Yesterday, when I claimed that Marty Chavez was implying that Tom Udall was unelectable because he was a liberal by saying "the contrast in records between me and the Congressman won't situate him well for the general election," more than one commenter thought I wasn't giving Chavez a fair shake. Perhaps the quote was taken out of context, or I was simply reading too much into it. Well, today Marty Chavez has offered some clarification:
"I feel very strongly that this is going to be a Democratic pickup and I'm going to be that Democrat, because I'm a moderate Democrat," Chávez said. "I think the Republicans are more afraid of me than some others." (…)
"Philosophically, he's so far to the left," Chávez said. "I'd rather not have him in the race, but that's a challenge I'd not shy away from."
So yes, Marty Chavez is quite clearly stating that he is more electable than Tom Udall because Udall is a leftie, and he, Chavez, is a moderate. But here is my favorite part about Chavez:
"I think I get a bad rap from progressives," he said.(…)
"I have legitimate progressive credentials, but I am pro-business," Chávez said, adding he believes the two can go together.(…)
"I'm a moderate Democrat," Chávez said"
Note to Chavez: you don't get to be both a moderate and a progressive. Doesn't work that way. You can't be both a moderate and a conservative, or a moderate and a liberal, or a moderate and a fascist. If you want to be a moderate, call yourself one. If you want to be a progressive, then call yourself that. Trying to occupy two ideological positions at once is about as an overt sign of pandering as a politician could possibly concoct. Please explain how someone can be both a progressive and a moderate without simultanesouly explaining how those terms have no meaning.
And oh yeah: you might begetting a bad rap from New Mexico progressives for claiming that progressives can't win statewide in New Mexico. You might also be getting a bad rap from reality by claiming that you are more electable than someone who outperforms you in general election polls by 20 points. Just a thought, on both counts.
I'm kind of irritated by this, but mostly I don't get it. Marty Chavez seems to be trying to ward off a Udall entry into the New Mexico Senate primary by calling him a liberal:
"This will not be a sweet primary. It just won't," Chavez said during a telephone interview. "The contrast in records between me and the Congressman won't situate him well for the general election."
Yes, it is certainly irritating to hear a Democrat criticize another Democrat by calling him or her a liberal. As Swing State Project notes, that sort of Republican talking point isn't helpful to Democrats, to put it mildly.
But mostly, I just don't get it. Most voters in Democratic primaries are self-identified liberals and / or progressives, and surely that will be as true in New Mexico as it is almost all places in America that aren't in the south. So how, exactly, does attacking someone for being liberal help someone in a primary campaign? You might as well run for Governor of Massachusetts by attacking someone for being a Massachusetts liberal. Attacking Udall for being liberal will come off as an attack on liberals in New Mexico in general. Insulting voters you need to win doesn't make any sense to me.
It seems to me that electoral success of DLC-nexus types in primaries is dependent on self-identified liberals internalizing the argument that liberals and progressives are unelectable. You can't win too many Democratic primaries without liberals, and so attacks on liberals can only work in primaries if liberals themselves believe the attacks being sent their way. That certainly isn't going to work in New Mexico, where polls show Udall outperforming Chavez by 38 points against Steven Pearce, and 22 points against Heather Wilson. It also won't help when Chavez recently claimed that he is pretty much the same as Udall on the issues, stating "if you look issue by issue I doubt you'll find much difference ... You will find that we will vote together almost all the time."
One of the greatest dangers to the DLC-nexus and conservative wings of the Democratic Party is when liberals and progressives start believing they can actually win. It makes me think that the post-election narrative last year was mainly about conservatives becoming worried that such a belief might actually start to sink in. The last thing liberals and progressives need to hear is that Democrats are winning despite running on virtually the same exact platform as Walter Mondale, or that we have been undergoing a twelve-year shift in national demographics that significantly favors Democrats and progressives. After all, once the Democratic electoral problem is solved, the DLC loses all-purpose entirely. There is no need to keep telling a party that keeps winning elections how to win elections, and there is no need to frame every policy proposal you make in terms of electability when the electorate has a built-in slant in your direction. In other words, there is no role for a concern troll wing of the party when the party is winning.
None of us are in this to get Democrats better parking spaces. And the place with the most leverage right now is primary campaigns where we can ensure that a progressive runs against a Republican, instead of a centrist. That's one of the reasons I'm focusing a bit on reactionary DLC hack Marty Chavez, who is trying to wrap up the Democratic nomination for Senate in New Mexico. He is outright loathed by progressives, and this gives you a sense of why that is.
But perhaps an even bigger "oops" came with rumors that maybe everyone wasn't quite signed on with Chavez. That perhaps Chavez jumped the gun with the announcement of the team. Cope, Blanchard and Gonzales among others were rumored to not be on Chavez's side officially. And not amused that they were mentioned.
Heath Haussamen looked into it and found that Gonzales is not officially a member of his committee. Gonzales told Haussamen "I'm not a member of his committee. I notified his campaign staff of that yesterday afternoon but also notified them that I would continue to help the mayor raise money."
Gonzales went on to say he has agreed to help Chavez, but has also been helping Don Wiviott -- an opponent of Chavez in the primary -- raise money.
Cope and Blanchard did not comment to Haussamen.
But it grew worse when he tried to project confidence about the upcoming race.
He also said he is confident he would defeat Udall in a primary.
"Philosophically, he's so far to the left," Chávez said. "I'd rather not have him in the race, but that's a challenge I'd not shy away from."
Meanwhile, the Draft Udall campaign is hitting the Washington Post. Chavez is a nightmare. Because of his corrupt background, his legacy of reactionary policies, and his loathing of progressives, should he be the nominee there would be a Republican Senator from New Mexico one way or another. Hopefully we can get progressive Udall or Denish to run, and get to that 60 vote margin in the Senate that is within reach.
Senate candidate Marty Chavez is outright loathed by New Mexico Democratic activists, though right now he's the leading candidate for the Democrats in the state. From Roll Call:
Other big names committed to raise money for Chavez are Javier Gonzales, a former Santa Fe County commissioner who is a favorite to replace Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) whenever Udall should choose to vacate his seat; insurance executive and prominent Republican fundraiser Bud Dziak; and Mike Anaya, a former chairman of the New Mexico Democratic Party and the brother of ex-Gov. Toney Anaya (D).
Chavez is the Mayor of Albuquerque, and he's basically a developer's DLC dream, which is why it's completely unsurprising a big name Republican would be part of his fundraising operation. It's just business.
Chavez has problems with corruption and big business, and it's interesting that his fundraising base is not coming from Albuquerque. One commenter on Democracy for New Mexico asserts that Chavez actually falsified the names on his finance committee, putting people there who hadn't agreed to serve. I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't be out of character.
STATE BLOGS
