How to elect a progressive statewide?

Gillibrand: Good News & Bad News (0.00 / 0)

...at this point, there's good news and bad news in the appontment of Gillibrand, but my plan is to keep an open mind and at least give her an opportunity to effectively represent ALL New Yorkers (hopefully).

The good news: she's a rare politician in that she, according to news reports, supports gay marriage (most of even the most liberal/progressive politiicans in the country do not necessarily go that far). That, to me, shows leadership in a positive direction. Other good news:
she's from upstate, helping to give some geographic balance to the power structure in this state. She appears to be a solid supporter of important things like equality under the law, civil rights, freedom of choice, worker rights.

The bad news: She has been termed a "blue dog" Democrat, though, other than her support from the NRA, am not sure why. Is she also a fiscal conservative? If so, that doesn't bother me so much because this country could use some responsible adult leadership when it comes to budetary and fiscal matters for a change.

For now...my hope is that she will "moderate" her viewpoint on on guns somewhat. Will give her the chance to prove herself.

---

by: paco @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 15:19:55 PM UTC

Project Vote Smart (4.00 / 2)

Look at the full record. Someone cherry-picked Project Vote Smart in another diary to try to show that KG is liberal, but other PVS entries show the opposite.

The bottom line for me is that she is far too right on numerous issues (not just assault guns) for New York State as a whole. On immigration, English as the "official" language of the U.S., the war, and yes, civil rights such as gay marriage, I have not appreciated (as a 20th CD voter) her pandering to the right.

I sincerely hope that a more progressive and less opportunistic candidate presents him or herself in the 2010 primaries. Wouldn't mind seeing Chuck primaried, too; he offered no help to Dems when serious issues and problems faced the district.

---

by: Hudson @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 16:18:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you looking at the same record as other people are? (4.00 / 1)

"Look at the full record."

We have.

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/...

"On immigration,"

Our of curiousity, do you know the effect of farmers using illegal immigrant labor on the local economies of farming regions?

"the war,"

She voted to begin withdrawing troops within 90 days back in May 2007. Despite the absurd lengths that some people are going to justify their negative reactions, that's not "supporting the war."

"and yes, civil rights such as gay marriage,"

She's pro-gay-marriage. Try again.

"I have not appreciated (as a 20th CD voter) her pandering to the right."

You live in the most Republican district in the state, and you've had a very liberal congresscritter. You've got little to complain about.  

---

by: Adama @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 18:49:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That "cherry-picking" was me (0.00 / 0)

and i effectively proved that with mainstream liberla groups, Gillibrand gets their seal of approval.
She gets low marks from conservative groups. I pointed that out too.
Tasini needs more help at the Unelectable Left table.

---

by: nassaupolitics @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 19:24:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If presented with a progressive option... (4.00 / 2)

... New Yorkers will elect a progressive Senator.

The problem is that it's been eons since any well-organized and well-funded progressive candidate entered a Statewide primary for the office. Arguably, Eliot Spitzer was as close to a Progressive Governor as we've ever had, but we all know the end of that story.

A lot of this has to do with the existing power structure: The Democratic establishment tends to line up early behind its choices, and creates an atmosphere calculated to deter others from entering the race. Those who do challenge the status quo (or support a more independent candidate) can expect vicious recriminations and general shunning within their own party.

But it can be done. For example, Lamont came very close to ousting Lieberman in Connecticut (and voters there are clearly regretting their choice of re-electing Holy Joe, if polls are any measure).

We have Schumer and Clinton because they each had big machines and fundraising horsepower, and no other realistic, well-organized options were brought forth at the time. But it doesn't have to be that way.

---

by: Hudson @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 16:04:47 PM UTC

You're absolutely right (4.00 / 2)

We need a progressive candidate with a progressive organization and/or political action committee behind him or her. Unfortunately, no such entities now, and the State Democratic Committee is run by moderates and (dare I say it) conservatives, but I'm hoping that this will change soon.

I firmly believe that voters that vote Democratic are firmly more progressive than the NYSDC and we need to move the party left to get a progressive elected.

I supported Jon Tasini in his run against Hillary Clinton and I'd support him again if he decided to run.  

---

by: cliffweathers @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 18:47:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except as it stands, nobody acceptable will be able to build an organization. (4.00 / 2)

This is what I try to explain to people who have fits because X Democrat isn't doing enough, or the right things.

As you yourself have proven with Gillibrand, the standards applied for who counts as a "progressive" are so absurdly stringent that anyone who started building an organization which could actually win an election would do something to cross the line and become "unacceptable." It's the Nader/Gore divide. Gore was treated like dirt by a lot of people in the left flank in 2000, despite the fact that his policies and priorities were dead on.  

---

by: Adama @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 19:23:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what's happened, what's happening (4.00 / 2)

A lot of this has to do with the existing power structure: The Democratic establishment tends to line up early behind its choices, and creates an atmosphere calculated to deter others from entering the race.

And yet, that failed to unfold this time (with the Senate choice).  We now have a lot of people screaming about how awful and chaotic Paterson's process was, yet, it got past the tendency you describe.  (For the record, I don't think Paterson had a "process" so much as it was just one more key factor.)

I think this is significant.  The existing power structures wanted Kennedy or Cuomo, for the most part.  

Maybe the question is not so much "how do people change the system" but how do people exploit the chaos that is already happening.  Anyone who wants to rise to power (progressives, arch-conservatives, Greens, Latinos, Upstaters, whoever) should find this chaos a golden opportunity to lay very important groundwork.  They know who they are, and have no inner doubts about their drive for political self-preservation...

Despite Obama's inaugural speech where he foresaw an end to tribalism, I do not think that will be the case.  That's going to have to be kept in mind.

---

by: NYCO @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 19:56:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And in Schumer's case (0.00 / 0)

He was running against one of the most impressive slimeball crooked-campaign politicians ever, Al D'Amato.  Only a really really sharp politician could defeat that man.

Now, occasionally a really strong progressive is also a really really sharp politician, but we can't rely on that.  At the time, Schumer was a godsend.

---

by: neroden @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 06:44:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good post (4.00 / 3)

That's a very good question you've tackled here.  I think the most important factor for a progressive candidate would be their ability to either hijack or convert the party machinery in New York City.  I don't think they could bypass it, but they may be able to force its hand.  

The greatest difficulty for a progressive would lie in winning a Democratic primary.  I don't think a campaign that is effectively run could be painted as being too liberal in New York (unless the candidate was as progressive as, say, I am, as I don't think even New York could elect someone that progressive).  The trouble with winning a primary is that the machine establishment is obviously openly hostile to supporting progressives, and any progressive with built-in machine support would be immediately subject to well deserved skepticism.  

However, the political machines are non-ideological.  They have a hostility to progressive because they typically view them as rabble-rousers threatening the establishment, and if the machines are anything, they are defenders of the status quo.  The key would be to either assuage the machines while maintaining core values, or build a campaign with enough organizational structure backing it that the machines jump on board to maintain their relevancy.

It's a significant hurdle.  You've outlined a few progressive groups, and, of course, there are issue advocacy groups which be supportive of a progressive candidate.  And, as you indicated, there are fairly progressive politicians in the legislature, especially the Assembly.  Incidentally, quite a few of these progressives hail from Manhattan, a borough with no real political machine.  There are other progressive politicians at other levels of government.  For example, Nydia Velazquez and Jerry Nadler were both mentioned as candidates for the Senate seat, and I would have been satisfied with either of them.  So, there are prominent progressives and organizations willing to support them.  The question is whether the candidate's campaign would be able to reach a critical mass to force the machines' hands.  I suspect that would largely depend on the quality of the campaign the candidate ran.  

---

by: Kluggy @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 16:54:06 PM UTC

thanks (4.00 / 3)

for the refreshing and well thought out post.  (I say this after stupidly getting drawn into too many screaming matches on other boards with people who think NY is some sort of "reliably blue" fairyland.)

I keep getting the vague feeling that we need a real sort of DFL here in New York, or some sort of paradigm-busting emphasis on green issues... I mean, down to the dirt green issues, not corporate "greenwashing."

Progressives unhappy with the Gillibrand pick should pin her down on where she stands, exactly, on agriculture - is she for the small farmer or the corporate farmer, etc.  USE her, don't get rid of her.  

I'm getting off your topic, Simon, and I apologize... as for the truth about New York, people sometimes forget that the American dream (and the progressivism it implies) is still just a dream.  It has "arrived" nowhere, not in New York or anywhere and there is no such thing as "reliably blue" as if progressive dreams have been "accomplished."  Peterboro was the most liberal place on earth in the 19th century but it was still just an island in a sea of garden variety social mores of the time.

---

by: NYCO @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 17:01:46 PM UTC

Interesting Post But You Mischaracterize the Cuomo-Koch Race (4.00 / 1)

You have dynamics of the 1982 Cuomo-Koch race incorrect.  Cuomo did not run to the right of Koch in that race, which was hard considering Koch was a pretty conservative Dem.  Cuomo won that primary by

1 - Exploiting the upstate-downstate tensions.  Even though Cuomo was from Queens he was able to do this b/c of Koch's interview to Playboy given before his decision to run for Gov which trashed upstate.

2 - A decision by city voters that Gov was the wrong job for Koch and that they could in effect have both Cuomo and Koch.  This allowed Cuomo to keep Koch's margins down in the city which resulted in Cuomo's narrow primary victory.

---

by: JMNYC @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:04:26 AM UTC

I still remember that (0.00 / 0)

1 - Exploiting the upstate-downstate tensions.  Even though Cuomo was from Queens he was able to do this b/c of Koch's interview to Playboy given before his decision to run for Gov which trashed upstate.

A couple years ago I came across an old diary of mine... which was all about school, boys, the usual insecurities... and I also wrote about Koch's remarks!  I was, like, 13 years old at the time...!  (and no, I wasn't into politics back then)

I see they're still at it though... I'm still trying to figure out what Paul Krugman means by this:

http://blog.syracuse.com/newst...

---

by: NYCO @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 03:36:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]