Crashing The Gates By Clearing The Field?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:37:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At daily kos, there seems to be a new approach to Crashing the Gates. It involves clearing the field. DavidNYC writes:

Earlier this week, Markos also took note of fears that a primary could be unnecessarily divisive. There's no question that to have a shot at beating Sessions, Alabama Dems will have to be completely united. Primaries can often be a good thing, but not always, and this race might fall into the latter category. And if Ron Sparks says so, I'm inclined to believe him.

To be fair to Markos, he really did not say that:

[M]oney isn't wasted in contested primaries if it keeps the eventual victor's name in the news and interest in the race high. It gives candidates a chance to hone their message and forces them to test their field operation before the November contest. In fact, primary victors often get a bump as a bandwagon effect takes hold. Our two most dramatic victories in 2008 -- in Red states Virginia and Montana -- featured Democrats who first had to make it through primaries. Primaries shouldn't be feared.

But both Markos and DavidNYC discuss primaries that involve minority candidates as necessarily creating racial divisions. Markos wrote:

But in this racially charged state, at what cost? No Democrat would have a prayer of winning the general without massive African American support. So the racial issues could be fierce. Hence I suspect there's a strong effort to talk Figures out of the race before Sparks commits.

Um, Markos, every state is racially charged to some extent or other. Will we be asking Barack Obama to withdraw his candidacy to avoid "a racially charged primary?" This really smacks of asking all minority candidates to avoid contested primaries, by not running in them.

DavidNYC, in a comment, raises the issue of the 2001 NYC Mayoral primary:

Would mean that primaries are always a good thing. Sadly, this isn't the case. A vicious and nasty Democratic primary in 2001 in NYC gave us Republican Mayor Bloomberg.

Well, unless Sparks plans to use the type of racist campaign techniques that marked the Mark Green runoff campaign, I doubt there would be a repeat.But more importantly, what is DavidNYC's solution here? Should Ferrer have not run for Mayor? Is that DavidNYC's solution? And now his solution is for the African-American candidate not to run in Alabama?

Let me be clear, I don't think either Sparks or Figures has a snowball's chance of winning this race. But Sparks would have the better chance. But what I think and what DavidNYC thinks or what Markos thinks means nothing. the Democratic voters of Alabama get to decide.

It shocks me to see Daily Kos endorsing a clear the field approach to politcs. It is especially shocking to see it endorse a clear the field of MINORITY candidates approach. So much for Crashing the Gates. Especially if you are not white.

< A Media Update For Joe Klein | Howard Dean: Dems Risk Losing Congress If They Don't End War >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Crashing The Gates By Clearing The Field? | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There are major, major racial divisions (none / 0) (#1)
by Geekesque on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:02:55 PM EST

in the Alabama Democratic party. I have a friend who's active in electoral politics at the local level, and from what I can tell the primary would turn into an intra-party race war.

So the divisions ALREADY exist (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:10:16 PM EST

and a primary would only reveal that?

So maybe Sparks should not run so we can keep the dirty secret secret?

Honeslt,y if this the Alabamae Democratic Party treats its African American memmber sthe way David suggests, it is hardly surprising there is a rift.

Maybe, as a way to rebuild unity. Sparks should step aside. What do you think?

I mean neither Sparks nor Figures has a chance in Hades of winning.

Or are you one of the ones who thinks he does?


Actually, both sides in Alabama (none / 0) (#3)
by Geekesque on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:38:30 PM EST

are capable of being really petty and vicious.

This story should give you an idea of the nonsense that goes on down there.


Fine (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:41:58 PM EST

So Sparks should drop or not Geek?

What is your view on this new anti-primary strain of the Netroots? Why are you avoiding the question?


I think its a good and a fair question. (none / 0) (#5)
by dkmich on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 03:19:16 PM EST

Only response I can come up with is that everyone is keeping their powder dry. Dems couldn't do anything as a minority. As a majority, all they can do is pass Republican bills. And that's progress.


: And Geek has no answer (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:28:38 PM EST

Sparks should drop if he doesn't (none / 0) (#12)
by Geekesque on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 07:06:20 PM EST

want to deal with all the backstabbing and nonsense that would result from a racially-divisive primary in Alabama.

I'm really not invested in this race anyways, as I tend to agree with you that AL is a looooong shot.


: Thanks G. (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 09:55:40 PM EST

We disagre alot but at least you mix it up with substance.

I don't understand everything that is (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 08:12:51 AM EST

happening down here, wish that I did but I'm still so finely tuned to what is happening in the West. I have been a lifetime Colorado and Wyoming voting Democrat and only now am changing my party affiliation to Independent. I have participated in what it has taken to get Colorado able to be more pivotal on issues instead of knee jerk Republican and it takes getting the WHOLE DEBATE and that is to include primaries .......people wake up to everything when everything is finally on the plate and made more transparent for the common people like me. I wish Democrats would stop being so afraid! The Republicans don't like the immigration bill, they aren't even "in power" in the House or the Senate or even the Executive office on this and they use their damned powder and then they get some new dry powder for the next fight. Sad to have to leave the Democratic party because they are just a bunch of dry powder hording wussies.


Opening the gate to clearing the field (none / 0) (#6)
by caliberal on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 03:52:41 PM EST

I thought it was always the contention on dailykos, driven by Markos, that primaries are the time to duke it out and then in the general election get solidly behind the candidate who won the primary.

I've said it before and will repeat it here, Markos is not politically savvy or even honest, he is not a progressive unless progress to him is clearing the field in primaries. He doesn't stick to the very principles he built his site on.

The most alarming part of this whole clearing the field mentality is where does it end? How many states are next, when do primaries matter, when we have the likes of Bob Casey, Jr. endorsed by the Democratic machine and Markos, when any other challenger doesn't have a chance so it turns out to be a primary in name only?

The selection process then is mastered-minded by those who have a voice, the loudest voice and the lemmings just follow, going over the cliff.

And who becomes irrelevant, all of the rest of us.

: Thus my post (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:27:49 PM EST

Your point is about the inconsistency and it is duly noted.
For the record, that remains my view about primaries.

The biggest shocker to me about Markos (none / 0) (#9)
by profmarcus on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:51:48 PM EST

was this...

So is there really a point to having Gravel, in between advocating English as an "official" language and promoting his right-wing flat tax, sit on the debates doing nothing but attack other Democrats?

this struck me as about as exclusionary as the michigan republican party trying to bar ron paul from the republican debates... WTF...?

And, yes, I DO take it personally

I took that as out loud chatter (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:58:11 PM EST

Not very smart and not very helpful.

This strikes me as much more harmful.

Ths is really bad.


: gift wrapping (none / 0) (#14)
by chemoelectric on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 03:50:49 AM EST

This is about having sham 'debates' as a means of 'marketing' the Democratic Party. Bah!
I'd rather see a roundtable discussion than a stupid 'debate', anyway. What is this, high school? Adults old enough to be President are too old for competitive 'debates'; they should grow up and have roundtable discussions with a genuinely curious moderator.

Well, you know (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 06:33:17 PM EST

I don't much enjoy having to listen to Gravel at those debates. I agree that we should have real primaries, but I think that we ought to consider raising the standards for who constitutes a "serious candidate" at the presidential level. No, I'm not sure how that would be done.
