NY-Sen: The Pros And Cons Of A Primary

Some additional thoughts (4.00 / 1)

I think you're right to note that there are pros and cons to a primary. I don't view a primary itself as an inherent good or evil.  

One important element though is that we all, as progressives and/or Democrats, should be prepared to unify when it is done.  

A primary can be an opportunity to rev up the fundraising machine, including the on-line operation, and warm it up in preparation for the general.  Obama certainly left the primaries with an operation that simply kept generating enormous amounts of money from a broad cross-section of people.  A primary will give Gillibrand and Maloney the opportunity to fundraise intensely over a longer period of time, making this a much bigger money race.  That may keep some Rs out, though, again, it would be better (MUCH, MUCH BETTER) to have five months post-primary for this to work.  But because candidates can raise into general election accounts, I expect to see this primary generate a lot of fundraising period.  I'd like to see each candidate pledge that any money left in their general election account after the primary will be contributed to the state or national party for use in the general election.

Another problem with a race is exacerbating existing tensions within the party.  This is going to be an upstate/downstate race.  Upstate the Democratic vote is bigger in the general election than the primary, and those independents, disenchanted Rs, and some-time Ds who have spelled victory in a slew of congressional races could get very turned off if this turns into a race between the city machinery and a candidate who really represents a seismic shift in upstate politics (and, indeed, who is the very epitome of "taking it back").  We need people who can look past individual issues and rhetoric, to keep this from being a bunch of mudslinging about guns and whether you're only a true progressive if you're steeped in urban issues.  Maloney's supporters need to contain her on this: if she makes it about NYC, she could cost us a couple congressional seats.

We've got a primary.  But I'd like to see Queensberry Rules and some acknowledgement coming out of the gate that we're all together in the end.

 

---

by: Hyde @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:38:48 PM UTC

Unity is a good thing... (4.00 / 3)

But here is the problem. In the days of months-long campaigns, unity was easier to achieve. We are in the days of campaigns that take well over a year. This U.S. Senate race will be one of those races.

I will repeat what happened in NY-26 last year has had a profound impact on my opinions of primaries. I thought a primary was a good thing. A great test before facing our Republican opponent. Then I was on the losing end and realized just how hard it was to shift allegiances to an entirely different candidate, even if that candidate was a Democrat.

When you get to know candidates as people, that's where you really grow as a supporter. And that's what makes supporting someone else tougher, even if that person is qualified.

Some people are more stubborn than others. It will take me time, but I will come around. Others will be easier. Some will be harder.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 14:37:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As Robert suggests... (4.00 / 1)

There's no one total answer to this. It's the sum of the whole. If primaries were less nasty, it would be less a problem. If the general election were longer, it would be less a problem. If campaigns exercised restraint, the money drain would be less of a problem.

Another word on the NY-26th and the effect of primaries. Last year, late September I think, I was canvassing in my hometown when I came to the house of a union guy. We got to talking for a couple minutes, and I found out he'd previously been volunteering for Jon Powers. Since I had too, we jawed about it for a minute, and he told me about how he wasn't really convinced yet whether he was going to do anything for Alice Kryzan.

It's about the base, it's about the money, it's about the press. But first and foremost, it's about the time. That time in the summer that's spent in Democrat-on-Democrat violence can never be gotten back.  

---

by: Adama @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 17:17:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice Post (0.00 / 0)

I totally agree with you

---

by: Karrenhiggins @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 06:03:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bias masquerading as balance (4.00 / 2)

This diary purports to neutrally present the pros and cons of a primary, but is larded with blatantly biased mischaracterizations of the candidates.

For example, Robert, you state as fact in your first ostensibly pro-primary item that "to date, both Maloney and Tasini have taken a very negative tone in their approach."

Says who, and by what yardstick?

I have listened to both Maloney and Tasini, and neither is more or less "negative" than any challenger of an incumbent in a local, county, state or national primary that I have ever observer. If anything, I have seen far more "negative" and harsh statements.

Many nationally supported Ned Lamont's primary against Joe Lieberman (a campaign most Connecticut voters wish they could do over, as since winning as an "Independent Democrat" Holy Joe has tried the patience of many past supporters). Was Lamont "negative" toward Lieberman, or was he substantive in both stating his own goals and the reasons why Lieberman should not be re-elected?

Let's stop the kidding around here. Gillibrand partisans are beating the "negative attack" drum because she starts with a big advantage as the well-funded incumbent favored by the establishment, and this repetitive talking point makes it harder for challengers to gain traction.

They want to kneecap challengers by screaming "negative attack!" anytime those challengers bring forward a legitimate reason why New Yorkers should switch horses.

I think it's intellectually dishonest and anti-democratic, and that such tactics are far worse for the body politic than candidates making strong cases why they should be chosen over other contenders.

Why does the Gillibrand camp fear democracy and an open debate so much? Do you folks also think Sestak should play nice against Specter, or is this just a sensitivity-of-convenience to protect your own candidate?

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 18:50:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, please provide a link to Maloney's positive comments. (4.00 / 2)

Specifically, the substantive and accurate policy differences that she thinks make her better than Gillibrand.

I doubt you'll be able to, because the dialog so far seems to primarily consist of "tobacco/guns/upstate," and is all about attacking the incumbent.

When a candidate can't put forward a positive message about why they should be elected without referencing or attacking their opponent, that's a red flag to me. In contrast, the only thing that Gillibrand has been talking about is issues.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 23:27:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who said anything about balance? (0.00 / 0)

Hudson, you continue to mistake this blog for the New York Times or some other big media resource. Again, I am a blogger. When I'm reporting something that is newsworthy, you will know it. When I'm sharing my opinion with you, you will know that too.

In this case, I made it clear that I wanted to step back and take a look (through my own view) at the advantages of disadvantages of a primary. Should I call you biased every time you write a post, as you have in the past that is anti-Gillibrand? I don't do that because I'm willing to let someone have their opinions instead of calling them "biased" or question their motives.

Maloney and Tasini have both been negative. I have yet to hear Gillibrand go on crusades against either of those opponents. But Maloney and Tasini sure have had their opinions of Gillibrand. Tasini, at least, has officially declared his candidacy on his own without operatives peddling the thought to the media. I give Tasini credit for standing up and running. I believe Tasini has other motives aside from opportunism that he is running on.

The difference between this and the Lamont-Lieberman example is that Lamont did present himself a serious progressive option. He wasn't negative. He presented himself as a strong candidate. As you say, some voters in Connecticut probably wish they could do it all over again. Plus, he was running against a long-time incumbent. You can't compare that to Gillibrand, who will have been in an office less than two years by the time she faces a primary election next September.

You then go on to ask for my opinions about Sestak-Specter as if the races are similar. They are not. Gillibrand isn't a Republican-turned Democrat who conveniently switched parties. Gillibrand is a real Democrat who has been elected as a Democrat. Lumping the two in doesn't make sense, considering the vast differences between the two races.

You can continue to be a critic of my posts, but until you start posting yourself, I won't continue giving this kind of time to you. I have told you in the past that if you don't like the product on the front page, don't disparage it. Write your own thoughts. If you can write long-winded comments giving your opinion on my opinion, then maybe your energy could be transferred into a lengthy post of your own about this primary.

---

by: robert.harding @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 21:55:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We used to have five months (4.00 / 3)

Blame Nelson Rockefeller.

Before he resigned as Governor in December of 1973, he changed the date of the primary from June to September in order that his successor, Malcolm Wilson, would have more time as an incumbent before having to face a primary challenge.  The idea was to stave off the kind of situation we're talking about here, and thus avoid a bruising intraparty battle that could lead to defeat in the November election.  It didn't work.  1974 was a Democratic sweep in the wake of the Watergate scandal, and Hugh Carey was elected.

Unfortunately, the September primary date makes it harder for a political party to condone, much less support, a primary, precisely because it is so close to the general election.  We need to change things back.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:45:57 PM UTC

September changes things... (4.00 / 2)

If it were earlier, I would be much more supportive. I would cheer on primaries all the time because, at least then, the primary would serve a purpose and you would have time after the primary to regroup and unite.

Right now, we don't have that luxury.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 14:38:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is time to unite (4.00 / 2)

In 2005, there was a big Democratic primary for mayor.  Two days after the primary, there was a "unity rally" at City Hall -- and it worked.

There are three reasons why the Democratic nominee, Fernando Ferrer, lost the general election (badly), and none of them had anything to do with the short time span between the primary and the general election.  First, the national economy was looking good, which always benefits incumbents; second, Michael Bloomberg spent a fortune, both directly on his campaign and privately "buying votes" with selected donations; third, Ferrer was a terrible candidate.  Had there been three more months between the primary and the general election, I believe that Bloomberg would have won by an even larger margin.

That being said, it is becoming clear that we need to move the primary back up to June.  But we also need to take major steps toward weakening the power of the party machines.  I have a long list of ways this can be accomplished which I won't go into here, but look for it in the coming weeks.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:17:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unity (4.00 / 1)

Some are better at unifying than others, but containing the nastiness in the primary is job one for anyone who wants unity after the primary.

I really do think a pledge from all the candidates to contribute their general election accounts if they lose when its done would help set up a unified party much better come September.  

---

by: Hyde @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 16:08:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't recall any front-pagers at TAP... (0.00 / 0)

... complaining about the primary schedule before.

Show me where y'all have made this an issue before -- that is, before it became an argument-of-convenience to defend Gillbrand.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 18:53:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't like the primary schedule... (0.00 / 0)

And I have said so, if not as a main topic of my posts, then as subtopics in posts and comments. September is way too close to the general election. We learned that the hard way in NY-26.

Just because we haven't made it a central topic of a post doesn't mean we can't have that opinion. You act as if it is a matter of convenience that I share such an opinion. Maybe so, but I would say that in any race that impacts me.

---

by: robert.harding @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 21:19:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't recall any front-pagers at TAP... (0.00 / 0)

... complaining about the primary schedule before.

Show me where y'all have made this an issue before -- that is, before it became an argument-of-convenience to defend Gillbrand.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 18:54:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think I have complained about it (0.00 / 0)

but not in this context.  I think it should very definitely be rolled back, as part of accepting and encouraging an active primary system.  

I don't think the current date is an acceptable reason to say "we should discourage primaries", ever.  That just reflects the brokenness of the current system without fixing it.

There's a lot to change...

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 20:05:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

The date just accentuates some negatives; in other contexts, such as a nasty Republican primary, we'd find those negatives to be positives.  Somehow, though, it always seems to be a bigger project to unify Democrats. So, in general, ignoring this particular race, is a later primary a good thing or a bad thing?

I don't read this diary as saying we should discourage all primaries, just laying out facts as to the positives and negatives.  Many of the negatives can be managed and minimized - if we have a good sense of unity separate from the candidates involved in any one race.

---

by: Hyde @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 20:31:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have you been listening closely? (4.00 / 1)

There was a substantial amount of grumbling last September.

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 23:29:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then you haven't been paying attention (4.00 / 2)

complaints about the late primary happen every time there is a primary.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 01:31:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It ain't goin back (4.00 / 1)

The parties and their leaders won't push the primaries back to June.  They like the arm twisting they can do as in the Gillibrand/Maloney race.  It happens all the time.  It's all about top-down politics.  

So don't expect any changes with the folks we already have in place.  I am reminded of a meeting with Ron Canestrari a few years ago.  When he was pressed whether we could expect legislative reform in the Assembly, he replied, "You should trust us, we're the good guys."  

---

by: jmcbride @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 21:36:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if they're the good guys (0.00 / 0)

we're [long string of expletives deleted].

There's no reason to trust them on this - just plenty of reason to undermine and topple them.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 21:59:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No link to Tasini's website, Robert? (0.00 / 0)

A 2-second google yielded:

http://www.jonathantasini.com/

Why the omission?

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 18:39:33 PM UTC

No link to Tasini's website, Robert? (0.00 / 0)

A 2-second google yielded:

http://www.jonathantasini.com/

Why the omission?

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 18:40:16 PM UTC

According to Nate Silver: (0.00 / 0)

Just last night, Nate Silver at the justly-respected fivethirtyeight.com listed Senate PVIs for all states, and found New York to have a +12 rating.

That is, a generic Democrat running for Senate has a built-in +12 points over a generic Republican.

Those who are arguing against a primary thus have two big (I think nearly insurmountable) hurdles to get over:

(1) Demonstrate to us how a primary is going to cost the Democratic nominee a full 12 points;

(2) Explain why Gillibrand, if she is such a terrific candidate, has polled behind George Pataki (George Pataki!?) in a state with a +12 PVI -- and that's prior to any other candidates announcing.

I'm all ears.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 19:01:27 PM UTC

Also according to Nate... (0.00 / 0)

Nate brings up another interesting point, noting that part of the reason the White House was trying to avoid a primary was because they think a Democratic primary will lure a stronger Republican challenger in to the race.

+12 is no guarantee of victory.  That +12 is based on two election cycles in a row that trended very heavily Democratic; it's not hard to imagine that it's three or four points above the norm.  If 2010 ends up, like most midterms, trending against the incumbent party, you can see it swing to two or three points the other side of the norm.  At that point, you've got a +6 in a state where there are several strong Republican candidates ho could grab a few points.  

And on a ballot where voters have to chose between the party of Paterson and the party of Pataki ....

---

by: Hyde @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 20:38:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand's polling (0.00 / 0)

Also, note the most recent polls, with higher name recognition starting to kick in, put Gillibrand above Pataki, but the answer on the now three month old Marist data as to why she was trailing was obvious from the poll results ... name recognition.  

Got any head to head polling data on Maloney?

---

by: Hyde @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 20:41:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I had heard from insiders (4.00 / 1)

that there's an internal poll put Maloney 7 points behind Pataki with high undecides...but I haven't seen it released yet, so I don't know if it's true. I've been waiting to see it pop up to check out the crosstabs.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 01:34:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, at this point not very surprising. (0.00 / 0)

16 months out, it's all about name recognition. Pataki was governor for a dozen years, while Gillibrand's new and Maloney's unknown to most of the state. The fact that there's high undecideds in all these show that at this point it's not really about people choosing a candidate.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 05:34:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I personally don't find the Cook PVI to be very useful. (4.00 / 1)

It seems to be based on factors which have almost no relation to actual election results.

My congressional district has a Cook PVI of R+6, but only one election in the district's history has come even close to that number. All the others were MUCH larger.

And Hudson, don't play dumb about polling.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 23:32:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Machine politics are the problem (0.00 / 0)

I don't care what anyone says, or by which standard of logic you judge the efficacy of a primary: a primary is always a good idea, for the simple reason that we live in a democracy.

Party-manufactured candidates are anathema to democratic principles. I don't understand why there's even a discussion about this.

Seriously. Can any opponent of the primary system say with a straight face that we'd be better off with more Gillibrands and fewer Frankens?

Let the people decide. Always.

---

by: urizon @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 03:21:10 AM UTC

Five Months v. Seven Weeks (0.00 / 0)

op: after the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton battle was done, we had five months to prepare for the general election. Five months is better than seven weeks.

Five months may be better than seven weeks, but we're also talking about New York State and not the entire nation. A lot of voters won't even be paying attention until the few weeks before the general election. And, like the Obama campaign, a well-run primary can leave infrastructure and volunteers throughout the state in place for the general election and allow for a fast and efficient transition.

The main danger, it seems to me, is that primary contestants may exhaust their financial reserves before getting to the general. One would hope that each would preserve some funds with the expectation of winning the primary, but if one escalates then it's hard for the other(s) not to respond in kind if survival is at stake.

---

by: dsimon @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 13:50:47 PM UTC