On Primaries

by: mattw

Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:45:47 AM EDT

Generally speaking, I think primaries are an unalloyed good for the Democratic party. Not only do primaries allow everyone to have a say in the direction of the party, but a contest for the nomination provides voters with an early glimpse of a candidate's ability to satisfy the diverse interests in the city, district, or state where the election is being held – and provides some evidence that the candidate has the ability to actually win an election besides.

Al Gore's '00 campaign, where Bill Bradley gave him a good stiff challenge for the nomination, is a perfect example. Bradley made the traditionally cautious Gore shake off the cobwebs and display some vigor before facing a right-wing smear machine and a dismissive press. I don't mean to make everyone relive the race, suffice to say that if Gore got to walk to the nomination, it would have been supremely unlikely that he would have won the popular vote.

It may be that primaries are more attractive to progressives in the party: the progressive wing of the Democratic party fought for decades to get an "open primary" system in Connecticut, and I was struck by the extent to which the Caucus of Connecticut Democrats' early platform materials leaned on this point from the very start of the organization. That organization's membership wound up in influential legislative positions in Connecticut, and only in the last couple of years could a candidate get onto the primary ballot by collecting signatures (potentially working around a traditionally unified party leadership.)

Curiously, we have Joe Lieberman to thank in part for making primaries possible through his early advocacy work as co-founder of CCD, even though he probably doesn't think it was such a hot idea in retrospect.

Moving on to the situation in the 4th CD specifically, the fact that Jim Himes is from Greenwich, was an early supporter of Ned Lamont, and has been getting a lot of love in the blogosphere lately – while Mike Richter's higher-profile backers worked to promote Lieberman before the August '06 primary – could lead a casual observer to view a potential 4th CD primary as another exhausting round of last year's political battles.

However, this would be lazy thinking, and 1000 raps on the knuckles to the first reporter to trot that storyline out for public consumption. Here's a couple of reasons why:

• First, the 2008 cycle will see a pivoting of alliances within the party from the old Lieberman-Lamont axis (or Malloy-Destefano axis) to, it would seem, Malloy and Blumenthal camps, as the two suit up for the 2010 gubernatorial race. (Yes, already.) I know I don't have a pony in that race, and I don't get the sense that too many other bloggers are eager to choose sides either.
• Secondly, once Lieberman comes to campaign for Shays (and he's done as much as a politician can in public statements to promise that he will), there won't be any "Lieberman-Lamont" dynamic in the Connecticut Democratic party. By the 2008 election, there will be a much healthier consensus regarding support for the party's nominees, and Lieberman will be effectively neutralized in state political circles.
• Finally, and pardon my speaking for the blogosphere generally, we're political junkies who want detail on potential candidates, and we're thrilled to see any candidate make serious preparations to run.

  Since it seems that "polarization" is the default narrative for anything we blogger types participate in, it bears mentioning that bloggers are much like anyone else: we like access, engagement, expertise, and a willingness on the part of our candidates to fight for our interests publicly. In that regard, bloggers aren't any different from the party leadership, and it's both early and inappropriate to be "closing ranks" (even though we're all going to pick favorites at some point or another.)

I write all this because I'm expecting that the call for "party unity around X" will arise in short order from various quarters, and I think it's important to note that having a discussion about our priorities is essential to maintaining a diverse, evolving party that changes with the times, and its active membership. If we have a public debate about who should take on Shays in 2008, it won't be a rehash of the 2006 campaign, but rather, a step en route to whatever the party is becoming. And neither the bloggers nor the insiders have a monopoly on that.