CD-03: Democrats Don't Want a Contested Primary

I agree with some more than others (0.00 / 0)

I think there can be a sorting out before the primary, and it's probably too early to pressure one of the two of them out of the race.  It's worth vetting the pair of them as they go to talk to the Democratic voters around the district. If it's clear that one is a much stronger candidate, then perhaps discussions of one dropping out are warranted.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 18:36:54 PM UTC

Primaries - why the heck not? It's democracy in action (0.00 / 0)

Just because insiders / establishment types have their preferences, doesn't mean they are right.  

The problem with "trim[ming] the field to one before the primary" is that it entrusts the decision of selecting the nominee to this tiny group of people - not the Democrats in the district who deserve the right to have their say.  

Just because a primary may be competitive doesn't mean it's bad.  Actually, it makes it interesting, and something to pay attention to.  Kind of nice for a candidate who needs all the attention he/she can get, no?  
Real competition means that the voters really had a say, and that confers legitimacy.  

It also provides battle testing for a candidate (who will emerge with momentum having won something, as Dave Dayen points out) and his/her supporters.  


Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here

---

by: PeteB2 @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 18:45:51 PM UTC

Whoa there! I live in the 3rd CD (3.00 / 1)

This is not an issue of a "tiny group of people" picking the candidate.This is a blogger who happens to Chair a County Central Committee in the 3rd CD stating the facts. Although the trend is in our favor,this is still a red district. The "tiny group of people" you cite almost managed to put Bill Durston over the top while pulling out a whisker thin win for Alyson Huber. In '08 there was absolutely NO HELP  from outside the grassroots activist community. Now that CDP and the DCCC have targeted the race there is more activity and interest. Great- we want to get rid of Congo Dan. But we need every possible advantage to do so.A contested Primary is not what we need.  

JHotchkiss2
"Be yourself, everyone else is taken."Oscar Wilde

---

by: Siftingthrough @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 19:33:47 PM UTC

Active, knowledgeable, committed (5.00 / 1)

but tiny compared to the Democratic electorate in the district.  That was my point - nothing to denigrate you at all.  But in the end it was the voters that made the decision to support Duston and bring him close to winning - with the guidance and support of committed activists and party folks like yourself, of course.  I don't see any reason that primary voters need to have you all make the decision for them.  Tester in Montana proved he had the ability to defeat the party approved candidate and then won in the general, and he probably was able to precisely because he had to fight so hard to win the primary.  It showed he was for real.  

The best candidate should be able to win primary voters over, and if he/she can't, then you've got to wonder whether he/she would have been able to mobilize them for the general.  Even if the 'decision makers' think he/she's such an incredible candidate.  

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here

---

by: PeteB2 @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 01:18:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Primaries Are Helpful (6.50 / 2)

Thanks Randy for deleting my follow up comment on your site. Stay classy!

My follow up comment: In all the campaigns around the country I've worked I almost always heard the,"Son, we do things differently around here." It's typically a bullshit response - and frankly I haven't seen anything to dissuade me of that in CA-3.

In CA-11 if the decision was left to the central cmte chairs of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, in their infinite wisdom they would have pushed out McNerney and Pombo would have survived.

Frankly if one of the candidates isn't legitimate it won't make much of a difference in the end game. They wouldn't have the resources for direct mail, etc to reach the primary voters. It will be just a name on the ballot, that's all. If the "main" legitimate candidate can't overcome that, then they're toast in the general anyways.

Below is the text of my initial posting on Randy's Blog

Read the OpenLeft article about open primaries. Look at CA-11 race in 2006. Primaries being bad was the same argument that Steve Filson used in the early stages of the 2006 race.

Frankly Davis should read the archives of SNTP for advice on what not to do in a primary in terms of positioning his candidacy. Such as saying the DCCC backs you, etc etc. That sense of entitlement just pisses off people and frankly makes the candidate look bad.

A contested primary is good for several reasons: Raises name ID of the candidates. If the election is competitive the earned media will be there. Neither of these guys will have money for TV in a primary with Sacramento being #19 media market in the country - cable TV if they are lucky.

My second and arguably more important reason why primaries are important is that it forces a campaign to get it's act in gear a lot sooner. A core group of volunteers is battle-tested and they can be leaders in the general to attract and train even more volunteers. The candidate matures from all of the public speaking events and voter contact.

The CA-11 primary forced my candidate to get his operation ship-shape in a hurry. I brought in/trained a core team that destroyed our DCCC backed candidate and was ready to take on a 14-year incumbent in the general election.
And lastly neither of these guys will outraise the incumbent.

It's gonna come down to voter ID and GOTV - things that money can help execute but if you don't have the boots on the ground those efforts go nowhere.

-------------

As for the '08 race the problem there was the Durston Campaign made some fundamental mistakes. For instance floating a poll in late September to show viability is way too late.  

---

by: ajsuited @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 23:48:44 PM UTC

Your comment, (0.00 / 0)

 paraphrased here - excuse me, I forgot CD-3 was special - was deleted because it did nothing to add to the discussion.

Every CD is special. There are no two exactly alike.

Democrats need to put aside the one-size-fits-all attitude.

Besides, you broke the rules:

Comments that are deliberately designed to inflame are prohibited.

Blog moderators may, without notice to the commenter, edit or delete comments that violate these guidelines or that they think are in poor taste. Repeat offenders may be banned from commenting.

If you don't care for our rules, there are lots of other blogs out there or you can start your own.

While we're strong believers in free speech, we reserve the right to delete comment spam or other offensive material. Our contributors, however, reserve the right to embarass themselves in public.

---

by: rbayne @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 16:17:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Counterexample (0.00 / 0)

NY-26: Jon Powers vs. Jack Davis vs. Alice Kryzan

The lunacy in that race (thanks to faux-Democrat Davis) basically handed the seat to Chris Lee (R) when Kryzan snuck through and won the primary, even though she was unelectable (read: no money).

I disagree with both of you.  Primaries can be a good thing, but they can also descend into internecine warfare which only hurts the party.  The CA-37 race to replace Juanita Millender-McDonald in 2007 got EXTREMELY ugly with race-baiting in the Democratic primary, and even though she won, Richardson almost immediately made CREW's most corrupt members of Congress list as a dishonorable mention for some shady real estate deals.  Oh, and the mailer attacking Oropeza for missing votes, even though she missed them because she was BATTLING CANCER, was pure trash, which unfortunately worked.

Can you honestly say we're better off with Richardson rather than Oropeza in CA-37 now?  For a D+26 district, we got someone who voted for FISA and is maybe the only California Democrat who has NOT co-sponsored Henry Waxman's climate change legislation.

Anyway, I've digressed.  My point is that primaries may be good, if they stay cordial and respectful.  If they descend into mudslinging, then may we rue the day.

---

by: BruinKid @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 18:59:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm always in favor of contested primaries (0.00 / 0)

as long as it doesn't get into scorched-earth flamewars in close or uphill districts such as the 3rd. getting that name ID out there, and giving the dem voters a choice in the primary is beneficial for the general, even if it doesn't help with building up a fat pile of money with which to out-buy lungren.

especially for first-time candidates, a beta test primary is well worth the effort.  

---

by: wu ming @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 09:48:08 AM UTC

Ummm ... No (0.00 / 0)

Normally I agree with your posts, but not this one. The "Democratic leadership" in any district has an appalling track record in picking the candidate the voters want. Let the GOP annoint their nominees; we still believe in democracy.

---

by: SolanoVoter @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 12:46:55 PM UTC

There's really no argument here (0.00 / 0)

Against a contested primary; it's merely asserted that one would be bad.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary from here in California, from the aforementioned CA-11 in 2006 to several Assembly races in 2008 (the fight over AD-80 comes to mind). As happened with the Clinton-Obama primary fight, which likely helped us win states like Pennsylvania and Indiana, contested primaries can provide candidates with necessary training and experience on the ground in their districts, build up campaign resources and networks, and perhaps even register Democratic voters for a primary campaign, voters that will return in November to vote for the candidate that wins.

As far as I can tell these candidates should be encouraged to run in CA-3 and a contested primary should be welcomed, not feared.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Sun May 03, 2009 at 05:38:29 AM UTC