There were a series of primaries last week that dealt with the battle for the future and soul of a longtime American political party. Unlike the mainstream media, I am not discussing the largely trivial battle between soft core and hard core nutjobs in Mississippi or the great hog castrater in Iowa, but rather a series of elections you may not have heard about that will help define the future of the Democratic Party. Mainly, are we to continue the Clinton-Obama years of DLC style corporate centrism, or return to our populist roots as Elizabeth Warren is hoping to do? Who rules the party the Warren Wing or the Wall Street Wing?
Looking at these key races in the American Prospect were Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, focused on electing progressives in Democratic primaries. They looked at a few key races:
In NJ, a race to replace progressive Rush Holt, who lost a bid for Senate to corporate stooge Cory Booker. A true battle between the Warren Wing and the Wall Street Wing, and the Warren Wing won:
Politicians used to debate whether to cut Social Security. But former New Jersey Assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman won a huge victory in the state’s Twelfth Congressional District primary, campaigning to “protect and expand Social Security.” She also advocated taxing millionaires to invest in education and jobs.
Her opponent, State Senator Linda Greenstein, campaigned for years as a moderate in an attempt to win Republican votes. When asked if she would be as progressive as outgoing Rep. Rush Holt, she replied, “Not sure.” The bold progressive won by nearly 2 to 1.
In Iowa, a similar strategy focused on social security and the middle class worked over past appeals to Blue Dog centrism.
We saw another populist win in Iowa. While it used to be popular for Democrats in rural states to run as corporate Blue Dogs, the Blue Dog Coalition in Congress has now been put down.
Instead, former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy won a big victory in a primary for the First Congressional District with TV ads proclaiming himself a “Bold Progressive.” He actively touted his endorsement from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (the organization we run), and ran on his record of raising the minimum wage and creating universal pre-K in Iowa.
And in California, we saw longtime progressive incumbent Mike Honda ward off a strong challenge backed by Silicon Valley dollars and values:
In California’s Seventeenth Congressional District, big-money candidate Ro Khanna challenged progressive U.S. Representative Mike Honda from the right, starting the campaign with a million-dollar cash advantage. Honda joined Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, and others, in promising never to vote for cuts to Social Security benefits. He also led on a bill to expand Social Security benefits.
U.S. Election Watch reported that Khanna “refused to commit to expanding Social Security benefits, saying he wouldn’t rule out cutting them for future recipients.” That did not work out so well. Honda crushed him, despite the corporate Democrat’s cash advantage and a lot of hype over hiring President Barack Obama’s field operations gurus as consultants.
They go on to profile other key races in the South Dakota and Iowa Senate races, the race to replace Henry Waxman, and others concluding
Some will say that the party is shooting itself in the foot by nominating “Elizabeth Warren wing” Democrats in key areas. Hardly.
Public Policy Polling surveyed voters in red, purple, and blue states—and on pretty much every economic issue of our time, voters overwhelmingly agree with the progressive position…
Also super-popular are these positions: holding Wall Street bankers accountable, taxing the rich, government investment in jobs, Elizabeth Warren’s plan to reduce student debt, and other economic populist ideas.
This week’s Progressive Super Tuesday victories demonstrate the type of success Democrats can see throughout 2014—and beyond—if they choose to embrace Elizabeth Warren’s bold economic populism.
Christopher says
…but if we can get a lot of these in both chambers of Congress I think she will be movable.
jconway says
IMHO.
I will most likely vote for Sanders or Schweitzer in the primary process, presuming either of them actually run on the Democratic side, as a protest for HRC’s closeness to Wall Street and hawkish defense positions. That said, I largely agree with the idea that who is President is largely irrelevant if we continue to have the same dysfunctional Congress we currently have.
I think the key question is an older one. Not really Warren vs. Hillary but Dean vs. Emmanuel. How to we expand our field and what strategy and tactics do we employ. Do we try and create a viable 50 state strategy or focus on targeting ‘winnable’ races with ‘electable’ nominees?
I think the latter strategy led to a largely paper tiger majority too afraid of electoral fallout and too captive to corporate interests to pass the public option, a larger stimulus with real jobs bill, or immigration reform. If your majority is built on Heath Shuler’s and Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin’s, it’s not a particularly good one. And it was also paper tiger since those Dems got swept out of office whether they voted with the President or not anyway. And we ended up with four years and counting of gridlock and a largely castrated Presidency. I am hopeful that if PCCC can win, and win big in purple areas, it shows the populist approach works.
Christopher says
…because you referred to the Clinton-Obama wing of the party. Some of the Senators the next President will have to work with are being elected this year.
joeltpatterson says
in Virginia’s 7th–and apparently no one predicted that.
However, because the DCCC did not find a Democrat to run, Democrats will have no chance to knock off this newcomer, who is pretty out-there.
Like you, James, I think Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy should have been the strategy this year… and every year.
Christopher says
…but it’s not all on the DCCC to find a candidate. Somebody could have stepped up on his or her own.
joeltpatterson says
Jack Trammell is his name. It looks like one individual did step up.
jconway says
And what should be fun is they are both professors at the same college. The debates could actually be informative!
I guess he has a donate button up and I am sure he is getting a lot more money after last night.
Christopher says
…a readymade venue for said debates.
jconway says
That Brat won by running as an anti-corporate welfare, anti-bailout, populist candidate like Elizabeth Warren. Thought Ryan Lizza’s article was on the money in that regard, it was about way more than immigration reform.