In his announcement that he wouldn't challenge Kirsten Gillibrand in New York's Senatorial primary, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer indicated that he made that decision mainly to fit with President Obama's wishes:
"In light of President Obama's clear desire to avoid a Democratic primary in New York state, I have decided to focus on my reelection race for Manhattan borough president and to suspend my exploratory committee and fundraising efforts for the 2010 Senate race," Stringer said.
President Obama survived one of the most bitterly contested primaries in Democratic history, which perhaps is a source of his reputed antipathy toward primaries. However, research on whether primaries help or hurt parties in general elections shows decidedly mixed results:
In researching Democratic primaries in recent House and Senate campaigns, David Kowalski and I both found a generally, though not universally, positive effect on Democratic general election performance.
As we all saw in the blogosphere in 2008, divisive primaries can have a negative effect on personal relationships and involvement in political social networks. However, as we also saw in 2008, it can be reasonably countered that while the existing participants within political social networks can fracture as a result of a divisive primary, such primaries can also bring many new people into the social networks.
Most academic research on the subject has indicated that divisive primaries tend to be an effect, rather than a cause, of national party division and / or poor general election performance. That is, unpopular incumbents tend to draw primary challengers, national parties that are already divided tend to have both divisive primaries and poor general election performance (PDF), and divisive primaries often happen when general election victory looks very likely. Rather than causing intra-party division, divisive primaries are usually an effect of some other, more deeply underlying factor.
There probably isn't any universal rule on whether contested primaries help or hurt, because there isn't any universal way in which contested primaries unfold, or any universal context in which they take place.
Still, there are good reasons to recoil from powerful figures within parties trying to prevent primaries. The entire exercise reeks of powerful people trying to protect other powerful people, and one the last thing we need these days are even fewer ways to hold politicians accountable. Uncontested primaries cuts the number of electoral opportunities we have to hold politicians accountable in half, and that just isn't a good thing. I know that I feel personally disenfranchised when primary fields are cleared for an establishment favorite. I'm sure that President Obama would have felt the same way if everyone in the Democratic Party had worked to clear the field for Hillary Clinton.
For those who didn't get to see the drama unfold in real time this week, I thought I'd compile a brief summary of the major points to keep everyone up to date (minus the blink-and-you-miss-it appearance of Tom Ridge).
I met Joe Sestak in 2006. He came to speak at Haverford College, which sits right on the border of Pennsylvania's Montgomery and Delaware Counties. The latter had been represented in congress by Republican Curt Weldon for the last 20 years, but Joe fought to change that. Wearing blue jeans and an obnoxiously vibrant collared shirt, Sestak did not look the part of a true pol as he stood at the front of a small lecture hall. What prevailed upon us in that meeting though was Joe's sincerity and concern for the people of Philadelphia's western suburbs. He spoke plainly and at length about his personal commitment to restoring competence to the military appropriations process and to extending the public health privileges that his family enjoyed to all Americans. We who met Joe that night were relatively unsurprised when, despite early skepticism, he defeated Weldon by 7 points.
Born in 1983, I have never known a Pennsylvania politics not dominated by the unique, wishy-washy leadership style of Senator Arlen Specter. As a kid, I knew him as the guy who would call in occasionally to the local sports talk radio station and walk his dog through my East Falls high school campus (an entitlement which, needless to say, no other Philadelphian enjoyed). Since that time I have gotten to know the man better as something of a political coward--championing desperately needed progressive reforms and then voting against them, and apologizing for when not scripting Bush administration legal policies in the Senate. No, it came as no surprise to me when Specter decided that the Republican electorate in PA was no longer entitled to gauge his performance.
A New Democrat, Sestak is less progressive than I and I'm sure many of you. For the first time though, I see the very real potential for Arlen Specter to be replaced by a legislator who actually stands for something and respects the wants and needs of his constituency. So what else could I do but my best to ensure that Rep. Sestak does indeed decide to fight this time? If you feel the same, I encourage you to join our new Facebook group, Congressman Sestak, PLEASE challenge Senator Specter, share your opinions on our wall, email your support to the congressman and amplify the voice of Pennsylvanians no longer content to concede to the personal ambitions of a man whose opportunity to lead has so long been squandered.
Official description:
Joe Sestak is a United States Congressman representing the 7th District (Delaware County) of Pennsylvania. A Democrat, Sestak is a retired Navy Vice Admiral and the highest-ranking former member of the Armed Forces to serve in the Congress.
In 2006, Sestak challenged 10-term Republican Curt Weldon for the 7th District seat in Washington. Weldon, a Delaware County institution, had won re-election in 2004 with 59% of the vote in spite of Presidential candidate John Kerry's 53% winning tally in the district. Still, Sestak was able to raise funds beyond Weldon's in 2006 and win the election by a 7+ point margin. Since his election, Sestak has actively served on the House committees on Small Business, Education & Labor and Armed Services, earning Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's designation as the most productive freshman congressman.
Sestak has made indications that he may seek election to the United States Senate seat currently held by Republican Arlen Specter. Specter has recently thrown that bid into question by declaring that he now is in fact a Democrat.
So what kind of Democrat the Keystone state inherit in Specter? He ardently supports the death penalty. He has voted against the Brady Bill, background checks at gun shows, the ban on assault weapons, and trigger locks for handguns. In 2006, an amendment written by Specter in to the USA PATRIOT act allowed the Bush administration to appoint United States Attorneys without confirmation by the Senate or limits on their terms. He voted for cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, then voted against the bill. In 2009 he has vowed to not vote for cloture on the same. This exemplifies a long history of voicing tacit support for progressive measures and not voting for them in congress. Still a representative of a large blue-collar constituency from Philadelphia, Specter has recently showed more interest in investigating the destruction of "Spygate" tapes by the NFL following the New England Patriots' defeat of the Philadelphia Eagles in Superbowl XXXIX.
The longest-serving Senator in Pennsylvania's history, Arlen Specter will represent the state for a 30th year in 2010. Now 79 years old, Specter is seeking re-election to a 6th term. His decision to switch parties in April of this year represents his desire to do so, facing a strong Republican primary challenge from his right and voicing no future policy ambitions to endear him to either side.
Always the fighter, Joe Sestak has appropriately wondered aloud about what exactly Arlen Specter is fighting for, aside from his establishment status. If he is to be re-elected, it is possible that Specter will earn the very powerful charimanship of the Senate Appropriation Committee, though it is unknowable to anyone what Democratic measure he might champion there. What is widely understood about Specter is that he is loyal to no one and bafflingly unpredictable. Sestak has meanwhile sought to make the most of his deep personal commitment to armed service personnel and the people of Pennsylvania, notably through his stance on accessible and affordable health care, which Arlen Specter has shown no meaningful signs of supporting.
So this is our choice, Pennsylvanians! The Washington establishment has rallied around Specter, but it will ultimately be our responsibility to choose a Democratic candidate to face anti-tax pitchfork-wielder Pat Toomey. If you would like to see Pennsylvania represented by an energetic agent for change, and not the original proponent of the single-bullet theory, please join our group, email Joe and let him know that it's time to fight again.
Over in Quick Hits, there were two posts consecutive posts this afternoon that bear mentioning on the front page. In the first, demoinesdem points us to new Progressive Punch scores that compare how members of Congress vote to the partisan voting tendencies of their distracts. In the second, bruoton tells us about a new, non-partisan primary system in California, where the top two vote getters move on to the general election, regardless of party. According to this Quick Hit, Nate Silver thinks that conservative Democrats will be the biggest beneficiary of the new system. These two developments are worth looking at simultaneously, because they impact each other.
The new Progressive Punch tool is extremely useful, since it serves as a quick reference on which Democrats are voting more conservatively than their districts, and thus are vulnerable to a left-wing primary challenge. However, the new California laws probably render, as I think Nate Silver argues, either a left-wing or a right-wing primary challenge to a Congressional incumbent far more difficult. While an upstart progressive might be able to use the new law to reach the general election against one of California's many Blue Dog incumbents, those Blue Dogs can now fend off the challenge in the general election through the support of Republicans, ala Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate campaign. Similarly, Blue Dog type Democrats will now have a greater chance to reach the general election in one of California's many lean-red districts that are held by arch-conservative Republicans, thus giving LieberDems a second way of retaining or winning more U.S. House seats in California. At least, that is the theory. In practice, I think it will turn out quite differently, and put an end to the totalitarian control the Republican House leadership holds over California Republican U.S. House members.
Correctly pick the winner in ten different 2010 U.S. Senate primaries primaries. Measure your prognosticating skills against other political junkies and amateur pundits. Again, you have until 5pm ET today to make your picks.
Correctly pick the winner in ten different 2010 U.S. Senate primaries primaries. Measure your prognosticating skills against other political junkies and amateur pundits. You have until this Friday at 5pm ET to make your picks.
There really isn't a lot left to say as we head into the final 24 hours of the campaign. First, and most important, Kelly, Amanda and I want to thank everyone who has helped in any way with the campaign. The one thing I will take away from this experience, regardless of the outcome on Tuesday, is the people I've met, the communities I've visited and the stories we've shared.
It has also been encouraging how many people have stepped up over the last 2 weeks to help with donations to the campaign. Once our opponent got desperate and decided to go negative there were many people and organizations who stepped up and sent in late donations. These late donations allowed us to expand our media advertising and create a second TV ad to combat the distortions coming from our opponent's campaign.
The campaign schedule has been pretty intense over the last week and will continue to be so until the BIG day on Tuesday, November 4th. I want to congratulate everyone for putting so much effort into this year's election, not just for an individual campaign, but for the entire Democratic ticket. I've seen people in every community throughout the 5th district working to make sure the message is getting out.
I want to remind everyone it is important that we finish strong. Don't take anything for granted, ignore the polls and work like the polls show our candidates 5 points down. Remember, while all indications show Barack Obama will be our next president, if we believe the polls, Al Gore would be concluding his second term or we would be working to re-elect President John Kerry right now.
Earlier this week I received an email from a 5th district voter with very strong pro-life beliefs who would like to vote for me. She told me via email that she is comfortable that I am Catholic and my stance on pro-life issues is similar to that of Sen. Robert Casey. She feels it is very likely Barack Obama will be elected President and the Democratic Party will gain seats Congress. Where her concern lies is what actions a newly inaugurated President Barack Obama and a United States Congress with a strong Democratic majority will take after January of 2009. She is afraid there will be a far left agenda that will attempt to overturn pro-life initiatives put into effect like the ban on partial birth abortions.
In my response back to her, I explained that my agenda when I arrive in Washington will be exactly what I've been campaigning on. I want to concentrate on fiscal responsibility, a national energy policy that stresses domestically produced alternative fuels, health care and health insurance reform, saving and strengthening Social Security, rescinding No Child Left Behind and bringing our troops home from Iraq. I also mentioned that I will not stand for Congress losing sight of what the agenda must be -- solving the problems important to the middle class.
Not surprisingly, we are seeing on TV and across the nation a strong and sometimes vicious debate erupting about who or what is to blame for the financial meltdown that is impacting not only our domestic markets but world markets as well. This was also a hot subject at the debates and forums held this week for the candidates in the 5th district race.
It is very troubling to see certain people on the national scene attempt to blame this crisis on people who took out mortgages they could not afford. We are also hearing criticism that federal government policies put in place during the 90s to encourage home ownership by low income minorities was a major factor in the crisis.
While everyone was focusing on the fate of the bailout plan this week, the federal government's debt passed the $10 trillion mark with hardly anyone noticing. Of course, the bailout plan insures that this debt will climb even higher as there is specific language in the bailout plan authorizing the federal government to raise the debt limit and borrow up to $840 billion to fund the bailout.
Throughout the campaign I've been involved in several candidate forums with my opponents for the open seat in the 5th Congressional District. Additionally, during the final 5 weeks of the campaign there will be several additional opportunities for voters in the 5th district to watch all three candidates debate the important issues facing the district and the nation. The important question voters should consider while watching or listening to these events is which of the three candidates really understands the important problems facing our nation.
There are several issues that clearly define and differentiate where I stand and what I believe in versus my two opponents. I've found that my stances on Health Care Reform, the future of Social Security, understanding the economic problems in the 5th district and, most importantly, fiscal responsibility by the federal government separate me from my two opponents.
Given the meltdown in the economy, and the looming presidential debates, treat this as a mental health break, my piece on the primary wars has just been published in Prospect Magazine .
I first joined MYDD in 2004, and was an avid geeky follower of Chris Bowers (in fact I thought he ran the site) but as most of you know the site got a very different reputation during the primary war.
Though it's subbed and simplified for a British publication where the Netroots has to be explained as Blogosphere 101, I you might be interested to read it: in short, through an adversity, it's a paeon to the blogosphere and the possibilities of online advocacy and political campaigning
The last few weeks have seen our nation's economic and financial institutions in the most critical condition since the days in 1929 when the stock market crashed and banks failed sending the country into the Great Depression. This morning I came upon an online headline that read "Bush team, Congress negotiate $700 Billion Bailout". At first glance, the general public probably feels that this is welcome news. However, there are many troubling details about this plan by the lame duck Bush administration that the American people need to be aware of. Below are some of the details about the plan found online at http://apnews.myway.com/articl...
1. The rescue plan would give Washington broad authority to purchase bad mortgage-related assets from U.S. financial institutions for the next two years. It does not specify which institutions qualify or what, if anything, the government would get in return for the unprecedented infusion.
This past Friday morning in Venango County all 3 candidates for the 5th Congressional District appeared at the Venango County Chamber of Commerce Breakfast Candidate Forum. During this event, the issue of fiscal responsibility, the $482 billion budget deficit and the $9.7 trillion federal debt came up several times. Fiscal responsibility is perhaps the single issue that clearly defines the difference between me and my opponents in this campaign.
As we move into the final 2 months in the campaign for the 5th Congressional District, the economic conditions in the 5th district will play a key role in the outcome of this race. The facts are clear that rural north central and northwest Pennsylvania lags behind the rest of the state and nation in economic development and opportunities for our citizens. Recent unemployment statistics released by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry shows that 2 counties in the 5th district, Cameron and Forest, have the 2 highest unemployment rates in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Additionally, 15 of the 17 counties in the 5th district have unemployment rates over 5%, which is unacceptable.
This week, I had the opportunity to participate with my fellow 5th district candidates in a forum sponsored by WPSU TV to discuss job creation and economic conditions in the 5th Congressional District. As we fielded questions on the various issues, I paid close attention to how my views on job creation and retention along with overall economic development strategy differed from my opponents. What I heard from my Republican opponent was numerous statements about "incentives" and "tax credits" to entice businesses to locate or expand in the 5th district.
Barack Obama made an excellent choice with his selection of Delaware Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate. On Saturday I spent the day working at the Democratic booth at the Centre County Grange Fair and throughout the day people were asking if the announcement had been made. Everyone I spoke with expressed positive opinions about the choice. If this is any indication of the type of qualified people Barack Obama will surround himself with as President, we can all rest assured that our country will be headed in a better direction come January of 2009.
The daily trivia question at the Democratic booth was "What Pennsylvania town was Joe Biden's hometown?" I'm usually pretty good at trivia but Kim Bierly had to tell me the answer was Scranton PA.
As we move into the fall campaign season, the McCracken for Congress campaign is receiving several important endorsements. Earlier this month we were honored to receive the endorsement from the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. This is a key endorsement from an organization that is a leader in supporting the rights of the working people, not only in the 5th district, but in Pennsylvania and across the nation.
