Missed opportunity is the fault of the whole Democratic team, not just party leaders
David Goldstein has a post at HorsesAss responding to an editorial in the Seattle Times criticizing the Democratic chairs of the state and King County party organizations for "failing voters" in the 6th County Council District race. Says the Times: "Democrats blew the chance to give voters a stronger choice."
David argues that the blame deserves to be distributed more broadly, including the "unimaginative field of potential challengers", none of whom were willing to "take one for the team". I agree, but speaking of politics being a team sport, where was David Goldstein during the write-in campaign for Brad Larssen?
I see David's conclusion about the 6th as pretty much the same attitude many Democratic leaders have adopted for years in looking at the political map.
Don't compete where it's "hopeless". Avoid "hopeless" districts. Don't give any help to "hopeless" candidates, especially write-ins. Because heaven forbid, we might end up wasting our capital on people whose prospects are not as good as those of our most promising candidates.
I believe we need to compete everywhere to win, at every level, not just federal but also state and local. That means the party should have a candidate running for every partisan office at every election across the state and the country. And that candidate should receive netroots support...even if it's a write-in.
Nationally, this view has been called the fifty state strategy, and it is widely shared within the netroots community and at the Democratic National Committee - where Howard Dean has sparred with Beltway insiders who don't like the approach. But it was applied successfully during the 2006 election cycle and the party won a great victory as a result. Few are disputing the wisdom of the strategy now.
As the filing period drew to a close last June, and it became obvious that there wasn't going to a heavyweight challenger to Jane Hague, the party should have found the money to pay the filing fee for any activist who was willing to run against Hague. And Brad Larssen, a veteran advocate and vice chair of the 45th District Democrats, was willing.
We were happy to support Brad's campaign, unlike David, but it never should have been a write-in. His name should have been on the ballot in the primary election. He would have likely won the nomination, and would now be preparing for a general election campaign in a Democratic district against a weakened Jane Hague - with plenty of support from the party, the netroots, and the progressive movement.
Brad ended up being such a compelling candidate that he convinced the P-I and the Times to editorialize on his behalf before the primary. The editorial boards of Seattle's two dailies saw his candidacy as an effort worth supporting, not ridiculing, despite Brad's very unfavorable odds.
And, to almost no one's surprise, Brad didn't come close to winning the primary, though he did manage an impressive 30% of the vote. Brad's defeat set the stage for this morning's editorial, in which the Times blamed party leaders, grumbling:
We haven't forgotten that last year, before one of the most sweeping Democratic victories in American history, the Times saw fit to endorse only Republicans in the state's three competitive federal races.
They supported Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Dave Reichert, and Mike! McGavick! over Peter Goldmark, Darcy Burner, and Maria Cantwell.
The last endorsement was particularly ridiculous and perplexing, after the Times endorsed Cantwell in 2000 (when she was a challenger) and editorialized many times in support of the senator's work on key issues the paper professed to care about during her first term in office. But apparently, Frank Blethen's desire to see the estate tax repealed overrode all other considerations.
Laying the blame solely at the feet of Suzie and Dwight is unfair.
Yes, they are in positions of leadership, but they considered recruiting a candidate for the race to be a top priority and pursued many potential candidates. Ross Hunter and Debi Golden were approached. Either would have made a fine nominee.
Even Darcy Burner was asked, despite the fact that she lives outside of the district and had already decided to challenge Reichert again.
The only mistake made by party leadership was waiting to file Brad Larssen until after the close of the regular filing period. If you're reading this and wondering why they waited, here's RCW 29A.28.011:
(The Municipal League routinely rates him "not qualified").
Richard has claimed to be both a Democrat and a Republican at different times. He ran against Norm Maleng for prosecutor in 1998 as a Democrat, distributed literature urging the State Central Committee of the Democratic Party not to elect Dwight Pelz as chair, served as a Republican PCO, and filed public disclosure complaints that cost the Republican Party a significant amount of money in fines.
King County Democratic Chair said last June in a statement to the press that Pope "denied the Democratic Party the right to do a party file during the week of June 11 – 15, 2007 and we had a candidate ready to file."
What the law makes clear, however, is that major parties only enjoy such a right if no resident of the jurisdiction in question files to run under the party's banner. Richard Pope isn't a dependable Democrat, but he identified himself as such in his paperwork, paid the fee, and submitted his materials at the last minute, after he saw that no one else was going to.
Had Brad Larssen filed earlier with the support of the county party, the current situation could probably have been avoided. Of course, it would have been nice to see one of the 6th District's more prominent Democrats step up to the plate and challenge Hague. We know there's at least one person who is qualified and clearly has the ambition - recently minted Democrat Rodney Tom.
I don't live in the 6th District myself, but I wish now that I had paid more attention to the race and worked to help recruit a candidate. Those of us in the netroots community here in the Northwest ought to make an effort to involve ourselves in candidate recruitment and keep a sharp eye out during the filing period. We could have been more involved in finding a challenger to Hague, but we weren't.
The entire Democratic team within the 6th and its surroundings - every party leader, every activist, every precinct committee officer, every blogger, every citizen involved in the party - shares part of the blame for this missed opportunity. Some share more than others, but the whole team is ultimately at fault. By not filing a candidate during the regular filing period, we forfeited the race.
This matter is a valuable reminder that nothing should be taken for granted, and resources should be expended to ensure the party always has a solid, if not outstanding, candidate in every partisan race. When Democrats compete everywhere, Democrats stand a much better chance of winning.
David argues that the blame deserves to be distributed more broadly, including the "unimaginative field of potential challengers", none of whom were willing to "take one for the team". I agree, but speaking of politics being a team sport, where was David Goldstein during the write-in campaign for Brad Larssen?
I haven’t been shy about criticizing my party for failing to be in a position to take advantage of this opportunity, and have openly ridiculed the hopeless primary write-in campaign.Ah, not doing anything...because he judged the effort to be hopeless. Well, we knew the chances were very slim that Brad would win...but that didn't stop NPI's contributors from urging voters to write in his name on their primary ballot.
I see David's conclusion about the 6th as pretty much the same attitude many Democratic leaders have adopted for years in looking at the political map.
Don't compete where it's "hopeless". Avoid "hopeless" districts. Don't give any help to "hopeless" candidates, especially write-ins. Because heaven forbid, we might end up wasting our capital on people whose prospects are not as good as those of our most promising candidates.
I believe we need to compete everywhere to win, at every level, not just federal but also state and local. That means the party should have a candidate running for every partisan office at every election across the state and the country. And that candidate should receive netroots support...even if it's a write-in.
Nationally, this view has been called the fifty state strategy, and it is widely shared within the netroots community and at the Democratic National Committee - where Howard Dean has sparred with Beltway insiders who don't like the approach. But it was applied successfully during the 2006 election cycle and the party won a great victory as a result. Few are disputing the wisdom of the strategy now.
As the filing period drew to a close last June, and it became obvious that there wasn't going to a heavyweight challenger to Jane Hague, the party should have found the money to pay the filing fee for any activist who was willing to run against Hague. And Brad Larssen, a veteran advocate and vice chair of the 45th District Democrats, was willing.
We were happy to support Brad's campaign, unlike David, but it never should have been a write-in. His name should have been on the ballot in the primary election. He would have likely won the nomination, and would now be preparing for a general election campaign in a Democratic district against a weakened Jane Hague - with plenty of support from the party, the netroots, and the progressive movement.
Brad ended up being such a compelling candidate that he convinced the P-I and the Times to editorialize on his behalf before the primary. The editorial boards of Seattle's two dailies saw his candidacy as an effort worth supporting, not ridiculing, despite Brad's very unfavorable odds.
And, to almost no one's surprise, Brad didn't come close to winning the primary, though he did manage an impressive 30% of the vote. Brad's defeat set the stage for this morning's editorial, in which the Times blamed party leaders, grumbling:
State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz or King County Democratic Party Chairwoman Susan Sheary failed voters in a significant way.It's so nice to see that the Times is so perturbed about our party's affairs. Now what does this editorial remind me of? Oh yes, that's it...a concern troll.
Even before the June 2 driving incident, both knew that although Hague was a leader on the county budget, she was not the most compelling councilmember. They knew, too, that her campaign office had difficulties with contributions and that her district is turning more Democratic every day. Where were these two when there was a chance to mount a strong challenge against her?
We haven't forgotten that last year, before one of the most sweeping Democratic victories in American history, the Times saw fit to endorse only Republicans in the state's three competitive federal races.
They supported Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Dave Reichert, and Mike! McGavick! over Peter Goldmark, Darcy Burner, and Maria Cantwell.
The last endorsement was particularly ridiculous and perplexing, after the Times endorsed Cantwell in 2000 (when she was a challenger) and editorialized many times in support of the senator's work on key issues the paper professed to care about during her first term in office. But apparently, Frank Blethen's desire to see the estate tax repealed overrode all other considerations.
Laying the blame solely at the feet of Suzie and Dwight is unfair.
Yes, they are in positions of leadership, but they considered recruiting a candidate for the race to be a top priority and pursued many potential candidates. Ross Hunter and Debi Golden were approached. Either would have made a fine nominee.
Even Darcy Burner was asked, despite the fact that she lives outside of the district and had already decided to challenge Reichert again.
The only mistake made by party leadership was waiting to file Brad Larssen until after the close of the regular filing period. If you're reading this and wondering why they waited, here's RCW 29A.28.011:
If a place on the ticket of a major political party is vacant because no person has filed for nomination as the candidate of that major political party, after the last day allowed for candidates to withdraw as provided by RCW 29A.24.131, and if the vacancy is for a state or county office to be voted on solely by the electors of a single county, the county central committee of the major political party may select and certify a candidate to fill the vacancy.Emphasis is mine. So an assumption was made that no one would file as a Democrat for the 6th, thereby allowing the county committee to choose a candidate to appear on the ballot. But someone did file: perennial candidate Richard Pope, a quirky lawyer who has run for judge, port commissioner, county prosecutor, and other offices, always unsuccessfully.
(The Municipal League routinely rates him "not qualified").
Richard has claimed to be both a Democrat and a Republican at different times. He ran against Norm Maleng for prosecutor in 1998 as a Democrat, distributed literature urging the State Central Committee of the Democratic Party not to elect Dwight Pelz as chair, served as a Republican PCO, and filed public disclosure complaints that cost the Republican Party a significant amount of money in fines.
King County Democratic Chair said last June in a statement to the press that Pope "denied the Democratic Party the right to do a party file during the week of June 11 – 15, 2007 and we had a candidate ready to file."
What the law makes clear, however, is that major parties only enjoy such a right if no resident of the jurisdiction in question files to run under the party's banner. Richard Pope isn't a dependable Democrat, but he identified himself as such in his paperwork, paid the fee, and submitted his materials at the last minute, after he saw that no one else was going to.
Had Brad Larssen filed earlier with the support of the county party, the current situation could probably have been avoided. Of course, it would have been nice to see one of the 6th District's more prominent Democrats step up to the plate and challenge Hague. We know there's at least one person who is qualified and clearly has the ambition - recently minted Democrat Rodney Tom.
I don't live in the 6th District myself, but I wish now that I had paid more attention to the race and worked to help recruit a candidate. Those of us in the netroots community here in the Northwest ought to make an effort to involve ourselves in candidate recruitment and keep a sharp eye out during the filing period. We could have been more involved in finding a challenger to Hague, but we weren't.
The entire Democratic team within the 6th and its surroundings - every party leader, every activist, every precinct committee officer, every blogger, every citizen involved in the party - shares part of the blame for this missed opportunity. Some share more than others, but the whole team is ultimately at fault. By not filing a candidate during the regular filing period, we forfeited the race.
This matter is a valuable reminder that nothing should be taken for granted, and resources should be expended to ensure the party always has a solid, if not outstanding, candidate in every partisan race. When Democrats compete everywhere, Democrats stand a much better chance of winning.
