CT-04 Jim Himes raises $340,000 in Q4

Okay (2.00 / 2)

Himes has raised $340K. Murphy has raised $320k. What are their policy platforms? What ideas are they bringing to the table? Are they talking about instant runoff voting as a way to counteract what Aldon noted was the "corrosive influence of political contributions."

Both of these stories about American democracy's financial arms race sandwich a post by Aldon. Aldon contradicts the gist of the Himes/Murphy posts when he talks about financial reforms.

One quick look at Himes' contributions shows the same old, same old. $1000 from Ameriprise here, $3600 from GE employees there, $4950 from a few at Goldman Sachs, $2400 from Deutsche Bank, $9600 from two at a hedge fund. I didn't even scroll half way down the page for these numbers. For some reason, I don't think the boys at Goldman Sachs are giving Himes money because he has fought for bank regulations. Precisely the opposite.

Rather than being confused by this, I will try to write off the seeming contradiction of a progressive blog talking about both reform and the excitement of seats staying Democratic (oh, the reform they've brought) in a string of posts with Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Instead, I think we should talk about instant runoff voting, and how it could eliminate the corrosive influence of money in a winner-take-all system. People could vote for what they really want, and that candidate would not have to spend a ton of money doing it.  

So, can this progressive blog get Himes and Murphy to begin using their perches to discuss IRV in Congressional elections? Because I think that is a bigger issue than how much money they have raised.
 

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 03:59:34 AM UTC

Ken, instead of playing Don Quixote (4.00 / 4)

Why don't you join the Democratic Party and help push it further left, from the inside?

Right now you're just hanging with the lunatic fringe. Correct on many points, but too easily dismissed....

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 05:33:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because (2.50 / 2)

The Democratic Party is inept and corrupt.

If I'm going to join a party that is inept, I'm at least going to join one whose values align with mine.

In 2004, part of the Democratic Party's national platform was that every American has a right to drive the car of their choosing. While it seems the intellectual descendant of "a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage," it fails to address the realities of global warming, or the lack of mass transit in our urban areas, or the social inequity of the autocentric transportation system.

This highlights merely one area of disagreement. I could go into the fact that the head of the Democratic party, who is now president, has increased military spending over his Republican predecessor.  Really, I can't see any of you here agreeing with either Himes carpetbagging with corporations or Obama's military hardware, but there is nary a word of disagreement here. What is going on with the progressive political community?  

As for the lunatic fringe, I'm with Eugene Debs: "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."  

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 12:59:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A party of one (4.00 / 3)

If I'm going to join a party that is inept, I'm at least going to join one whose values align with mine.

Ken, if I had to find a Party that aligned completely with my values, I'd be a party of one. What good would that do?

I don't agree with every plank in the Democratic platform. But that's what Party Primaries are for -- defining what the party should stand for. We need more of them. In fact, it would help tremendously if activist third party members would join the Democratic party and help us construct a platform -- and ideally, a more progressive one.

If you think the Democratic Party should shift left, join the party and run on your principles in the hopes of moving it to the left. Or, join your local DTC and recruit and support such a candidate.

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 16:01:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hypothetically (4.00 / 1)

Talking alternate forms of political organizations with dyed-in-the-wool Democrats is like trying to convince a Yankees fan that not only is team bulked up on steroids and destroying the game by paying players too much money, but that the World Series should be played in a round robin format.

Perhaps my commenting here is an exercise in futility.

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 16:12:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're dodging the argument (4.00 / 3)

Ask yourself, "What do I want?" Then, "How do I get that?"

When you have a plan, come back and discuss.
 

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 16:27:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ken wants (craves) attention, obviously (3.50 / 4)

The rest is just a means to that end.

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 16:58:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On the other hand ... (4.00 / 1)

Over at FDL, there's an argument for breaking away from the Democratic Party and forming a Progressive Party.

I think the diarist makes a lot of good points -- but it's hard to do. You need strong candidates who work their way through government or business or nonprofits, and a strong party infrastructure that knows state party rules, how to organize and how to leverage its political strength to move legislation their way. The Working Families Party is a good model. It takes a lot of work and it doesn't happen overnight.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 15:13:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oops I forgot the link (0.00 / 0)

Here it is. Interesting comments too.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 15:15:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have thought for a long time (4.00 / 1)

that the centrists would love it if the Progressives would get ticked off and splinter off from the party. Then you have two untenable groups -- the rabid right and the progressives --who will sh*t a tone of bricks before they will work together.

Meanwhile, a group of ideologically similar people (but labeled differently) will band together to carry out the corporate kabuki theatre, pretending to have differences over silly and insubstantial points, while knowing full well that the choices will be such that however the vote turns out, they will end up someplace acceptable to the corporations that run them.

Actually, Linda McMahon is very familiar with this approach.  Maybe not kabuki theatre but rather more like studio wrestling.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 17:45:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I suppose if we wanted a permanent Republican majority (4.00 / 2)

...that would be among the very best methods of getting it.

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 18:04:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not just hard to do (4.00 / 2)

... but it also just doesn't add any value when compared to simply taking over the Democratic Party.

If mobilizing a majority of 1/3 of the voters (and only about 2/3 of Americans are registered voters, so we're talking about 1/9 of the population here) to support your view is unachievable, then your point of view actually should not govern the nation, or your city council district, or whatever.

If your point of view is the majority view of the Democratic party electorate in the area where you're seeking change and you fail to get candidates that agree with you, then a motivated minority is out-organizing you. You have an organizing problem, not a party affiliation problem.

The only people who want to divide up the left are the people who never worked to build a goddamn thing in politics anyway. It's the last argument of someone who basically thinks participating in democratic institutions is a drag.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 22:11:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's good in Ameritopia (0.00 / 0)

But in reality, the Democratic Party is not worth taking over. The one thing Ned Lamont's victory in the primary did was propel Rahm Emmanuel to the top.

Lamont's primary victory pushed the Democrats to win a 22 some odd seats. Qui bono? Not Ned Lamont or the progressive faction of the Democratic party (which is not the edge of progressivism, as Ned wasn't calling for an end to militarism, military support of Israel, or even instant runoff voting). Instead, Rahm ended up with the credit.

And where had this gotten us? Obama took over the Democratic Party and he has spent more on the military than Bush. $250 million a day in Iraq. Who knows how much in Afghanistan, Yemen, and the other hotspots. But 51 percent of domestic discretionary spending could finance a lot of state budgets.

The Democratic Party is a vehicle for corporate interests.  

We need to build new institutions.

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 15:03:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

. (4.00 / 1)

The Democratic Party is a vehicle for corporate interests.

And the Green Party is a vehicle for idiots and assholes. We all have our burdens to bear.

(which is not the edge of progressivism, as Ned wasn't calling for an end to militarism, military support of Israel, or even instant runoff voting)

Oh, are those the three true tests of progressivism today? Whatever.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 17:37:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, those are not (0.00 / 0)

those happen to be three tests that came off the top of my head in the moment of writing that, but generally seem a decent benchmark. I thought about writing a qualifier there, because I knew someone would pick them out. Sure enough.

While we are it, what are your benchmarks of progressivism? five, ten, 15, however many you feel like jotting down...

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 22:49:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's always three things... (0.00 / 0)

and it always varies. When someone's good on Palestine, they're not on IRV. When they're good on IRV, they're not good enough on climate policy. When they are good on climate policy, they're too pro-corporate. It's whatever skewed lens you can use to justify your self-imposed failure to participate meaningfully in politics.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:57:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I talked with one of your Registrars today (4.00 / 2)

They anticipate 750 voters in the DTC primaries for each district. 400 votes is all you'd need for you and your pals to take over a district. If I understand Hartford's districts correctly, that means that you'd need around 1600 votes to take over the whole organization, and run the candidates that you like for state and local office.

Instead, you start crying about Rahm fucking Emmanuel? That's pathetic.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 17:40:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which district (0.00 / 0)

will you be taking over, Matt?

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 22:47:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I got on my DTC (4.00 / 1)

in January 2007, and became the district leader in May of that year. I've recruited a number of candidates for district and townwide office, and get to recommend a little slate of delegates for each of the conventions. I've also fought to have our group takes positions a little more progressive than their general comfort zone, and led the fight to keep the number of DTC positions available high to be as broadly inclusive as possible (>200 members).

When I was in CA, I found my local party organization deficient, and formed a group to charter the party's first-ever AD organization when the district convention rules changed in 2006.

I'm no big shot, but I've gotten about as much done in the corners of the party where I've gotten involved as probably anyone could expect.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 05:08:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

why engage? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not going to call Ken a troll, but why engage in this debate? Rahm is an asshole (a DLC asshole). We all know that. Rahm got credit for his House takeover even though the facts show that he did less than 50% on the House and the takeover happened in spite of his actions, not because of it.

And anyone who ever thought Obama was progressive missed his mentorship under Joe Lieberman. He is as progressive as I am a member of a teaparty.

The sad fact is that Ken doesn't understand that politics is about pushing the inside of the envelope and making incremental changes. Get a GOP moron out for a right side Dem and then get him out for a left side Dem, or force him to move to the right.

Going with the left fringe groups doesn't move anyone to the left, but waters down the ability to move the Dems to the left.

Ken wants to be "right" in his left-ness, so be it. But debating it with him is an effort in futility. The only way you will get Ken to change his position is to perform a brain transplant, and then he won't be who he is, and in some small way we would be less for it. We need people that are willing to stand up and get knocked down over and over again, so that we can show the futility of the method, so that we can teach others that there is another, and a better way. That incremental change was used to move our party to the right, to redefine the center, and that we can and should use those same methods that work to move the party back to the left. Ken provides a great example to younger readers and those just starting to get involved that their way is dysfunctional and non-workable, and that the incremental pressure from inside is what will take the country back to a sane place to be.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:36:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

great description [nt] (0.00 / 0)

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 05:09:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd say (3.33 / 3)

Don't join the Democrats -- give up on elections.

All of this "financial arms race" talk would be interesting, except that when the Democrats (along with, to her credit, Rell) did work to dismantle that system with public financing, the Greens attacked it to preserve the constitutional right of a privately- or self-financed candidate to massively outspend their opponent -- on the (apparently not ridiculous, in the eyes of our Federal courts) premise that the corporate plutocrat whose rights you defend today might wind up as a Green party candidate tomorrow.

If IRV ever was established, they would of course find some way to shit all over that as well.

Give up. Who cares what bum gets elected, if it's never going to be one of your candidates? The first Tuesday in November should just be another brisk fall day for you guys.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 13:41:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Add (4.00 / 1)

What makes you think that people "really want" Richard Duffee and Cliff Thornton but are too cowed by the major parties to cast a vote for them? DeStefano was toast in '06 and everybody knew it -- but your guy still got less than 1% of the vote.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 13:46:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Matt (0.00 / 0)

Please don't tell me that you honestly think the 2006 election was a fair contest, where all voices were included and had an equal platform before the electorate.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans worked to suppress the voices in the gubernatorial field. The two main parties shut out not just Cliff, but Joe Zdonczyk, too, who had petitioned his way onto the ballot. Neither of these guys had a fighting chance because the system, set by the two parties, is rigged against them. A candidate not included in the televised debates is automatically marginalized to the fringe.

It will happen again in 2010, whoever, if anyone, the Greens run. The Ds and Rs consider money the imperial measure of a candidate's worth. We are taught in school that ideas should be the central focus. DeStefano was part and parcel of the suppression of speech, along with his vanquisher, Rell.

So how can we accept those 2006 results as accurate or a true reflection of the electoral landscape? Maybe you can, but I can't. The best ideas were suppressed, and did not have a chance to gain an audience. I understand that this may run contrary to what Bill Curry said the other day - that ideas will organize themselves. But if there is not an opportunity to air them, the oppression will continue.

While 2006 is a reflection of power, it is not a reflection of a true contest of ideas. You will argue that look, Ferrucci, Knibbs and Schlesinger were included in the Senate debates, and Ferrucci didn't get one percent, either.

Lamont and Lieberman sucked the oxygen out of the room, and the press is as guilty as the Ds and Rs of focusing on the heavyweights and the horse race of polling numbers and not the ideas a candidate espouses.  

Beyond that, we don't know the extent of the state police involvement in that 2006 gubernatorial election. So sit there and mock Cliff and Joe Zdonczyk all you want. At a minimum, Cliff helped expose the corrupt electoral practices engaged in by the Ds and Rs. Do you agree with shutting candidates out of a debate?  How can we reconcile including Greens and Libs and petitioning candidates in the Senate race and not in gubernatorial? We must not allow this in 2010.

Underhill found the campaign finance law unconstitutional. Whether it was the Greens, or the Libs or the Barking Spiders party which brought the lawsuit, it does not meet the values set out by the Constitution.

Grassroots democracy. Social justice and equal opportunity. Ecological wisdom. Non-violence. Decentralization. Diversity. Sustainability.

We all agree that these are key policy ideas. I just don't see them being effectuated by the Democratic Party, not when even its progressive wing champions the money race.

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 14:41:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

While 2006 is a reflection of power, it is not a reflection of a true contest of ideas. You will argue that look, Ferrucci, Knibbs and Schlesinger were included in the Senate debates, and Ferrucci didn't get one percent, either.

You're right -- I was going to say that, and I said it in a comment here in the last couple of weeks too. A more generous platform does not make unserious candidates more appealing to the public at large.

So how can we accept those 2006 results as accurate or a true reflection of the electoral landscape? Maybe you can, but I can't.

That's what elections are! I'm not happy about how the CT electorate in 2006 returned a dim-witted warmongering buffoon to the Senate over a field where any other candidate would have been an improvement, but at least I can recognize that the majority of the public had a different view.

You can find endless ways to say that despite this or that accomodation being made to minor parties that the system is just not fair, but at a certain point people living in reality acknowledge the world that they live in is less than ideal and work to do what they can within it.

You can either find a way to make the 0.8% of the vote that the Greens can count on matter (i.e. as spoilers or cross-endorsements), you can find a way to convince more people to support your candidates (requires money and labor), or you can do something other than run candidates for public office. Sadly, the Greens won't acknowledge their role as spoilers (despite it working in the past), can't contemplate cross-endorsements (because their self-identity is only defined by hostility to Democrats), and seem disinterested in expanding the party infrastructure (even when public financing is available to support their campaigns.)

The Ds and Rs consider money the imperial measure of a candidate's worth.

What do you care about "the Ds and Rs"? Your problem is that the public at large has also shown a preference for candidates that have raised some money.

Do you agree with shutting candidates out of a debate?

Yes. Some jerkoff who can't even bother to raise some money or field some volunteers doesn't have any right to my time. His ideas are tarnished by his total failure to respect the electoral process or the voters.

The goofs who "run" (I use that word in the most narrow technical sense) on single payer have done more harm to healthcare policy in our country than Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and 40 Republican Senators combined. Thank god we don't have more people in the public hearing good ideas coming out of non-candidates like Duffee and Thornton and Ferrucci -- if they had a bigger megaphone, people would probably turn over the remainder of our democracy to the corporations out of sheer horror and revulsion.

Underhill found the campaign finance law unconstitutional. Whether it was the Greens, or the Libs or the Barking Spiders party which brought the lawsuit, it does not meet the values set out by the Constitution.

That may be true, but it is also true that Underhill made a large number of factual mistakes in his ruling, asserting 1) that minor parties were weakened by the public financing rules when they were not, and 2) that minor party candidates were only successful when they were able to outspend their opponents when his references disproved his point.

Anyway, I'm sure the judiciary will be pleased to learn that you now believe they are always right.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 18:28:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Financing Elections (0.00 / 0)

 In the end, I continue  to believe that most people vote in accordance with their pocketbook and their issues of concern.

 This country isnt one  which ushers in fundamental change through the ballot box...we are creatures of incremental change,not fundamental change, unless it comes through "force"  like the revolutionary war  or the civil war.

 No 3rd party candidate has scored a significant presidential victory or even got close...Debs and Perot  have done the best in presidential elections.This country appears  to be quite comfortable  within a 2 party political structure and tends  to amalgamate good ideas  from 3rd partys into their own part platforms...ergo social security  was amalgamated from the socialist party.The 3rd partys have played a useful role in getting their better ideas  into the major 2 partys,  then anything that they ever did at the ballot box.

---

by: BruceRubenstein2 @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 15:23:22 PM UTC

woo hoo ! (4.00 / 1)

I just thought we could celebrate for one second that a democrat was leading in funding in 4th district after years of Reps.

OK, back to the discussion that we are screwed...

---

by: ctpublius @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 23:24:55 PM UTC

Hurray! (0.00 / 0)

Wohoo everybody! Goldman Sachs has a bigger voice in government than we do!

It's ostentatious to even consider celebrating the fact that a corporatist Democrat is winning a money race. The money race itself is the problem.  

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 14:58:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They don't have a bigger voice (0.00 / 0)

They're just better organized.

They want one thing -- the elimination of regulations on the financial services industry. They're willing to compromise by accepting regulations they can use to make profits for themselves. They don't care about climate change or IRV or probably even the income tax rate or which party this one or that one belongs to.

George Bush was their great friend, but they didn't go to war against Obama when he got in. Goldman makes it clear that it's better to have them as friends than as enemies.

By contrast, your strategy seems to be to communicate to every potential elected official that you will never be their friend, scorching the earth before you even have an opportunity to see how they might advance your agenda.

Feel free to hate Goldman Sachs. But they are checking items off their wishlist, and you are not. If I were you, I'd consider changing tactics.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 05:19:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bingo (0.00 / 0)

By contrast, your strategy seems to be to communicate to every potential elected official that you will never be their friend, scorching the earth before you even have an opportunity to see how they might advance your agenda.

Broadening out from the specific to the general, I think this is an important point to think about.

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 15:35:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]