Progressive Movement Symbiosis

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 15:40


( - promoted by Matt Stoller)

Last night in the Democratic primary for Maryland's fourth congressional district, turnout was significantly higher than in September 2006. Seventeen months ago, when Donna Edwards lost by 3%, there were about 77,000 voters in the primary. Last night, turnout seems to have been about 113,000, an increase of about 47%. Despite the large increase in turnout, Wynn's overall numbers did not change much. Seventeen months ago, he received about 38-39,000 votes. This year, it looks like Wynn will receive about 40-41,000 votes.

While the data to prove this definitively is not yet available, it appears that the new voters overwhelmingly broke for Donna Edwards. In September of 2006, she received around 35-36,000 votes. Yesterday, she received around 67-68,000 votes. The new voters in this district overwhelmingly turned out for the presidential primary. Among those new voters, a substantial majority turned out for Barack Obama (Obama overwhelmingly won MD-04). And among those new Obama voters, it appears that an overwhelming majority backed Donna Edwards, the first progressive primary victory against an incumbent U.S. House Democrat in a decade.

Now, this did not happen because the Obama and Edwards campaigns worked together. The Obama campaign had been organizing in the district for some time, and Donna Edwards did not even endorse Obama until last week. Her campaign was supported by a coalition of progressive groups and activists similar to those that supported Howard Dean in 2004, Barack Obama in his Senate primary in 2004, and Ned Lamont in his Senate campaign in 2006. What happened was that there were two different progressive movements working independently of one another in the district. The Obama campaign brought the new voters, and the Edwards campaign organized those new voters into supporters of a progressive challenger to a corporate, incumbent Democrat.

In the end, the two movements supplemented each other quite nicely. Now, we not only have a wave of new voters, but we have a wave of new progressive voters that sent a powerful message of change to Democrats, corporations, and basically everyone in Washington, D.C.  That strikes me as exactly the message that both movements hoped to send.

This could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship. It is the fulfillment of a long-time progressive hope that a mature, well-organized progressive movement could one day turnout a wave of new progressive voters and create a progressive governing majority. Now that such a turn of events has finally started to happen, I have to say that I am very open to the promise of the Barack Obama campaign. I see no reason why our two movements cannot continue to scratch each others backs in, for example, Anne Dicker's State Senate primary against corrupt, conservative incumbent Vince Fumo in Pennsylvania's first senatorial district on April 22nd. This is a potential wave of change that can sweep the nation, and it would not be possible on this scale without the two movements scratching each other's backs. However, because both movements are roaring, we stand at the brink of a transformational moment in American politics.  

Chris Bowers :: Progressive Movement Symbiosis

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is what I'm saying (4.00 / 1)
Progressive policies are great, but they need to reach people's hearts, not just their heads.  You need someone like Obama who ariculates our values well, not just our policy positions.  

The Politics of Bruno S.


Blue Dogs & Senate Dems (0.00 / 0)
How does this progressive movement get more methodical and organized to challenge and hopefully defeat all the Blue Dogs in the House and the Senate Dems that voted to legalize spying on Americans with impunity?

May not need to (0.00 / 0)
The nice thing about spineless Democrats, is that when the wind blows progressive, so will they.

Ideally, we'll punt them all from office, but realistically that won't happen.  If one or two get made examples of, the rest can disappear through attrition or reform and become genuinely good reps (it has happened, Kerry is a much better senator now than he was before 2004, Dodd recently had a change of heart that made opposing telco immunity worth being ostracized by his own caucus for).

The Republican retirements this cycle are a reminder that plenty of people are in politics for personal enrichment and little else, so when the gravy train stops, they get off.

It will be the same with the Bush dogs.  They'll either vote correctly more often, or they'll retire to make more money being corrupt elsewhere.


[ Parent ]
We can't punt them all. (4.00 / 2)
Some very conservative areas will continue to send Bush Dogs (or Republicans) to Congress.  What we need is to knock off "soft" candidates like Al Wynn in relatively safe Dem districts--people who are betraying their constituents.  But it doesn;t just take an opponent--the IL-03 (Lipinski) race showed that.  We need stellar candidates who are in it for the long haul.  I hope there are more Donna Edwardses ot there, because that's what we need.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Supply and demand (And belief) (0.00 / 0)
I heard a great interview with the black former governor of VA, now a mayor of some city (forget his name, sorry).  He was talking about the "Bradley Effect" and that he said to Bradley "you should have been the first black governor, but your run convinced me that I could do that too"

It was touching, but also shows the power of inspiration.  Edwards win will inspire 10 or 100 other activists to consider their own congressional runs.  A lot of bad incumbents never get challenged because it's a hell of a lot of work with little chance of success.  But seeing it work will help a few others make the mental leap to put their names on a ballot and run.

So if we provide the demand for progressive primary challengers, and I think supply will follow.


[ Parent ]
Working For Us PAC (0.00 / 0)
now that i think about it, i remember workingforuspac.org, which was founded last year aiming to do just what you describe.  this post by Kos summarizes the mission.

does anyone know how effective these guys have been?


[ Parent ]
Me too (0.00 / 0)
I had high hopes for that. They launched and then... no one seems to know what happened then. I haven't seen so much as a peep out of them in what seems like forever.

So I'd say pretty ineffective.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
seed 5 qualified challengers per cycle in blue districts (4.00 / 1)
great question.  one answer from Atrios:

What we really need are 500 modestly wealthy people who pledge $2000 each per election cycle to provide $200,000 of seed money for each of 5 qualified candidates who are willing to run campaigns against bad Democrats in blue districts. The threat of a primary from The Left, even if it's ultimately unsuccessful, can be a great behavior modifier.

...adding, it's a bit tricky to do this institutionally. Ideally one would just set up a PAC and collect a bunch of donations and hand them out intelligently. But PACs are limited to $5K contributions to candidates, so that doesn't work. So you have to do the Emily's List model, which is using a PAC to solicit direct contributions to candidates. You basically need people to pledge to give money where they're told when the time comes, and and institutional structure which makes smart decisions about which candidates to fund so that people don't feel like they're wasting their money.



[ Parent ]
Good idea (0.00 / 0)
There is a group of gay donors that have done this at the level of statehouses--taken out several really virulently anti-gay politicians and ones who put anti-gay measures on the ballot.  They have been very successful, and colleagues of the defeated have taken notice.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
If things keep going the way they have been (0.00 / 0)
I suspect it wouldn't be difficult to get a lot more than 500 people to donate (something less than $2k) to that particular cause.  Hell I'd pledge $200 per cycle myself after seeing what Edwards did in MD.  

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you 100%. It may take several cycles for this movement to have its full effect, but the effect is there, it's real, and change is coming.

I think Donna Edwards' victory, in some ways more even than the Lamont victory, is putting the Blue Dogs and other corporate sellouts on notice.  


Go Obama (0.00 / 0)
I have to say that I am very open to the promise of the Barack Obama campaign.

Glad you came around.

Now lets home Edwards doesn't screw it up by endorsing HRC who is a fine politician but will do nothing for this new potential wave.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


Edwards already endorsed Obama n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
The streams have crossed. eom (4.00 / 1)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


A Hopeful Outcome Indeed.... (0.00 / 0)
in response to the two previous commenters. This was a Donna Edwards win. She did a loooooooooooot of work to educate her constituents about what she stands for and how the policies she advocates are good ones for them and the nation.

That was the most important thing. Yes, Obama's 'presence' influenced many people to become new voters but without a solid person to articulate what 'change' really would be I submit you will not actually get voters; only fans.

We may be seeing Obama picking up on this now. His latest speech about 'free trade' and jobs indicates that he may be willing to get specific about his agenda. I certainly hope so because he must do that or he will have McCain doing it for him in the GE.

If Obama allows that to happen he will be toast. I rather think he won't but it's great to see him taking a progressive stance right up front and in the ReichWing's ugly face as opposed to the Liebercrat drivel he's been pedaling.

This from a confirmed Obama cynic.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


Chris: Tony Payton Jr. (0.00 / 0)
Chris:

http://youngphillypolitics.com...

Tony Payton, a progressive incumbent screwed over by his own party, could really use some of that progressive mojo right about now...


Hardcore left (4.00 / 1)
I should point out that his happens even though Obama doesn't push the hardcore left as much as many would like.  He just sells the mainstream progressive consensus to middle America.  That is what we want in a president.  Then let others push the edge.

The Hardcore Left??? (4.00 / 7)
You mean, like, the authors of the Magna Charta?

Honestly, if Eisenhower were to give his "military-industrial complex" speech today, the Senate Democrats would vote to censure him.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Excellent observation (0.00 / 0)
Ike, were he around today, would be considered an absolute heretic by the GOP (you can just picture him getting the Swift Boat treatment, as well). And the Senate Democrats, being such a hardy group of brave souls, would certainly go along.

[ Parent ]
I rec'd you but (0.00 / 0)
There is some value in the comment you replied to even though his idea of "hardcore left" is not very left at all.

However we got here, we're in our own endzone hoping to not get safety'd.  We can throw hail mary's or try a running game and take back a yard at a time.

I wouldn't presume to know which approach is best, but I can see arguments for either approach.


[ Parent ]
I knew I shouldn't have used that term (0.00 / 0)
I didn't use the term "hardcore left" as an insult or anything.  I just meant there are multiple fights going on.  One is to convince the typical American that mainstream progressive thought is common sense coming from mainstream American values.  Obama seems good at that.

But there are also battles out on the edge, pushing what ideas are acceptable to discuss in polite company, if you will.

What I'm trying to point out is these two concepts are compatible.  One helps the other.


[ Parent ]
I want to hear more about Anne (0.00 / 0)
Great post. This is what I've been hoping for all along. A real chance for a realignment. Imagine if Obama had staff in every single state. If he doesn't take matching funds he'll have the money to do that. Just like 5 staffers in each state and more in the states that matter. What he's been doing in the super tuesday states. Millions of new voters.

We are talking about a real progressive transformation. It won't be easy and we still have a lot of work to do, so let's get going. Ed Fallon here I come.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


at the brink (0.00 / 0)

[W]e stand at the brink of a transformational moment in American politics.

I wouldn't say we're at the brink. But maybe the transformation is finally within sight.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss


I hope you're right... (0.00 / 0)
because I don't think Obama himself can govern as a progressive.  The logic of his campaign argues against it.
He wants his persona as a politician above politics to overwhelm the few strong liberal positions that he'll be forced to take, thereby maximizing his appeal to swing voters and making the race against McCain as close to a simple popularity contest as he can.  By January his progressivism will be in tatters. We'll need all the Donnas we can get.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox