With primaries up, though, I'm going to tackle something I've tried to write about in the past, but never really had much success in pulling together as it was a bit wonky and personal even for me (it might end up being wonky today, you can be the judge in the comments), and that is how I end up picking candidates to endorse for political office. This is oftentimes a very personal thing, and while I always vote with my team (I have thankfully not been put in a situation where I'd be forced to vote for someone I find personally repugnant, so I'm a straight-ticket voter since 2002), picking candidates for a primary can take on a lot of different angles, and isn't always logical. As a rule, though, I tend to gravitate toward several specific characteristics when it comes to politicians I pick from when all of the candidates are Democrats, and they are, as follows (and in roughly this order):
 |
| Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) |
My Rationale: You're going to find in this article that, as a rule, I tend to approach most of politics from a deeply pragmatic vantage. My main concern is winning the general election, as the (dirty little secret) of politics in modern America is that you're really more electing a political party than a person. While there are exceptions to this rule (people like Justin Amash or Collin Peterson who genuinely march to their own drummer), the reality is that by giving one party the majority, you are giving them the only opportunities to pick what is voted upon. As a result, Joe Manchin becomes far less conservative because Chuck Schumer's picking his agenda than if Mitch McConnell does. As a result, I tend to gravitate toward the candidate most-likely to win (without going over...err, without going Zell Miller), and that is almost always the incumbent.
This is because, except in extremely rare cases, the incumbent has proven that he or she can already win and because they are the most likely candidate to actually win the general election. This isn't always the case in hindsight (Arlen Specter in 2010, for example, was a considerably weaker candidate than Joe Sestak), but by-and-large this is the case. Incumbency means that you already know the electorate, unless you're appointed they already have liked you enough to vote for you at least once (and for the most part people don't care about term limits or throw-the-bums-out as often as is assumed by the media), and short of a scandal or lethargy with fundraising, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better candidate in your district.
Candidates I'm Supporting Under This Rule: I mean, most of them, but specifically the likes of Dianne Feinstein, Stephanie Murphy, Claire McCaskill, & Debbie Wasserman Schultz, all of whom are solid candidates/progressives who are being challenged from their left by either Bernie Bros or men who seem a bit threatened by powerful women (See #5 on this list)
Exception That Proves the Rule: Illinois's 3rd congressional district has long had a far, far more socially conservative incumbent than they needed in Rep. Dan Lipinski, and Marie Newman is surely not going to make the seat vulnerable in the general election (and seems like a solid candidate in her own right). If it's going to be a genuinely tight race for the majority, I want an actual progressive in a safely blue seat when Nancy Pelosi has to start funding Planned Parenthood or passing ENDA. I'm also in favor of Colleen Hanabusa winning the nomination in Hawaii over incumbent Governor David Ige, as his handling of the recent missile alert in the Aloha State was unforgivably incompetent, and as a result he should no longer hold this office.
 |
| State Treasurer Cary Kennedy (D-CO) |
My Rationale: Again, here's me getting a wee bit stodgy and more "DLC" than your average progressive, but I tend to like a bit of elected or political experience before someone runs for higher office like Congress or Governor. The reason for this could best be illustrated by Donald Trump, or really a whole host of Tea Party Republicans in recent years. After all, we've seen that the Republican Party can't really function in part because they've sold their soul, but also because they aren't willing to actually govern. Gone are dealmakers like Ted Stevens or even Mitch McConnell (circa 2005), and replacing them are men who just want to burn everything to the ground, particularly the current administration. I want realism in the platforms that are being espoused for office, and while I do think it's occasionally important to shoot-for-the-moon with policy, I'd rather have 60% of what I'm shooting for than 0%, and betting all of your money, on say, the latest Bernie Bro who thinks that Dianne Feinstein is the same person as Tom Cotton is utter foolishness (my apologies for the Bernie bashing, but it's inevitably a part of a conversation about Democratic primaries in 2018).
Candidates I'm Supporting Under This Rule: Excluding of course incumbents, this includes a number of people including multiple gubernatorial candidates that are running with statewide office on their resumes: Gavin Newsom in California, Janet Mills in Maine, and Cary Kennedy in Colorado all come immediately to mind. I would also tend to prefer local county officeholders or state legislators over first-time candidates (like Joe Radinovich in Minnesota, Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona, Jennifer Wexton in Virginia, & Jared Golden in Maine).
Exception That Proves the Rule: Obviously there are an exciting number of first-time candidates running this year, and many of them have proven to be surprisingly adept, which is super-thrilling. In races where someone is competing against an elected official with previous experience, I would not throw my support behind John Morangelli in Pennsylvania (he is WAY too conservative for this seat), and I like Kelly Mazeski's odds the best in Illinois even though she's against a local officeholder.
 |
| State Rep. Kaniela Ing (D-HI), left, with supporter |
My Rationale: This one clearly makes the most sense, and is the one we should all (at least in part) be considering when we cast our ballots. I did not put this first in part because there isn't that big of a difference between the candidates in most given primaries, and in part because it truly isn't the first thing I consider with a Democratic primary (these are in this order for a reason). That being said, I'd be lying if I didn't place a particularly high premium on a few beliefs, with LGBT issues being toward the top of the list.
Candidates I'm Supporting Under This Rule: Joe Radinovich is toward the top of the list here, and is one of several candidates on this list that I actually have made my endorsement matter for (I've cut him a check). While he isn't the only person in his district who voted for gay marriage (Jason Metsa is another), he did so knowing he'd likely lose reelection for doing it in his very conservative state legislative district. For a candidate with a very bright future ahead of him, that was a big risk to take on principle. I also think that he'll be a strong candidate in general and a future leader in Minnesota if we elect him now, so this is all the more reason to back him. The other candidate I'm proudly supporting based on their history of support of gay marriage is Kaniela Ing, who is running for Hawaii's first district. Ing is the only Democrat in the race who voted for gay marriage when it came for a vote in Hawaii (Donna Mercado Kim & Beth Fukumoto both voted against it, and Doug Chin has a very intense history of homophobia for a Democrat), and in a seat that will go blue either way, I support someone who backs gay rights on principle over someone who only does when they need votes in a primary.
Exception That Proves the Rule: I am (tentatively) aligning myself in the Democratic Primary in Minnesota (where I live) with Tim Walz, despite his history with the NRA. I'm doing this because I think this will be a tough election to win if Tim Pawlenty runs and after eight years of Mark Dayton as an incumbent, and I want a Democrat in charge when we lose our congressional seat in a few years (not to mention for a host of other issues if the state legislature stays in Republican hands). If Pawlenty doesn't run or Walz doesn't appear to be the best candidate, I'd be more than willing to reconsider someone like Rebecca Otto.
 |
| JB Pritzker (D-IL) |
My Rationale: Politics is the business of the people, in my opinion, and as a result any person should, provided they work hard and prove themselves, be able to run for political office & have an equal opportunity. Self-funding candidates disregard that, and make holding high office a pursuit only of the elites. That completely undermines what I believe as a Democrat, and really what I believe as an American. The same can be said for people who are the children of other successful politicians-you should be able to succeed on your own merits, not based on brand name politics. As a result, I almost always disregard self-funders and usually ignore legacy candidates unless they make it through the primary or have proven themselves in some other way.
Candidates I'm Supporting Under This Rule: By far the most annoying self-funder of the 2018 cycle is JB Pritzker, the hotel magnate who has spent an unfathomably large amount of his net worth (he is one of the heirs of Donald Pritzker's giant hotel fortune), donating over $50 million to his own campaign, which feels both wasteful and an insult to the people of his state that he thinks he can buy this office (the way, unfortunately, Republican Bruce Rauner already did so there's precedence here). Pritzker is the rare Democrat I'd genuinely struggle supporting in a general election, so I'm happily backing either of his two opponents (if one was a clear favorite, I'd get behind him, but I am gladly behind either Daniel Biss or Chris Kennedy at this point-just one of them needs to win). Dave Trone in Maryland is another candidate I'm actively avoiding and am standing for Aruna Miller in the open sixth district primary. And while I don't have a specific candidate I'm backing instead, I can tell you that I'm against having yet another Conyers or Levin in Michigan after their fathers gave up their seats in Congress, as it feels akin to a dictatorship to have such longtime congressmen followed by their sons (particularly after Dan Kildee & Debbie Dingell both did something similar in Michigan not-too-recently). Lastly, the less said about Levi Sanders the better, but no, just no.
Exception That Proves the Rule: In terms of self-funders, there are no exceptions; people who largely self-fund in a primary are against my core beliefs as a Democrat, and I'd only vote for them if I had no other options. As for the children of politicians, I'll get behind them if they have otherwise proven themselves, particularly with someone like Rep. Gwen Graham in Florida. She was a sitting congresswoman, and has been an outstanding candidate so far. While her father got her a foot in the door, she's the rare child of a politician who seems to have all of her father's political skill while developing her own style. If Gwen Graham's name was Gwen Smith, she'd still be as successful as she is today.
 |
| State House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams (D-GA) |
My Rationale: While we have made great strides in our country in the past twenty years regarding the percentage of women in public office, that number has not gotten large enough, and I think it's important for us to elect more women to public office. As a result, when all things are equal, I tend to support female candidates, particularly those endorsed by Emily's List since they have a history of championing women's rights (as the likes of Michele Bachmann & Marsha Blackburn have indicated, women in power don't always support all women). This rule also applies to persons of color or LGBT people gaining more representation.
Candidates I'm Supporting Under This Rule: Obviously there are a number of female candidates for governor and the House that I'm supporting in competitive primaries this year, as there are record numbers of women running for public office. Women like Stacey Abrams (Georgia), Cary Kennedy (Colorado), Gwen Graham (Florida), Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan), and Janet Mills (Maine) are all running for governor, while the likes of Ann Kirkpatrick (Arizona), Abby Finkenauer (Iowa), Katie Hill (California), and Kim Schrier (Washington) have my support for the US House. I also am proud to back Stacey Abrams (an African-American woman) to be the first black governor of Georgia and Chris Pappas to be the first openly gay person to represent New Hampshire in Congress.
Exception That Proves the Rule: Again, though, this is a long list, as all-things-being-equal is a tough bar to pass. For example, I am supporting of Joshua Svaty in Kansas and Jim Gray in Kentucky as I think they'll be better candidates than Laura Kelly and Amy McGrath, respectively (though I do genuinely like both Kelly & McGrath). Even Emily's List-backed candidates like Sara Jacobs I raise an eyebrow to considering their poor performance on the campaign trail. All things being equal, though, I do like to support more representation of under-represented groups in America as it makes public office more equitable and we see more issues of forgotten communities brought to light.
No comments:
Post a Comment