it let in right-wingers whose only real goal is to divide us and keep us at each other's throats.  Maybe we really ought to do as the GOP did and purge the fakers, send them back to the political party of their preference.  Remember: it's not the partisanship practiced by Republicans that brought them to ruin; it's that they possess an evil ideology that leads to depraved policies, which in turn do great damage.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:27:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's where you're wrong: (4.00 / 1)

In the war of words, those who are left standing intact are the winners.  And right now, the far right is winning precisely because it says whatever it has to in order to get its message across and dominate the discussion.

Precisely not.  The far right is winning because there are forces in the power elite who are willing to build them up and overlook their insanity because it serves a larger purpose for them.  No such largesse will be shown by these forces to a Left opposition.

Shrillness is not always wrong, but it isn't true that we'll get the same response as the right does from the MSM, etc. for such tactics.  No, we get false equivalences constantly thrown in our faces.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 22:00:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And what does the elite use to fight its battles in the political arena? (0.00 / 0)

Words are weapons in this ideological war, and used effectively, they win battles.  Used ineffectively, they cost people battles.  You can put a million dollars into a television ad with which to push a particular agenda, but if said ad is poorly scripted and executed, it's not going to work and could in fact hurt your cause.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:30:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

solidarity (4.00 / 1)

ever heard of it?

coalition building?

Tactical debate?

Um... how about faith in the human spirit?

Manners?

Human decency?

.... no, didn't think so.

---

by: Joe Gabriel @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 20:17:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Acts of desperation (4.00 / 3)

This looks to me like tactics masquerading as strategy, Chris. That's almost never a good idea. For one thing, it muddies the message, and it's the message that's ultimately the ground on which our battles will have to be fought. As I said in another forum, a single Chomsky can be ignored -- ten thousand of them, and we begin to have the makings of a genuine debate.

We should never lose an opportunity to make it clear what our positions are, and why. Winning isn't the only thing.

---

by: William Timberman @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:34:55 PM UTC

Under the following conditions: (4.00 / 1)

1) That Progressives do so openly as Progressives, not from the shadows. There needs to be an explicit attempt at coalition wherein both sides adopt rhetoric that undermines the current left-right paradigm in favor of an establishment-progressive paradigm.

2) That the differences between left wing Progressives and right-wing libertarians be spelled out and that it is publicly proclaimed that what unites us is far more important tactically than what divides us. E.g. differences over the welfare state that in the long run libertarians cannot win anyway; the welfare state must get larger as robotics and AI obsolete the majority of the workforce.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 20:49:45 PM UTC